September 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Blog powered by Typepad

« Horwitz on the Great Depression in the new EJW | Main | A Picture Says A Thousand Maddening Words »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Reading Hayek's L,L & L in the context of the special studies on rule following and complex phenomena in his _Studies_ deeply enriches the text.

You don't have volume II? It is the best one. I knew you weren't a real Austrian.

Could skipping v. 2 of LL&L be the Austrian equivalent of skipping Galt's speech, which Hayek supposedly did?

Perhaps Dave was hoping that Readers Digest would do a condensed version of the three volumes.

I guess I'm still trying to become a real Austrian! It's a process, not an end state, I suppose.

I know Hayek's argument in vol. II,and have read responses to it. Once again, as per my post, social justice is a mirage once we understand that the market is a spontaneous order, not an ends-related organization. But indeed I haven't read the book. It is on my list of the next books to buy (along with Knapp's State Theory of Money and several Post Keynesian works that I plan to criticize).


Reading LLL really changed me from my youthful dismissal of Hayek as a "leaker" to an appreciation of Hayek as among the greatest (perhaps greatest) classical liberal political economist. I agree with Greg, however, that reading LLL alongside the essays in Studies and New Studies contextualizes Hayek's argument significantly.

But now I often return to his essay "Individualism: True and False" in _Individualism and Economic Order_ and especially p. 11-14, to see his statements of the robust political economy project.


Let me just add that LLL Vol. 2 might be Hayek's best "volume" after Individualism and Economic Order. At least it's among the volumes of his I find myself turning to most and getting more from every time I browse it.

David L. Prychitko,

I'm also reading Hayek's Ll&L but i do not have vol III. On these brief comment I fully agree with you!



I think a mixed economy is not a mix beteen a command economy and a market economy (designed and spontaineous order,) but rather a spontaneous order with peicemeal interventions. I think one of the duties of economists (and espcieally free market economists) is to aways combat the common sense notion that these intereventions should be directing the economy according to some global plan. Politicians do this frequently, at least in rhetoric. Some of Obama's remarks about not basing our economy on some bubble, wall street, and overpriced housing, and instead focusing on green technology, seem like just such an error. My favorite example, however, from years ago, is Perot with a list of sexy industries (robotics, biotech) that should be the direction of the U.S. economy.

The other task is combat interventions that are inconsistent with the role of prices and profits/loss is directing a market system. Price controls are obvious.

There is no doubt that targeted taxes and subsidies, including explicit transfers, will have indrect effects that could be counterproductive. But they don't amount to trying to plan out the entire economy, nor are they obviously based upon a misaprehension of the role of prices. (Focusing solely on how they transfer wealth between the particular buyer and seller.)

The danger of rent seeking in the context of spontaneous order isn't about replacing a spontaneous order with a designed order. Rent seeking and production for sale in combination creates a spontaneous order, not a designed order. I think that less (or no) rent seeking would be much better, of course. Pointing out the bootlegger and baptist alliances is, I think, an important role for free market economists too.


I agree with everything you've said. Well put.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books