Tag Archives: Hayek

Top Ten Defenders of Freedom

English: Cuneiform symbol "ama-gi", ...

English: Cuneiform symbol “ama-gi”, usually considered to signify ‘freedom’

While watching a video from Mises.org, Walter Block brought up Brian Doherty‘s book Radicals for Capitalism. In his book, the Senior Editor at Reason Magazine selected his top five defenders of freedom. Doherty’s picks are (in alphabetical order)

  1. Milton Friedman
  2. Friedrich Hayek
  3. Ludwig von Mises
  4. Ayn Rand
  5. Murray Rothbard

Without a doubt, these five have done incredible things to advance liberty. I propose to put forward 10 which I believe have done the most, judged by scale of influence, lasting impact, and commitment to freedom. While some libertarians might object to a few of my picks, it is hard to deny their impact on promoting, at the very least, free markets.

  1. William F. Buckley Jr.
  2. Milton Friedman
  3. Friedrich Hayek
  4. Rush Limbaugh (I can hear the gasps now)
  5. Ludwig von Mises
  6. Ron Paul
  7. Ayn Rand
  8. Murray Rothbard
  9. Thomas Sowell
  10. Walter Williams

While some on the list sacrificed commitment for mass appeal (Limbaugh) and others did the opposite (Rothbard), all have impacted classical liberal thinking in the United States over the past half century. Anyone who has an understanding of the ideas put forward by these 10 thinkers can easily defend himself against attacks from statists. If you have not read all of these authors, I urge you to give them all a chance, no matter how much they might scare you before hand.

Who did I leave out and who should not be on this list? Comment below.

The Most Popular Rebuttal of Austrian Business Cycle Theory

People I talk economics with often dismiss the Austrian business cycle theory out of hand, since the business cycle existed before the Federal Reserve was created. Without the central bank, so the rebuttal goes, interest rates are not held artificially low. Therefore, Austrian business cycle theory would not predict booms and busts without a central bank.

GFDL picture of F.A. Hayek to replace fair use...

However, in Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle, the most important work regarding business cycle theory from the Austrians, Nobel laureate Hayek says plainly that a central bank is not needed for booms and busts. He even states that Austrians should not emphasize the central bank in argument (hint, hint Austrians). I found the quote on page 77 of the Mises Institute‘s printing of Prices and Production and Other Works on Money, the Business Cycle, and the Gold Standard. (I would shorten the title…)

 “By disregarding those divergencies between the natural and money rate of interest that arise automatically in the course of economic development, and by emphasizing those caused by an artificial lowering of the money rate, the monetary theory of the trade cycle deprives itself of one of its strongest arguments; namely, the fact that the process is describes must always recur under the existing credit organization, and that it thus represents a tendency inherent in the economic system, and is in the fullest sense of the word an endogenous theory.”

One might be excused for not reading Mises’ Theory of Money and Credit or Rothbard’s Case Against the Fed, but Hayek cannot be overlooked by any (even mainstream) economist. While the Austrians might not have everything right, shouldn’t a Nobel prize winner get some respect?

Quote of the Day

I’ve been reading articles and books on writing. For those who cannot tell, apparently I did not learn basic grammar in my 12 19 years of schooling (2 years of preschool + kindergarten + 12 years of public schooling + 4 years of a private college). Never-mind the digression and its implications on our schooling system.

I was reading a public-domain Kindle book called The Century Handbook of Writing by Garland Greever and Easley S. Jones. Understanding that it is a grammar textbook and few people are nerdy enough to read such things, I have enjoyed parsing through it and found a gem at location 199 of 3522.NEW YORK, NY - SEPTEMBER 28:  The new Amazon t...

Whenever you cannot understand the reason for a rule, ask yourself whether the usage of many clear-thinking men for long years past may not be protecting you from difficulties which you do not foresee.

It came after an example about hyphens. “He is twenty one years old” is clear and concise, although it does not have the recommended hyphen. However, “I will send twenty five dollar bills” is ambiguous. (I’d prefer twenty five-dollar bills.)

There are political and economic implications from this quote. Traditions, customs, common law, and language has much to teach present day. Many of those whom Thomas Sowell would describe as having a constrained vision would agree. Conservative-libertarians can apply this logic to counter those on both sides of the political spectrum who believe the world can be reinvented. Even Hayek struggled with language (and I don’t mean his heavy accent).

Quote of the Day

From page 7 of Mises Institute’s edition of Prices and Production and Other Works on Money, the Business Cycle, and the Gold Standard:

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirected of production, we want to create further misdirection-a procedure that can only lead to a much mote severe crisis as the credit expansion comes to an end.

Review of The Secret Knowledge

Sporadic, anti-intellectual and reads like the writings of someone I know from the center of America, which is all to say that I loved it. The great playwright David Mamet, whose work on acting and writing is also enjoyable, unleashes attack after attack on the Liberal intelligentsia, entertainment industry and establishment. He’s been in the world of the left for years and is a wonderful example of what happens when people start to read the great writers; they challenge what they thought the knew.

Drawing on all the authors I love (Sowell, Friedman, Hayek) Mamet points out the Left’s flaws. What makes this book unique and worthwhile is the examination of entertainment and writing. This is where his expertise comes into play and makes him more than just another person ranting about the left (such as me). Answering questions about why all of Hollywood is liberal, Mamet demonstrates the idiocy of it all. Also, Mamet’s understanding of history and literature is entertaining and insightful.
At times it reads like a conversation with a good friend since it jumps from topic to topic. This can be hard, but overall works. Here is a guy who doesn’t pull any punches and is willing to challenge the sacred cows. He’s an interesting character and I enjoyed learning more about his life. 4 of 5 stars.

Review of Keynes/Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics

Here is my review from Goodreads: Wapshott’s new and popular book Keynes/Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics covers multiple disciplines and I love that(my reviews of Peter Robinson’s books are almost obnoxious because of that love). Centering around the life of the two giants (biography), the developments of the UK and US (history) are explained. Interweaved is economics behind both men’s brilliant writing and commentary. While some chapters (especially the one about Keynes/Hayek argument over the definitions in Keynes’ Theory of Price) can be a bit dry, the book has an overall wonderful, driven narrative. Here we have the king of economics and a little unknown Austrian who struggles with English fighting it out. While Keynes was seen as the winner for years, Hayek has made a come back especially since his Nobel award in 1974. Wapshott does a great job showing that development. It is also interesting to see the personal stories about two men who aren’t really thought of as living people, but more as theories. I won’t spoil the great story about the two men during WWII. Also for me, it was fun to hear again stories about Hayek and Friedman that I’ve read in Friedman’s memoirs.

At the beginning of the book, Wapshott says we will figure out who won the argument. I know who I think won, but Wapshott seems to think it still up in the air. Throughout the book he gives an even-headed assessment of both men’s contributions and failures as economists. I’d check it out if you like economics and history.

Because I’ve Been Rapping This All Weekend…

I’m posting this because the new EconStories rap is even better than the first. Keynes vs. Hayek. Two of the most important economists and philosophically different (ignoring Marx who isn’t work mentioning anymore in economics) are taking each other blow for blow in this rap. If you want to know what’s at the heart of the economics argument today, this is it.

My favorite part is the end when F.A. Hayek whoops Keynes in the boxing match but Keynes is still proclaimed the winner… That’s how many politicians treat Keynes *cough* Obama *cough*. Even with all the evidence that Keynesian economics has destroyed monetary policy in America and overstates the impact of government spending, the politicians love to be the rescuers. Hope you enjoy.

Dump Um Out