F A Hayek: the 1978 UCLA interviews….


David Davis

….with main portal to them on the Ludwig von Mises Institute blog.

Here is the archive in pdf.

For newer readers who may not have swum in libertarian, or in Austrian-School-economic waters for very long, you can find out about Friedrich Hayek here, and why he was a key classical liberal/libertarian philosopher.

Here also is stuff which some of you might like about Ludwig von Mises.

About these ads

5 responses to “F A Hayek: the 1978 UCLA interviews….

  1. Dave:

    Friedman, Mises and Hayek all peddled pseudo-science.

    “The Milton Friedman neoclassical economics case study

    In August 1972 a case study of the methodology of neoclassical economics by Lakatos’s London School of Economics colleague Spiro Latsis published in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science found Milton Friedman’s methodology to be ‘pseudo-scientific’ in terms of Lakatos’s evaluative philosophy of science, according to which the demarcation between scientific and pseudo-scientific theories consists of their at least predicting testable empirical novel facts or not.[5] Latsis claimed Friedman’s instrumentalist methodology of neoclassical economics had never predicted any novel facts.[6] In its defence in a three-page letter to Latsis in December 1972, Friedman counter-claimed that the neoclassical monopoly competition model had in fact shown empirical progress by predicting phenomena not previously observed that were also subsequently confirmed by empirical evidence.[7]But he notably never actually identified any specific economic phenomenon as an example of any such successfully predicted positive novel fact.[8]

    In early 1973, as Editor of the Journal, Lakatos invited Friedman to submit a discussion note based on his December 1972 letter to Latsis for publication in a symposium on the issue of the scientific status or not of neoclassical economics . Lakatos even assured Friedman he would have the last word.[9] But Friedman never took up Lakatos’s invitation. Three years later, in 1976 Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics without this outstanding charge of ‘pseudo-science’ ever having been publicly conclusively rebutted. The citation for Friedman’s prize said it was awarded “for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilisation policy.” But four Nobel Prize laureates protested at Friedman’s award, and most notably the 1974 joint laureate of the Economics award, Gunnar Myrdal, complained that Friedman’s prize (and also Hayek’s) was undeserved because the economics did not qualify as a science, thus apparently concurring with Latsis’s judgment that Friedman’s economics was ‘pseudo-scientific’.”

    Ref: Wiki on Imre Lakatos

    Tony

  2. Tony old chap,

    I have not the time for all this hyperdetailed analysis of very fine and precisely nice (in the classical sense of “nice” distinctions between slightly different policy positions.

    If you have, then fine. What I am trying to do on here is what Jesus Christ called “going out into the highways and Hedges and compelling them to come in”.

    I will paint the Gospel of liberalism in broad, if very very very slightl innacurate brush-strokes, for people like those who read The Daily Mail and The Sun, and whom we need many, many, many of.

    You may then if you like spend time in fine and nice disputation – for the geekery-wing – of whether the something or other theorem proves that the moon is made of green cheese, or blue-veined cheese: and what bearing the cheese-type has on the numbver of new hypotheses about supply-side-taxation…..

    Hayek, Friedman and Mises may have been shallow mountebanks in your eyes, for you have all the time in the world to do deep, fine, and nice disputational research. I on the other hand want to make 5,648 more libertarians by tomorrow. And 3,909 more by Thursday…..

  3. I don’t care at this moment in time whether they are Hayekians, or Lakatosians!

    I’ll “kill them all”, and you can “sort them out”!

  4. Dave:

    What on Earth is the point of recruiting “followers” of pseudo-scientific ideas of any sort?

    I have no problem with encoraging people to be guided by sound, rational, humane ethical principle.

    There is simply no point in throwing time and money away , recruiting people to an uncritical cult of pseudo-science.

    We KNOW where that leads to: dogmatic, vulgar followers who are an embarassment to us all, and a deteerent to attracting decent, intelligent people.

    And an “economy” in free-fall, because pseudo-science is worse than useless for policy-formulation…

    The cheap anti-intellectual sneers are similarly unhelpful, and just drive intelligent people away.

    “Libertarian” is an adjective, not a noun.

    And I strongly advise you to stop censoring posts you dislike, Right now.

    Tony

  5. I hope you all enjoy being fisted by the invisible hand!