Talk:Friedrich Hayek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Article Name

Any strong opinions about what name his article should be under?

The 'von' was dropped from his family name after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He is properly refered to as Hayek, not von Hayek, of course. He published frequently as F.A. Hayek. I personally resort to the simple rule of calling him by his first name and last name, Friedrich Hayek, which has the advantage of conforming to the same convention we use with basically every other human name. So in my opinion he should now and forever be known as Friedrich Hayek, and this should be the title of the article. - Tim

You know, we've been very inconsistent about this. Some people have very sensibly taken to writing out the full names of people who are otherwise known by abbreviations of their names, but I tend more or less to agree with what you Tim wrote lo these many months ago, that we should use the most popular name for a person. So, just as we have Clinton under Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton) and Paris under Paris (not Paris, France), we should probably have Hayek under whatever name he is most commonly referred under. I've only read one of Hayek's books, so I'm no expert, but I thought F. A. Hayek was correct. This case is somewhat similar to G. E. Moore--we could put that article under George Moore, but in that case, most philosophers really wouldn't immediately recognize who we were talking about, because he is almost always referred to as either Moore or as G. E. Moore (because the latter is the name he always used to publish under). --LMS

Hayek didn't use the 'von' so we won't either.

I deleted this -- "He [Hayek] has been subsequently criticized by socialists for not taking into account the possibility of a democratic government running a Centrally Planned Economy."

How does that possibility affect the economic calculation issue as Hayek raised it, one way or another? If it doesn't, then any socialist who has criticized Hayek on this ground has committed a logical howler. If it does, please explain why. As far as Hayek's view is concerned anyway, planners authorized by majority vote face the same problem that a revolutionary elite would face in terms of making the unmakeable calculations.

That was intended more as a criticism of the fact that "Hayek contended that in Centrally Planned Economies, an individual or a group of individuals decided the allocation of resources for the whole country..." The fact is that most socialists do not want an individual or a group of individuals to decide the allocation of resources for the whole country - they want these decisions to be taken (or at least approved) by the people.
Then it was rather awkwardly put at best, and I thank you for not putting it back. On another point, before you try to rewrite it, allow me to say that Hayek would have agreed (with his usual amiability) that most socialists -- at least, the sort of academic socialists to whom he was accustomed -- probably didn't want resource allocation to be the province of a small elite.
Actually, I have no intention to rewrite anything. I am quite satisfied with the current version, which is mostly Eb.hoop's creation. But, for the sake of the argument, I will reply to your points nonetheless. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He was trying to explain that their desire for planning would lead them, precisely, to a result that they didn't want. That was rather the point. If economic calculation in the absense of market signals is impossible for anyone, then trying to accomplish the impossible will result in worsening allocations, disrupting people's lives and their ability to be productive, which will in turn result in the collapse of some aspect of the system. This collapse might take a variety of forms: popular revulsion at the polls, as in England in the late 1970s, or the incorporation of the failed system into broader and more market-oriented entities, as East Germany became in time just the eastern part of Germany, and scandanavian systems seem to be melting into Euroland in the early 21st century.
Yes, of course, with "if" being the operative word in this whole scenario. To put it in over-simplified terms, you've just described the way in which Hayek tried to explain that, if socialists are wrong, then socialists are wrong. But as we both know, the dispute between Hayek's Austrian school and the Socialist school(s) of thought is not about what would happen if non-market economic calculation is impossible - it is about whether or not that calculation is, in fact, as "impossible" as Hayek claims.
As for your comments regarding Britain and Scandinavia, I need to remind you that (a) no one ever dreamed about the extent of Margaret Thatcher's reforms before she was elected, and (b) Scandinavia is melting into Euroland because its leaders - including the leaders of the Social Democratic parties - want it to. Meanwhile, the general population despises the EU and the attacks on their welfare state, while the Social Democratic voter base grows more and more dissatisfied with the pro-capitalist policies of Social Democratic leaders. In essence, the views that are being vindicated by current events are not those of Hayek, but those of Rosa Luxembourg and Vladimir Lenin regarding social democracy. They warned a long time ago that by trying to make peace with capitalism, the social democrats (or, to be more exact, their leaders) would grow corrupt and turn into capitalists themselves. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is also possible that a socialistic system that was once democratic can turn into a dictatorship as the planners decide that 'this is too important to be abandoned to the whims of an inadequately informed populace.' The disappearance of "intra-party democracy" in the early history of the Soviet Union demonstrates roughly this pattern. As planning fails, socialism and democracy, even of the intra-party sort, come into increasing tension, until one of them gives way. Hayek was for the most part seeking to persuade people he believed to be sincere democrats -- that was crucial to this appeal. Read The Road to Serfdom, for example. To say that he has been criticized by (nameless) socialists for not having addressed this issue is to say that he has been criticized by people who didn't read him.
Your argument is completely self-contradictory - democracy was utterly crushed in the Soviet Union long before planning had even the chance to fail (because full central planning hadn't even started to be implemented when Stalin took absolute power). In fact, central planning worked successfully for many decades, and the Soviet economy achieved phenomenal growth rates up until the 1960's.
So how is my argument self-contradictory? It has to contradict itself, to be self-contradictory. You have said that it is self-contradictory, then have slipped into an argument to the effect that it contradicts (your view of) the facts of Soviet history. A different charge. First things first. Where have I contradicted my self? I'm curious. --Christofurio 23:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
But let's get back to the point about socialism and democracy. The fact is that, contrary to Hayek's claims, socialism and democracy are strongly correlated. With the notable exception of the Soviet bloc, countries with more socialism always tend to have more democracy, and vice versa. It is debatable which one is the cause and which one is the effect (i.e. does socialism usually bring democracy or does democracy usually bring socialism?), but the correlation is unmistakably there. The introduction of full democracy (i.e. universal suffrage, especially the vote for women) coincided in most places with the introduction of the welfare state. Countries with the most egalitarian distribution of wealth (i.e. the lowest Gini coefficient) tend to be the most democratic (and wealthy) countries on Earth, while countries with high inequalities of wealth tend to be dictatorships, or at least very authoritarian democracies.
Karl Marx once said that "democracy is the road to socialism", and I can't help but agree with him. Is it any wonder that the recent trend towards more capitalism in Europe coincides with the accumulation of power in the hands of unelected EU committes? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No wonder at all. The separate nation-states can't maintain their social-democratic apparatus, and seek to make (much of it) affordable by eliminating the frictional costs of currency transactions, etc. It may work for awhile, too, but Ireland will hold out as the Delaware of the new union, and capitalism will prevail simply because water flows down hill. It will be crony capitalism at first (hence those committees) but we can expect that people over time will figure out ways to frustrate the cronies and anarcho-capitalism will prevail. --Christofurio 23:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Of course, all of that probably doesn't affect you in any way, since you oppose both socialism and democracy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It affects me very much. This is only one planet and we all have to find ways to live on it, even people as different as, say, you and I. Ways that don't involve coercion would be best. This is why I found revealing your comment on another talk page that anyone who believes that "this painting is beautiful" must believe the statement "this painting is not beautiful" to be false. That inference is false. The painting can have many different beholders and many different contexts, after all. And the name of what I oppose is ... sovereignty. Specific manifestations are just kin under the same teepee. --Christofurio 23:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
At the very least, allow me to suggest, you might want to provide a name for one of these critics, "One important socialist, Joe Smith, said that Hayek was wrong because blah blah blah," and then we'll discuss whether the paraphrase is accurate. --Christofurio 14:03, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
As I explained at the beginning of my reply, though, I agree with the current revision, so that probably won't be necessary. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And, with amiability to equal your own, I will agree with your above characterization of your own remarks as "over-simplified." A little like the story about a falling apple is an "over-simplification" of the work of Isaac Newton. --Christofurio 21:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Is really true that European-style conservatism often has "opposed capitalism as a threat to social stability and traditional values"? Hasn't the european meaning of conservatism, at least in most european contries, and in the 20th century, included capitalism? 01:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

On January 9th, a user at '68.4.79.125' removed my reference to Hayek using a Rockefeller scholarship with the comment, 'Hayek did NOT use a Rockefeller scholarship. This arrived after Hayek left America, too late from him to use it'. Fine, I only had a single source for this fact anyway. [1] However, I can't find any source to back the claim that it was late. I'm minded to restore the text the way it was, but I am loathe to start an edit war. Has anyone a reference to this one way or another? As I say, if none shows up I may restore it, based upon the hayek.de page as well as some less credible resources.

[edit] Addition to influences

I added a reference to Hayek's relationship with Karl Popper to the Influences section

--Parker Whittle 20:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addition

Whether one agrees that Hayek was a philosopher of note, one cannot very well argue that he did not publish philosophical works, nor that his philosophical views had any less influence than a number of obscure or controversial individuals who have recieved the label.

I have added a section outlining Hayeks as philosopher, in appropriately NPOV, and have restored the categories associating him with philosophy.

--Parker Whittle 21:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Social and political philosophy

I have moved a paragraph that was on tacit knowledge page and appears more appropriately under Hayek, probably in the section under this heading. Unfortunately, I do not know anything about Hayek, or economics and do not fully understand the paragraph and do not know who added it. Hopefully someone will amend as necessary. This is my first ever real 'edit' so I am happy to receive help! Jeffrey Newman 08:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the passage to the sub-section on "spontaneous order," since I thought it fitted slightly better there. I think it does make a valuable addition to the article. -- Eb.hoop 09:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what needs to be mentioned

1. v Hayek was no anarcho-capitalist but is often used as a source of inspiration of them

2. v Hayek opposed the foundation of the copyright and the patent system

3. Hayek's influence on economist Milton Friedman who wrote introductions to The Road to Serfdom for both a 1971 German edition and the fiftieth anniversary edition

The article says: "In a typically bold insight, Hayek attributed the birth of civilization to private property in his book The Fatal Conceit (1988)."

This point was made much earlier by both Locke and Rousseau. Also "typically bold insight" is not very NPOV.

Agree, it was also made even earlier by Aristoteles, restated by thomas Aquinas, and a large etc. Although at the time Hayek was writing, it certainly was quite bold.

[edit] Deletion

I deleted the following:

"Hayek conceded that when competition is not possible (or, more rarely, when competition does not provide efficient outcomes) some degree of direct government control becomes necessary. He also argued that social services are a paramount duty of the state but they should not interfere with the principle of economic competition."

This is false. Hayek never supported the notion that social services are a paramount duty of the state. Hayek, quoting Benjamin Franklin stated: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The Road to Serfdom (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1944), pg. 133.). Obviously, this indicates he does not support state run social programs. So do the following quotes of Hayek:

"...if we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

"It would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that the greatest danger to liberty today comes from the men who are most needed and most powerful in modern government, namely, the efficient expert administrators exclusively concerned with what they regards as the public good." The Constitution of Liberty, p262

Unless you are talking about Hayek's views as a student prior to his reading of Mises' socialism, it is completely false.

I'm not sure if Hayek regarded social services as a 'paramont duty of the state' but he was in favour of a type of social security:
"There is of course no reason why a society which, thanks to the market, is as rich as modern society should not provide outside the market a minimum security for all who in the market fall below a certain standard." (Hayek's italics.)--F. A. Hayek, 'The Principles of a Liberal Social Order', in A. Crespigny & J. Cronin (ed.), Ideologies of Politics (OUP, 1976), p. 72.
"Nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services - so long as the organisation of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields."--The Road to Serfdom (Routledge Classics, 2001), p. 39.

--Johnbull 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Controversial' that he was prescient re: socialism in Eastern Europe ?

"His analyses of socialist as well as non-socialist societies have been proven prescient by the breakup of communist Eastern Europe (though this is controversial)."

How is this controversial? I'm rewording this; it seems fairly obvious -- without associating any value judgement with the moral merits of a Hayek-guided economy -- that he was correct in analyzing these economies as inefficient. Holmwood 09:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that his teacher von Mises already proved this in the 1920s. Intangible 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well [von] Mises had very powerful arguments (and correct ones). Did he "prove" it in a mathematical sense? That I'm not so sure of, though I happen to agree with Mises' economic calculation problem as a criticism of socialism. I certainly agree with you that powerful intellectually coherent criticism of socialism predates Hayek. I think my point that [Hayek's critique of socialist societies] is not controversial in any intellectual sense is reinforced. Holmwood 09:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
von Mises didn't "prove" anything. Empirically, von Mises criticisms of central planning have been shown to be correct for two reasons, neither of which have anything to do with the ideological content of socialism. First, the "calculation problem" correctly assumed that no single human or group of humans could plan an economy. This doesn't take into account computer technology, which is something von Mises would have no way of knowing anything about. Secondly, von Mises appears prophetic because of the way that "socialism" developed in Europe. With the success of the Bolsheviks in Russia, it became widely assumed that socialism would take on an authoritarian Marxist perspective. Quite naturally, the authoritarian biases of central planning, coupled with a lack of political democracy, hindered the efficiency of the Soviet economy, the only major empirical case study of "socialist" economics.--Sarcastic Avenger 21:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion that EXTENDED ORDER be merged into this article

I vote NO. This is a biographical article about Hayek; it cannot possibly cover in any detail all of the various concepts and ideas Hayek wrote about. N2e 23:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
(on the other hand, the Extended order article is very weak, and needs wikification. But discussion on article improvement should happen on that talk page, not Hayek's)
Concur with 'no'. Yes, the Extended order article is weak. That doesn't mean the solution is to give up and absorb it in a biographic entry. Holmwood 00:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
One more vote NO. It's a seperate concept that should be expanded with time Daniel Olsen 04:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family background, nationality

There needs to be some statement of Hayek's family background which was of Arab extraction (the Hayek family). Maybe someone more elloquent could add such a part.

Hayek's surname is believed to be of Czech origin, not Arabic. See note at the end of http://www.friesian.com/hayek.htm. -- Eb.hoop 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodernism

"For example, Hayek's discussion in The Road to Serfdom (1944) about truth and falsehood in totalitarian systems influenced some later opponents of postmodernism (e.g., Wolin 2004)."

What does this section have to do with postmodernism, or a critique of postmodernism? As far as I know most of the major postmodernists are fairly stridently anti-totalitarian; though, as is, this sentence would seem to imply that they advocate totalitarianism. Unless this statement is clarified it seems extraneous (and possibly an irrelevent and POV jibe at postmodernism). That is, I have no doubt that Hayek influenced opponents of postmodernism, but to state it as the article does, the article seems to argue that this opposition occurs precisely over the issue of totalitarianism, with postmodernists defending the the practice. Even if this was corrected, I would advise that the statement be made more substantive, so as to avoid merely being extraneous and irrelevent. --MS

I'm trying to see how the phrasing of the sentence implies that postmodernists defend totalitarianism, but I confess that no matter how mcuh I try it takes a pretty torturous path to construe it as implying anything of the sort. Nonetheless, since you reacted so strongly to it, I've rephrased it. I don't see any need to remove it though, since Hayek did influence some opponents of postmodernism and the discussion in RS of truth and falsehood and the use of language is precisely one of the sources of that influence. The sentence is no more or less 'substantive' than other parts of this section of the article, such as those that mention Hayek's influence on Thatcher or Popper. If a sentence such as: 'He had a wide-reaching influence on contemporary economics, politics, philosophy, sociology, psychology and anthropology' can escape the label of 'extraneous and irrelevent [sic]', then a sentence which explicitly states an source of influence on a later work and an example of that later work, most certainly can escape that label. --Calamus 11:29 EST, 16 November 2006
The edit is a good one; it is simple and for the most part eliminates the problem I had with the statement. Just to clarify my original criticism, the article discusses Hayek's criticism of totalitarianism at great length. The statemeny I had a problem with then says that some of his arguments about totalitarian thought influenced the opponents of postmodernism. Without clarification this places postmodernism in an analogous position to totalitarianism just as postmodernism's opponents are analogous to Hayek. It is the explicit mentioning of totalitarianism in the sentence that causes this confusion, and that has been fixed. However, I still maintain that the sentence is basically insubstantial. The references to Thatcher and Popper in the article specify how Hayek influenced them, and actually I think the sentence you quote is insubstantial, which is not to say that it ought to be removed. Instead, I think that it would make a good intro to the section, leading into the more substantial claims as to his specific influence within those topics. The sentence I was complaining about is in and of itself fine now; however, like I said, it is still reletively insubstantial; that is, while it does have the "e.g. Wolin" example, that example does little to clarify to the lay reader how exactly Hayek has influenced opponents of postmodernism. A couple of sentences more specifically detailing this influence would be helpful... but, then again, it might simply make the section cumbersome and tangential, so it might be better to leave the sentence as is or remove it. At any rate, I leave it to those who know more about Hayek to do (or not do) this, as they see fit. MS


[edit] Critics of Hayek: Jeffrey Sachs

If you want a critic of Hayek, Jeffrey Sachs wrote the following letter to the Wall Street Journal. He says, in my reading, that Hayek's predictions have not been confirmed for the Scandinavian societies. I'm giving you the full letter; somebody may want to excerpt it. (This should be on the WSJ free site,and Sachs would probably consider copying this letter fair use for copyright purposes.) Nbauman 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[2]

Vibrant Economies With High Taxes and High Social Welfare Spending November 27, 2006; Page A13

William Easterly is correct that Friedrich Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in 1946 to warn that central planning and state ownership would lead to the collapse of freedom ("Dismal Science," editorial page, Nov. 15). Yet in 1976, in the Preface to the Reprint Edition, Hayek made perfectly clear that he believed that the same outcome would occur through the welfare state. Noting that "socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state," Hayek wrote that "In the latter kind of socialism the effects I discuss in this book are brought about more slowly, indirectly, and imperfectly. I believe that the ultimate outcome tends to be very much the same . . ." (While the editors at Scientific American used the shorthand that Hayek wrote in the 1940s, my detailed paper on the Nordic economies makes explicit that Hayek's critique of the modern welfare state came in the 1970s, in the Reprint Edition).

Thirty years on, we can see the results of Hayek's prediction. Despite government revenues above 50% of GNP in the Nordic countries supporting an extensive social welfare state, those countries are vibrant democracies with open, competitive, and high-income economies and low rates of poverty. That is precisely the point of my Scientific American piece and a longer scholarly paper that Prof. Easterly wrongly attacks. He actually makes my point for me by pointing out that the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom ranks Finland, Sweden and Denmark as "free economies," with Denmark ranked ahead of the United States, despite the fact of their extremely high rates of taxation and social welfare spending. Similarly, the Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum puts these three countries at ranks two, three and four in global competitiveness, ahead of the United States at rank six.

Mr. Easterly also repeats his favorite canard that I believe in central planning. Anybody who is at all familiar with my life's work and writings knows that I believe in market-led and open economies and was a leading economic adviser on the conversion of the former Communist economies to market economies. I do not believe in pure laissez faire, however. Nor do I believe that an antipathy to foreign aid is correct at a time when millions of children are dying each year as a result of extreme poverty unattended by practical help from the rich countries.

Jeffrey D. Sachs Earth Institute at Columbia University New York

Hmm... Should we accept Sachs' comments blindly? Born and bred in continental Europe, and with some experience of Scandinavia, I see our democracies as anything but "vibrant". Let us admit the process of increasing state intervention seems not to be completed yet, restrictions on free speech are more numerous in Scandinavia than in the US, and the US as well as Asia are leaping ahead technologically. The experience is not concluded; it is unfolding before our eyes. Oberlage 14:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course not, we shouldn't accept anyone's comments blindly. I'm suggesting that, since no article could be complete without addressing the critics, Jeffrey Sachs would be a good critic to include. Do you have any specific data about the Scandinavian economies to include that would refute Sach's claims? Nbauman 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

These are complex topics but, just to give an example, you could refer to per capita GDP growth from the 60's onwards (http://www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm). You can clearly see that Sweden is not catching up with the US, while France is catching up with Sweden. There is nothing there that looks particularly vibrant in the economic performance. But Hayek's point was that this would also progressively lead to the erosion of democratic values. The social democrats have been in power in Sweden during 61 of the past 70 years (http://www.econ.umn.edu/~hhe/TEACHING/ECON4337/swedishmodel.pdf), again is that vibrant? Oberlage 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sachs is promoting a social-democrat political agenda, no more. Assar Lindbeck is an economist born and specialized in Scandinavian economies, and his opinion is that where the Scandinavian economies have had success, they were of an anglo-saxon / free-market nature. Hayek also acknowledged that the socialisms of Germany and USSR were different that those of Scandinavian societies, and he foresaw that the "Road to Serfdom" would happen more slowly under social-democrat (taxation) regimes than under totalitarian regimes. To me, he is proven true as years go by. Asia, not Scandinavia, is the next most prosperous civilization, thanks to free-market reforms. --Childhood's End 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

but still it's a vibrant democracy acording to the freedom indices of the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indices_of_Freedom according to the facts there Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland are four of the only 12 completely free countries in the world. And asia? chinas gdp/capita is still much lower than in most western nations, including scandinavia, india is even poorer, so saying that asia is the most prosperous place in the world is a bit of a stretch. Furthermore, it's strange to have a page like this without critics, almost all other 'great people' have criticism sections added. Just because you don't agree with the critic doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted. And the bit about the erosion of democratic values in sweden? It's 5% truth and 95% hogwash. In Sweden you can say "The prime minister is a fucking idiot." on TV without state or corporate censorship blotting out words deemed offensive, can americans say the same? Of course there are limits, you can't say "I think all black, jewish and gay people should be killed." on TV, but where can you? Furthermore sweden has become Less unfree over the last 60 years, sterilizations were banned, the death penalty was removed, even during times of war, etc. If the democratic values were being eroded shouldn't sweden be getting less and less free?

[edit] what about..

a "critics" section? There seems to be one on quite a few other biographical pages. Surely Hayek had and still has critics.

Have fun trying to get in some critiques of one of the the most idolized free marketeers on fascistpedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.137.188 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
It isn't very hard to find any. Just about every major contemporary socialist, communist, or anarchist figure was at one point a critic of Hayek. I don't know of any specific works, but I do know the clash was there. --Sarcastic Avenger 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added George Orwell's comments from his 1944 review of The Road to Serfdom. Since Hayek supporters often refer to this review as "favorable", it should be unobjectionable. --The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Shouldn't there be a mention of Hayek being an author? -ChristopherMannMcKay 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I tagged most of the unreferenced paragraphs in this article. This article is heavily unreferenced, and so I have tagged it appropaitely.--Sefringle 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaldor and Sraffa

My, my. No mention of Kaldor or Sraffa in the section on the business cycle. I wonder why? Could it be that the shrine of Hayek does not take kindly to the fact that his former student (Kaldor) refuted his arguments or that Sraffa's review exposed the limitations of his theories on money and credit. The combined critique made sure that Hayek lost the battle over what caused the Business Cycle to the Keynesians. I do know that Austrian economists have a vested interest in not mentioning these awkward facts, but surely Wikipedia should mention both Kaldor and Sraffa...

Perhaps you'll want to discuss this with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences or with Ben Bernanke prior to calling that these two guys have refuted Hayek over business and money cycles. --Childhood's End 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Because clearly Bernanke has done such a great job with the US economy... James Haughton (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Hayek was Roman Catholic

Why is he listed as an agnostic? According to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Professor Hayek died a Catholic. Earlier in Professor Hayek life he was noted to be "non-religious" but not agnostic. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] statics?

Re: "family of prominent intellectuals working in the fields of statics and biology." I have no subject knowledge, but surely "statics" is a typo for "statistics"? Bhami (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hayek first discovered statics when he was folding Pinochet's sweaters.70.55.83.28 (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hayek page has a significant markup problem

...which I have not been able to figure out. Three [edit] links do not appear where they should, and then all three appear together in the wrong place. Help!