Product Description

Customer Reviews (42)

I Relished this Book
Reading this book frequently gave me a feeling of satisfaction similar to learning a new concept in physics or engineering.That, "oh, so-that's-how-that-works feeling," that I so enjoyed in my engineering classes.I suppose that means that this book contains fundamental insights that explain how the world works.

It does this in a very peculiar way however: it shows what we can not know, explain or control.

This book has greatly broadened by understanding of history, philosophy, evolution and economics.This is a great book to read as your first Hayek book.I'm now looking forward to reading Law, Legislation and Liberty which is supposedly also very insightful.

On a personal level, this book has made me more humble and more willing to accept facts, phenomenon and experimental results that are beyond my comprehension.There are things in life that I will not be able to understand, explain or control, and being an engineer I often feel that I should understand in order to move forward.Hayek's insights however allow me to proceed forward with the idea that I'm not trying to explain why or how something works, but rather moving forward because it does work.

This line of thinking is not new to the world, I think it's called respect for tradition, evolution, empiricism or just what works.

Capitalism is what works.It is what has evolved, not by design or planning, but through evolution.With some things humans can not design better than evolution can create.For example, no one can design a human being or the culture of humans beings.

I hope you enjoy.

The Fatal Conceit & The Road to Serfdom
F.A.Hayek works are the inspiration for all Americans that cherish
the freedom, faith and hope that make our country the best on the planet. I think that Mr. Hayek books are a must for people who oppose socialism, I am one of them.
Fred R DeLeon Sr
USAF Lt. Ret.

A Lefty View of Hayek
Most of the reviews come from those who, I'd guess, were on the right of the political spectrum well before they encountered Hayek.I read Hayek in college, and then again 40 years later, after a lifetime on the left, and have another point of view.

The term 'socialism' as used in political discourse generally begs definition, and is used carelessly rather than precisely by both sides of the debate.Consider, for instance the conflation of the manifestly wildly disparate New Deal and Soviet Communism.Those supporting the New Deal, which preserved democracy and capitalism during economic catastrophe with government intervention, too often had a wistful, credulous view of the Soviet Union.The right extended a realistic view of Soviet tyranny to define even the mildly US left as not merely mistaken, but advocates of tyranny and treason.Hayek is more precise.He views socialism as any government interference in the free market, and argues that, at whatever level it is conducted and imposed, the results are for the worse.He states that the plight of those in need, while acknowledging its reality, is poorly, if at all, mitigated by dirigiste government action, if not worsened and perpetuated.His arguments are logical, historically informed and presented in clear prose that's a delight to read.

My differences with him begin with his acceptance of the necessity of government protection of private property and of citizens against violence.I'd argue that unregulated capitalism, much as unrestricted government, can result in appropriation of property by the strong at the expense of the weak, and that there are many forms of violence, many of which are characteristic of unrestricted business activity.The proper role of government in economic life, therefore, becomes a matter of debate, rather than an a priori rejection.He, too, doesn't consider the negative externalities consequent to many economic decisions in free-market environments, the costs of which are oft borne by others--too, perhaps, a form of theft--and that bringing those externalities into economic decision is not only a reasonable sphere of government activity, but even in service of a free market approach, in that the real costs of the decisions become part of them.

Hayek is essential reading for a lefty.He requires engagement on a level other than simple dismissal; he doesn't merely call names or indulge in superficial, supercilious rhetoric.Amongst other things, exposure to his thought tempered my youthful confidence in government dirigism as the only just and practical response to human need, and my prejudice that government always works more effectively and more to the good of the people than does capitalism.I don't go along with his entire corpus.But lefties, as well as those on the right, have much to learn from Hayek, and ignore him at their peril.

Frist book on economics since college
Now a big fan of FA Hayek.Very Good information explained very well.Much easier to vote in november to clear out washington DC.They do not know how how America became exceptional.

I plan to read The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek) (Volume 2)

A synthetic overview of Hayek's thinking.
A fundamental work to understand the major issues of modern societies.
To be read and studied in schools, universities, unions management and political circles.

Approach it with concentration, careful reading, and you will be rewarded with insight that clarifies many uncertainties and debunks myths. Hayek uses his words carefully and shows how language is often used in ways that distort reality, especially by the so called "intellectuals". ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
"Depressions are not the result of the operation of the market. They are the result of government controls, particularly in the sphere of monetary policy".Professor F.A.Hayek,Nobel Prize winner in Economics."It is because I want to make economics more human that I want to make it more time conscious." Professor Sir John Hicks, Nobel Prize winner in Economics."The most important challenge facing the world economy is the need to strengthen the adjustment mechanism between the growth of supply and demand for primary products".Professor N.Kaldor, Cambridge University."Many people in the Soviet Union are aware that our economic system is not perfect...It is true that the Soviet economy's growth rate has decreased".Professor L.V.Kantorovich, Nobel Prize Winner in Economics."The unemployment of developing economies arises because productive capacity and effective demand have never been at an appropriate level".Professor J.Robinson, University of Cambridge."Schumpeter was wrong when he thought there is a timetable for the disappearance of capitalism".Professor P.Samuelson, Nobel Prize winner in Economics."I am not as optimistic as Keynes in the sense the economic problem will disappear as a result of compound interest and technical progress."Professor J.Tinbergen, Nobel Prize Winner in Economics.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"A useful and important book".Professor P.Samuelson, MIT, Nobel Prize winner in economics."A lively addition to the economics literature".ProfessorA.Hirschman, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey."You will have read, studied or taught the work of these outstanding economists.Now you get a chance to meet them.Through the work of Diego Pizano we learn about how they thought and not just what they thought". Professor R.Bates, Harvard University."Through penetrating and well structured questions, Colombian economist Diego Pizano manages to reveal the thought processes of five of the first Nobel Prize winners in Economics and two who could have obtained it, Joan Robinson and N.Kaldor.This book has to be read by all researchers interested in the history of economic thought and by all persons interested in economics as a discipline." Professor D.Hueth, University of Maryland___________________________________________________________________________________________________DIEGO PIZANO was economic advisor to the President of Colombia between 1982 and 1986.He is the Chairman of the Board of the University of the Andes(Bogotá, Colombia) and the President of the Common Code for the Coffee Community Association(Bonn, Germany). ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

The Thinking of a Group of Prominent Economists
This book by my old college classmate Diego Pizano presents conversations that he held about thirty years ago with eminent economists that were active at the time. Its preparation benefited from the author's deep familiarity with the writings of these economists and from an intelligent selection of issues that he discussed with them. Dr. Pizano's book also deserves credit for the clarity and readability of a subject matter that is at times complex, albeit always considerably interesting. With these ingredients, the reader will readily appreciate a set of economic controversies of the time, important both because of the academic interest they elicited as well as for their application to issues that were in fact not too different from those we face today.

The economists covered by the book span the widest ideological gamut, ranging from the free market extreme represented by Professor Hayek, to Professor Robinson's Keynesianism, and to Professor Kantarovich's economic planning. The author exploits this wide range of views to elicit responses from these economists to issues of interest that mark the book's thematic unity. By way of example, I point to two of those issues that should be of interest to readers. One relates to the methods that these economists used to develop their arguments, an issue that straddles the threshold between economics and philosophy and in which the book displays the author's deep interest and knowledge.The discussion highlights Hayek's support for an approach akin to the philosophy of Karl Popper, who argued that scientific theories, by their abstract nature, can be verified only by probing into their observable implications (the "pattern of a process", in Hayek's formulation). This contrasts with the more Kantian approach that emerges in the conversations with Professor Robinson or with the "a priori truths" of Lionnel Robbins and Ludwig Von Mises that Samuelson, in turn, rejects in his chapter.

The second example refers to the ubiquitous debate between free-market advocates and those that support planning and state intervention. It is particularly interesting that the pendulum of public opinion between the two continues to this day as each of the two approaches shows its positive and adverse manifestations. The chapter covering Kantarovich is an interesting testimonial of optimism on the merits of planning ten years prior to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. At the other extreme, Hayek's aversion to the concept of "social justice" in a market economy is something of a shock at a time when governments increasingly collect taxes, reputedly to achieve greater "social" justice through public spending.

The two examples above illustrate the depth and ample thematic content of a book that also discusses several other issues such as economic development and economic cycles. The care that Dr. Pizano afforded to the preparation of these discussions and the clarity in their presentation deserve my five-start rating of this book, which I took the opportunity to read and enjoy again in its second edition.

the humanside of great economists
To interview the world's greatest living economists: that was the brilliant idea that a young Colombian graduate student had during his time at Cambridge in the 1970s. He had the audacity to approach these eminent thinkers, and they, with the generosity that only true greatness can bestow, granted him the interviews. The very fact that they took the time to talk to a young academic reveals a great deal about them and their attitudes in life. The conversational question and answer format sheds light on their thoughts (and personalities) in ways that texts written for publication never could...they talk about their theories in language that is easy to understand. The brief descriptions of the different settings where these interviews took place in addition to the clear and direct answers ---which at times reveal playful sides to their characters-- make these formidable figures seem approachable and real and adds to our understanding. With the passage of time this book has gained in value as a testament of what these greats were really like.
It is a book that works for heavy duty economists as well as for people like me that are not experts but wish to understand more of the dismal science as the crisis looms. In particular I was fascinated to read about an outstanding woman economist Joan Robinson at Cambridge. I first read this book in Spanish and can personally vouch for the English version: it is an accurate translation that reads like "true" English.

Terrific interview with Hayek
This book contains an excellent interview with Friedrich Hayek on a variety of topics.The interviewer is well informed, and Hayek is in top form providing substantive and concise answers to good questions.

Dream team dialogues
Pizano, the young man, chose the Platonic formula of the dialogue between teacher and pupil. It works well.
The new edition in times of crisis is fortunate for an economy in which sense and great ideas have been assaulted by the vulgar voracity of buccaneers and adventurers.

I recommend the reading of this book to better understand economic policy
"Conversations with Great Economists" by Diego Pizano
Commentary by Jorge Ramírez-Ocampo, Former Minister for Economic Development of Colombia
Bogota, 28th September 2009

I met Diego Pizano in London in the early seventies. I was impressed by his maturity, devotion to academic work and profound concepts on economic issues. I have confirmed that impression during the last nearly forty years.
The book I comment is a small jewel. It was possible thanks to the impressive erudition in economic matters of the author and to the audacity of a young Colombian scholar who was bold enough to propose to some of the most important economists of the time a very ambitious project.
The method he used and his capacity to get to the point in his well prepared questions, allowed the people he interviewed to be very specific in their answers. The book will help his readers to understand some of the most complex concepts of economic theory.
Pizano did not limit the scope of his enquiries to people whose opinions were close to his own. Among the seven eminent economists interviewed there is a wide range of economic thinking: from Leonid Kantorovich, one of the main inspirers of economic planning in the Soviet Union, to Friedrich Hayek, a prophet of the political right in the XXth Century.
I strongly recommend the reading of this excellent book to whoever wants to try to understand the apparent contradiction between the progress of economic thinking and the frequent failures of economic policy during the last 70 years. This is much more relevant now, when we have to cope with the crisis we have been witnessing during the last two years.
... Read more

Customer Reviews (177)

Lone Survivor
I am an avid reader, and I enjoy most topics. I am a former Military serviceman, And Lone Survivor was, for me spellbinding. It instilled a greater sence of pride for me,and broke my heart at the same time. It was well written, and dificult to put down even for a moment. I would enjoy more books like this one.

I am now reading The Survivors Club, and find it equally compelling. 99% of the books that I have purchased from Amazon have been very educational. Two, I had difficulty with, and not because of the subject material, was Mark Levin (Liberty and Tyanny), and The Road To Serfdom.
John R. Adams
The Road To Serfdom was difficult to comprehend. It is the type of material that would require an Instructor, or teacher for me to understand the subject material. Liberty and Tyranny could not hold my interest enough to finish. In time, I will pick the books up and try again, hopefully with a better understanding.

Not To Be Taken Lightly
Certainly, there are a rare few books in any person's lifetime that not only define a perspective but also persuade you to see things differently.Classic fiction literature tends to draw notice right away, but non-fiction has always been given short shrift in most environments.That's quite probably due to the fact that more people will pick up either a fiction book or an autobiography for casual reading as opposed to attempting to digest F.A. Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM.We, as Americans, get a bad rap around the world and in our own national press -- we don't eat the right things, we don't think the right things, we don't look for the right things -- and there-in lies to evil at the core of much of what SERFDOM dissects with great precision.

Thankfully, this book has not fallen at the wayside on the road of history.It seems like every so often it's been given a breath of new life by various media figures who suggest it, and that's what I'd say is the book's single-greatest drawback.SERFDOM is NOT an easy read, by any stretch of the imagination.There's a lot of heavy lifting (think "brainwork") involved here because Hayek was a scholar, and he was trying to craft an examination of the world as he saw it from a full perspective not from one narrow track.He examines history.He examines culture.He examines education.He examines economics.In fact, one could quite probably make a strong argument that there may be too much examination in here, but that probably accounts for the fact that books like THE ROAD TO SERFDOM are fairly rare and, when encounters, its ideas deserve greater study.I picked this up to read based upon the recent round of suggestions from a variety of conservative pundits, and it was not at all what I expected.I wasn't disappointed in the slightest, but I found significant parts of the book hard to access because of the wealth of material and ideas.Like the average Joe, I tend to gravitate toward "average Joe" books, and SERFDOM is hardly that.It's probably the exact opposite.

Hayek's ideas deserve greater study.They certainly deserve greater discussion because, if for no other reason, he lived through a time when many governments of the world embraces the 'soft tyranny' that the United States didn't directly embrace at the time, though it did gravitate toward it with many ideas presented in the late 1920's and early 1930's.Culturally, what was going on within the global intelligentsia at the time that led everyone to conclude that a socialist perspective was what government needed?In my almost five decades on this planet, that's the first time I've ever heard that postulated, and, when examined against the backdrop of pure facts, Hayek's right.Something psyhological was afoot, and the fact that it's never been discussed in any classroom in my own five decades caught me by surprise.I hadn't thought about it, and that's what I mean when I say SERFDOM would be best coupled with a discussion group.It would best be fitted where it could be reviewed and studied and discussed.There's nothing casual about this read, and I tend to think that most folks may miss it's greatness because it's truly daunting.

Also, economics has never been my strong suit, but SERFDOM was the first time that I experienced a macro perspective of how commerce and government policy are so tightly linked.That alone is an idea that requires greater study, and there's probably no better place than to begin than with this book.I only gave it four stars because it required so much of me ... it's a relentless assault on your brain, but I think you'll be a better person if you can wade through the lessons and wisdom it delivers.Just DON'T expect it to be easy.

Classic economic study contrasts democracy and socialism
Friedrich A. Hayek, an Austrian economist, wrote this classic defense of democracy and market economies in 1944. That it remains a bestseller is a testament to the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of his critique of socialism and centrally planned economies. The Road to Serfdom cites the influence of Karl Marx and other German philosophers who primed German citizens to embrace the totalitarian rule of Adolph Hitler. The Great Depression of the 1930s stepped up questions about capitalism and boosted support for socialism among the people of democratic countries. But Hayek warned that citizens of America, England and other democracies put their freedom at risk when they extolled the goals of socialism. This edition of Hayek's classic includes a comprehensive introduction by the book's editor, ample annotation of the original text and an appendix with numerous related documents, as well as the introduction to the 1994 edition by monetary policy expert Milton Friedman. getAbstract recommends this book to readers who want to know the seminal works in this field and to explore the philosophical differences between socialism and capitalism.

A book that takes an intriguing look at today's root problems
Hayek's The Road To Serfdom is one of the most revealing books I have ever read.It goes straight to the root problem of our society - the strong centralization of power.In a persuasive way, Hayek explains that while socialists may have good intentions, the methods they favor will bring about undesired results.Hayek questions the use of coercion as a tool to bring about any means, regardless of how well intentioned those in authority may be.In "Why the Worst Get on Top", one of the most staggering chapters of the book, Hayek explains that in any highly centralized government the "good" people are less likely to be at the top.For one thing, there is no person who does not have flaws and weaknesses.For another, good-hearted people will be reluctant to force their ways upon others.Someone who is put in a position of leadership over millions of people cannot possibly understand all the desires and concerns of those he is above.As Hayek himself states, "The point which is so important is the basic fact that it is impossible for any man to survey more than a limited field, to be aware of the urgency of more than a limited number of needs.Whether his interests center round his own physical needs, or whether he takes a warm interest in the welfare of every human being he knows, the ends which he can be concerned with will always be only an infinitesimal fraction of the needs of all men." Hayek also gives us an entire chapter on democracy and how it does not necessarily prevent tyranny.This particular discussion is by all means relevant to us today.

While Hayek's entire book asks very serious questions, he is always very polite and mannered.Even when highly controversial topics are being discussed, Hayek does so in an engaging but calm way.Even those who think they will disagree should read it for an explanation of much of the libertarian philosophy.I firmly believe that most who read it will find it entirely irrefutable.It will provide thought-provoking questions about our lives, how we relate to others, our country, and our future.As others have pointed out, Bruce Caldwell, the editor, has added much helpful information.Highly, highly recommended.

Yes, Socialism is Awful
First of all, after reading the 1 star reviews, there was a common thread of objection to this book which was mostly centered on how "Hayek got it wrong".They exclaim that since we do not live under totalitarianism, then Hayek was wrong.Honestly, if I were as gullible or short-sighted as they, then I too would fall prey to such thinking.Hayek wasn't wrong.Socialism, by its very nature, requires absolute control of every strata of life.

The best answer I can give to those exclaiming how "Hayek was wrong" without writing a lengthy review would be to say that in the grand scheme of things, especially political and social paradigms, 60ish years is but a blink of the eye.Hayek points out that it took 100+ years for the socialist ideas of certain Germans to become popular (and lets not forget the crisis of Weimar hyperinflation that was bound to create a totalitarian landscape).The US has a particular tradition, unlike a great many countries in the world or world history, of clinging to liberty, so for something that represents the antithesis of freedom to catch hold would be slow, long, and deceptive.It doesn't make it impossible, but particularly difficult.

Indeed, as America moves forward all her government seems to do is expand, and the people remain complacent as long as the effects of said intrusions on freedom are not felt in general.Jefferson himself said, "...accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed".So to simply write of this book because the American government has grown and yet the people still know that 2+2=4 and not 5, is, frankly, simple minded.Take away the comforts of the people and see how wrong Hayek is at that point.The US government and Federal Reserve can only numb recessions for so long, give them time and they'll wreck the economy just like the government did in Weimar Germany.

That being said, this book is excellent for those wishing to understand the aspects of socialism as it has been and always will be practically applied.Anytime a country turns to outright socialism, and not a middle of the road policy, Hayek's descriptions will ring true.Totalitarianism is not an unfortunate outcome of all socialist experiments thus far attempted, but an inherent and inevitable flaw of a socialistic economic system.Far greater thinkers than I have explained the impossibility of socialism creating equality or prosperity (I direct you to this book as well as Human Action by Ludwig von Mises as well as Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard).

Ultimately, Hayek's warnings will not be heeded, but instead will be forgotten as man travels down the Road to Serfdom. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (15)

The limits to knowledge
Alan Ebenstein has written a general favourable view of a complicated thinker and polymath, Friedrich von Hayek. He approaches the life of the Nobel laureate in organised way and provides a broader view of the environment and his interactions with others which led him to follow his thinking almost through to a conclusion The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek).

I must declare an interest. I find his work to be of particular interest to an understanding of a society built on exchange, which in it's complexity has led to an order of individuals with dispersed knowledge who are very productive and interconnected in an impersonal way.

That said, I am disposed to present an account which expresses much support for the subject matter of the book and the author.

In may ways this is a well written biography which does not elevate Hayek the man into anything else. It has an easy structure which can be followed although in some ways the temporal line tends to smooth out some of the sharpeness of the story. I particularly like the similarities that are drawn between Hayek and John Stuart Mill despite the widely held view that they had very different views. I am reminded of a story told to me from one of his associates of how he followed in Mill's footsteps on one occassion and had great fun cycling down a hill in Europe with feet off the pedals as Mill would have had to do in his time. John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Friendship and Subsequent Marriage (The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek)

Ebenstein does a good job in teasing out the connections in Hayek's thinking and is not afraid to say that the master was wrong on occasion. He does not dwell on the changes in Hayek's thinking which some believe took him down a wrong path but rather looks at the broader consequences of the development which took him to some of his greatest works.

The author has researched the book very well, including contributions from those who worked alongside him at various times, who are no longer with us. I remember a Hobart lunch at the Institute of Economic Affairs where Hayek's son Lawrence arrived and was greeted with a hug from Arthur Seldon who quipped that he could never imagine doing that to his old man which brought a huge grin and laugh from the younger Hayek. Their personal recollections help to flesh out the limited amount we know and provide a fuller, rounder picture that just that of an austere professor.

The area which I think is light is that of opposition to Hayek's thought from some quarters, where he is considered to be the fallen angel. Clearly, in Ebensteins account, he does not wish to expose these doctrinaire hostilities to the light of day, but it seems to me that they would tend to show that Hayek himself was no extremist but left that to others. The fact that the gentleman scholar appears never to have taken the attacks on his work personally speaks volumes for Hayek the man.

In short I believe that this, and it's companion volume Hayek's Journey: The Mind of Friedrich Hayek belong, together with Bruce Caldwell's outstanding contribution Hayek's Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F.A. Hayek, next to each volume of the Collected Works, as books of true scholarship on Hayek and his thought. One idea came to me as I read, that a volume on Hayek and His Students would be a very good area for fruitful research on where his thought has been taken.

Grand master of thought biography
A very nice biography of a philosopher of growing relevance in this beginning of the twenty first century,
whose approaches to economics and politics, may not be dismissed especially nowadays, when people of mythical mind and totalitarianstatist religion is ready to blame "the spontaneous order" because of the corrent financial crisis.

Hayek: The Anti-Fabian
Until nearly the end of the 20th century, Friedrich Hayek seemed to be destined to be ignored and to remain in the backdrop of economic, political and philosophical history.Keynesian economics ruled, with its reliance upon state control of the levers of the economy.Hayek's vision of a renewed classical liberalism with free markets and individualism cut against the conventional intellectual wisdom of his day.Despite that, Hayek was convinced that total systems such as socialism or communism would lead to tyranny.Hayek argued that the Keynesian viewpoint, because of its reliance upon state controls, was destined to limit individual's liberty.

Hayek believed that there was an inevitable conflict between socialism and freedom.He argued passionately, and at times he was a solitary voice, for freedom and liberty.Today with the collapse of communism and the resurgence of free markets across the globe, Hayek's ideas have gained new prominence.Hayek's intellectual contributions to our world in terms of political science, philosophy, and economics can not be underestimated.

The author, Alan Ebenstein, holds a Ph.D. in economics.His account of Hayek's life is illuminating, not covering just his economic and philosophical contributions.Ebenstein covers Hayek's life from the early years and his flirtations with Fabianism (the advancement of socialist ideas through gradual means and through the insertion of its ideas into intellectual circles of influence) through to his legacy as a visionary thinker.Ebenstein's biography of Hayek's life appears to be fair and balanced on the whole.Since the author is a trained economist, you can see the benefit of his background throughout the biography without the dulling effects many associate with the dismal science.If you want to learn more about Hayek the man and his ideas, this is an ideal and recommended book.

A middle class economics hero's life.
This biography has many short chapters, and displays a considerable balance.The structure of the book reflects the nature of Hayek's thoughts."Hayek put forward the difficult idea of spontaneous order.In a spontaneous order, individuals may exchange and interact with one another as they desire.There is no central management of individual decision making."(p. 3).The fame of Friedrich Hayek is associated mainly with the political views needed to maintain a thriving economy as much as with the idea that no one person knows everything that is going on in an economy which functions as Adam Smith pictured, with each person acting in his own interest in order to produce the mix of goods and services that best provides the needs of all.Adam Smith is listed in the index, but not quite as much as Milton Friedman, who is occasionally mentioned as being more popular than Hayek, as well as more correct in the analysis of monetary policy in the United States at the start of the great depression.

Hayek finished a law degree and a second degree in political science from the University of Vienna before he lived in the United States from March 1923 to May 1924.(p. 31).One of his first economic articles in 1924 was "on American monetary policy suggesting that an expansionist credit policy leads to an overdevelopment of capital goods industries and ultimately to a crisis. . . . So I put in that article a long footnote sketching an outline of what ultimately became my explanation of industrial fluctuations. . . . A rate of interest which is inappropriately low offers to the individual sectors of the economy an advantage which is greater the more remote is their product from the consumption stage."(p. 41).The Federal Reserve Bank had been designed to keep the economy moving by offering great deals to capitalists, but when Hayek noted the tendency to produce instability, he became the head "of the evolution of Austrian business cycle theory."(p. 41).When the depression became the lowest point reached by the American economy in the 20th century, Hayek continued to think that low interest rates in the 1920s had produced the instability which produced it, while Milton Friedman produced a monetary explanation which is more widely accepted.

Public opinion is often a matter of simplifications which avoid the complexity that real problems present.Chapter 8, on Keynes, quotes Keynes attacking Marxism as if Marxism were nothing but a public opinion."How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement?"(p. 68).German was a problem for Keynes, who wrote "in German I can only understand what I know already!"(p. 70).Hayek tried to review Keynes' TREATISE ON MONEYfor an English journal, "Economica," when he was about to start teaching at the London School of Economics.Keynes seemed to think that his criticism could be characterized as "The wild duck has dived down to the bottom--as deep as she can get--and bitten fast hold of the weed and tangle and all the rubbish that is down there, and it would need an extraordinarily clever dog to dive after and fish her up again."(pp. 357-358).Hayek was allowed to publish a reply in the "Economic Journal" edited by Keynes "to an article by Piero Sraffa attacking him, and concluded his reply, `I venture to believe that Mr. Keynes would fully agree with me in ... that he [Sraffa] has understood Mr. Keynes' theory even less than he has my own.'Keynes then footnoted, `I should like to say that, to the best of my comprehension, Mr. Sraffa has understood my theory accurately.' "(p. 72).The finishing touches on this argument are complex.Keynes wrote that his footnote was appended to Hayek's reply "with Prof. Hayek's permission," (p. 72), a sure sign that Keynes was amused at agreeing far more with Sraffa, however Hayek might feel about it, and that he had done everything he could to force Hayek to see it his way.

Hayek was admired most for his popular book, THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, which considered central planning in control of an economy as a major step on the way to totalitarianism.He expected his book, THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, to appeal to the same readers, but when it was published on February 9, 1960, people had other concerns.In "The New York Times Book Review," Sydney Hook presented the mainstream economic opposition to Hayek's major concerns."He is an intellectual tonic.But in our present time of troubles, his economic philosophy points the road to disaster."(p. 203).

Considering disasters in the area of economics, it is difficult to counter the idea that any government program offers the kind of deviation from stability that anyone would expect from a drunken bat.One idea that was almost popular at the end of the 20th century was a lockbox, where workers' money could be kept until it was time for them to retire.Hayek followed John Locke in thinking that civil government can maintain an impartial liberty through "certain basic rules on everybody."(p. 224).LAW, LEGISLATION AND LIBERTY was supposed to provide some guidelines, but there was no lockbox in the title, or in the title of any of Hayek's books.Now tax law has changed, as a basic incentive for a rise in the price of common stock, without safeguards to see that income is taxed even once.Speculation seems to be the common assumption upon which everyone is now to be satisfied.Actually, I suppose the government might never stop flying around like a drunken bat.For all the complexity in this book, it is much less like a drunken bat than the opinions I find in any newspaper.

An Important Man, A Poor Biography -1.8 on a scale of 1 to 5
Hayek's life deserves-no demands- a biography of the highest order. I read Hayek in my studies in college and I was fascinated by his theories. He was a man who thought and wrote on profound economic issues.
This biography, while seemingly well researched, does a disservice to the man. I (and a book club for an ivy league college) found it poorly written and structured. Sentences, paragraphs and thoughts collide.
I would only recommend this book to diehard Hayek groupies (though it may cause pain). Individuals who want to learn more about him might benefit from skimming through the book. However, I would caution those individuals who seek out intelligent biographies of interesting people-that despite Hayek's very interesting life, this is not an intelligent biography worthy of him. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (25)

Should be considered part of the Western canon
I hadn't read this book since I was in my early 20's until I bought another copy recently. It's amazing how many things I think I thought up myself actually come from Hayek.

Hayek's approach to defending liberty, individual rights and limited government is not like that of many doctrinaire libertarians. He doesn't start from a moral value that freedom is good and then look for reasons to support it. Instead, he examines how freedom works, who likes it and who doesn't, and why. He looks in detail at what happens when it's infringed, how it's won and lost, and provides all kinds of interesting thought experiments and examples to persuade you.

Although Hayek is often known primarily as an economist, he doesn't limit himself to economic arguments. He looks with great subtlety at the sociological and psychological aspects of human freedom, at how various institutions interact and balance each other.

If you're already a person who leans libertarian, you'll find your understanding of why you feel the way you do immeasurably enriched. You'll have a considerably more sophisticated rationale for what you feel so strongly after reading this book.

If you're a person who thinks those libertarians are ideological nuts, read Hayek to read one who isn't. Unlike libertarian firebrands like Rand and Rothbard, Hayek engages readers on their own ground, leading you to unexpected conclusions and insights without demanding you start by admitting he's fundamentally right.

This book's scope is much wider than his more popular "The Road to Serfdom." It's also a lot longer. But if you're going to read only one Hayek book, take the dive with this one.

The Private-Public Divide
Hayek undertook a vitally important task when he set out to write the The Constitution of Liberty. He aimed at finding the proper limits between public and private life. How far should the authority of the state extend? What areas of life should be beyond the reach of the government? Hayek is stating his version of the general principles of classical liberalism, based on utilitarian ethics. Since his arguments are utilitarian, this book has economic overtones.

Hayek's purpose in restating the principles of liberal society is to defend these principles against the opposing intellectual movement of collectivism. Western Civilization succeeded largely because of its individualism. Collectivism is undermining the basis of modern civilization in the West. Individualism is important because we each lack the knowledge needed to rationally direct the affairs of others. Some people believe that they can plan out society because they are `experts' or because they are educated. Hayek saw that nobody can posses the knowledge needed to design a rational order for society. As Hayek put it, "it is largely because civilization enables us constantly to profit from knowledge which we individually do not posses that men can pursue their individual ends more successfully than they could alone".

In writing this book, Hayek shifted his attention away from full-blown socialism and towards the modern welfare state. Hayek seems to have felt that the case for socialism had been sufficiently weakened so as to allow him to critique welfare states. Hayek accepted some types of government intervention that libertarians typically oppose. Rather than opposing each program point by point, Hayek sought out some `lynchpin issues' that would limit state growth. Hayek argued strenuously against state control of the money supply, and suggested ways of limiting taxation. Hayek's libertarian critics typically cringe at some of his concessions, but we would all be in a much better position now if his constitution had been adopted.

The Constitution of Liberty is more than well reasoned, it is subtle and profound. This book reveals Hayek's deep understanding of economics, politics, and history. Reading the COL is no small undertaking, but it is a highly useful undertaking for any serious student of political economy.

Foundation for Margaret Thatcher's policies
There is a great story of Margaret Thatcher throwing this book down on the table at an economic policy meeting and saying "This is what we believe".Great chapters on how democracy can't exist with coercion; how the "idle rich", though oft bally-hooed are really the driving force behind the great museums, art, and sports that the general public enjoy today.

Utilitarian Constitution
Hayek undertook a monumental task when he set out to write the The Constitution of Liberty. Hayek aimed at finding the proper limits between public and private life. How far should the authority of the state extend? What areas of life should be beyond the reach of the government? Hayek is stating his version of the general principles of classical liberalism, based on utilitarian ethics. Since his arguments are utilitarian, this book has economic overtones.

Hayek's purpose in restating the principles of liberal society is to defend these principles against the opposing intellectual movement of collectivism. Western Civilization succeeded largely because of its individualism. Collectivism is undermining the basis of modern civilization in the West. Individualism is important because we each lack the knowledge needed to rationally direct the affairs of others. Some people believe that they can plan out society because they are `experts' or because they are educated. Hayek saw that nobody can posses the knowledge needed to design a rational order for society. As Hayek put it, "it is largely because civilization enables us constantly to profit from knowledge which we individually do not posses that men can pursue their individual ends more successfully than they could alone".

In writing this book, Hayek shifted his attention away from full-blown socialism and towards the modern welfare state. Hayek seems to have felt that the case for socialism had been sufficiently weakened so as to allow him to critique welfare states. Hayek accepted some types of government intervention that libertarians typically oppose. Rather than opposing each program point by point, Hayek sought out some `lynchpin issues' that would limit state growth. Hayek argued strenuously against state control of the money supply, and suggested ways of limiting taxation. Hayek's libertarian critics typically cringe at some of his concessions, but we would all be in a much better position now if his constitution had been adopted.

The Constitution of Liberty is more than well reasoned, it is subtle and profound. This book reveals Hayek's deep understanding of economics, politics, and history. Reading the COL is no small undertaking, but it is a highly useful undertaking for any serious student of political economy.

Philosophy - Libertarian perspective
This review will be mostly technical in nature. Some good reviews already exist that discuss the overview of the material.

1. Part 1 The Value of Freedom, 8 chapters.
2. Part 2 Freedom and the Law, 8 chapters
3. Part 3 Freedom in the Welfare State, 8 chapters
4. Postscript: Why I am not a Conservative, 13 pages
5. End Notes = 100 pages
6. Analytical Table of Contents (valuable for reference), listing sub-topics by page number = 7 pages
7. Name Index = 10 pages
8. Subject Index = 16 pages.

My Remarks: this is philosophy of government, plus some historical development, plus economic theory-and-practice. It is a rather tough read, exact logic and completed thoughts until each point is carefully constucted and then commented on.

There are many quote-able passages, and the exhaustive referencing confirms the scholarly style.

The print is small: 42 lines per page, 17 characters per inch.

So, the 3-stars are given so as to ward-off readers that are looking for libertarian views of a popluar nature. Though the reading is somewhat hard, the individual cases discussed make this a perfect source for a dedicated libertarian to reference.

... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (5)

Constitutional Political Economy
In this third and final volume of Law, Liberty, and Legislation Hayek makes his case for a classical liberal constitutional order. True liberalism is the philosophy of free trade and association, and limited government. The modern corrupted version of liberalism stems from a host of fallacies and misconceptions. The Law Liberty and Legislation trilogy was intended to complete the case that Hayek made for classical liberalism in The Constitution of Liberty. This trilogy combines with the Constitution of Liberty to make a powerful case for strictly limited government and free enterprise. You should read The Constitution of Liberty before starting this trilogy, but be sure to read both.

I first became familiar with the ideas in this book in James Buchanan's class on Constitutional Political Economy. This was one of the more intruiging sections of this class. While this book has its critics, it derives from sound reasoning and plausible arguments. While the Law, Liberty, and Legislation trilogy is important in its own right, these books do not stand alone well. Welfare state liberals will find it naïve, even utopian. Hayek makes his case for the legal order of free markets without really explaining why free markets are superior to state controlled systems. Skeptics must refer to Hayek's "Individualism and Economic Order" to get a more detailed explanation of why free markets outperform government regulated systems. Better still, read "Human Action" by von Mises, if you can find the time to wade through it.

5 stars just for epilogue
The Hayekian intellectual revolution is brewing and it is just a matter of time before it explodes into the mainstream. What many refer to as Austrian economics, in other words, the proper understanding of the market process and how it creates the social order.... and evolutionary psychology, are finally being recognized as simply being manifastations of the single simple theory which explains both biological and social orders. Natural selection. Hayek understood how natural selection works at the level of societies, groups... To this day most evolutionary biologists are too focused in their tiny micro world of genes and they completely overlook natural selection working at a more macro level(I hate using the words micro and macro.. it makes it seem like there is some point where a difference exists while there is none) . I can't say I've read that many books, but I have read many great books from Mises, Rothbard, obviously Hayek, Hazlitt... ie.. the REAL economists... and plenty from the evolutionary psychology camp like Dawkins, Ridley, Pinker, etc... The epilogue to this book, page for page(24 of them) might very well be the most insightful and farseeing piece of writing published in the 20th century. This was the last work in a trilogy that tried to explain in more depth concepts discussed in hayek's "constitution of liberty" and the epologue is a great summary of Hayek's ideas.... He concludes with

"Man is not and never will be the master of his fate: his very reason always progresses by leading him into the unknown and unforeseen where he learns new things.

In concluding this epilogue I am becoming increasingly aware that it ought not to be that but rather a new beginning. But I hardly dare hope that for me it can be so"

Fortunately Hayek lived long enough to work on his final work "The Fatal Conceit".

A lot of people... unfortunatly many current and well respected Austrian economists whom I have learned much from and really like, dismiss hayek or like to label him as some kind of "statist". I understand that Hayek has written some very statist sounding things.. but I belive that much of this has been taken out of context. And even if he has made some mistakes there, it is a MONUMENTAL mistake to dismiss his body of work, which in my opinion, happens to be the single greatest contribution to the proper understanding of how the world works by a single human being. Thismistake was unfortunately made by none other than the great Murray N. Rothbard who basically only credits hayek with a few clarifications or additions here and there to Mises business cycle theory, and sticking with mises while the world was being swept by keynes and his inflationary communism.. which is true. No disagreement here that Mises was the greatest economist of the 20th century. But to ignore and dismiss hayek's contributions via his "sensory order" and work on cultural evolution and the evolutionary processes that shape the social order, "spontaneous order", religion and its evolution and importance and many other things... is, again, a MONUMENTAL mistake, especially when such dismisal comes from other great minds... But anyways... eventually the right ideas are naturally selected in a free environment.... They grow and spread through amazon.com reviews and many others.... It is just a matter of time...





I can't say I've read much in my short years, but thus far, the Epilogue to this book is page for page the most in

Neoliberalism vs Democracy
Neoliberalism was born on September 11, 1973, when a US-backed military coup murdered the democratically elected President of Chile and ushered in the tyranny of General Pinochet who murdered and tortured thousands, closed parliament, and outlawed political parties and trade unions.If that doesn't give you pause about the compatibility of neoliberalism and democracy, read this book.

In Hayek's model of an ideal constitution each citizen is given one vote per lifetime when they reach the age of 45 (page 113).Then, Hayek decides that's probably too generous, and calls for an "indirect method of election" where the legislature would appoint regional delegates who would appoint new legislators, without any popular vote at all (page 114).

Neoliberals hate democracy, in both theory and practice, and are much more comfortable with an oligarchy.

Worthwhile sequel to The Constitution of Liberty
Volume 3 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty is in part an attempt at identifying the reasons why, in Hayek's opinion, the principles of liberty he articulated in The Constitution of Liberty do not find greater subscription.Majoritarian democracy is not inherently just, since it is based on interests rather than justice. The majoritarian democratic system consists of people each pursuing their own interests: citizens want spending programs with others paying for them, elected officials generally want to be reelected, government workers prefer large over small government in order to enhance job security.The result is an aggregation of special interests, and not even the general, or common interest, let alone justice.The laws that end up being enacted are intended to serve specific administrative purposes rather than general principles.

With a system of progressive taxation, the aggregate tax burden is no longer felt by the entire population.People end up exerting political pressure for expenditures for which they believe others will pay.In such a system, any normal type of cost-benefit analysis of government programs disappears.The inevitable result is an ever-growing government sector.

The basis of the book is straight public choice theory (pp. 13-17 would make a splendid concise introduction to the field).Even a legislature elected by a democratic majority needs to have constitutional restrictions placed upon it, lest it become a form of tyranny.Hayek proposes "a model constitution" that attempts to rectify some of the shortcomings inherent in the existing democratic system.Laws should be general not specific.They should be about principles rather than benefits, i.e. they should protect citizens' life, safeguard their liberty, and help create an environment in which they are free to engage in the pursuit of happiness.Laws should not discriminate between different individuals or groups, not even based on their wealth or income.Laws passed must apply to everyone, including those who pass the laws, i.e. the legislature.This also goes for taxation: the burden of taxation is to be felt by all who benefit from the existence of government.

Law, Legislation, and Liberty was intended as a sequel to The Constitution of Liberty, in that Hayek wrote it to "fill in the gaps" that he felt existed in his argument in that earlier work.He wrote and published Law, Legislation, and Liberty on and off over a time-span of approximately 15 years (early-mid 1960 to mid-late 1970s), which were in part interrupted by ill health.Hayek admits that the result is at times repetitive and lacking in organization.The reason why he did not go through the effort of redoing the entire work upon completion is because he thought he might at that rate never finish it (he was 80 years old by the time volume 3 was published).

There are still plenty of great insights, which Hayek argues persuasively and in doing so manages to portray as common sense.There are also plenty of flashes of that true rhetorical brilliance characteristic of Hayek that can make his writings such a feast to the ear and mind.On the downside, however, these rhetorical gems are hidden in a large volume of pages that at times do indeed seem tedious, repetitive, and unorganized, unlike with The Constitution of Liberty, where they literally seem to jump off the page at you.All in all, read The Constitution of Liberty first, as Hayek himself suggests.And if you're not up for reading the approximately 500 pages that make up the complete Law, Legislation, and Liberty, two chapters (30 pages total) in the book The Essence of Hayek make for a comprehensive summary exposition of the ideas in the entire trilogy ("Principles of a Liberal Social Order", ch. 20 in The Essence of Hayek, covers vols. 1-2, and "Whither Democracy?", ch. 19, covers vol. 3).

law, legislation and liberty
¿Por qué esta obra es tan importante y el autor, uno de los más serios de este siglo? Porque se trata de una comprension cabal del funcionamiento de nuestra civilización occidental. El libro (los tres volúmenes)es unadesmitificación de ciertos conceptos harto conocidos, de clara tendenciasocialista, a través de los cuales se ha pretendido transformar sociedadesenteras. El concepto de justicia social es uno de ellos, en virtud del cuálse han encarado acciones políticas con resultados conocidos por todos. Esta obra de Hayek es la obra de alguien que ha entendido profundamente alser humano y su sociedad, y que ha comprendido que es un estado de libertadsu ámbito natural. La teoría de la Evolución, parece confirmarle esto alautor.De todos modos, uno se encontrará con grandes argumentos yexposiciones a partir de los cuáles, si es que todavía no se ha convencidode las bondades del liberalismo; tendrá un gran motivo para empezar ahacerlo. ... Read more

Product Description
Hayek on Liberty is a concise yet exhaustive and provocative study of this classic liberal philosopher. It examines the structure and impact of Hayek's system of ideas and locates his position within Western philosophy. Not available since the 1980s, this updated 3rd edition contains a a substantial new chapter in which Gray assesses how far the historical development of the last ten years can be deployed in a critique of Hayek's thought.Gray's reassessment is not only a provoking study of a classical philosopher; it is also a timely contribution to the debate over the future of conservatism. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Cannot Recommend More Highly
I have not read this book, but I just finished reading an academic paper written by Mr. Gray, whose subject is F.A. Hayek.Based on this paper alone, I recommend anything Mr. Gray writes.His analysis is subtle, comprehensive, penetrating, and unassuming.It is a pleasure learning from Mr. Gray.Here is a link, if this is permitted, to the paper I refer to above: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/gryHRC.html

Definitely worth more than a single read
The shear volume of work completed by Hayek over a publishing career that marked more than fifty years makes it quite difficult to grasp the interlocking system of ideas he advocated. Gray has done an exceptional job of synthesizing this work. He presents the philosophical roots of Hayek's thought, the unique 20th century context in which Hayek's ideas competed with others, and a magnificent critique that anyone interested in Hayek should study.

Essentially, Gray reduces Hayek's contribution to that of a critic of socialism. Hayek's assertion that socialized central planning was an "epistemological impossibility," while historically evident, provides an inadequate justification for the 19th century form of capitalism Hayek advocated. The post-communist 21st century must deal with competing capitalisms, not rigid centrally planned economies, and Gray considers Hayek inadequate on this score.

Gray believes that Hayek missed an essential aspect of free market capitalism, that is, the power of progress. Free markets demand change, even change for change's sake, and the metaphor of a "spontaneous social order" arising in some sort of social evolution is not adequate to provide support for the traditional values and institutions for which Hayek had regard. Personal autonomy will always present a danger to social cohesion. In Gray's view, the free market advocated by Hayek prefers the former to the latter.

To Gray this weakness in Hayek's thought is fatal, and I tend to agree.

The best recreation of Hayek's thought available
Friedrich von Hayek has had perhaps the most profound impact of any political theorist in the last half-century.John Gray's book is a superb analysis of his ideas.Where other studies can be confusing or convoluted,Gray's always maintains its ability to lucidly recreate Hayek's argumentsfrom their intellectual roots upwards.

Understanding theintellectual foundations of Hayek's work, can be a minefield ofinaccessible terms and confusing statements.Thanks to JohnGray,however, these matters are clearly and intelligently explained.The resultis that the reader is provided with a rich insight into how Hayek'spolitical economy functions.More than just a critique of socialism,Hayek's thought is also a profound intellectual statement combining theepistemological insights of Hume with Kant's categorical imperative.Anunderstanding of its philosophical basis allows a fertile gaze into theprism that is Hayek's thought.Only Gray explains these aspects of hiswritngs clearly.

"Hayek on Liberty" is, moreover,refreshingly objective, despite the controversy which Hayek's ideasgenerate.Gray seeks to explain rather than to refute or praise.Thereader can therefore take the insights Gray offers in a number ofdirections.Although Gray clearly admires Hayek, he does not feel the needto indulge in the monotonous hero-worship to which we have becomeaccustomed.There is much to be found here for Hayek's critics too. Especially since it is doubtful that Hayek's use of Hume does not underminemany of his more positive political statements.

Gray's work is thusan invaluable guide to one of the Twentieth Century's intellectual icons.One only has to observe the saint-like worship Hayek has received in recentmonths, surrounding the centenery of his birth, to appreciate that hislegacy is an ongoing phenomenon of global proportions.Academic, student,and interested observer will find Gray's study immensely helpful as aplatform for approaching more general disussions of Hayek's ideas, of whichmany fine examples now exist.Anyone attempting a detailed appreciation ofHayek should thus keep Gray beside them at all times. ... Read more

Product Description
This book gives readers insight into F A Hayek's life and ideas. The detailed chronology depicts Hayek's early life and education, his intellectual progress, and the academic and public reception of his ideas through a series of oral history interviews. Hayek's own autobiographical notes are included. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Very Informative
This book is a comprehensive autobiographical account of Hayek's personal and professional life.He covers in detail much more than I had anticipated, and it helps me to better understand Hayek's ideas and how he developed them.Another benefit stems from his personal thoughts on other economists, such as Mises and Keynes.I do, however, still have some trouble following his thoughts on psychology and pattern prediction.Also, the debate found in the latter half of the book felt out of place and didn't show Hayek at his best.But these are rather minor grievances.I am quite satisfied with this autobiography.

Master of free trade arguments
Concern for the self in this book zeroes in on the intellectual basis for a tremendous reputation in free world economics.It is by and about Friedrich August von Hayek, who died on March 23, 1992.Most of the 170 pages are devoted to the years leading up to THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, which Hayek wrote during World War II and published in 1944.The "autobiographical notes that Hayek wrote over a period of years beginning in 1945," (p. ix) which are used throughout the book, tend to look back into his past.Part Three, beginning on page 99, explains that the war provided a setting for thinking and writing "studies on the abuse and decline of reason to which I had devoted the first two years of the war."(p. 99).Part Three ends with a transcript (pp. 110-123) of a Radio Discussion, April 22, 1945, with University of Chicago assistant professor of economics Maynard C. Krueger, national chairman of the Socialist party, who ran as vice-presidential candidate on the national Socialist ticket in 1940, and Professor Emeritus Charles E. Merriam, who served three terms as alderman on the Chicago "City Council, and in 1911 was narrowly defeated for mayor of Chicago."(p. 109).

The discussion begins with a few pages on planning.When directly questioned about TVA, Hayek responded, "There is a great deal of the TVA to which no economist in repute, and certainly not the laissez-faire people, will object. . . . If the hydroelectric power really could not have been provided by private enterprise, I have no objection."(p. 113).If you really want economic growth, Hayek has a point, "where you can create a competitive situation, you ought to rely upon competition."(p. 113).This might be the same point:"I am a convinced free-trader, and free trade is part of the same philosophy."(p. 115).

The former alderman, Merriam, notes how the competition of ideas may result in the opposite of Hayek's ideal."It was not the fact of communism but the fear of communism that was the most powerful factor in the development of Naziism."(p. 117).The argument gets back to planning, as Hayek says, "That method of central planning which is proposed as an alternative method of organizing production to take the place of competition means that a government, or some central authority, must take complete control of the resources."(p. 119)."Most of the war controls are central planning, but it is only temporary. ... During the war, we all have to go to some extent totalitarian."(p. 119).

If people have truly lost control of the government whenever it puts itself in a war unnecessarily, the socialist Krueger might be addressing everybody when he asserts, "You seem to place no faith whatsoever in the political process as a means of keeping government responsible to the people.Is that really your position?Do you have no faith in the political process as a means of establishing responsibility?"Hayek is as contrary as possible on this point."I am quite convinced that it cannot be effectively controlled by the democratic process.It requires a degree of agreement among people which we can never expect in a free society."(p. 121).One sure quality of death, particularly during wartime, is that we will never hear a live broadcast of those three thinkers on the radio again.Since television has cut attention spans, Merriam might be truer than he knew then about Hayek's chapter of THE ROAD TO SERFDOM "on `Why the Worst Get on Top,' you seem to express grave doubts about the ability of a democratic society to accomplish much.You say, for example, that the more intelligent people are, the less likely they are to agree."(p. 122).Who would be willing to apply Hayek's concluding sentence to a current catastrophe -- lacking any economic sense, but costing billions -- American activities in Iraq?"I had realized that some kind of state action is extremely dangerous.Therefore, my whole effort was to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate action.I have attempted to do that by saying that, so far as the government plans for competition or steps in where competition cannot possibly do the job, there is no objection; but I believe that all the other forms of government activity are highly dangerous."(p. 123).

Part Four starts out with some "wholly abstract problems."(p. 125).He spent years writing THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, "so that I was able to take the finished manuscript to my American publishers on my sixtieth birthday, May 8, 1959."(p. 130).Most of us were a lot younger back then, and to escape retirement at the age of 65, Hayek moved back to Germany.While the conversations quoted in this book are often after that date, they usually refer to what occurred in the years when he was most active in what was going on in the world.As a thinker, it is not surprising that he made more money than Karl Marx.The Index of Persons and Places on pages 161-170 is one of the best I have seen for explaining who each person mentioned in the book was, with more about Lord John Acton than about Achilles, and not much on Karl Marx (1818-1883).A question that he was asked in an interview printed in Reason magazine (July 1992), supposed that Joseph Schumpeter had been more right than Marx on how governments could be more responsible for "the collapse of capitalism due, not to its weakness (as Marx had predicted), but due to its strengths."(p. 154).Hayek could enjoy this paradox of Schumpeter, "that capitalism was certainly much better but it will not be allowed to last, while socialism is very bad but it is bound to come."(p. 154).Democracy allows the freedom for people to complain in ways that can inspire the government to make things worse, if I am catching the drift.

The Life of Hayek
This book about Hayek's life in Hayek's eye. It contains not only his academic life, but also his way in looking the world. This is a readable introduction to Hayek's philosophy, not because it has presented sometheoies, but because it has provided the necessary introduction on thisman--Hayek. ... Read more

Product Description
Hayek's Journey is a philosophical, intellectual exploration of Hayek's comprehensive life work. Tracing Hayek's intellectual journey from Vienna at the turn of the 20th century through London, Chicago, and Freiburg, Hayek's Journey provides a deeper understanding and exploration of Hayek's thought than previously attempted. Special attention is given to Hayek's intellectual relationships with Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, and Milton Friedman. Hayek's Journey presents Hayek as an economist, political philosopher, and pure philosopher. Particular consideration is given also to development of Hayek's final work, The Fatal Conceit. In Hayek's Journey, Hayek emerges as a thinker and writer of the greatest depth and importance.
... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Not as good as I'd hoped
Having read this book without first reading Ebenstein's companion biography on Hayek, perhaps my criticism is not fully warranted, but this book seemed to fall a little short.Hayek is unarguably a fascinating thinker and my hope when picking this up was to learn how that thinking developed: how for example did he wrestle to change from his early socialist leanings when confronted with the problem of economic calculation.There is a lot of interesting factual information to be found in the book, but it is disjointed and ultimately a little frustrating to read.Perhaps Ebenstein's companion biography on Hayak's life reads a little smoother and expresses more of a compelling narrative, and this is just an unfortunate result of a failed biographical mind body split.

All this being said I still think many will still find the book worth a read.There is much to be gained in exploring Hayek - kind of like if I were to take a photograph of a supper model with a point and shoot camera, I'd end up with a picture worth viewing, but not because of my exemplary photographic skills.Eberstein doesn't take the greatest picture of Hayek but based on the merit of the subject I'd still recommend taking a look.

A valuable thematic supplement
In this readable volume, Ebenstein offers an overview of Hayek's thought organized thematically rather than chronologically. It is meant as a companion volume to Ebenstein's biography of Hayek, but I read it as a supplement to Caldwell's intellectual biography, Hayek's Challenge.

Being only modestly acquainted with 20th century history, and even less so on economic and political theories, I strongly endorse reading a historical account of Hayek prior to considering this thematic presentation. Hayek was a man of his time, passionately contending with political ideologies and economic centralization that he felt threatened individual liberties. In my view, a historical approach can more aptly express the interplay of social, cultural, and personal influences that shaped Hayek's life and thought.

Be that as it may, Ebenstein has done a fine job in this book. Each chapter is devoted to a specific idea of, or a major influence on, Hayek. Foundational ideas incorporated into Hayek's thought are discussed (Darwinianism, German historicism, Austrian school economics) as are significant works that denoted major changes in his thought. Individual chapters deal with Mises, Keynes, Friedman and Popper, and another contrasts Hayek's thought with Marx, Mill, and Freud. Hayek's major economic thought is address in chapters devoted to both his early years and his later work.

I recommend this book primarily as a ready and current reference for the ongoing debates and interpretations of Hayek. Ebenstein's Bibliographical Essay on the collected works of Hayek may be an essential source for those studying this man.

Another disppointing treatment of Hayek
I read Ebenstein's biography of Hayek with high expectations, only to find the work disjointed, inadequate, and incomplete, and I was left with the feeling that either the author did not understand Hayek, had problems expressing himself or did not do adequate research.

When this title hit the bookshops, I immediately purchased a copy thinking that this volume would make up for the inadequacies of the first. But again, I am left with the feeling that a better work on the life and writings of the great Von Hayek is still to be written!

Recommended.
A very good starting point for those who have heard about Hayek and his ideas, but are not ready to jump into the details of his other works. A few well known traders say that to do well in the stock market, one must have a good understanding of the thinking of the Austrian School.

This book summarizes the ideas and discusses his many books, most of which are currently in print. It is written in an easy to read style. It may help you decide which of Hayek's works to read first.

I enjoyed it.

Only goes so far in explaining the genius
Frederich Hayek was a genius who happened upon his brilliance by both nature and nurture. He lived in an era which thought it not unusual to work in both the physical and social sciences.In Hayek's case it was most important that his first love was biology since the evolutionary underpinnings of society were fundamental to his approach to the social sciences.

He is today remembered for such classics as THE FATAL CONCEIT, THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY and especially THE ROAD TO SERFDOM.He excelled in many categories and it was this fusion of various fields that made his work so unique and so vital. Starting as a scientist in the tradition of Ernest Mach, he soon began studies in economics, particularly value.From semi-Socialist leanings he became convinced of the link between economic and political freedom.This was the subtext of THE ROAD TO SERFDOM.

His argument against collectivism and central-run economies are as valid today as they were in the early part of last century. Central economies fail because 1) Society has too much knowledge to be centrally commanded (2) all economic decisions become political and thus authoritarian and noncreative and (3) there is no way to set value (price) under Socialism.

THE SENSORY ORDER dealt with epistomology, then he branched out to philosophy and politics.As an example of how Socialist we have become, Hayek's views were called ""liberal" and are now called "conservative" despite the fact that they're unchanged. He wrote one piece "WHY I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE" which is a clarion call for libertarianism and classical liberalism.

The book examines the clashes between intellectual giants - von Mises, Popper, Mach, Wittgenstein (his cousin) and others.He was a secularist, a capitalist and a political liberal in the classical sense.His work on monetary policy still affects us (adjusting interest rates to increase or decrease the money supply, "floating" currencies externally).His influence with Western politicians and intellectual leaders was and is huge. He won the Nobel Prize for Economics in appreciation for his many contributions.

Almost as an afterward Hayek issued a brilliant statement.The aim of all economists is the increase in material wealth. He wanted this accomplished through an increase in wealth (capitalism) rather than a confiscation / redistribution of wealth (socialism / central run economies). The battle between these two points of view are with us today. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

Hayek's Second Best
Hayek authored some great books. The Road to Serfdom, The Constitution of Liberty, and The Counter Revolution of Science are true classics. Individualism and Economic Order and Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics are brilliant. New Studies has some excellent essays. Competition as a Discovery Procedure is a good chapter. Economic Freedom and Representative Government has a strong message. The New Confusion about Planning is worth reading too. There is also some good anti-Keynesian material in this book.

The weakness of this book is that there is little said in it that one cannot find in Hayek's earlier writings. Hayek clarifies and reiterates some important points. Yet The Road to Serfdom and the Counter Revolution of Science show Hayek in his prime as a social theorist. The COL and the Law, Liberty, and Legislation volumes also show how Hayek's thinking evolved and reached new heights. New Studies does little more than to reassert that which Hayek wrote in his earlier work. That being said, New Studies is still a great book by one of the greatest economists of all time. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (5)

Social Justice Debunked
Hayek was second to none in his opposition to socialism. In his early years Hayek argued against overt socialism by focusing on economic theory. While Hayek was correct on the economic arguments against socialism, he realized that the case against socialism had to go beyond economic theory. The socialist movement is not driven solely, or even primarily, by the details of economic theory. Rank and file socialists often know very little about socialism. If we are to understand the socialist moment and its popularity we must undertand the ideas that drive it.

In this second volume of Law, Liberty, and Legislation Hayek examines the mirage of social justice. How did socialist egalitarian convictions gain popularity in the modern world? Can socialism live up to its romanticized ideals? The idea of social justice espoused by the modern left is, as Hayek put it, a Mirage. The concept of social justice has no meaning in a free and prosperous society, and no society can be free and prosperous if it is planned on the basis of some notion of social justice.

The Law Liberty and Legislation trilogy was intended to complete the case that Hayek made for classical liberalism in The Constitution of Liberty. This trilogy combines with the Constitution of Liberty to make a powerful case for strictly limited government and free enterprise. You should read The Constitution of Liberty before starting this trilogy, but be sure to read both. Hayek's analysis of spontaneous order and government planning is highly relevant. The collapse of the USSR might have made it seem that proponents of free social order had won. But it is all too obvious that the drive for "social justice" is gaining ground. Read Hayek along with Nozick and Buchanan. These ideas are vitally important.

Great service!
The book arrived in a timely fashion, and it was in perfect condition.I was very pleased.

Worthwhile sequel to The Constitution of Liberty
The following passage sums up the entire book quite well: "[I]n...a system in which each is allowed to use his knowledge for his own purposes the concept of `social justice' is necessarily empty and meaningless, because in it nobody's will can determine the relative incomes of the different people, or prevent that they be partly dependent on accident.`Social justice' can be given a meaning only in a directed or `command' economy (such as an army) in which the individuals are ordered what to do; and any particular conception of `social justice' could be realized only in such a centrally directed system.It presupposes that people are guided by specific directions and not by rules of just individual conduct.Indeed, no system of rules of just individual conduct, and therefore no free action of the individuals, could produce results satisfying any principle of distributive justice...In a free society in which the position of the different individuals and groups is not the result of anybody's design--or could, within such a society, be altered in accordance with a generally applicable principle--the differences in reward simply cannot meaningfully be described as just or unjust." (pp. 69-70)

As with Robert Nozick (and with John Locke before them), justice is for Hayek a matter of process rather than results.

Law, Legislation, and Liberty was intended as a sequel to The Constitution of Liberty, in that Hayek wrote it to "fill in the gaps" that he felt existed in his argument in that earlier work.He wrote and published Law, Legislation, and Liberty on and off over a time-span of approximately 15 years (early-mid 1960 to mid-late 1970s), which were in part interrupted by ill health.Hayek admits that the result is at times repetitive and lacking in organization.The reason why he did not go through the effort of redoing the entire work upon completion is because he thought he might at that rate never finish it (he was 80 years old by the time volume 3 was published).

There are still plenty of great insights, which Hayek argues persuasively and in doing so manages to portray as common sense.There are also plenty of flashes of that true rhetorical brilliance characteristic of Hayek that can make his writings such a feast to the ear and mind.On the downside, however, these rhetorical gems are hidden in a large volume of pages that at times do indeed seem tedious, repetitive, and unorganized, unlike with The Constitution of Liberty, where they literally seem to jump off the page at you.All in all, read The Constitution of Liberty first, as Hayek himself suggests.And if you're not up for reading the approximately 500 pages that make up the complete Law, Legislation, and Liberty, two chapters (30 pages total) in the book The Essence of Hayek make for a comprehensive summary exposition of the ideas in the entire trilogy ("Principles of a Liberal Social Order", ch. 20 in The Essence of Hayek, covers vols. 1-2, and "Whither Democracy?", ch. 19, covers vol. 3).

Readable Hayek
Don't be put off from reading Hayek just because some authors and reviewers say his work is complicated and technical.Most of Hayek's writings are edited versions of speeches he has given to various audiences. His work is very readable, and I have found enormous benefit from just reading a chapter at one reading, and taking the work up again at another time.

Hayek's work should be found in both the classroom and on the coffee table.

F.A. Hayek does it again... The Wisdom of an Old Whig
Today, it seems everyone from Patrick Buchanan to Jessie Jackson are extoling the ideal of "social justice." But where did this insidious concept emerge. In the third and final installment in Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty series, Hayek delivers a knock out blow to the the notions of "social justice" or "distributive justice." He examines its socialistic roots and intellectual origins, which ensued after the egalitarian fervor in post-1791 Europe. He critiques new economic and social policy, which has emerged in the wake of the "social justice" phenemenon. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (2)

Hayek Plus Sen Rings a Bell
Theodore Burczak is Professor of Economics at Denison University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts, where rigorous training in traditional economic theory and econometrics was linked to an equally rigorous training in "political economy," by which was meant the analysis of the politico-economic dynamics of social systems. I was privileged to teach in this department at the time Burczak was there, and indeed in the acknowledgements, Burczak says that I "showed how to transform traditional economics into political economy." So the reader is warned---I am not an unbiased reader of this book.

Many reasonable people believe that capitalism, for all its myriad of weaknesses, is the best possible economic system. This is a highly defensible position, given the abject failure of all attempts to create viable alternatives over the past two centuries, and especially after the spectacular collapse of the Soviet Union, the failure of European socialism, and the bitter extinction of Third World Socialism. Personally, I believe capitalism is the best system we know of, but it is very important to have some smart and committed people around who spend all their time and energy in devising workable alternatives. Burczak lies squarely in this tradition, and Socialism after Hayek is a very creative and thoughtful work that deserves to be widely read and evaluated.

The most salient fact about Burczak's defense of socialism is his wedding a model of market socialism with democratically run, worker-owned firms (Lange, Lerner, althoughBurczak uses arguments from the contemporary Austrian school, which fits well with Hayek) with a welfare analysis based on human flourishing (Aristotle, Sen), and perhaps most uniquely, a defense of markets inspired by the extremely right-wing, Nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek. This potent mixture of ideas is a welcome alternative to the usual contemporary defense of socialism, which is based either on know-nothing populist sloganeering or reliance on the ancient German philosophers of socialism of the Nineteenth Century---especially Marx and his brainy intellectual followers, whose obvious Hegelianism reverberates nil with the modern mind (Marx said that he was "Hegel turned on his head." What he forgot was that an upside down Hegel is still Hegel, just upside-down, just as an upside-down chicken is just a chicken, upside down).

In Burczak's Lange-Sen-Hayek trinity, traditional economic theory is used to defend market socialism and democratic worker ownership (Samuel Bowles, John Roemer, Pranab Bardhan and I were working in this area when Burczak was working on his doctorate at the University of Massachusetts), to defend egalitarianism on the basis of Sen's notion that human welfare depends on developing capabilities, not on simply getting material things, and to defend a Postmodern philosophical position on the basis of Hayek's theory of knowledge.

Burczak's treatment is highly sophisticated, but I am afraid I am not persuaded. The absolutely central and bottom-line problem is that an economy consisting of worker-owned and democratically controlled firms would impose a significant static efficiency loss on the economy and would severely retard scientific and entrepreneurial innovate. I say this with pain and regret, because I and my colleagues work for almost ten year to devise a workable market socialism, but my final conclusion (I'll let the others speak for themselves) is that our models are more applicable to promoting self-employment of poor farmers in developing countries (see Pranab Bardhan, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, "Wealth Inequality, Credit Constraints, and Economic Performance", in Anthony Atkinson and Francois Bourguignon (Eds.) Handbook of Income Distribution (Dortrecht: North-Holland, 2000):541-603).

The main problem facing democratic worker control of firms is that the workers must be residual claimants on the profits and losses incurred by the firm, or the workers will have no reason to adopt efficient technology and work practices. Lenders will not willingly lend to worker-controlled firms because they cannot maintain sufficient influence over the firm's policies in this case (Herbert Gintis, "Financial Markets and the Political Structure of the Enterprise", Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1 (1989):311-322). John Roemer and Pranab Bardhan (Pranab Bardhan and John Roemer, "Market Socialism: A Case for Rejuvenation", Journal of Economic Perspectives 6,3 [Summer] (1992):101-116) worked out a sort-of "pari-mutual" betting plan that would direct public funds to the most promising firms, but it is implausible that such a plan, were it workable, would not succumb to political forces in a way to which private capital markets, based on the inviolability of private property, are virtually immune. Moreover, firms based completely on outside finance are extremely overleveraged and would inevitably collapse when even small threats to their viability arose.

The conclusion is that democratic firms must be almost wholly worker-owned, meaning that virtually all of the firm's capital stock is owned by the workers. However, there are severe problems with worker ownership. Most important, the capital per worker in the average firm is greater than the total wealth of the average worker in that firm. If the worker were given a share in the firm outright, he would prefer to sell it to diversify his asset holdings. Indeed, all the workers would prefer to sell out to a capitalist enterprise so they would become less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the market. Indeed, there are several cases in which land redistribution to the peasants failed because the peasants sold the land right back to their previous landlords! Of course, this could be prevented by law, but the economic inefficiency of having a workforce of highly exposed individuals would be extreme. Moreover, if the workers own the firm, they will not want to expand employment in the firm, because the new workers would get a share of the value of the firm. Of course, new workers could be forced to buy a share in the firm, but few would willingly do so. Finally, the idea of worker ownership might be feasible for some highly stable and technologically developed sectors, but a vibrant economy is based on entrepreneurial innovation, and this is incompatible with workplace democracy.

If the contribution of workplace democracy to social welfare were sufficiently great, perhaps some of these severe problems could be overcome. But in fact, workplace democracy and popular ownership of capital are not fundamental values, but rather are instrumental values. Of course, in the minds of truly committed socialists they become ends in themselves, but I do not think such an idea can be sustained, even using Sen's notion of capacities. Socialists talk of "wage-slavery," but working for a boss is not slavery by a long shot. There are good and bad bosses, good and bad workplaces, but there are also good and bad teachers, and this does not imply that all authoritarianism should be abandoned in the educational process. Market socialists like to compare workplaces to communities, asking why we should have democratic communities but not democratic workplaces. This is a good question, but the fact is that our democratic communities work because we have a traditional market economy to draw upon. Moreover, while it is clear that a liberal democratic national constitution is a must, it is not clear that there would be something completely unacceptable about having corporations run communities, as they now run some schools and prisons.

I think the most creative insight in this book is the relationship between Hayek and Postmodernism. I love Hayek and I am deeply put off by Postmodernism, so I am certain that the melding of the two must be carefully executed to maintain continuity with Hayek's thought. But it is interesting food for thought, one of many Burczak offers us in Socialism After Hayek.

What Socialism would look like in a post-Hayekian world....
This fascinating book attempts to answer directly some of Hayek's penetrating criticisms of socialism in order to show that a socialist economic system still is viable, and perhaps even strengthened by Hayek's important insights.The author begins the book by describing Hayek as a postmodernist whose radical epistemology posits the limited and socially constituted nature of all human knowledge.This novel characterization serves two functions.On the one hand, it presents Hayek as a serious intellectual to leftist thinkers, since Hayek's work is traditionally associated with the Right (reactionary conservatism), while on the other hand, it reveals to Austrian economists how truly radical Hayek's views really were.All Austrians appreciate immensely Hayek's contributions to epistemology and economic theory, but none have gone so far as to call him a postmodernist.But Burczak's accurate and persuasive description of Hayek's thought clearly shows that his work can (and should) be identified as such.

The best part of the book are chapters 4 and 5 which attempt to criticize Hayek's views of the market and legal system expounded in chapters 2 and 3.With respect to Hayek's description the rule of the law in an economy, the author argues remarkably that Hayek was not wrong, but that he inconsistently applied his "postmodern epistemology" to this area of his work.The rule of law cannot function as a place for the discovery of universal principles which judges must articulate and apply impartially to judicial cases.Their interpretation and enforcement of laws must and always will be inescapably subjective.This criticism is fascinting because it simply extends Hayek's insights to an area in which Hayek wrote and shows that Hayek simply failed to recognize the implications of his own thinking.The legal system, the author concludes, must be "non-neutral".As the author correctly notes, "[i]t is impossible to separate market processes from the rules that shape their boundaries" (p. 45).Traditionally, Austrians have relied on Hayek's work in legal theory to argue how a just and fair legal system would give rise inexorably to an equitable economic order.Burczak's criticisms cast doubt on the tenability of Hayek's legal theory and, if taken seriously, would force Austrians to go back to the drawing board to try to improve this glaring deficiency in Austrian economics.

Again, what makes this book important as a postive critique of Hayek's work from a socialist position is that it takes Hayek's critique of central planning seriously, and recognizes the fragmented, limited, and socially constituted nature of human knowledge.However, although Burczak addresses this problem repeatedly throughout this book, he tries to directly confront it only once, and unsatisfactorily at that.Burczak sees Hayek's articulation of the knowledge problem as a "large epistemic burden" and feels compelled to try to respond to it.Again, although he repeatedly notes the seriousness of this insight for socialist economies, he tries to answer it directly only in one place.Here is his response to Hayek's very important "knowledge problem":

"one counter to Hayek's knowledge based
critique ... is intended to be 'vague'.
... As a vague guide to public policy
that admits the impossibility of human
perfectibility but nevertheless seeks
to improve welfare-promoting institutions
where feasible, it would appear possible
to encourage capability development without
necessarily destroying the market order" (p. 97).

Insisting that public policy be "vague" does not sufficiently counter Hayek's essential insight of the knowledge problem, namely how would those in control be able to "obtain the requisite knowledge"?A vague policy, while it would not require the explicit and complete articulation of policies, also would not be able to 'objectify' in an intelligible way the fundamentally subjective dimensions of human knowledge and expectations.The problem is how best to create an environment that encourages the discovery, coordination, and utilization of subjective and dispersed information.I am not so sure insisting on vague policies would accomplish this aim.In fact, vagueness, far from being unambiguous and certain, might even inhibit the process of coordination because it does not lead to predictability in "the range of acceptable behavior."As Hayek (and Burczak!) note, it is clarity and stability that "allow people to form reliable expectations about how others will be permitted to act, and these expectations are essential to guide individual action in a manner consistent with social coordination" (p. 46).Vague public policies would seem to be incredibly destructive of these ends, namely that of social cooperation and coordination.

The last two chapters (6 and 7) are positive analyses of socialism.While the author says some interesting things, such as the inalienability of individual will and responsibility, the author feels confident that his views are vindicated by his response to Hayek's "knowledge problem".However, as my observation above makes clear, I have my doubts about this.

This is a fascinating book that will appeal to erudite socialists and Austrian economists.I look forward to see what the young Ted Burczak does in the future.




... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
Friedrich A. Hayek is the fourth work in the Routledge Series of Critical Assessments of Contemporary Economists. The series presents a comprehensive selection of the critical literature commenting on the life and works of a major contemporary economist. Friedrich A. Hayek is one of the most important economists of the twentieth century. He played a key role as one of the premiere defenders of the free market, stressing the benefits of personal liberty and the market economy, and arguing against economic planning. As a result, his work is of major significance to philosophers and political thinkers as well as to economists. ... Read more