Customer Reviews (3)

Hayek at his best
Hayek is best known for his book The Road to Serfdom and his 1945 article The Use of Knowledge in Society. These are fine works, but this collection of essays is exceptional. Rules, Perception, and Intelligibility (chapter 3) is a brilliant discussion of the limits of human knowledge and comprehension. This is in the philosophy section of this book, but it is important to understanding Hayekian economics. The Theory of Complex Phenomena (chapter 2) draws upon Popper and makes many interesting points, such as how learning leads to greater awareness of our ignorance. The result of Human Action, but not of Human Design (chapter 6) makes the importance of the evolutionary-spontaneous order conception of society clear. The Intellectuals and Socialism (chapter 12) and The Transmission of the Ideals of Freedom address important but largely neglected issues on how ideas shape events. The Principles of a Liberal Order (chapter 11) ties the ideas of limited government and complex spontaneous orders together. The Non Sequitur of the Dependence Effect (chapter 23) is a brilliant demolition of Galbraith's Affluent Society. Hayek proves that while Galbraith was right about how preferences evolve, he simply arrived at the wrong conclusions. The Corporation in a Democratic Society (chapter 22) confirms Milton Friedman's contention that corporations must pursue profits rather than `vague and un-definable social responsibility'.

Why is this book out of print? I got a used copy, but it is hard to find. The rarity of this book is problematic. I know some people who know Hayek pretty well who have never heard of some of the essays in this book. `Studies' is better than Hayek's subsequent `New Studies' compilation and comparable to Individualism and Economic Order. The essays in this book demonstrate the greatness of Hayek's' scholarship.

Still a leading selection of fundamental articles
Today there's flood of articles that try to explain how transactions work under asymmetric information. They are related to the question for the design, for example, of rules that guarantee a so-called "first best solution". I think there are many unanswered question here: How can you measure first best situations? Is it recommendable to do such investigations, when there's a situation with asymmetric information, where you don't know what an unexpected change of information may implicate? And finally, how can we assume that the economist has the overall view on how things are working?

All these questions have normative and methodological aspects. "Studies..." gives you a very interesting view on the limitations of our understanding regarding the mechanisms of the economy. However, Hayeks liberal approach makes it understandable why laws, orders and rules have their limitations: First best solutions cannot be achieved because rules themselves are incomplete.

My favorite articles are "Degrees of Explanation" (methodologically oriented paper) and "The Cooperation in a Democratic Society: In Whose Interest Ought It To and Will It Be Run?" (normative approach). Here you'll find a deeper understanding of economics.

Hayek's Liberalism
This book is very important if one is planning to study Hayek. This book contains all the seed of his subsequent studies. All Hayek books, written after 1967, refers to this book. Certain item in his subsequent studies areeven hard to understand without a reference to "Studies .........". Therefore a reprint of this book is important. ... Read more

Product Description
First published in 1969 ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Economics re-visted
This collecion of essays provides critical insight into the pitfall of economic reality by helping the reader remember how little value economic analysis is without sufficient fact supporting theory - it provides the reader a framework to build solid arguments without manufature of theoretical proofs. The collection is well suited for use as a graduate level economic studies course reader. ... Read more

Product Description

This is the first book to compare Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek systematically, and critically assess their contribution to the political philosophy of the Open Society. Hayes compares and contrasts their views on three key areas relevant to their political philosophy; first their views on scientific method, their views on philosophy of social science and then their moral philosophy including their meta-ethical views. The author focuses on their contributions to social science methodology, their ethical views about negative utilitarianism and negative rights, and their contrasting views on Utopianism. He finishes by arguing that their versions of liberal political philosophy are both immune to Alastair MacIntyre's critique of liberal individualism and also meet his challenge to the Enlightenment project.

Hayes' position is generally controversial in that he defends Popper and Hayek in areas where they are almost universally criticized, namely Hayek's notion of the meaninglessness of social justice and Popper's claim that there is no need for induction in either scientific reasoning or common sense reasoning. One main finding in this book concerns the two major problems that bedevil modern philosophy: induction and the is-ought problem. The author proposes an original solution to the is-ought problem as well to the infinite regress problem.

Customer Reviews (3)

They Never Give Up, And Here Is Why
Intellectuals pointing us towards socialism, and doing everything they can to pave the way, are hardly a new occurrence.Indeed, they never seem to go away and do not allow the utter failure of their ideas to dissuade them in the least.In this brief account, Hayek proposes a few thoughts as to why intellectuals seem so smitten with socialism.

As Hayek notes, socialism has never been a working class movement.In every country that has moved towards socialism, its ideas have been adopted by the intellectuals decades before it came into political reality.The Left tries to gain the support of this elite, while the Right, taking a "more naïve" view, tries to reach individual voters.

Intellectuals are those who, through habit or profession, come into new ideas sooner than the people whom they address.By this view, intellectuals are not original thinkers, which is not much of a surprise to anyone who has debated them.Rather, they are traders in ideas.Often experts in one field, their prestige in that field makes them respected when espousing ideas outside their expertise.This is what distinguishes intellectuals from experts.

Hayek makes several interesting points.Those of a socialist bent, disaffected with society in its current state, may not be attracted to options outside the intellectual sphere.Becoming, say, an academic may provide the best route for him to influence society to move in the direction that comports with his views, allowing for wholesale rather than piecemeal change to society.

Further, the intellectual is not interested in technical details, but in broad visions.As traditional (classical) liberalism has not provided large, overarching visions for some decades, intellectuals interested in such grand-scheme ideas have only socialism to which to turn.Therefore, the situation is not one of a battle of conflicting ideas, but one in which the existing order is contrasted with a more utopian ideal to be realized.In a society in which the main structures of freedom have been won, continuation involves details.The glamour of innovative thinking is, therefore, left to those who would alter the foundation itself.

Hayek's description of a "climate of opinion," involving very general preconceptions which provide the context through which new ideas and views are filtered, as well as the role of science in furthering such trends, are both illuminating.THE INTELLECTUALS AND SOCIALISM provides a kind of blueprint for understanding the relationship between the two.Although the particulars might have changed since its first publication, it is still quite relevant today.Perhaps, given the absence of large, strictly socialist societies after the collapse of Soviet communism to provide us with concrete examples of socialism's consequences, even more so.

Wonderful comentary on role of(psudo?)intellectuals
This is an absolutely wonderful defiition of self-described intellectuals and their role in shaping public opinion. When I first started reading this pamphlet I wanted to learn why intellectuals are attracted more towards socialism. He only made that connection in the last few pages and wasn't too convincing in my opinion. However by the time I got to that point I really didn't care any more.

I found all his descriptions and definitions right on the mark. I have had personal contcts with a few people who are considered influentail in my own (relatively) small "community."They get published in "scholarly" journals and have everybody's full attention at social functions with their commentaries. Now I think I can better see through some of the arguments and have a better insight into their motives.

It is a very short essay and I highly recommend it as a wonderful read.

Dedicated to the Socialists in ALL parties!
It seems an opportune moment, with the United States poised to declare victory in the Second Gulf War, to review this little classic.

Hayek famously declared that his 'Road to Serfdom' was dedicated to socialists of all parties as he warned against the dangers of totalitarian rule for liberal(I use the word advisedly) democracies.

This pamphlet is a reprint of an 1949 essay of Hayek wherein he pursued the dictum of Keynes' contained with the 'General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' about the influence of ideas.

In the essay Hayek questions the view that intellectuals are original thinkers. For him, original thinkers are few and far between but their ideas and views are percolated through society by the intellectuals. Those 'second-hand dealers in ideas' as Hayek referred to them are not necessarily the greatest scholars or the most brilliant minds but are adept at taking ideas and regurgitating them as teachers or journalists or through some other profession such that they pass through to the general public. Hayek contends that intelligent people consider intelligence to be more important than it is and in the world of men and thus tends to be more socialist orientated as those people view the market with disdain. He recognises that the market is a fundamental part of establishing value through individuals participating in a trial and error system of exchange which the intelligensia overlook but which directly affects them anyway. For Hayek, the battle of ideas was to be won, not by the original thinkers, but by the spread of classical liberal ideas by the class of intellectuals who could be convinced of the power of new, or perhaps not so new, ideas.

As Edwin Feulner, one of the editors, remarks, this article was a clarion call to those who espoused a classical liberal standpoint. Following on from this was the establishment of the free market think-tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs and other such institutions around the world. The story goes on to celebrate to some degree at least the success in bringing classical liberal ideas to the fore in many countries around the world and the success of some of those ideas.

So far, sort of, so good. A word of warning should be sounded. Whereas I agree with the aims of the paper I am circumspect about the current situation. To me there is more to classical liberal ideas than just a free economy. It does appear from my point of view that the battle of ideas is being won by neo-conservatives and authoritarians of all parties rather than by liberals. Others may disagree but the lesson I have taken from reading this marvellous little book again is that all who rally to the flag of Classical Liberalism need be extra vigilant in these uncertain times against the further development of neo-conservative and authoritarian ideas because they threaten not only the gains that have been made in the last fifty years but also many of the liberties we all cherish in our western democracies.

Liberals of the world, Unite! ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Are You a Good Swimmer?
Hayek uses flawless logic to prove that Keynesian economics, which is touted today as our own modern monetary policy, is inflationary economics.The end result of this application can only be a situation which is worse than the one it was intended to remedy.Hayek proves that individualsacting independently are unable to provide the consistent statisticalinformation necessary on which to base an ordered economy.Hayek thenexplains how Keynes' pursuit of a perfect monetary policy will never berealizedbecause artificial intervention can only produce inflationism. Hayek's focus throughout the book on the temporary fix versus long-termconsequences now has me watching our present government and its monetarydecisions in a new light.In 1979, Hayek showed what is happening todaywith perfect clarity.Every act of intervention brings about a need formore.Hence, his title "A Tiger by the Tail".Once we havegrabbed a hold we cannot let go and are inevitabily dependent upon thegovernment to bail us out and keep us afloat.If you read this book, youdon't have to believe...just be a good swimmer. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Great book in a historical perspective, but better...
I was able to obtain my copy from the London School of Economics.

Thomas Greco's writings are more available and just as good (at
least on this single topic - the creation of money).

Hayek's Denationalization of Money is a pivotal piece and a
must read for the student of what money is, who gets to create
it, and how to obtain more freedom for everyone. ... Read more