Right. I am a 1940's-ish Hayekian. --jks
0
>
>Justin,
> The only problem with this is that it is not so clear
>that the older Austrians, that is von Mises and the
>early Hayek, were so clearly anti-equilibrium analysis
>in the early rounds of the socialist calculation debate.
>The debate was initially on similar terms, although one
>can find the origins of the anti-equilibrium position
>floating around in all their works going back to Carl
>Menger.
> It was really only with Hayek's shift to
>emphasizing the information issue in the 1940s that
>he particularly began to criticize the equilibrium
>concept as such. Today, the Austrians pretty much
>all criticize it, even as it creeps back into much of
>their work much of the time, willy-nilly.
>Barkley Rosser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Justin Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thursday, February 08, 2001 12:55 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:7901] Critique of mathematical economi cs
>
>
> >We disgree, fundamentally, about whther the calculation debate was ever
> >about whether geberal equilibrium analysis could be applied to planning;
> >that was Lange's initial view, as I said, but he misunderstood what Hayek
> >was onto. I don't think the Austrians ever thought that equilibrium
>analysis
> >was possible or even a useful model. I certainly don't. I think Steele is
> >better on this than Kirzner. I think that planners can use tacit
>knowledge;
> >that plans work as well as they do, when they work, shows that they do.
> >Whether plans offer as good sources gfor information, tacit and
>otherwise,
> >for rational economic decisions, is another question. --jks
> >
> >>
> >>The "socialist calculation" debate was about whether neoclassical
>general
> >>equilibrium analysis could be the basis of socialist central planning.
>Read
> >>the contributions. Of course, for Hayek and Mises (and others) there
>were
> >>other issues at stake, but those followed from what the answer to that
> >>question was. Israel Kirzner is very clear on this, by the way, and for
>me,
> >>that is an infinitely more reliable and respectable Austrian source than
> >>Steele, no offense intended. Again, the knowledge issues were brought up
>in
> >>the context of neoclassical general equilbrium analysis, its assumptions
> >>(about knowledge and foresight), framework, limitations. Lerner was
> >>enamored with Walras (who as someone else mentioned also considered
>himself
> >>a "semi-socialist", as did many early neoclassicals, the Fabian
>Wicksteed
> >>for example). Of course the Austrians were critical of NCE, that part I
> >>said I agree with much of the criticism of perfect competition,
>equlibrium,
> >>perfect knowledge and foresight, etc. But do you or do you not think
>that
> >>planners can employ tacit knowledge and discovery or is there some
>logical
> >>reason that they are exempt from these faculties while scientists and
> >>entrpreneurs are not?
> >>
> >>-----Original Message----- From: Justin Schwartz
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 5:06 PM
>To:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:7879] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
> >>Critique of mathematical economi cs
> >>
> >>
> >>No, the calculation debate was NOT about whether neoclassical economic
> >>would apply to a socialist economy. AT least that's not what the
>Austrians
> >>thought. Hayek and Misesw ere onto the knowledge problem to start with.
> >>They were also critics of NCE. The initial socialist response by Lange
>et
> >>al. were neoclassical, but even Lange later realized that missed the
>point.
> >>David Ramsey Steele, From Marx to Mises, offers an good historical
>overview
> >>from an Austrian perspective.
> >>
> >>--jks
> >>
> >>
> >> > >Justin writes: > > >"I like the book, but I _do_ buy the old
>Austrian
> >>take on the calculation >problem, no "almost" about it. -jks" > >me: >
> >the
> >>socialist "calculation" debate was not about socialism versus
> >capitalism,
> >> >it was about whether or not neoclassical economics could apply to a
> >> >"socialist" >economy. of course it does not, neoclassical economics
> >>doesn't even apply >to a >market economy. so if that is what you mean by
> >>the Austrians winning, then >fine. >But the socialist calculation debate
> >>has been re-interpreted in more recent >Austrian literature as about the
> >>"knowledge problem." See for example Don >Lavoie's work. There are
> >>knowledge problems in all spheres of social life. >Understanding
>requires
> >>interpretation. Goal-oriented activity has to deal >with >these issues.
>The
> >>Austrians like to think of market activity as analogous >to >scientific
> >>investigation, entrepreneurs are like scientists who are trying >to
> >> >"discover." Planners are somehow exempt from these creative powers.
> >> >Scientists >and entrpreneurs can take advantage of tacit knowledge,
>but
> >>planners >cannot. >Why? Why can't policymakers and planners also employ
> >>tacit knowledge, >creative >discovery? What is it that exempts policy
> >>makers and planners from >overcoming >knowledge problems just as
>scientists
> >>and entrepreneurs do? there is a >dichotomous view of "market" and
>"state"
> >>here. will planners make mistakes >sometimes? of course, just as
> >>entrepreneurs and scientists make mistakes. >the >Austrians were right
>in
> >>critiquing "rational" planning, but there are other >types of planning:
> >>mixed-scanning, general systems, learning-adaptive, >approaches provide
> >>insights, as does some "postmodern" planning. > >Lachmann called the
> >>"concept of 'plan'...a fundamental hermenutic notion" >and >stated that
>it
> >>"will have to be introduced into the theory of consumption" >asking "If
> >>firms can make plans, why not households?" And why, we must ask, >not
> >> >other social groups, like neigborhoods, communities, cities, states,
> >> >nations, >and regions? as my professor of economic planning, Tom
> >>Vietorisz, wrote, >planning, as an "exercise in social intent...shares
>the
> >>characteristics of >all >deliberate action...all deliberate human action
> >>aims in part at social >effects." > >i hope to someday see a statue of
> >>Michael Polanyi right outside the >Ministry of >Planning. > >Mat >
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________ Get
>your
> >>FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >>
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
