Too many minnows like Hayek are portrayed as "intellectual giants" diminishing the weight of the phrase.
It's an insult to people like Dirac, Feynman and a ton of others who were true giants.
Dirac formulated a beautiful equation, the basis of *the most successful theory known to man*. It predicted something about nature no one knew at the time. And this "bizarre" prediction was validated experimentally! The discovery of the positron!
The tools of the trade weren't available to Adam Smith - but even he did some empirical stuff in "Wealth of Nations"
During Hayek's tenure - the tools were well established and had been used a lot. And people like Hicks, Samuelson etc used them profusely.
Did Hayek question his own stuff rigorously enough on info asymmetries? Maybe he did, but I am not aware of it.
Just that there have been more honest attempts to explain econ reality than Hayek's. Lamenting his outsized influence.
Dirac, thought his theory had to be flawed his entire life as it couldn't explain reality fully.
Everytime I see a queue of huge Chinese cargo ships docked in Oakland in the San Francisco Bay, I'm truly awed. Economics works!
@harsh___gupta sir Friedman was in a different class altogether than Hayek
Re-sharing: the Feynman sandwich (by the genius Susskind): https://t.co/ZRFB5npg5a
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is the gold standard. I do not think it can be easily bettered. Google it. Should find free pdf.
On free trade you can read Bastiat. His famous petitions. So many good books (and YouTube videos) by/of Milton Friedman as well. Read, learn
I would also recommend any popular basic economic book by say Greg Mankiw. Will help you just articulate econ intuition if nothing else.
But what Hayek wrote in "pure" economics - books/ideas such as The Denationalisation of Currency are coming true today through various means.
Friedman was hardly your Arrow etc. Yes did a big empirical study on the Depression but no big theorems. Yet Negative tax, HC contracts etc.
Now you can say Friedman was a pamphleteer, ideologue etc. Well maybe he was that too. And that matters. Precisely as this is not Physics.
Today people like Hayek, Friedman may seem like pamphleteers. But in Soviet age am glad these geniuses focused away from theoretical beauty
Let’s please stick to the standard definition of socialism, Kanishka Sinha. And no… http://t.co/fRa1jAv3Qw
Scandinavian countries are super-capitalist with the terrible baggage of a HUGE welfare state http://t.co/24238nVlYq
“The market is not there to enable the good life; all of life is to be sacrificed to keeping the market going”: http://t.co/AH1YELZrMh
In sum, Brown’s account holds capital constant and locates a break in the regime of political rationality. The latter has a certain primacy, as in Foucault, but is also to some extent emerging for capital. Capital is understood somewhat metaphorically, as a category that includes both actual corporations and forms of subjectivity. This capital is understood to be somewhat modified, to be financial capital, even if the only example – Monsanto – does not fit that category.
Brown offers an excellent diagnosis of the what of neoliberalism, but not the why. Perhaps Foucault is of less help here than one might hope, and for quite specific historical reasons. He was among other things a late artifact of the cold war struggle around Marxism in the university. There was a time when his heroic dissent from PCF orthodoxies had relevance. Now that the latter has ceased to exist, it might be time to rethink the how the archive even of critical theory is no neutral resource but is itself a product of a historical struggles. Or perhaps I am just curious about different things.
“Minding the Modern is comparable to Alasdair MacIntyre’s Whose Justice? Which Rationality? and Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age. With extraordinary erudition, Pfau locates the philosophical developments that contributed to the agony of the modern mind. Moreover, he helps us see why many who exemplify that intellectual stance do not recognize their own despair. Suffice it to say, this is an immensely important book that hopefully will be read widely and across the disciplines." — Stanley Hauerwas, Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics, Duke Divinity School