I can't seem to get people to read Hayek on Hayek, which gives his views just after the war ended. Somewhere, I have read letters between Hayek and Henry Simons. The two men became very close during the 1930s, and remained close until Simons died, a fact which Hayek was devastated by. In one letter I can't find, Simons talked to someone …
I can't seem to get people to read Hayek on Hayek, which gives his views just after the war ended. Somewhere, I have read letters between Hayek and Henry Simons. The two men became very close during the 1930s, and remained close until Simons died, a fact which Hayek was devastated by. In one letter I can't find, Simons talked to someone about Hayek and said Hayek had completely changed his mind on deflation in the mid 1930s. Hayek praised Simons books which many considered recomended too much government. I'm not a scholar and cant get at the letters of Henry Simons. Its also a fact that the only policies Michael Oakeshott actually endorsed were those of Henry Simons. People like Coase think Henry Simons was insane. Oddly, Richard Rorty is one of the few people who get Oakeshott and Hayek right philosophically
"Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue
"MR. MERRIAM: Is the Federal Reserve Bank on the road to serfdom? MR. HAYEK: They make mistakes. MR. MERRIAM: In principle, I mean? MR. HAYEK: No. That the monetary system must be under central control has never, to my mind, been denied by any sensible person. It is part of that framework within which competition can work. MR. MERRIAM: You did not hear the debate on the adoption of the Federal Reserve Bank Board bill. MR. HAYEK: I have studied the history of the Federal Reserve System in very great detail. MR. MERRIAM: You did not hear it denounced, then, as socialistic in character? MR. HAYEK: Do not make me responsible for all the nonsense which has ever been talked about by anybody."
It's a nutter book, but is technically pretty sound. He made one valuable point, too. In their laudable zeal to dethrone gold, Keynes & Co. misread Knapp to insist that money was inherently statal. (Knapp himself pointed to the Hamburg mark banco as a counterexample of working private money.) Hayek showed that things like Libra/Diem *could* exist, unmoored from the state's monopoly of legitimate violence. (Note that Federal Reserve Banks--the operating arm of the Federal Reserve--only have a limited subset of the commercial bank powers of 1913.) Hayek went nutters in assuming that private competitive moneys were good things. But he was right--and Keynes was wrong--in assuming that such crazy things were possible.
It is true that Hayek and Milton Friedman changed views over time, which is why I focus on the positions I agree with. To be fair they are not the only people to change their views over time. Heilbroner comes to mind, for example.
You might also note that Bagehot was bonkers. He was always for free banking. You can look it up . Anyway, focusing on particular policies is more useful.
I can't seem to get people to read Hayek on Hayek, which gives his views just after the war ended. Somewhere, I have read letters between Hayek and Henry Simons. The two men became very close during the 1930s, and remained close until Simons died, a fact which Hayek was devastated by. In one letter I can't find, Simons talked to someone about Hayek and said Hayek had completely changed his mind on deflation in the mid 1930s. Hayek praised Simons books which many considered recomended too much government. I'm not a scholar and cant get at the letters of Henry Simons. Its also a fact that the only policies Michael Oakeshott actually endorsed were those of Henry Simons. People like Coase think Henry Simons was insane. Oddly, Richard Rorty is one of the few people who get Oakeshott and Hayek right philosophically
"Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue
"MR. MERRIAM: Is the Federal Reserve Bank on the road to serfdom? MR. HAYEK: They make mistakes. MR. MERRIAM: In principle, I mean? MR. HAYEK: No. That the monetary system must be under central control has never, to my mind, been denied by any sensible person. It is part of that framework within which competition can work. MR. MERRIAM: You did not hear the debate on the adoption of the Federal Reserve Bank Board bill. MR. HAYEK: I have studied the history of the Federal Reserve System in very great detail. MR. MERRIAM: You did not hear it denounced, then, as socialistic in character? MR. HAYEK: Do not make me responsible for all the nonsense which has ever been talked about by anybody."
Then I’m afraid Hayek was not a sensible person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denationalization_of_Money
It's a nutter book, but is technically pretty sound. He made one valuable point, too. In their laudable zeal to dethrone gold, Keynes & Co. misread Knapp to insist that money was inherently statal. (Knapp himself pointed to the Hamburg mark banco as a counterexample of working private money.) Hayek showed that things like Libra/Diem *could* exist, unmoored from the state's monopoly of legitimate violence. (Note that Federal Reserve Banks--the operating arm of the Federal Reserve--only have a limited subset of the commercial bank powers of 1913.) Hayek went nutters in assuming that private competitive moneys were good things. But he was right--and Keynes was wrong--in assuming that such crazy things were possible.
It is true that Hayek and Milton Friedman changed views over time, which is why I focus on the positions I agree with. To be fair they are not the only people to change their views over time. Heilbroner comes to mind, for example.
You might also note that Bagehot was bonkers. He was always for free banking. You can look it up . Anyway, focusing on particular policies is more useful.