|
||||||
|
Or is it Seth Lipsky on fiat money and the kilometer standard in Paris. Wittgenstein in his private language argument and in his discussion of our shared language and practices of measuring with an inch-ruler brings to the foreground the necessary regularities in our common linguistic social background and in our goings on in the . . . → Read More: IS IT WITTGENSTEIN?
Richard Ebeling and I have an extended discussion in the comments section of a post by Steve Horwitz, hashing out the commonalities shared by Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Mises — and the differences which distinguish the work of each economist.
Richard Ebeling provides a wonderful conversational account in dialogue with Richard Wenzel. The reveal comes at the end, but the whole thing is worth your time, for those interested in the topic. UPDATE: Read also this.
From a paper by Arash Vassei: Hayek attacks the Böhm-Bawerkian formulation of intertemporal choice in “Utility Theory and Interest”, published in 1936. Hayek attributes the ‘confusion’ characterizing the subsequent controversies about the proper relationship between Böhm-Bawerk’s three ingredients, especially the relation between subjective and objective data, to the original formulation of the problem. The ‘pseudo-problem’ . . . → Read More: Hayek vs Mises on the Theory of Interest
From Ludwig Mises’ memo titled “Observations on Professor Hayek’s Plan” (pdf) dated Dec. 31, 1946: The weak point in Professor Hayek’s plan is that it relies upon the cooperation of many men who are known for their endorsement of interventionism. It is necessary to clarify this point before the meeting starts. From the Editor’s Note: . . . → Read More: MEMO: Ludwig Mises on Hayek’s “Mont Pelerin Society” Proposal
|
 |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2013 Taking Hayek Seriously - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
Comments are closed 