The spirit was nice, but something is odd about the argument at TCS that runs this way. CBS didn’t know that its Bush memos were suspicious but the blogs did and corrected the record even before CBS could investigage. The suggests that Hayek is correct that a spontaneous, decentralized system of knowledge dispersal works more efficiently than a centralized one.
There is a good case to be made against the mainstream media, of course, and the blogosphere is great. But why resort to Hayekian explanations in this case? What is to be gained by dragging in the knowledge argument here? Both CBS and the blogs are private (not government) and both have every incentive to convey information that is not fraudulent. CBS certainly possesses the means; it just should have done better research, and good for blogs to keeping the heat on. But what has Hayek got to do with it? (Several articles on why the core issues for the defense of the market over government planning are not communication and knowledge but property and choice: 1, 2, 3).
In any case, Alex Tabarrok draws our attention to the post at Crooked Timber showing that it wasn’t the blogs that were behind the CBS debunking but an Atlanta lawyer with big-time GOP connections (a revelation first reported in The Wash Post). CT further speculates that the White House itself is communicating with bloggers. So much for decentralized knowledge. Perhaps in politics, there are times when centralization is more efficient.
{ 5 comments }
I don’t see what all the fuss is about with Misesian-Rothbardian Austrians vs. Hayek. I keep seeing complaints that Hayek didn’t focus on property and that property is the most important (read: fundamental) factor. But to my knowledge, Hayek did not deny that. Did he not base his social evolution and knowledge arguments on property? It seems to me that Hayek’s arguments about social evolution and knowledge are complimentary and supplementary to the standard Austrian arguments about property. Again, why this seemingly zealous need to discredit him when he should instead be seen as making useful advances? If I’m not mistaken, David Gorden pointed out in the Mises Review regarding the new book Hayek’s Challenge that Mises did not see Hayek’s work as contradicting his own, and that Hayek’s own views to the contrary seemed to be based on a misunderstanding.
Geoffrey
I do not believe that Hayek accepted Mises’ paradigm of praxeology, and the specific epistemological foundation that Mises developed for economics. I also believe that this distinction is worth noting, given the tremendous importance that Mises placed on methodology and the epistemological character of economics. Yes, there are similarities in their thought, but it is also accurate to say that there are differnces, possibly significant differences, regarding certain issues.
Dennis,
It may be that Hayek rejected Mises’s praxeological method, but I don’t think he did so entirely. Assuming you are right, I still think that his work on social evolution and knowledge is not only complimentary but supplementary to the praxeological focus on property and choice. My criticism was not directed at Mr. Tucker, but some of the authors he cites who it seems to me do more than merely make a distinction between the two but find Hayek and Mises thoroughy incompatible. I think this is a mistake. Contra Hoppe and the others, I do not think that Hayek substituted knowledge for property as the fundamental factor. Rather, it seems to me that his arguments on social evolution and knowledge presuppose and are based upon the need for private property. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. It may well be that Hayek’s work needs to be put on a more firm and explicit praxeological foundation. Perhaps I will get around to doing that someday.
To more directly address Mr. Tuckers post, while I think he is right that both CBS and the blogosphere are private entities, I think that Hayek’s point about competition being discovery process is applicable to this case. Remember that we don’t have a truly free market. The mainstream media holds its dominant position in large part due to government interference. Without government laws, regulations, taxes, tax breaks, subsidies, and the public education system, I think there would be much more competition in the media. With more competition, higher standards would be kept and obscure information made more readily available to the public.
Geoffrey,
I can not claim much expertise concerning social evolution and related topics; what comparatively modest knowledge I do have is generally related to economics. Regarding the topic of social evolution, if you have not already, you may want to read Professor Salerno’s 1990 paper “Ludwig von Mises as Social Rationalist” for an excellent summary and discussion of Mises’s position on this and related topics. Mises also emphasized the fundamental importance of economic calculation, which is arguably not Hayek’s point of emphasis, although this conclusion is the subject of debate amongst Austrians. In addition, their views concerning an ideal monetary system also do not fully mesh: Mises supported a commodity (gold) standard and, at least later in his life, 100% reserve banking, while Hayek apparently favored some variant of free banking. Also, evidence exists supporting the claim of some Austrian economists that Hayek can be considered a verbal proximal equilibrium theorist, while Mises most certainly was not. Yes, in some respects the work of Mises and Hayek can be considered comlpimentary, but in others it appears that their contributions are more accurately considered as distinct.
Comments on this entry are closed.