Sign In
Create Account
How did Mises and Hayek differ in their views of society?
How did Mises and Hayek differ in their views of society?
Rune
Posted 26 April 2006 - 06:42 AM
Mises was a utilitarian/rationalist while Hayek focused on man's limited rationality and the market economies trial and error process which makes it possible to advance the economy with limited knowledge that is dispersed among people that often do not act rationally.
However, it should be mentioned that Mises did not believe that everybody acted rationally. If I should make a less-than-qualified guess Mises defends capitalism because of its positive outcomes while Hayek defends capitalism because the market process is more favourable than economic and social processes under a different type of economy.
However, it should be mentioned that Mises did not believe that everybody acted rationally. If I should make a less-than-qualified guess Mises defends capitalism because of its positive outcomes while Hayek defends capitalism because the market process is more favourable than economic and social processes under a different type of economy.
Murphy
Posted 12 May 2006 - 09:27 PM
Rune, on Apr 26 2006, 05:42 AM, said:
Mises was a utilitarian/rationalist while Hayek focused on man's limited rationality and the market economies trial and error process which makes it possible to advance the economy with limited knowledge that is dispersed among people that often do not act rationally.
Mises thought that the fundamental basis of society was that the division of labor, property rights, etc. led to greater prosperity, and that men were capable of grasping this fact. Hayek wrote many passages where he seems to deny this, and instead claims that some early humans just happened to respect property rights (perhaps because of random taboos or whatever), and then these groups prospered while the cannibals died out.
Quote
However, it should be mentioned that Mises did not believe that everybody acted rationally.
Well you need to be careful with the term "rational." In most contexts Mises would say that yes, all people act rationally, because to act means to choose means to strive after an end. It would thus be rational to perform a rain dance--the movement of your legs is for a reason, and hence "rational."
On the other hand, obviously Mises doesn't think people are always correct in their forecasts or mental operations, and so they don't behave like perfect robots--and this is what some people mean by "rational."
Joanne
Posted 21 November 2006 - 12:38 PM
Murphy, on Sep 4 2005, 02:57 PM, said:
How did Mises and Hayek differ in their views of society?
vHayek also felt that socialism as an economic system was possible, but just that it would not result in the best allocation of resources. vMises, on the other hand, argued it was impossible in practice.
Murphy
Posted 17 December 2006 - 03:44 PM
Joanne, on Nov 21 2006, 11:38 AM, said:
Hayek's view of the individual differed from vMises in that he believed there were limits to reason. Capitalism then, was about using limited knowledge and learning, by trial and error. vMises was a rationalist and utilitarian and felt that man had the ability necessary to shape his surroundings.
vHayek also felt that socialism as an economic system was possible, but just that it would not result in the best allocation of resources. vMises, on the other hand, argued it was impossible in practice.
vHayek also felt that socialism as an economic system was possible, but just that it would not result in the best allocation of resources. vMises, on the other hand, argued it was impossible in practice.
I totally agree with your first paragraph. You have to be careful about their views of socialism. Mises certainly believed that a government could nationalize the means of production; in a speech he one time said something like, "There really IS socialism in the Soviet Union." What Mises thought demonstrably impossible was that there could be economic usage of resources in a a socialist system.
It's true that Hayek conceded more to the logical coherence of central planning than Mises did. I'm just being nitpicky by saying that both men believed a socialist system could exist at least for a while.
Posted 07 July 2008 - 10:51 PM
Murphy, on May 12 2006, 09:27 PM, said:
Mises thought that the fundamental basis of society was that the division of labor, property rights, etc. led to greater prosperity, and that men were capable of grasping this fact. Hayek wrote many passages where he seems to deny this, and instead claims that some early humans just happened to respect property rights (perhaps because of random taboos or whatever), and then these groups prospered while the cannibals died out.
Well you need to be careful with the term "rational." In most contexts Mises would say that yes, all people act rationally, because to act means to choose means to strive after an end. It would thus be rational to perform a rain dance--the movement of your legs is for a reason, and hence "rational."
On the other hand, obviously Mises doesn't think people are always correct in their forecasts or mental operations, and so they don't behave like perfect robots--and this is what some people mean by "rational."
Well you need to be careful with the term "rational." In most contexts Mises would say that yes, all people act rationally, because to act means to choose means to strive after an end. It would thus be rational to perform a rain dance--the movement of your legs is for a reason, and hence "rational."
On the other hand, obviously Mises doesn't think people are always correct in their forecasts or mental operations, and so they don't behave like perfect robots--and this is what some people mean by "rational."
Even if people seem to be irrational, don't they act rationally. Otherwise isn't action then random?
Murphy
Posted 18 July 2008 - 08:41 PM
Mart Grams, on Jul 7 2008, 10:51 PM, said:
Even if people seem to be irrational, don't they act rationally. Otherwise isn't action then random?
If I understand you, then yes I agree. If we can't attribute a purpose to somebody's bodily movements, then we can't classify it as an action. (It still could be an action, but we wouldn't classify it as such as outside observers.) The point though is that "rational" doesn't mean "smart" in praxeology.