Shorter Kevin Vallier

Is this the shorter CR, Henry or Corey–is this fair?

We give value to things not because labor was expended on them but in terms of the preferences expressed by elite tastemakers? Profit does not result from unpaid labor time but from entrepreneurial ingenuity? The masses whether as workers or consumers are not the ones bestowing value or creating surplus. Hayek sees value and surplus value formation as resulting from elite activity. This is the hidden message of Hayekianism, a self-serving ideology; it is a critique of the philosophy that as man’s essence is self-creation through labor, all conditions that dehumanize the laborer, the true creative source of value, are a scandal. But given their actual role in value formation, workers are not being mistreated.

Hayekianism should not be understood as a social theory but an ideological weapon for one side in what is a class war.

By the way, some worry that human enhancement technologies will be made available to the rich first and widen their advantages, creating a new super race; others argue in a more Hayekian fashion that while the rich do have the resources to experiment with human enhancement before anyone else and likely derive immediate relative advantage, that experimentation will result in the improvement and cheapening of human enhancement technologies to the point that they will serve to equalize opportunity for broad swathes of the population.

Except that he has a more convincing interpretation of some of the quotes. I also don’t think it adds much to note that Hayek valued liberty not for what the mass would do with it but for the uses to which it would be put by creative minorities. Acemoglu and Robinson love to tell stories of Kings and Emperors throughout history squashing new technologies and even imprisoning technological entrepreneurs due to fears of the disruption and social unrest that they would create. So Hayek was for the freedom for creative minorities? In fact Hayek is going to come out ahead if this is seen as his major problem.

I don’t understand what is aristocratic in anything but a metaphorical sense of the entrepreneur who breaks through static equilibrium. I have known many successful entrepreneurs; they are not aristocrats, by common measures. At any rate, do note that Schumpeter worried that the entrepreneurial function was being endogeneized by large firms, depriving capitalism of the kind of heroic leaders who would command the respect of the masses.

TiE has gone global.

Why do you ask?

Well that complaining does not seem very aristocratic to me, more petit-bourgeois.

I’m just amazed that Vallier is courageous enough to cite Hayek’s wealth-concentration-by-lottery thought experiment as evidence against Hayek’s elitism.

I guess if someone were accusing Hayek of believing in genetic elitism, i.e. racism, that defense might work better.

Vallier:

Hayek’s primary aim in this chapter is to show that the liberal principles developed in the previous chapters are still applicable in a modern industrial society that consists mostly of workers in large industry and service firms. Hayek is worried that the employed, as a majority of the electorate, will use democratic legislation to make the economy look more like them, eliminating other forms of economic life. The problem is that many uses of economic liberty are of little interest to people who work all the time. They have little time to read or write or engage in big creative projects. As a result, their voting preferences sometimes threaten freedom because they’re not going to preserve economic liberties they don’t directly use. In particular, they’re going to legislate in ways that restrict the liberty of people with greater risk appetites, like artists and entrepreneurs. Most of the time the employed want to avoid risk, so they vote for social programs that insulate everyone from risk.

Yeah, where the heck would somebody get the idea that Hayek is elitist or anti-democratic?

If the argument is that the most radical experiments will come from the richest people, that seems to assume that

A) the richest people will not use their power to insulate themselves from risk

B) that, as you move up the wealth ladder, people become more diverse. Workers are an undifferentiated herd of Sheeple, only inherited wealth lets you become unique. Never mind marginalized cultures and races forced into poverty because of their differences–of course radical innovation could never come from them, it can only come from children who are skilled at kissing up to their wealthy parents.

As I understand it, one way to shorten it is this:

If a rich kid, one of the Kennedies or Bushes, snorts a lot of cocaine, he/she is conducting a lifestyle experiment which will ultimately benefit the rest of us, either by making cocaine more desirable and cheaper, or by becoming a horrible warning.

If a poor kid snorts (or, OMG, smokes!) a bunch of cocaine, he/she is a criminal, and should be locked up before she/he steals property from someone.

Have I got it? It seems to nicely explain US drug laws as they’re actually enforced.

Not elitist, though, uh-uh.

@Rakesh As a general point, comments saying “Why this post and not another one” are usually unhelpful. No one is forcing you to read this, and we’re obviously under no obligation to write about anything.

In this specific case, given that Vallier has attacked a CT post, it seems reasonable to respond, even if the attack is incompetent. A quick look at the BHL comments thread suggests that the weakness of his post is not apparent to all.

Responding to your suggestions, I don’t think anyone other than a historian of thought or a member of the Hayek fan club would be interested in most of the topics you mention. Hayek’s political philosophy is obviously important, and his business cycle theory is at least worth refuting, but his triangles are best forgotten.

What is very important are Hayekian ideas about deflation. Those policy recommendation follow from the triangles. If people are not interested in why some conservatives welcome deflation, then the bloggers should lay out whatever case they have and engage it. Perhaps you could clone yourself. But that would be serious engagement.

Rakesh,
I wouldn’t have thought it was very hard to argue against Heyekian ideas about deflation without referring to triangles. The argument would be based on perceived risk in investments. Austrian arguments always seem remarkably unconcerned with risk and uncertainty.

The link labeled “sufficient intellectual charity”, supposedly to Kevin Vallier lecturing you last year (or perhaps to you remarking on that) is actually to this article (and thus goes nowhere). Could you fix it if you get a chance as I am interested in following it.

no one person or group of people can hope to organize an economy, it must arise spontaneously from the distributed actions and knowledge of individuals at every level

That can be said in a tweet. Why should people be told they have to study Hayek (I’m not talking about in universities, I mean by the likes of Fox News and self-declared Internet pundits) if they can pick up everything they need to know in 140 lines?

“no one person or group of people can hope to organize an economy, it must arise spontaneously from the distributed actions and knowledge of individuals at every level”

Unless those individuals get it wrong and a military dictatorship is necessary for a while.

That’s, presumably, how it gets longer than 140 words.