Isaac Chan’s Reviews > The Essential Hayek > Status Update

BRUH, Don's conception of a 'public intellectual' (crucial for a free society in his view) is pretty much EXACTLY Hayek's description of an 'intellectual', and precisely why he hates them - someone who doesn't do original research and thus isn't a specialist. Hence, just a 'professional secondhand dealer in ideas'!

Not to say that it wasn't a weird essay, but I wonder if Don even read 'The intellectuals & socialism'

Finally, I'm just curious why Hayek never rlly internalized Coase's intuition when he himself grasped it well by making the dichotomy between small and large-group norms - the former is clearly Coase's theory of the firm.

Also, 1 of Hayek's final theories - the extended order - looks pretty interesting. It was in 'The fatal conceit'. Will be cool to look into.

Note n/n:

... presents itself as the caring, wise leader of our national 'family'.

I, for the most part, agree with this line of economic, Hayekian reasoning.

What's interesting to me is that Confucianism presents the sovereign as the leader of the national 'family', where the state IS the aggregated unit of the family. Just an interesting comparison. And it's clear that China is doing just fine. So what gives?

Note 2/n:

E.g. Appealing to our familial sentiments by showcasing the hardships of, say, steel workers. Then, the gov loves to impose steel tariffs to protect said workers. This is politically easy - the benefits to the ONE group is easy to see (that which is seen - Bastiat) while the collective loss is not easy to immediately see.

It's even easier to push this conflation of the 2 worlds when government ...

Note 1/n:

New thought:
So Hayek thought that the key to a successful society was to live in 2 worlds at once: i) Small-group norms e.g. family and friends (based on trust, love, egalitarianism etc), ii) Macro arrangements which should be organized by impersonal market forces.

Social ill is induced when we conflate these 2 worlds, e.g. applying small-group norms to strangers. The gov often persuades us to do so.

Hayek thought that distortions in the relative price of CAPITAL goods in relation to CONSUMER goods are THE chief source of the boom and bust.

What he means is that interest rates are the said relative price.

If interest rates are left to follow their natural level, businesses and investors can see the signal of the relative price. Low rates = high savings = we can fund long-term projects using those savings.

Note 3/n:

Not to mention the stifling of economic growth and innovation (needless to say).

THIS is the road to serfdom - at the very end of this road lies only serfdom and poverty (I still think that this argument is a false dichotomy tho - I myself don't even accept it). And the scariest part - the road to serfdom started with good intentions!

Note 2/n:

Furthermore, politicians receive praise and votes by the beneficiary group, without a corresponding loss of support by non-beneficiary groups. These 2 forces naturally lead to extending protection to more and more other groups.

A commitment to protecting so many groups requires a growing expansion of the powers of government, until little freedom is left to individuals.

Note 1/n:

NOW I get TRTS! We naturally care more about our capacity as producers rather than as consumers - i.e. we are affected more by changes to our incomes, than changes in the prices of the goods/ services that we consume. So, producers naturally tend to lobby more than consumers/ we lobby more for our capacities as producers.

A protection of 1 group naturally leads to increased insecurity in other groups.

Note 2/2:

... but I don't get why this argument, out of any other, was invoked in particular. But I can ofc see how this could be the reason for love for security > love of freedom. Human envy.

Reminds me of that Franklin quote of giving up liberty for security and thus deserving neither.

Also makes me realize how little I remember of TRTS now (at this point, I read it 6 years ago). Really time for a reread.