Can the average reader understand The Road To Serfdom or is there some prerequisite reading? I want to read Hayek but I don't want to bother if it's written for people who already have a very deep understanding of economics
>universally acknowledged within the field for his contributions, especially for his insights into the market as an information dispersement mechanism
>Unequivocally destroyed the premise of the practical viability of planned economies
I think he knew a thing or two, mate.
>asking about Hayek
>on a board that endlessly prattles on about the evils of capitalism and neoliberalism
You have balls, OP, I respect that.
>tfw too free-market for /lit/, too socially liberal for /pol/
Wow, how does it feel to be literally the most ideologically bankrupt person on 4chan?
Tell me, in as much detail as you can muster, how Hayek was wrong.
Keep in mind he was not a praxeologist and dissented from many of the Austrian positions, so no crying >muh logically untenable xyz
>not socially liberal
Conservatives are capitalistic by historical happenstance. Chinese conservatives are anti-capitalist, generally being retarded third worldists dismissing civil liberties or social justice 'bourgeois'
>anyone who thinks that you should try to apply concepts of justice or fairness to the outcome of market forces is literally a socialist commie-nazi
>the government's well- and non-so-well- intended interferences in the price mechanism almost always lead to inefficiencies. This is theoretically and empirically demonstrable.
As to Hayek's normative defence of the market as a necessary component of a free society, it is pretty sophisticated and difficult to reproduce in green text.
From what I remember, it isn't too hard. At most you need high school economics under your belt.
Breddy gud, no extensive regulatory state or anti-degeneracy squad for me.
Also social liberalism implies free market policies, at least to a fairly high extent, because the boundary between personal and economic freedom is incredibly murky. Conversely, the principles that support many free market views imply social liberalism, if not pride parades than at least condemning the aforementioned degeneracy hunts.
For the above reasons or others, I've noticed that when you go past fairly mainstream conservatism, with is moderately free-market and moderately socially conservative, those more socially conservative reject markets (see Evola, NatSocs), and those more free-market reject a lot of social conservatism (libertarians and an-caps). Off the top of my head, the stauncher anti-feminists aren't big fans of capitalism, or even economically-oriented policy for that matter, even though the redneck strawman of an anti-feminist is a Reagan Republican.
No, you do not need any specialized knowledge to understand Road to Serfdom. It was written for a popular audience, so there are no overly technical terms nor anything else that presupposes more than a layman's understandingof the subject. This should have been made obvious to you with a single google search.
You can dress it up as much as you want, but Hayek was a red-baiter first and an economist second. There's a whole world of difference between "the existence of the market as a necessary component of a free society" and "we must never touch the market ever". Market fundamentalism is the worst and most cancerous kind of dogmatic extremism.
>inb4 "b-but the free market has never been tried!"
I don't hold as extreme a position as Hayek, but you could do far worse than 'market fundamentalism'. 'Marxist fundamentalism,' for instance, which has also been tried, was an unmitigated disaster both materially and intellectually. Compare the progress of science in the West in the 20th century to that under the dialectical materialist orthodoxy of the Soviet Union.
>Compare the progress of science in the West in the 20th century to that under the dialectical materialist orthodoxy of the Soviet Union.
This idea is so silly. A barely post-feudal society goes to space in under 60 years, first ever in the world - communism? Most of the technology used in phones today was commissioned by the U.S. government - b-but... please no state?
The space program in the USSR was the only thing comparable to the West, and that was due to its linkage with military development. In every other feasible arena they floundered.
As for government-driven cell technology--post hoc ergo proper hoc. Yes, the government can allocate resources in such a way that positive externalities are produced, but that does not mean those allocations were efficient, nor does it mean those externalities were necessary consequences of those allocations, nor that they cold not have been produced through private R&D.
Hayek wasn't actually that extreme for an Austrian. He accepted some intervention into the market. It was von Mises and Rothbard who took the Austrian school to the further libertarian hands-off side.
>Except that fusion is a dead end and that ITER is 10x over budget already and isn't planned to start until like 2030, tenatively.
It was a revolutionary design that was way beyond anything in the west. And they gave it away too, they didn't keep it a secret.
You can't explain away the achievements of Soviet science. Nobel prizes, Advanced applications in space and nuclear energy, They we're ahead of the west on research about climatology (even if their industrial practices were worse). Pound for pound, they might be one of the greatest scientific societies of all time.
It doesn't really require much prerequisite reading, but it can be a little tedious. Hayek is a good economist and points out a lot of problems with statist policies that blindly embrace "progress" without any kind of democratic processes in place to guide that progress. In the cases he brings up it's pretty clear that the central planners just became feudal lords with the power to crush any opposition. The case for economic inefficiency is overstated though, and predictions of an indefinitely expanding bureaucracy becoming unable to administer the population are ridiculous. What rankles people about him the most is that he suggests socialism will always lead to a feudal society dominated by regulators, and it's ridiculous because Austria was an actual feudal society at the time that was interested in keeping uppity citizens from taking away any power from the aristocracy.
Why exactly are you considering reading it?
Don't pointlessly antagonize people shitbird
>Doesn't ask for any radical changes
>Economic policy actually works pretty well for the betterment of all
>Proved that austerity measures don't work
>Literally the devil
I like Keynes he's a bretty gud guy
Why would you recommend it?