I have been reading
Masters of the Universe by Daniel Stedman Jones [got a free copy to write a review], and was a bit surprised about two glaring absences: Sraffa and Pinochet. Yes, talk about strange bedfellows!*
Hayek main theoretical argument, which is common to Austrian and other versions of marginalism alike, is that markets produce efficient allocation of resources, which includes full utilization of labor and capital (i.e. the 'factors of production'). Hayek emphasized heterogeneous, specific capital goods rather than a single malleable homogenous capital value measure. Hayek followed Böhm-Bawerk's emphasis on heterogeneous capital goods and the period of production. He emphasized an intertemporal price system that determines multiple own-rates of interest, but which tended toward a uniform rate, the natural rate.
Unfortunately for him, Sraffa had shown that the two notions were not tenable. As Hayek's business cycle theory was dependent on the differences between the natural rate and the money rate, in a monetary economy, it was his incapacity to deal with the problems raised by Sraffa that made his theoretical relevance in the 1930s to wane. So the complete absence of Sraffa from the book seems to be a significant lapse, but understandable since this is a book written by a historian, not an economist.
The second lapse is more problematic for a historian. Stedman Jones does cite Pinochet in a few places as a fellow traveller of the neoliberals. He even tells you that Friedman thought that "Britain could avoid the fate of Chile ... [and] he predicted that the 'destruction of democratic society,' were it to occur in Britain, would come 'from the left'." Even if you ignore the wild paranoia about 'the left' being a threat to democracy (Yes Labor was a threat! Doesn't that sound like the tea Party? Obama is a threat to democracy too, isn't he?), at least it seems to acknowledge that Pinochet was responsible for the end of democracy in Chile (and yes pictured above is uncle Milton with Pinochet). Not that this should be a controversial proposition. But Friedman was okay with economic policy in Chile.
Hayek had, if that is possible, an even more outrageous view of the Pinochet regime (he also visited and was received by Pinochet). Hayek was not only full of praise for the economic policies of the Pinochet Regime, but also supportive in political terms. He was concerned that Chile, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa too, did not receive a fair coverage from the 'liberal' press in Western countries, and suggested in his infamous interview with
El Mercurio that a dictator like Pinochet might be a necessary step towards a liberal democracy. A more thorough treatment of the issue, in particular since Hayek suggested that economic and political freedom were intertwined, would have been relevant, to say the least.
PS1: The other picture above is of Thatcher and Pinochet. It is always good to remember what neoliberals mean when they talk about freedom and democracy.
PS2: I wrote this Sunday night, with no knowledge of Thatcher's health condition. The discussion of her death, and she was the symbol of neoliberalism if there was one (remember her motto, 'there is no alternative'), so far goes to show some of the problems of conventional analyses of neoliberalism. The
New York Times has no discussion of her support of Pinochet. The often contradictory support for right wing dictators by neoliberal politicians in developed countries is swept under the rug.
* This is NOT a review. Just a brief comment on specific issues which are not central for the thesis of the book. The actual review of the book is
here.
