> How about taking seriously someone who is, you know, well-known (to the point of receiving a Nobel Prize for his work) for being good at this economics stuff?
When was the last time you saw a Keynesian taking Hayek's work on business cycle theory seriously? (For which, in part, he won the Nobel prize for!)
Ironically, to more directly address your point, Hayek had this to say in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:[1]
In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Prize banquet Friedrich Hayek
stated that had he been consulted on the establishment of a
Nobel Prize in economics, he would "have decidedly advised
against it" primarily because "the Nobel Prize confers
on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to
possess.... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here
the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence
on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size
if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist
that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians,
journalists, civil servants and the public generally."
Stated differently, the comparison between a hard science (like Chemistry) and economics is rather unfair.
When was the last time you saw a Keynesian taking Hayek's work on business cycle theory seriously? (For which, in part, he won the Nobel prize for!)
Ironically, to more directly address your point, Hayek had this to say in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:[1]
Stated differently, the comparison between a hard science (like Chemistry) and economics is rather unfair.[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_economics#Controver...