Alberto Mingardi  

Henry Hazlitt, public intellectual

Libertarianism as Moral Overle... Do Wage Cuts Reduce Communal P...

Can a public intellectual try to develop original insights, besides popularizing the ideas he holds dear? Paul Krugman recently lambasted Henry Hazlitt, who "has been wrong about everything for more than 80 years, and is still regarded as a guru". Krugman and Hazlitt share a prominent status as public intellectuals, and the very same megaphone: the New York Times (see here a nice old comment by the New York Sun editors on this very occurence). But they are "public intellectuals" in a thoroughly different way: Krugman built his reputation as a spokesperson for contemporary liberalism on his academic credentials. Krugman somehow bought his ticket to the public debate by being an economist acclaimed by the economic profession. Hazlitt, on the other hand, was a self-made intellectual, who started writing journalism when he was still a teenager.

I recently came across a very interesting paper by Pete Boettke, in which he shows how Hazlitt did more than just keeping the torch of orthodox economics alive in very dark times. For Boettke, Hazlitt

occupied a unique position in mid-20th century intellectual life in the US as a public intellectual attempting to contribute to scientific economics consisted of not just pointing to his prominent position in the world of journalism both as a literary critic and more importantly as an economist but more importantly for our purposes to the attention his written work commanded in the specialized professional journals in economics and philosophy, as well as the active correspondence he engaged in throughout his life. The company Hazlitt kept was not just that of the New York intelligentsia, but included many of the leading minds in the social sciences during his lifetime.

If you're fascinated by the mysterious way in which the conveyor belt of public opinion works, Boettke's paper would be a very interesting read. I instinctively love Hazlitt (basically, for the very reasons the Paul Krugmans of this world despise him) but I shall confess I've basically read just Economics in One Lesson and a few articles I stumbled upon on line. The Henry Hazlitt archives are very well worth a visit: there you can find also Hazlitt's unpublished autobiography ("My Life and Conclusions"), also referenced by Professor Boettke.

In a previous post, I pointed out a very interesting passage in George H Smith's The System of Liberty, on the idea that "freedom could not be defended adequately from a single, narrow point of view and that an interdisciplinary approach was essential to the survival of liberalism".

As he worked out of modern academia, with its growing pressure towards an ever narrower specialization, Hazlitt could let his speculative faculties sail upon wider seas. Boettke gives a sense of the vastness of Hazlitt's contributions, which ranged from monetary policy to ethics. Hazlitt's story as an intellectual who emerged bottom up from the market for ideas, rather than being able to claim strong academic credentials first, is fascinating - and looks rather exotic, for us living in 2013. The blogosphere is allowing for many genius dilettantes to enter the public discussion, but I can't really think of anyone that even vaguely resembles Hazlitt as portrayed by Boettke. I suppose that it takes a devotion both to economic research and a particular set of ideas that it is very rare to find, among journalists, professional economists and bloggers alike.

Comments and Sharing

CATEGORIES: Economic Education

COMMENTS (5 to date)
Eric Falkensteint writes:

What kills me is that the theory that got Krugman his Nobel prize, formalizing increasing returns to scale, is simply not that useful: Krugman himself initially used it to explain early Detroit, but finds himself totally lost when trying to explain later Detroit (where, for some reason, it's no longer applicable). Formalizing a theory that could work given certain assumptions, but usually is just a pretext for grant monopolies to cronies, and then basically ignoring it to talk about what Axel Leijonhufvud called 'vulgar Keynesianism', is hardly better prep than being a journalist.

robert stewart writes:

Henry Hazlitt is the best writer on economics that I can think of - a Rembrandt of commentators as the Financial Times remembered him in its obituary. All of his books are a joy to read, not only for their message but their timeless clarity. I would recommend that Alberto get a copy of "Business Tides" a compendium of his articles, mainly for Newsweek. He makes the 1950s read like today's headlines.

Robert Stewart - an unabashed admirer of Henry Hazlitt.

Alberto Mingardi writes:

Thank you! I just downaloaded "Business Tides" for my Kindle (

BigEd writes:

[Comment removed pending confirmation of email address and for ongoing policy violations. Please read our Comment Policies. Email the to request restoring your comment privileges. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog and EconTalk.--Econlib Ed.]

Robert Fellner writes:

If you are interested in reading more of Hazlitt's work as a columnist, Business Tides contains all of the columns he ever wrote for Newsweek. It really is magnificent.

[broken coding of url fixed--Econlib Ed.]

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top