The following biographical sketch is adapted from Bruce Caldwell, “Hayek, Friedrich August von (1899–1992),” in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, ed. Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
 John Cassidy, “The Price Prophet,” The New Yorker, February 7, 2000, p. 45.
 F. A. Hayek, Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (New York: Kelley, 1966 ).
 Thus, in the introduction to his Nobel lecture, aptly titled “The Pretence of Knowledge,” Hayek says: “[E]conomists are at this moment called upon to say how to extricate the free world from the serious threat of accelerating inflation which, it must be admitted, has been brought about by policies which the majority of economists recommended and even urged governments to pursue. We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things.” Reprinted in F. A. Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 23.
 That there is a tension between Hayek’s early step-by-step account of the unfolding of a typical business cycle and his later work on complex phenomena should be evident. I prefer his later work.
 Clive Crook, “A Rocky Road for the Fiscal Stimulus,” Financial Times, July 19, 2009.
 Mark A. Calabria, “Did Deregulation Cause the Financial Crisis?” Cato Policy Report, July/August 2009, pp. 1, 6–8.
 Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and Economic Order (London: Macmillan, 1937), p. 3.
 F. A. Hayek, “Freedom and the Economic System,” , reprinted in Socialism and War: Essays, Documents, Reviews, ed. Bruce Caldwell, Vol. 10 of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 194.
 One is entitled to ask why Hayek was so loath to fill in the details. My conjecture is that his decision was strategic: He was trying to keep a liberal coalition intact during the years in the wilderness. The various liberals who attended the Mont Pelerin Society ranged all over the map in terms of the sorts of institutions they thought would be acceptable. On the matter of anti-trust, for example, members varied from strict laissez faire to use of anti-trust statutes to ordoliberalism to certain variants of social market economy under which the planning of the competitive environment became very intrusive indeed. Had Hayek provided too many details, he would perforce have been taking sides.
 F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom: Texts and Documents , Bruce Caldwell, ed., vol. 2 of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), p. 114.
 F. A. Hayek, “The Denationalization of Money” , reprinted in Good Money, Part II: The Standard, ed. Stephen Kresge, Vol. 6 of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. 82.
 Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 156.
 In later works like The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, ed. W. W. Bartley (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), Hayek attributed our resistance to markets to the fact that a market society satisfies neither our reason (we always think we can improve on market outcomes) nor our instinct (our hunter-gatherer heritage led to certain moral positions—distrust strangers, deal only with parties you know in face-to-face situations—that do not fit in well with market interactions).
 F. A. Hayek, “The Trend of Economic Thinking” , reprinted in The Trend of Economic Thinking: Essays on Political Economists and Economic History, ed. W. W. Bartley III and Stephen Kresge, Vol. 3 of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 17–34.
 F. A. Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society” , reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 87: “I have deliberately used the word ‘marvel’ to shock the reader out of the complacency with which we often take the working of this mechanism for granted. I am convinced that if it were the result of deliberate human design, and if the people guided by the price changes understood that their decisions have significance far beyond their immediate aim, this mechanism would have been acclaimed as one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind.”
 Hayek discusses the problems associated with the concept of social justice most extensively in The Mirage of Social Justice, Vol. 3 of Law, Legislation and Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976).
 Adam Smith, quoted in Hayek, Rules and Order, Vol. 1 of Law, Legislation and Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 35.
 Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 190. Hayek was quoting Walter Bagehot on the “man of genius” and was using it to deride Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court.
 Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (New York: Henry Holt, 2007).
 F. A. Hayek, The Mirage of Social Justice, Vol. 2 of Law, Legislation and Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 31–33.
 Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p. 87: “From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time.” Not all market critics would accept, of course, that the “game” is fair.
 In describing how a market system allocates rewards, Hayek notes: “The long and the short of it all is that men can be allowed to decide what work to do only if the remuneration they can expect to get for it corresponds to the value their services have to those of their fellows who receive them; and that these values which their services will have to their fellows will often have no relations to their individual merits or needs.” Hayek, The Mirage of Social Justice, p. 72.
 Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 148.
 Peter Saunders, “Why Capitalism Is Good for the Soul,” The Insider, Spring 2008, p. 17.
 Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” Individualism and Economic Order, p. 80.
 The ongoing nature of this process is why Austrian economists usually use terms like “market process” or “evolving market order” rather than “market equilibrium” when speaking about how markets function. The last can lead one to the false image of a system making a final adjustment to a state of rest.
 Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” Individualism and Economic Order, p. 86.
 See Bryan Caplan, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007).
 James M. Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner, Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes (New York: Academic Press, 1977).
 William Greider, “The Education of David Stockman,” The Atlantic, December 1981, pp. 28–54.
 See Peter Boettke, “Putting the ‘Political’ Back into Political Economy,” in Economics Broadly Considered: Essays in Honor of Warren J. Samuels, ed. Jeff Biddle, John Davis, and Steven Medema (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 207. Cf. Hayek, writing in the 1956 Foreword to the American paperback edition of The Road to Serfdom: “The increasing tendency to rely on administrative coercion and discrimination where a modification of the general rules of law might, perhaps more slowly, achieve the same object, and to resort to direct state controls or to the creation of monopolistic institutions where judicious use of financial inducements might evoke spontaneous efforts, is still a powerful legacy of the socialist period which is likely to influence policy for a long time to come.” Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Pres, 1956), p. 44).