Hayek Vs. Keynes Debate

[Zealous Donkey 0]

http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/hayek-vs-ke...-sequel-sneak-pHere is the full video the crowd was watching at the beginning of the reasontv clip.

[hblask 1]

Here's what happens when this debate moves to real life:

[El Guapo 8]

Here's what happens when this debate moves to real life:

Peter Schiff is very smart and he was obviously correct, but the reason he kept getting laughed at was because he had been saying for all of the 2000's the next year is going to be a recession. He was the boy who cried wolf.

[strategy 4]

I've said it here at least two times: people who listened to him lost money. he recommended that people invest overseas, which performed far worse in the flight to quality. I'm just as entertained as the next guy with the clips of the talking heads laughing at him in 2007, but don't take it as an indication that his record is good.

[hblask 1]

Peter Schiff is very smart and he was obviously correct, but the reason he kept getting laughed at was because he had been saying for all of the 2000's the next year is going to be a recession. He was the boy who cried wolf.

He never gave a specific date, he didn't give timeframes, he just said it was coming, and he was right about the reason.

[hblask 1]

I've said it here at least two times: people who listened to him lost money. he recommended that people invest overseas, which performed far worse in the flight to quality. I'm just as entertained as the next guy with the clips of the talking heads laughing at him in 2007, but don't take it as an indication that his record is good.

I don't know about that, but he and most Austrian economists predicting the housing bubble and repeatedly pointed it out when everyone else thought it was impossible. Keynesian economists still, to this day, insist that the solution is doing more of the same.

[strategy 4]

He never gave a specific date, he didn't give timeframes, he just said it was coming, and he was right about the reason.

which would be fine, except he's on those programs to sell his books and/or bring in clients. timing is an important piece of the puzzle in investing, and anyone unfortunate enough to listen to him during the 2000-2009 period lost a bundle. I know this because one of my professors spent half a lecture on him.

[hblask 1]

which would be fine, except he's on those programs to sell his books and/or bring in clients. timing is an important piece of the puzzle in investing, and anyone unfortunate enough to listen to him during the 2000-2009 period lost a bundle. I know this because one of my professors spent half a lecture on him.

Let me guess... the professor is a Keynesian Democrat? Real professors don't discuss the messenger, they discuss the message.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Keynesian economists still, to this day, insist that the solution is doing more of the same.

Care to give an example?

[vbnautilus 48]

Real professors don't discuss the messenger, they discuss the message.

That's a pretty silly thing to say.

[strategy 4]

Let me guess... the professor is a Keynesian Democrat? Real professors don't discuss the messenger, they discuss the message.

like the majority of the finance academics, he was an efficient marketeer who took every opportunity to deride people like schiff who appear on these networks attempting to win new clients. this was totally independent of the hayek v. keynes debate.

[AmScray 355]

Care to give an example?

Austrians Rule, Keynesians DROOL!

[hblask 1]

Care to give an example?

Krugman is the most flagrant example.

[mk 11]

Krugman is the most flagrant example.

Krugman obviously uses his NYT column as a political bully-pulpit, a lot of which ends up being incredibly shrill and stupid imo, but his mainstream writing that focuses on econ and of course his scholarly work tends to be more moderate and well-reasoned.This is one of my favorite things he's written. The Age of Diminished Expectations is pretty good, too.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Krugman is the most flagrant example.

Do you mean that he's an example of a Keynesian, or that he's an example of a Keynesian who "insist that the solution is doing more of the same."

[hblask 1]

Do you mean that he's an example of a Keynesian, or that he's an example of a Keynesian who "insist that the solution is doing more of the same."

Mostly the latter, but clearly he still believes in Keynesian economics.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Round Two

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Round Two

Here's the website for the people who created the videos.http://econstories.tv/

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The Keynes-Hayek RematchSmart article explaining some of the differences in Economic Philosophies and today's situation.The website that it's from Project Syndicate has a lot of really smart people writing about economics and politics.http://www.project-syndicate.org/

[hblask 1]

The Keynes-Hayek RematchSmart article explaining some of the differences in Economic Philosophies and today's situation.

That was one of the worst economic articles I've read since Krugman said we need an alien invasion to save us.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

That was one of the worst economic articles I've read since Krugman said we need an alien invasion to save us.

Well that's not surprising. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions I think his explanation of some of the differences in the schools of thought is interesting and I suggest reading the comments as unlike some mass sites the people who are commenting are smart and civil, both those who agree with the author and disagree.

[hblask 1]

Well that's not surprising. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions I think his explanation of some of the differences in the schools of thought is interesting and I suggest reading the comments as unlike some mass sites the people who are commenting are smart and civil, both those who agree with the author and disagree.

Any article that claims, or even implies, that free markets led to brutal dictatorships and the death of millions, as they do here:

We have here a clue as to why Hayek lost his great battle with Keynes in the 1930’s. It was not just that the policy of liquidating excesses was politically catastrophic: in Germany, it brought Hitler to power.

is just 100% complete and utter trash, completely, even if it fails to misrepresent a few other ideas. I could make a stronger argument that Keynesian economics has led to every bad thing since 1928, including 9/11 and the space shuttle explosion, but everyone would (accurately and justifiably) mock it as nonsense. Why anyone would take this article any more seriously is beyond me.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Any article that claims, or even implies, that free markets led to brutal dictatorships and the death of millions, as they do here:

The statement is hyperbolic but it's a bit of a stretch by you to read it that way.Germany in 1930 in the midst of a Depression did follow the policies of "liquidationists" and that's what he's referring to. If you don't think that the the state of the German economy helped bring about the Nazis then you aren't reading history very well.One paragraph that I found valuable from the article is this one.

Whereas for Hayek recovery requires the liquidation of excessive investments and an increase in consumer saving, for Keynes it consists in reducing the propensity to save and increasing consumption in order to sustain companies’ profit expectations. Hayek demands more austerity, Keynes more spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012wxygThat bbc radio link is from two weeks ago and is a debate at the London School of Economics between the Author of the article and some Heyekians. He also repeats his claim that Heyakian policies helped to lead to the rise of the Nazis and nobody objected to that in the debate.I also found this paper interesting that I came across.“Liquidation” Cycles and the Great Depression*

[FCP Bob 1,312]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the...yRQJ_story.htmlI wasn't really sure where to put this one but since this excellent article also talks about the Hayekian - Keysenian divide I'll put it here.Don't let the title of the article fool you it's a pretty balanced analysis, I'm guessing that an editor put the title on it in order to make it sexier.

[hblask 1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the...yRQJ_story.htmlI wasn't really sure where to put this one but since this excellent article also talks about the Hayekian - Keysenian divide I'll put it here.Don't let the title of the article fool you it's a pretty balanced analysis, I'm guessing that an editor put the title on it in order to make it sexier.

Much closer, and yes, the title is insane for the tone of the article. The article is a nice introduction to the debate; next they need one on the rest of the debate: the long term price of the short-term policies.