Hayek vs. Keynes: Philosophical Foundations of Economic Ideology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- I’m a free philosopher. It is your generous contributions that make my work possible. Huge thanks to all my supporters!
Support me via PayPal: www.paypal.com...
Enrol in one of my courses here halkyonacademy...
My Substack: halkyon.substa...
Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Gift Bitcoin: 3JimXYdoLVPWVEtk3tPtiYcLqQsFmS5KmH
Copyright: Johannes Achill Niederhauser
I really appreciate how much focus you put on how the differences between Hayek and Keynes follow from different philosophical perspectives on the human subject. It suggests how philosophy is inescapable, in the same way that if we claim that “we should just be practical,” we still have to determine what constitutes “practical,” hence philosophical consideration is still required. Wonderful reflection!
Very good to hear from you both
@@JohannesNiederhauser It's a pleasure, and thank you for releasing work that connects philosophy and economics like this, which I think is only going to become more important with time.
Or as many say, political economy, or the will to power via resources (material, status, sexual) - yes, all tied together@@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel
Before my studying philosophy in grad school, I went back and forth between Keynes and Hayek for many years but always in private reading. My initial coursework in economics had very engagement with debating the philosohical foundations of our mathematical models.
There are some great resources that show how these two were both on the same side, merely providing the dialectical difference to work toward a similar goal.
It's all contained within a materialistic framework, if that's what you are referring to.
@@clumsydad7158 more that they both served the same master and provided a difference only to fool the lower masses. There was no actual difference in their philosophy.
@@oldhollywoodbriar On today's episode of: Marxist or Fascist
@@Bruh-el9js yes, that is similar. Marxism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin. Kissing cousins as some say.
@@clumsydad7158 What do you mean by "materialistic"?
finance is 'the end' or 'the debt' ... in it some illusion that it can solve social problems, or that work can be 'ended' - but humans need activities, not an absence of activities. money is a tool that can facilitate transactions and access, but it's always about who controls it. the problem continues of an illusory 'end of history', and that the current 'owners' of the system are entitled to rest on their laurels. society is only as healthy as it provides for the future. in that way we are failing intensely. inside that part is the fact that we are always searching for 'the final solution and 'the one way' while not yet knowing what it is to be human nor accepting that this implicitly includes diversity and plurality in systems/ways of being. that tends to confound the limited, mortal human imagination and perspective of most of the populace.
How does Hayek differ from Friedman?
He doesn’t really. Hayek got there first…he pre-dates Friedman by a decade or so…but they agree on an awful lot.
the huge illusion in hayek's thinking is that the market is somehow akin to nature. it would be one thing if the market was a mirror of natural systems. but in reality 'the market' has impositions on it from human prejudices and preconceptions, it is delimited and contains hostilities and confounds, and is backed by guns and the will to power. it does have elements of a raw nature (which can lead to dangerous extremes), but also as we know clashes against nature. keynes' thought seems to have some kind of idealism, or at least acknowledging that there is an order but also a chaos to be dealt with, but it's inevitably floating in a yet all too human sea of ignorance and contradictions. as long as humans try to separate the material from the spiritual, to separate the thought from emotion, and continue to insist on containerizing understanding and systems, we'll face the same debilitating contradictions. we face yet the great challenges to rise above our superstitions and our greed. again, this is difficult for a mortal, and nearly impossible for a poorly educated/orientated one.
The use of the term natural is perhaps mileading, but it has nevertheless long been useful in Political Economy to describe agreements between two parties without third-party manipulations of the terms. It has been used gradually ia "lower tax" implies that the market operates "more naturally" and vice versa, a case which is quite convincing for a profession that examines market phenomena.
The market is a nature in its own right by the same token that people discuss the natures of the state, systems, organizations, bureaucracies etc..
@@user-hu3iy9gz5j yes, the issue is in what's hidden in the implications. such as 'free trade' when the reality is there are many asymmetries and injustices hidden under facile labels. i mean, the concept of natural exchanges is great, it's just that it is placed over an extant system of human relations that is yet brutal and prejudiced. basically a system can't work if the actors are yet corrupt - in this way literally all the world is a stage and the play will flop if the performers are incompetent. well, no one said civ building and cultural development would be easy
If Keynes is a rationalist, he's a very poor one; cobbling his theories from motivated improvisations like "liquidity preference" and cutting corners with "animal spirits". Then Hayek is a diminution of Mises who offered praxeology, a real rationalism, which is to this day the only foundation for economics that does not descend into ad hoc casuistry.
Animal spirits is taken is from Descartes no less. Irrationality is the sibling of rationalism
@@JohannesNiederhauser Got me thinking-siblings, like Abel and Cain, respectively, and particularly when rationalism doesn't accept its insufficiency. Praxeology has very clear limits, but Mises himself was a liberal and I can't decide if that is a feasible political system after all.