Hayek and Keynes - Nicholas Wapshott
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- Nicholas Wapshott is the author of Keynes/Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics.
Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992) were leading founders of the Austrian School of economics, and are counted among the twentieth century’s foremost champions of free markets and critics of socialism. This second CCA of the 2016-2017 academic year will consider the history and principles of the Austrian School, as well as Mises’ and Hayek’s major works and continuing influence.
Watch more from CCA II: Mises, Hayek, and the Austrian School at www.hillsdale.edu/live/2016-2...
Hillsdale College website: www.hillsdale.edu/
![ตั๋วเมีย (ຕົວະເມຍ) - SOMBATH.97 Ft. YOUD SALAVAN [ Official music video ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GV6qHagpp50/mqdefault.jpg)
As an economist of 22 years for a State Treasury in Australia, I found this lecture most interesting.
Fundamentally, all (mainstream) economists agree with each other. As JMK once stated, the difference lies in where we draw the line between where individuals and G are in charge of making decisions for economic activity.
The Master economist must be like a good physician. They must take the appropriate actions based on past empirical and theoretical study from the entire sphere of economic thought.
Never absolutist of any school, the master economist must pick and chose the appropriate remedy.
Well, if truth prevailed you all would be out of jobs permanently (in other words, Mises). So you do enough free market for the economy to work and enough government to keep your job. Rest is irrelevant.
The problem with Keynes ideas was the matter of issuing currency at the bottom of the business cycle to stimulate demand while withdrawing it at the top of the cycle to prevent inflation. The problem is this: Governments like quantitative easing because it is popular, but they are not so happy about withdrawing the money at the top, because that is never popular.
Excellent lecture suffice to say there have been other clashes of eminent economists though out history. The two clearly represented opposing schools of economic thought, did a splendid job to contribute this social science and help the governments of the day with running of the economies.
amazing talk, just ordered the book
This talk gave me a lot of clarity on the subject of modern economics.
Interesting talk.
I think one of the greatest examples for justifying government spending is the Parthenon in Ancient Greece.
I have always been fascinated with the idea of macro economics as if you can have a macro theory of forestry. To know about a forest you must look at the trees. To know about economics you need to know about individual or micro economics just as you must know what trees make up the forest. If you change anything you change the trees. In the economy in any way you would quickly devolve into "hurding cats" sometime no intelligent person would undertake.
Chap didn't prepare his notes for this speech very well.
starts at 2:25
Friedman never worked for Reagan. What is he talking about? He may have consulted, but didn't assume a government position.
Doesn't a consultant work "for" his/her consulting person/agency/etc.???
I was smacked around the 29-31 mark.
12:03 "By the way he wasn't an economist at all, he was a mathematician - which is no bad thing when it comes to working out economics today."
It's a HORRIBLE thing. Economics has virtually nothing to do with mathematics - which is the primary downfall of Keynesians and other schools which try to ape the physical sciences. Economics is a Social Science. How do you quantify consumer confidence? How do you put a number on whether markets demand peanut butter or cheeze whiz?
As Walter Block says, Keynesians and Samuelsonites suffer from "Physics Envy"... :) Three Cheers for praxeology, Happy New Year.
Any discipline that does not use math or measurement should not be considered a science. (And yes, perhaps economics is not a science. Possibly even parts of biology.) One of the main problems of the modern world (going back over two centuries) is the over-exapnsion of things called science. Thus if someone denied the conclusions of psychology or social theory or biblical criticism or whatever, he was attacked as if he denied Physics or Chemistry.
Two types of philosophy- moral and natural. Two kinds of science- empirical and social.
empirical evidence is not a science it's simply something science can, but has yet to test. Economics is not a science it's a structure of rules, regulations, and your best guess, as when you need to quantify the unknowable. Economics is more art than science, which explains why the only constant in economic theory is that they all fall into and out of favor.
mzk1 theoretical physics wouldn’t categorize as a science under your description because such can not be empirically proven, and may operate outside of known mathematics.. yet we can all understand the asininity associated with that projection of stupidity. Your comment is ignorance at best.
I enjoyed this....then I read the criticisms below. Lol !!!
He couldn't answer a simple question about Mises. That was embarassing.
I wonder why economists like Hayek, Keynes even White are so optimistic of Russian socialist state planning and thought it works ( without international trade-thought to be anti-socialist). Maybe because 20's depression didn't affect USSR. But Deng hit the bull's eye.
Hayek was optimistic of Russian socialist state planning ?? noncense
@@alexgrisco6789 USA witnessed one of the merciless cruelty against the socialists in the world. Now Trump admits how powerful XI is and envy him. Trump is only a catalyst for the demise of capitalism, paving way for an even better 'self error correcting system'.
@@naimulhaq9626 envies !? are you kidding me? admits how powerful XI, by sanctions on china? you start the path that Russia got at the end of 1989, because you mixed Keynes with socialism!
@@alexgrisco6789 Yes, envies. Wouldn't you envy a system that is superior to your system? China is the only country that gives the 'party' the supreme authority over the nation and its people. It was the genius of Mao and his cultural revolution, paying a huge price, that was able to entrench the idea of 'self error correcting system' and China can unite all the minority Chinese and unite the nations of the world for the prosperity of all, on to a new world order.
Notice how multi-party systems fail to solve the problems of race, guns, health, education etc., even if you ignore the corporate crimes, shredding the western society to pieces. Such was the far sighted doctrine of Mao and Deng, that Trump envies, because he knows he cannot win the trade war. The evolution of socialism is indeed a blood stained path, but at the end, what a beautiful reward.
@@naimulhaq9626 China lives only by working for the west! refusal of america and then europe from goods will destroy china !!! I once lived in the Soviet Union and they also told us this tale for many years - about beautiful reward))) it's all a lie, the revolution in China begins in Hong Kong, which will bury the Communists!
I think Hayek was an intellectual pygmy compared with Keynes. None of the discussions on youtube cites excerpts from Keynes's monumental work to critique it. If you are taking issue with a major work, you should cite specifically where it was wrong.
Hayek stated that Keynes was ignorant of economics. Nonsense! Keynes did exactly what I just wrote: he specifically stated where the followers of Ricardo were wrong; where they omitted essential
dependencies of the relationship between employment and wages and forced and reduced their relation to a simple demand and supply curve intersection.
There is great intellectual dishonesty on the part of Keynes's critics. There is much position, prestige, and money involved in attempting to diminish Keynes. A major university, U. of Chicago, is dedicated to elevating people like Hayek and Milton Friedman. They are called the Chicago School. They should be called the Chicago gang.
Hayek mentioned he knew likes of Marshall and Ricardo some famous ones
But not others and ignored them too
So much for Trump's Keynesian infrastructure programs lol
dude does not understand what he is talking about and wrote a book on one of the most important topics in the economy! on the other hand, he simply justifies the existing order of things, and is simply a propagandist and not a scientist!