• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hayek vs Keynes

kevsta

RBL CHeck Failed
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
4,016
If Keynes didn't even believe his own voodooWoo , how and why do so many people still think anything he said has any relevance at all to successful economic policies?

and especially so now that the whole system has been so thoroughly discredited? (failed)

videos show Hayek talking about Keynes, his policies, and his admission to Hayek in later life that he didn't himself believe much of what he'd written earlier on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqU-AZh-wqU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqhe4K1Jz-8

what is the nature of this fundamentalist religion that so many people seem to take as their "Gospel" ?
 
Last edited:
As with other discussions of this nature, calling the mainstream view of specialists in the field “religious zealots” tends to come from people with unsupportable and usually irrational views of their own they want to support. At the end of the day Keynes is deeply integrated with modern economic though, Hayak, not so much.

Milton Friedman on Hayak and Austrian economics in general:

That is a very general statement that has very little content. I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You’ve just got to let it cure itself. You can’t do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse. I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm.

Economic theory has left Hayak far behind with the real discussions between economists these days isn’t about whether government plays a role but more specific questions of when, where, how and how much.
 
As with other discussions of this nature, calling the mainstream view of specialists in the field “religious zealots” tends to come from people with unsupportable and usually irrational views of their own they want to support.

Yep. Spot on.

Besides, Hayek should stick with acting. She was quite good in "Frida". And she's hot too.
 
If Keynes didn't even believe his own voodooWoo , how and why do so many people still think anything he said has any relevance at all to successful economic policies?

and especially so now that the whole system has been so thoroughly discredited? (failed)

videos show Hayek talking about Keynes, his policies, and his admission to Hayek in later life that he didn't himself believe much of what he'd written earlier on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqU-AZh-wqU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqhe4K1Jz-8

what is the nature of this fundamentalist religion that so many people seem to take as their "Gospel" ?
Because Keynes did change his point of view numerous times. Anyway, there's little relation between what he wrote and what today passes for Keynesian economics. Today Keynes name is just brought up to justify governments printing money and handing it to their cronies.

And Hayek's name is brought up to say that's a bad thing to do.

In fact Keynes would roll over in his grave at the recent antics of the Fed and the G20.
 
If Keynes didn't even believe his own voodooWoo , how and why do so many people still think anything he said has any relevance at all to successful economic policies?

and especially so now that the whole system has been so thoroughly discredited? (failed)

Hard to say it has failed when it would be political suicide to try it in most cases.

videos show Hayek

You care for the opinions of welfare queens why?
 
In fact Keynes would roll over in his grave at the recent antics of the Fed and the G20.

Well yes but that's largely because his position would boil down to "do not under any circumstances allow this to happen".

Germany internaly may be an exception mind.
 
Wasn't Hayek the guy who thought democracy was too harmful to the Free Market?

No. He was the guy who said he preferred a liberal dictatorship to an illiberal democracy. Here is the exact quote:

"Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism."
 
....

In fact Keynes would roll over in his grave at the recent antics of the Fed and the G20.

WWKD?

Actually, what would Keynes really do? I suspect most of those who trot out Keynes and Hayek have no idea what either of them would say or do. They might come up with entirely different theories than they did decades ago.

Also, what is the actual problem they're supposed to be fixing? Did any of them write anything at all about the value of the Chinese national currency?
 
No. He was the guy who said he preferred a liberal dictatorship to an illiberal democracy. Here is the exact quote:

"Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism."

Did he provide any examples of either?
 
Well yes but that's largely because his position would boil down to "do not under any circumstances allow this to happen".

Germany internaly may be an exception mind.

What is the "this" that is not to be "allowed" in Keynes' writings?
 
IIRC, he was supportive of Pinochet.

I thought so too. Was Allende the illiberal democrat then? Apart from those mass executions, there really wasn't a lot that Pinochet did that was outright bad for Chile or for world trade in general. But who knows? Allende was barely started and he might have executed even more of his political opponents than Pinochet did if given the opportunity. I guess we'll just never know.

Did either Hayek or Keynes write much about how to throttle political opposition?
 
Let's say that Pinochet made good domestic policy - it's wholly possible, I do not know. However, that doesn't remove the fact that the reason he could execute people like cattle was that he was a dictator, with all the baggage it brings. Hayek was being wholly naïve, in light of world history, to suggest such a thing as a benevolent despot. They may exist, but they sure don't crop up often, and the malevolent ones bring disaster. I would sure as hell risk having an "illiberal democracy" over risk getting Pinochet or Seungman Yi or Ngho Din Diem at the top, even if the odd benevolent dictator might beat Allende or whoever.

I get that Hayek is weaseling with the "liberal" qualifier, but you simply don't get to choose, which is sort of the point of a dictatorship in the first place.
 
IIRC, he was supportive of Pinochet.

Yes, he said that in regards to Pinochet and Allende.

As for if Pinochet had good domestic policy, it's hard to tell. No doubt he was very ruthless to dissenters. It is also true that Chile is one of the better, if not the best, managed country in Latin America in many aspects. It has the lowest corruption rate of Latin American countries, it's HDI rate is the highest in Latin America, and behind only the US and Canada in the Americas as a whole. Would this be the case if Pinochet had not ruled, and if Allende had reigned for a significant period? I honestly don't know. But let's say that this goes to Pinochet's credits. We can still condemn him for his human rights violations.
 
WWKD?

Actually, what would Keynes really do? I suspect most of those who trot out Keynes and Hayek have no idea what either of them would say or do. They might come up with entirely different theories than they did decades ago.

Also, what is the actual problem they're supposed to be fixing? Did any of them write anything at all about the value of the Chinese national currency?

are you saying this is the USA's main problem? the Chinese don't think so.

From Xinhua, Liu Tian

Scapegoating others no answer to U.S. economic woes

In a replay of scapegoating China for the economic woes of America's own making, U.S. President Barack Obama claimed Sunday that Beijing has "still not done enough" to revalue its currency.

"There has been slight improvement over the last year but it hasn't been enough," he commented on the exchange rate of the yuan against the U.S. dollar at a news conference after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economic leaders'
meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii.

But he failed to mention the fact that the yuan has already appreciated by about 30 percent against the greenback in the past six years.

In international trade, every country is supposed to exert its competitive edge. China does have an advantage in labor costs when it comes to the trade with the United States. But it's puzzling that when Washington keeps complaining about its trade deficit with China, it refuses to sell hi-tech products to China, in which America has an edge.

To many, the U.S. obsession in the issue of yuan exchange rate is just another puzzle. Based on the facts over recent years, it's evident that forcing the yuan to appreciate will only result in massive bankruptcy of Chinese small- and medium- sized companies, and still leave the problem of U.S. trade deficit unsolved.

Chinese President Hu Jintao told Obama on Sunday that appreciation of the yuan won't help Washington solve its problems such as trade deficits and unemployment. In fact, China's exchange policy is responsible, said Hu.

At a CEO summit of the APEC, Hu also pledged China will give equal importance to import and export and focus more on increasing import while maintaining a stable level of export.

This will probably spur the U.S. exports to China which may also create jobs in the United States.

For the United States, it should put its house in order before chiding others.

Since the onset of U.S. subprime crisis in 2007, it was the country's domestic economic problems that triggered a disastrous financial crisis that swept the world.

Excessive spending for many years has added up debts.

Meanwhile, traditional strong industries such as finance and auto were devastated by the crisis, pushing up unemployment.

In face of such serious domestic problems which probably could trigger a new global economic tsunami, many U.S. politicians seemed only to care about how many votes they could get, without having a single thought about what kind of the global responsibilities the country should take.

Thus it should come as no surprise that the angry "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are calling for an end to the political tricks in Washington.

Squeezing China, especially on the yuan, is an old trick in the run-up to U.S. presidential election. Such a tactic of scapegoating others may attract some voters' attention, but is definitely no answer to America's real problems.

Will China label USA a Currency Manipulator?

It is evidently clear that since 2005 the USA has been on a path of very considerable currency devaluation - down almost 16% while the Yuan has strengthened almost 38% based on the BIS effective exchange rates. The effective exchange rates (EER) provide a better indicator of the macroeconomic effects of exchange rates than any single bilateral rate and are described here.


currency wars anyone? it's already well underway.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/79944740/
 
Because Keynes did change his point of view numerous times. Anyway, there's little relation between what he wrote and what today passes for Keynesian economics. Today Keynes name is just brought up to justify governments printing money and handing it to their cronies.

And Hayek's name is brought up to say that's a bad thing to do.

In fact Keynes would roll over in his grave at the recent antics of the Fed and the G20.

his family should sue for defamation.
 
Yes, he said that in regards to Pinochet and Allende.

As for if Pinochet had good domestic policy, it's hard to tell. No doubt he was very ruthless to dissenters. It is also true that Chile is one of the better, if not the best, managed country in Latin America in many aspects. It has the lowest corruption rate of Latin American countries, it's HDI rate is the highest in Latin America, and behind only the US and Canada in the Americas as a whole. Would this be the case if Pinochet had not ruled, and if Allende had reigned for a significant period? I honestly don't know. But let's say that this goes to Pinochet's credits. We can still condemn him for his human rights violations.

Yes, I absolutely agree, but whenever you support a dictator, even if he seems like a great guy, you ALWAYS risk getting the baggage of genocide, torture, and other human rights violations, becase of the very nature of dictatorships. You DON'T get too choose, or change dictators without external intervention. Whenever you have a dictator like Pinochet or Mussolini (who was supported by many before the war, including Churchill and Gandhi), you ALWAYS, as history has shown, run a very real and large risk of ending up with HRVs in the baggage. That's why Hayek's point about liberal dictatorship is ludicrous unless it's a purely academic statement. You can't separate the two and say, "Well, dictatorship is good in some aspects, so we should have a dictatorship with just those aspects" because you DON'T choose dictators that way, they choose themselves.
 

Back
Top Bottom