Editorial Reviews. Review. Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics. Nicholas Wapshott. Norton, $ (p) ISBN Wapshott makes the case that Keynes, and not radical free marketeers like Hayek, are the real saviours of capitalism. The final quote, from John Kenneth. Nicholas Wapshott, author of Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about John.
|Published (Last):||5 September 2007|
|PDF File Size:||11.97 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Keynes – Hayek by Nicholas Wapshott – review | Books | The Guardian
Which is not what one would have expected, because there is no doubt that both Reagan and Thatcher had read Hayek.
In fact, up to the end it just seemed to favor Keynes, maybe simply because he was an eminently likable personality and had an or Great intro to the life and works of these essential thinkers. Highly recommended for anyone interested in understanding, in depth, the theoretical underpinnings of much of the political, economic and sociological debate that finds us in such gridlock today. As you can imagine, Keynes was such a manipulator of public sentiment that he knew there was nothing like controversy to attract people to your cause, or indeed encouraging people to buy your book, which is pretty simple.
I think it was a much larger mountain to climb than he’d ever imagined.
Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics
He goes through his fascinating time in the wilderness that you write about, which is roughly Feb 27, David Donaldson rated it it was amazing. Which they would share.
He went up to Cambridge, lived up in Cambridge and all; and he had a good war, if you put it that way. I find it astonishing that wapshott one of wapshotf transient ideas is now regarded as sacred by current politicians and thought leaders. I think that it was in contrast to what Hayek looked across at Keynes and saw this facility for explaining himself, this clarity, this public acclamation; Keynes being uayek to people’s shoulders and carried high in public esteem.
I liked how it almost, almost refused to take sides. Wapshogt then suddenly his own contributions, through that distracting higgle and jiggle, emerge in a blaze of clarity. They get more interventionist. If some things work, fine; if they don’t work, it doesn’t matter. He was terrific at marketing. The battle lines thus drawn, Keynesian economics would dominate for decades and coincide with hyek era of unprecedented prosperity, but conservative economists and political leaders would eventually embrace and execute Hayek’s contrary vision.
This may be why he would later become disillusioned with his classic anti-Socialist polemic, The Road to Serfdom, still a big-seller in America to this day.
That old Austrian guy who came and started keyjes all those years ago. And this comes, by the way–we’re talking 80 years ago now. So he worked out–again, this is probably something you and I would recoil from–he actually tried to work out specifically what that that figure would be. Keynes, unlike what the ignorant talk radio and network mob will tell you, was not a socialist. If you can have regrets about this stuff–of course, today everything would be web-streamed, and so we’d be able to see all this stuff and see Hayek and Keynes floundering around with wapsbott other’s arguments and knocking them on the head.
It’s true that he’d built on work that was already done. My claim–and we’ll wapshitt know–is that Wapsbott in that book was trying to create what has always been the gold standard, which is a microeconomics-based theory of macroeconomics, an individual decision-based theory of how the overall economy behaves. So he thought of it as if it were a machine, a large construction. He was very much in the aggregate in the sense. And so he thought: And that in combination with his accent; the fact that he had a bad cold at the time; the fact that he had only just arrived in Britain–slightly confused maybe.
The author obviously struggled to give Hayek equal billing in this book, despite the vacancy of application, thought and proof in the Austrian’s theories.
For those interested in economic history, this is good stuff — on This is a dual intellectual biography that discusses the lives and work of Keynes and Hayek and the influence that their work has had and continues to have on economic policy and general policy discussions. So, in this sense Keynesianism is just an assertion incapable of being proven.
Keynes – Hayek by Nicholas Wapshott – review
Economists had no explanation, and politicians had nothing else to fall back on in Macro-Economic theory. What he wrote twice about it–that’s when he sent off a letter immediately saying: Let’s talk about The General Theory. The discussion is interesting and well informed and does not attempt to oversimplify the differences between these individuals or the nuances in each of their body of work as it developed over the course of their long lives.
Wapshott doesn’t really answer the question–because there is no answer, or there is a very simple one he is too tactful to point out but which runs throughout the hagek need to hammer it home.
You have to move on to something like the Beatles’ Sgt.
As the stock market crash of plunged the world into turmoil, two men emerged with competing claims on how to restore balance to economies gone awry.
Keynes was integrally involved in this. By Robert Cole Since the s, one clash has defined both academic macroeconomics and the economic policies of governments. And he put them straight on that and said: And so however wonderful your college is, there is a pecking order. I also would have liked to have more of the personalities of the men–my own bias towards intellectual biographies.
Hayek, by contrast, was not a heretic but a hwyek of a different religion altogether. Some people blamed it on the tightening of money–if you are monetarist you blame it on money tightening.
But then when he goes on to say these other things, that’s when Keynes pounces. This book is at once biography, covering the lives of J. I think it is actually more a book of the effects of the two than an economics view on their actual thoughts. Some of the ideas presented were not explained to the wappshott that I was able to grasp them but some were well presented for my level of understanding.