Sorry for the late notice- just found out. See here: http://www.reuters.com/subjects/keynes-hayek
Be sure to vote in the poll on the right side of the page. I think this page is where the stream will be.
Details:
About the Event: Sir Harold Evans, Reuters editor-at-large, will lead a debate between speakers pro- and anti- John Maynard Keynes’ economic theory. The event, on publication of Nicholas Wapshott’s Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics, is part of Thomson Reuters event series, A Conversation with Sir Harold Evans.
Where: Asia Society 725 Park Avenue New York, New York
When: Tuesday, November 8 5:00 – 7:30 p.m.
Speakers: Introductions by Nicholas Wapshott Moderation by Sir Harold Evans
Arguing for Keynes: James K Galbraith John Cassidy Sylvia Nasar Steve Rattner
Arguing for Hayek: Edmund Phelps Lawrence White Diana Furchtgott-Roth Steve Moore
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
dont even bother listening to this... this is more of a conservative vs liberal debate instead of a hayek vs keynes... also the quasi Hayekians (wth the exception of White) seem to be equating Reaganomics with Hayekian ones
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
I agree. It was a total fail. Phelps, on Team Hayek, kept giving Team Keynes too much and ended up criticizing Hayek. What a joke! TH talked about Reaganomics (exception of White, who was the only one on TH who wasn't incoherent or dim; he was great- he actually made arguments for Hayek and rebutted TK) and TK kept walking into the Broken Window Fallacy, unattacked by TH. I would have much rather seen Paul Krugman and Karl Smith vs. Tom Woods and Bob Murphy. THAT would have been a debate!
Paul Krugman and Karl Smith vs. Tom Woods and Bob Murphy
That. Would. Be. Epic.
It would be a smackdown.
Forget Iran's nuclear program. This would cause spontaneous combustions acorss the world :P
Yeah, the debate was really lame - no interaction between the debaters, no fruitful discussion. The quote of the day was from Sylvia Nasar -
"The United States, which did what Hayek said was so ideal - that is, stuck to gold and a passive policy toward the depression until 1933, had the deepest and longest depression. Those countries that ignored that kind of advice, namely Sweeden and Japan, had no depression at all, they had nasty recessions. There was a direct coorelation between the monetary stimulus and recovery in the 1930s, and I would venture that the same would be true now, if only it were tried."
Is she trying to say we haven't tried monetary stimulus during the current crisis???
All I had to do just now was read that list of the "arguing for Hayek" team and I knew it was a total sham. Aside from White, the only name I recognize is that Furchtgott-Roth woman, and the only reason I recognize it is because she also played the token female the same panel as Peter Schiff when he testified for Congress a couple months ago (there were actually two women on that one, but the other one was on the opposing side). Aside from the entertainment of watching everyone stumble over her ridiculous name, not knowing if they were expected to power through the whole pretentiously hyphenated polysyllabic monstrosity, she offered nothing of value.
just posted this on the Daily Paul forum, told them to vote.
I'm really starting to like this guy. (Check out his past segments)
you and I both, I wrote a letter of thanks to him for his unbiased Ron Paul coverage
What a swell guy! He got heat on his facebook page when he made a case for Ron Paul- a lot of it! Here's a query and his response:
Viewer email: "Hi. I watched your report about Ron Paul. I have a question: so, do we just smile at Iran and hope they don't nuke us and Israel? I am appalled that he thinks Iran can just have their bomb and it's fine. What about our allegiance to Israel? He seems to not give a rip. Your reporting is not completely honest." My Response: "That is a fair question. Congressman Paul seems to believe that Iran may not be building a nuclear weapon. I do not necessarily agree with him on that. But the point he made in the last presidential debate was spot on. It is not the role of the president to declare war. The Congress must make the declaration of war, the President, as the Commander In Chief carries out the war. If we are to go to war with Iran, “President Paul” says he would act according to any war declaration made by the Congress. But he correctly states that the President does not declare war nor does the President decide that the nation go to war. That is the role of the congress."
Apparently, Ben got LOADS of new Twitter followers and facebook friends after doing his segment on Ron Paul. Based on facebook postings, it seems he's at least mildly for Ron Paul. At least he covers him.
I am not sure that Hayek argued for a truly free market...