(Cross-posted on the Mises Blog)
This is brilliantly done. Topic for discussion: what is Papola (who, it is clear now, is a creative genius) trying to say by structuring the outcome of the fight the way he does? The way Hayek's "Who plans for whom?" question is worked in as a lyric is superb. The question is the topic of an entire chapter in Road to Serfdom, which is the subject of an upcoming Mises Academy course.
Ironically, Ih ad the first song stuck in my head when I woke up earlier. What seems to be going over my head though is why Hayek is portrayed as kind of weak-ish. I understood the significance of declaring Keynes the winner even though he got KTFO as an allegory of media bias, but what's the deal with Keynes being presented as more fluid and dynamic?
I keep laughing my head off at seeing Malthus helping Keynes out. Do you think we'll ever get the sitcom they discussed in the last scholar's conference?
Ripple, Keynes was known to have a flamboyant demeanour, while Hayek was the skinny bald jewish guy.
ladyattis:Also, I sorta wonder why anyone hasn't made a graphic novel from the perspective of a modern economist.
There is The Cartoon Introduction to Economics: Volume One: Microeconomics. I don't think it's that bad at all (definitely pales in comparison to even most "principles of economics" textbooks, though). Of course, if you're an Austrian, you'll find much to disagree with.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Hayek wasn't Jewish (see "Hayek on Hayek").
This is brilliant.
There are a lot of little in-jokes in that people with knowledge of economics will get to laugh at, too. For example, Hayek talks about the "general glut" and it zooms in on Say.
It also works just fine as a regular rap. Plenty of great lines in there. I am still listening to it :P
Plus, while it definitely LEANS for Hayek, it certainly gives Keynes a fair shot, too. Most of the big shots at him are pretty subtle (again, zooming in on Say when talking about the general glut), and he has several awesome lines (the part where he actually rhymed "sluices" with "juices" was a really great section regardless of how wrong it was).
Does anyone know where Robert Higgs is? He's mentioned in the credits as an extra. But I can't see him. And a friend who is in the clip says he wasn't there?
@Conza
I might be wrong, but I think it's Higgs who enters immediately before Keynes and Hayek.
@Conza88
I didn't see him when I was there, and I just checked the list of extras. He's not there. Maybe he helped in some way?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
1.
"Spend money on anything under certain conditions" is itself a far cry from central planning.
Central planning has two parts. First take everyones money away. Second decide who to give it to. Meets both conditions, seems to me.
The fact that the decision who to give it to is particularly boneheaded doesn't mean it's not central planning.
2. My take on second Papola video is akin to one of the other poster's. Been there, done that.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Yeah I guess he was consulted on the script possibly.
That'd make sense.
I don't know what some of you are talking about. This is just brilliant. I was wondering if they would be able to top the first video, and I think Papola did, with flying colors. Obviously the production value was top notch, but the lyric...truly brilliant. This is such an overall well done film. The first I found harder to share with friends who weren't familiar with economic concepts (which was most). This presents the two sides much more concisely and clearly. I think many more people will get much more out of this than the first.
As long as they keep improving as much as this one does, they can keep em coming as long as they want. People who say "been there done that" on this must spend a large portion of their lives being bored and unimpressed.
There's just one thing I don't like about these two videos... they both tend to characterize the Austrian versus mainstream economics debate in the same kind of frame as the right versus left, Republican versus Democrat paradigms. It also tends to trivialize the insidious role of Keynesianism as an apologetic for Statism. Keynes is simply portrayed as an arrogant, cocksure academic rather than the handmaiden of the State that he was; a neo-mercantilist.
Clayton -
Clayton-
Can you imagine that the criticism of it is exactly the opposite of what your criticism is? Kuehn and even Daniel James Sanchez says it portrays Keynes as TOO statist. Go firgure.
I never said that. I was merely paying a compliment to Kuehn.