Keynes's biographer, Robert Skidelsky, is going to defend Keynes while Jamie Whyte is going to defend Hayek in a debate at the London School of Econ.
would love to see this debate, or hear it.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Should be interesting.
LSE has been having a lot of interesting lectures lately. Niall Ferguson gave two last year on the cold war that were really good.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
does the LSE publish their debates online somewhere?
I don't know. I know they put a lot of these things on iTunes for free.
I thought Hayekians were all about price gouging and steal surplus value from the worker?
hahahahaha
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I don't know. I know they put a lot of these things on iTunes for free. I thought Hayekians were all about price gouging and steal surplus value from the worker?
well isnt this what most think capitalism is generally?
Is it just me or is it kind of odd that there is a huge Hayek - Keynes dichotmomy going on in pop culture? Why not Schumpeter?
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I've noticed a general trend that, if cornered, many mainstream sources will cite Hayek as a representative of economic POVs neither mainstream nor Chicago nor Marxist. Even the EconStories vids have this, though probably unconsciously. Could be that he's more well known outside of the US than Mises, or that he's an easier spokesman to debate against given his opposition of interventionism was far more lukewarm than Mises', and thus he's sort of the economic equivalent of the Mitt Romney to Keynes (or rather, neoclassical-Keynesian synthesis economics who claim to be following in his footsteps) Hillary Clinton.
I suspect the reason Hayek is mentioned is because he won a noble prize, whether one likes it or not most people will see the noble prize for economics and thus see him as someone to take "seriously".
vive la insurrection:Is it just me or is it kind of odd that there is a huge Hayek - Keynes dichotmomy going on in pop culture? Why not Schumpeter?
Hayek and Keynes were the two most well-known economists of their day...and they were contemporaries. They knew each other. They were friendly, but intellectual rivals, and almost total opposites as far as their economics goes. I don't think there is a better representation of two sides of economic thought in terms of the recognizability of these two and the schools they represent. I'm also not sure you could hope for a better pair for a rivalry. Something like that doesn't come along very often. Johnson & Bird. Agassi & Sampras. Edison & Tesla. Handel & Buononcini. Sometimes truth can be just as interesting as fiction.
I think the question is "why Schumpeter?"
ulrichPf:I suspect the reason Hayek is mentioned is because he won a noble prize, whether one likes it or not most people will see the noble prize for economics and thus see him as someone to take "seriously".
There's nothing noble about the Nobel Prize.
Soooooo, they couldn't get Murphy and Krugman?
Because in the 1930s it was a Hayek versus Keynes debate. Lionel Robbins, who at the time was at the head of the LSE, had brought Hayek over as a means of combatting Keynes' influence in English academia. Keynes, more or less, was at the head of Cambridge (although, I'm not sure who influenced who the most -- Keynes Cambridge, or Cambridge Keynes!). And the debate took place during a time of depression. Since today the bands can be said to be forming again, it is a play on that historical series of events.
Rick Martin: Soooooo, they couldn't get Murphy and Krugman?
Krugman won't debate anyone. His penis shrinks back into his body and his voice gets all shrilly when Peter Schiff of Bob Murphy's names are mention, let alone if they were on stage together.
All joking aside, has Paul Krugman every debated anyone? I've seen him brought on MSNBC and CNN to give his input on economic issues but I've never seen him clash with anyone on those shows.
Sure.
He debated Bill O'Reilly on TV back in 2004. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA
He's also engaged in written debates with plenty of folks across the political spectrum like
Like James Galbraith: http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/dialogue.html
Or Jude Wanniski: http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/lunatic.html
But there are all in popular media. I would say "debates" per se don't happen much in the academic space. At least not formal debates where you have point/counter-points in front of an audience. Instead, it mostly all happens in journal articles. You write something, someone might write a response disagreeing with it, maybe you'll get a chance to respond. Or you will just publish an article later that incorporates responses to previous criticisms. At conferences you can talk with attendees, but they are not really "debates".
That's why Murphy's plan for a televised debate kinda confused me. No one really settles theoretical arguments that way.
Last time I saw Krugman on TV was on Charlie Rose a couple years ago. The show may as well have been renamed "Krugman Pontificates".
Student,
Thank you for the links. This is going to sound out of left field, but did Keynes and Hayek ever debate publicly? I know they had a bit of a back-and-forth in terms of articles and personal letters.
Quite frankly, it doesn't appear to be a serious debate. Skidelsky is not a serious economist, and old-school Keynesianism has been theoretically and empirically invalidated in every possible way. There's no way that Skidelsky is going to defend the new-Keynesian position. This is more of a show than anything else.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric, would you mind distinguishing the Keynesian and neo-Keynesian positions for me? It's my understanding that the neo-Keynesians abandoned certain theoretical points established in The General Theory, but I'm rather ignorant on the subject.
I'm sure there are plenty of other differences, but one of the main divergences is the assumption of sticky prices. The entire Keynesian "under-employment" equilibrium rests on wages rates being rigid downward (there is a price floor). If hoarding increases and "aggregate demand" decreases, then for the Austrian all that needs to be done is prices to adjust by falling freely downward (this is oversimplified and excludes changes in the structure of production relating to time preference). Another way of saying this is to let the market correct itself. Keynes, along with Post Keynesians deny that this is the reason for the "underemployment equilibrium" and that there also rests some fundamental market defects. Neo Keynesians, althought getting them to admit this explicitly might be tough, believe that even though prices adjust in the long run, prices are sticky in the short run and this can lead to potential output gaps. Expansionary fiscal/monetary policy is needed to restore aggregate demand.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: Keynes's biographer, Robert Skidelsky, is going to defend Keynes while Jamie Whyte is going to defend Hayek in a debate at the London School of Econ. would love to see this debate, or hear it.
"Alternatively, the debate will be transmitted on Wednesday 3rd August, 8pm (repeated on Saturday 6th August at 10.15pm) on BBC Radio 4."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ ..."Listen" button at top-right for streaming radio. I'm assuming those are London times.
EDIT: corrected location of button
Maybe it's just my persona bias / experience. I knew who Schumpeter was before I knew what Austrian economics was, or who Hayek was. In my college econ class he was mentioned as the main opposition. A search on the internet certainly confirms there was a rivalry. I was mostly just pointing out what I see as a general culture shift that has occured within the past 8 years or so. 10 years ago I would have bet a nickle Schumpeter was more popular than Hayek and maybe even would have been contrasted with Keynes more.
It looks like the Hayek team won but, it won't be televised till the 3rd. of August.
http://www.cityam.com/the-capitalist/city-fights-seats-keynes-vs-hayek
Reminder, the replay of the debate is scheduled to be streamed today at 3pm EST on http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/
z1235: Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: Keynes's biographer, Robert Skidelsky, is going to defend Keynes while Jamie Whyte is going to defend Hayek in a debate at the London School of Econ. would love to see this debate, or hear it. "Alternatively, the debate will be transmitted on Wednesday 3rd August, 8pm (repeated on Saturday 6th August at 10.15pm) on BBC Radio 4." http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ ..."Listen" button at top-right for streaming radio. I'm assuming those are London times. EDIT: corrected location of button
bump
so it is going to be on air in like half an hour, right
yes
Where can I listen to it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/
click on listen on the upper right of the page below the search bar
downloadable version
What I found extremely funny is this quote by Skidelsky : "It is what you say in the moment that counts that defines you. And to say 'Sorry, I didn't mean that really, I've changed my mind,' is not a very good advertizement for his thinking."
But I guess Skidelsky forgot that Keynes said that exact same thing when Hayek wrote his critique ("Reflections on the Pure Theory of Money of Mr. J.M.Keynes'') on Keynes' 'Treatise on Money'
^ you think Skidelsky is saying no one should ever admit to changing their minds?
yes, that is what he is implying there, unless I am somehow comparing apples and oranges here w/ my example... a note though, I am not saying that LS believes this but it is such an absurd criticism to put towards Hayek... quite simply because we all change our minds about something sooner or later...