This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Keynes vs. Hayek “Fight of the Century” The New Economics Hip-Hop Music Video
Just came across this and thought I would share.
“Fight of the Century” is the new economics hip-hop music video by John Papola and Russ Roberts at http://EconStories.tv.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great
Recession ended almost two years ago, in the summer of 2009. Yet we’re
all uneasy. Job growth has been disappointing. The recovery seems
fragile. Where should we head from here? Is that question even
meaningful? Can the government steer the economy or have past attempts
helped create the mess we’re still in?
In “Fight of the Century”, Keynes and Hayek weigh in on these central
questions. Do we need more government spending or less? What’s the
evidence that government spending promotes prosperity in troubled times?
Can war or natural disasters paradoxically be good for an economy in a
slump? Should more spending come from the top down or from the bottom
up? What are the ultimate sources of prosperity?
Keynes and Hayek never agreed on the answers to these questions and
they still don’t. Let’s listen to the greats. See Keynes and Hayek
throwing down in “Fight of the Century”!
www.4closureFraud.org
»
- advertisements -
Just like in Bahrain at the moment, the dissenters have no champion, and no mouthpiece.
So they get squashed.
Econstories should be more than viral, it should be primetime; why isn't it?
4th Estate -where are you???????????
Wouldn't it be a surprise if one of the other 3 estates stepped up to the plate.
(Royal Court/Govt; Church; Army) Heaven help us all.
....
"GIVE US A CHANCE TO DISCOVER THE MOST VALUABLE WAYS TO SERVE ONE ANOTHER."
If you do not understand, believe or want this you are a Cant Understand Normal Thinking as a human being and deserve to live disconnected in your matrix feeding off the processed goo of your dead ancestors.
I have not found music so profound since 'the dark side of the moon' - this debate and it's winner will decide the fate of humanity and it's relation to the universe.
Pick a side - or one will be picked for you.
you'll be served well done.
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/jewish_sacrifice.htm
Damn, that is some serious FTW!
I love this video!
Keynes and Hayek, it seems to me are both are attempting to address the roots of what makes an economy work... and both have made big contributions. But either side getting 'religious' about any perfect solutions provided by any perfect single monetary system are kidding themselves.(so I can get down votes from both sides!)
An Axiom:
The well-being of a social organism (whether a tribe, club or nation) is dependent at root on ONLY these factors:
1. Environmental conditions (accessible resources, the laws of the physical universe and chance)
2. The complex/chaotic interplay of individual and collective decisions of those within the body (decisions of those outside the body are part of the environmental conditions)
Assuming some validity to the idea, and I do... it's also clear that these are foundations that pre-date the creation of money. (money is a technology not a natural creation which arose to address scaling needs accompanying loss of proximity and growth well-beyond Dunbar Number fuzzy boundaries.)
In fact there is utility in recognizing money as a 'decision technology' rather than only as a store of value. And money's utility was in its capacity to transfer decision (a decision = an idea + an action) from one to another.
Decision Technologies: Currencies and the Social Contract http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/07/decision-technologies-curre...
Now for the at this point very admittedly unsubstantiated hypothesis:
Wealth concentration alone distorts and ultimately destroys the capacity for good decision making by the social body. And thereby reduces the capacity for that social body's survival.
There are no perfect or ultimate solutions that I know of. (I'm NOT advocating the end of business and enterprise or some idea that income and wealth should be leveled... even hunter-gatherers had some stratification... though NONE to this extent.)
However I'm convinced that addressing some needs in transaction technologies would be helpful... and form a very pragmatic foundation for improving the balance in group decision.
Leveling The Transaction Landscape: Technology and the Campfire http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2011/04/leveling-transaction-landsc...
I suppose I could be wrong... but somebody had better start contemplating things outside the stale boxes of the dominant political/economic groupthink which is literally thousands of years past its expiration date. And I am trying to take a pragmatic approach.
>both have made big contributions.
Keynes' theories are riddled with fallacies as shown by Hazlitt's refutation, "Failure of the New Economics". But I guess if Keynes sold a lot of books and seduced a ton of people into believing nonsense, then it could indeed be called a big contribution.
>But either side getting 'religious' about any perfect solutions provided by any perfect single monetary system are kidding themselves
Don't childishly fall for the fallacy that because there are two "sides" on some issue, the correct answer must be in the middle somehow. It could be that one side is exactly right or that an entirely different answer is needed.
>An Axiom: The well-being of a social organism (whether a tribe, club or nation)
You've erred already. There's no such thing as "well-being of a social organism" other than the subjective appraisal offered by each individual consulted. E.g. in Hitler's mind, the well-being of the social organism improved after murdering millions of its members. How is your opinion logically or objectively any better than Hitler's. It's not, it's just your subjective opinion.
Jesus, put in a few cites and a table of contents and you have a master's thesis ready to go.
This shit should be in every classroom in America
NO DOUBT!!!
"Are they doing real science or confirming their bias"
Are you a self fulfilling - or - a slave?
Economics is an attempt to lend a scientific/mathametical title to a political agenda.
>Economics is an attempt to lend a scientific/mathametical title to a political agenda.
I would say this is true for climatology.
But it's not true for the Austrian School of economics.
there is no REAL science in economics. Its human science, imperfect, subjective, herd instinctive, reactive, proactive, unpredictable like a woman in love or a man convinced he has seen the Grail. Fortunately there are natural cycles...like the laws of thermodynamics and the entropy effect. "On a long enuff..." that there is entropy for you!
It seems you think you are not in control of your destiny. Feel sorry for you. We have a chance at anything we want. You want to lose that - huh?
A Liberal production, of course. Why would the best option still be in question after another jobless, inflationary "recovery"? Keep asking the question, Libs, until you get the answer you want.
If this is about the red and blue team then one might as well just forget they have a chance at all as your comment is clearly that one of a slave.
Liberal? The producers would have FDR curling his toes.
and this should curl your toes.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=475799
Actually, Hayek (as well as Mises and Rothbard) were proponents of liberalism. Unfortunately, in the United States, the word liberalism has taken an Orwellian connotation. Liberalism was initially favorable of free markets, individual liberty, sound money, property rights, etc. The history of the change in the American political spectrum came about around 1900. You see, democrats used to be the hard-money, free market party, but around 1900 the progressive movement took over. The moniker stood even though their policies changed. Now, in the United States, the word liberal has taken a meaning that is far removed from its definition. Liberalis is Latin for "freedom".
>Actually, Hayek (as well as Mises and Rothbard) were proponents of liberalism
Nowadays Mises and Rothbard are usually called classical liberals: supporters of free markets, property rights, capitalism, and individual liberty. i.e. not the kind of liberals who want to commit thefts and get free foodstamps.
I fear that Hayek was an actual liberal, although it may just have been him erring, or fabricating lies in order to get his book published:
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken." - The Road to Serfdom, F. A. Hayek
Hayek may also have fudged things to help him get the Nobel Prize in Economics (which is not a real prize from the Alfred Nobel Foundation but rather is the invention of the Swedish central bank).
I think Hazlitt is in the same boat as Hayek.
I don't think you see this kind of namby pamby wavering with Mises and Rothbard. Mises in particular is crystal clear and rigorous.
Hayek had a "kind of socialdemocrat" era, but its more him trying to adapt and looking for new solutions than real strong theory. Hayek is at his best when he speaks about the capital structure.
Hazlitt was a classic liberal. In fact, he called out his fellow democrats when they sold out and embraced resgressivism.
Don't forget to catch the Econtalk podcast, very good usually.
"I don't mean to be objective,
but thats my austrian perspective"
the fat bernank is actually one of the professors who created the video i believe...its a quality video that makes important arguments, good to see austrian school finally getting some classroom recognition. I always volunteer to read & speak when we touch on economics in my poli-sci classes, so that I can serve up some austrian counters to the keynes propaganda.
Actually, the guy that plays Bernank is the director/producer's father. He's a medical doctor.
God bless you man.