My apologies for my comments, and for taking the discussion to such a ridiculous and unproductive place. I must have been in a mood. I don't self identify firmly with either camp. Fault can be found in both schools of thought- The Keynsians seem to fail to acknowledge the causes of, and governmental role in, excessive bubbles and their resulting bursts. Hayek's side seems to fail to acknowledge the humanity of the system. The players in this system are people not automatons.
'Lord' Skidelsky is a condescending old man. Notice how he resorts to denigrating his opponents rather than engaging with their message. George Selgin destroyed him in once sentence...
A person using an arbitrary title such as 'Lord' in their name, AND using Hitler in his opening argument at a supposedly "intellectual" economics "debate", loses credibility in my mind. I find it funny also, that none of these economists refer to Hayek's view being an extension of Adam Smith and the Austrian School... Freedom is not mentioned, but yet government control and influence is assumed and accepted.
Conservatives give more money to charity than liberals/socialists. We also give more give more blood, donate more time to volunteering and charitable causes. This is despite conservatives on average earning less money than liberals. So when you criticise we Hayekians, you're onto a losing path. I earn less than £10000 per annum and receive no help from the state: yet I am an advocate of minarchism, Hayekian and Austrian political philosophy and economics.
Hayekians seem to view 50 years of post war American economy as a boom. The most prosperous period of humanity, a period marked by progressive taxation and high government investment, was achieved by misguided economic theory? The entirety of the Hayek's theory is based on simply allowing the middle class to slip into poverty, while the wealthy hang back and wait for better times. Yes lets go back to the world of the 1800's as Ron Paul suggests to a time before the middle class even existed.
1:11:50 Pauline, LSE student working at the Institute of Economic Affairs has learned "just the other day" the difference between debt and deficit. I sincerely hope the Institute of Economic Affairs doesn't allow her to enter in the room with the nuke-related buttons.
Many people conveniently forget that market deregulation of the Hayekian variety created the crisis in the first place. Its worth remembering the public debt was not the problem, at least not in the UK; indeed, it was only when the private debt was added to the public balance sheet that the debt became utterly unsustainable. Without targeted government spending there is no chance that the UK economy will grow. That is a Keynesian measure and it is both tried and proven.
The problem with Duncan Weldon's dentist is he doesn't pull out your rotten teeth, he just gives you a shot of Novocaine and a bill so you have to come see him again and again and again.
To say that Keynes was "asimmetrical" because he focused only on expansionary policy is wrong. Keynes focused on expansionary policy *under conditions of underemployement equilibrium*. Expansion was an anti-cyclical device by definition, not to be relentlessly performed at any time, any place. As soon as private sector investment recovered -and Keynes thought it to be more responsive than what post-Keynesian later argued- monetary restriction was even suggested by him.
Skidelsky you are one of the dumbest individuals i've ever seen claim to be an economist. You'd fit right in here at any one of the American Universities.
Selgin makes a good point on QE about the banks shoring up their balance sheets but we are taking Keynesian fiscal policy here aren't we? Keynes would not have gone for QE, he wanted fiscal policy. Build infrastructure etc
@johndonnelly100 This is not 100% true, it's only rumored near his death that was against QE. The only person that would know was Hayek though, as they were working together during this time. The rest of his life he supported short term liquidity injections.
So Hayekians are like auditors; after the battle they come in and kick the dead bodies? Don't do it again they say!
Seems like they have little to offer other than do nothing. Granted the Fed and Treasury missed and encouraged the housing bubble and they should be fired for it. But I don't see where Hayek can get us out of the hole. Hayek-like ECB policies are in action in Spain, Portugal and Greece and it is tough going and contractionary.
@Handshaines Not a great accomplishment when you actually take the time to read Keynes's work. Reading it makes a person feel confused when trying to remember how a zipper works again.
Tried post WWII, GDP fell but private sector grew by like 28% (single year of highest growth in US history). I suggest looking the Robert Higgs vid where he goes over this(i think it's called Myth of War Prosperity or something like that)
Silgin fails to realise that unregulated markets lead to artificial price fixing - which is what is happening now. And yet he has the cheek to talk about government price controls. What a hypocrite.
Just about every example I hear about involves government created barriers to entry, which favors already-established businesses. So paradoxically, regulated markets can (and often do) lead to price fixing and cartel-like behavior.
I'm afraid this was an incredibly biased audience. Far more Hayekians in the room, as befitting neoliberal LSE. Should of been had in a real public forum.
@BeholdZeus lol typical socialist go to china and see how Hayek is used on their economy. You invest 50000gbp in china and you have a return of 7% in 6 months, can you do that is a Keynes economy such as UK or USA? I cannot wait until the west is finished, then and only then people will start to wake up and realise.
@yoyuepz Retard China is far more centrally planned than the neo-libral west. In China to be able to do business the government must own a stake in your company. It's Keynes they follow not Hayek. Go China!
@ssgurgs9 Exactly, the demand for Chinese goods comes from the USA. With out that consumption they would not have the growth they get, however the over consumption in the USA has lead to a high private debt. Which means china will have to increase internal demand if it wishes to maintain high growth. Here in New Zealand and Australia we focus on government controls and we are in a far better state than the USA.
@honjo294 No son, China will just invest internal market with there 1.3 billion population. And Countries such as Australia and New Zealand will work more closer to China then compared to USA such as lambs and what not. Additional to this indonesia and other south east asian countries benefit from china trade and additional to this so does Russia supplying china with gas and oil. China keeps USD however China is buying GOLD/SILVER/COOPER for there own currency to make that the international $
@honjo294 If you are a foreigner they want to have a "joint partnership". What talks in china is one thing, MONEY. You can bribe the officals, the key is money. It is more central planned before then today, however China is opening up. If it is "Keynes" then why are the chinese good at saving money? Why do they invest? And do not consumer much? That alone would be a Hayek not Keynes theory. Even chinese farmers are rich, the west is socialist while the east is capitalist.
My apologies for my comments, and for taking the discussion to such a ridiculous and unproductive place. I must have been in a mood. I don't self identify firmly with either camp. Fault can be found in both schools of thought- The Keynsians seem to fail to acknowledge the causes of, and governmental role in, excessive bubbles and their resulting bursts. Hayek's side seems to fail to acknowledge the humanity of the system. The players in this system are people not automatons.
Idahomeable 1 month ago
'Lord' Skidelsky is a condescending old man. Notice how he resorts to denigrating his opponents rather than engaging with their message. George Selgin destroyed him in once sentence...
Skidelsky: ''They're just words.''
Selgin: ''Words are all economists have!''
Bastiat90 1 month ago
this debate is painful to watch
jamesarongray 1 month ago
A person using an arbitrary title such as 'Lord' in their name, AND using Hitler in his opening argument at a supposedly "intellectual" economics "debate", loses credibility in my mind. I find it funny also, that none of these economists refer to Hayek's view being an extension of Adam Smith and the Austrian School... Freedom is not mentioned, but yet government control and influence is assumed and accepted.
DannyDad208 1 month ago
@Idahomeable: Ah yes, and it's we Hayekians who make strawmen. Try sounding less like a cliche.
drlebensform 2 months ago
Comment removed
Idahomeable 2 months ago 2
@Idahomeable My life disproves ur genralization.
jamesarongray 1 month ago
Conservatives give more money to charity than liberals/socialists. We also give more give more blood, donate more time to volunteering and charitable causes. This is despite conservatives on average earning less money than liberals. So when you criticise we Hayekians, you're onto a losing path. I earn less than £10000 per annum and receive no help from the state: yet I am an advocate of minarchism, Hayekian and Austrian political philosophy and economics.
Bastiat90 1 month ago
Hayekians seem to view 50 years of post war American economy as a boom. The most prosperous period of humanity, a period marked by progressive taxation and high government investment, was achieved by misguided economic theory? The entirety of the Hayek's theory is based on simply allowing the middle class to slip into poverty, while the wealthy hang back and wait for better times. Yes lets go back to the world of the 1800's as Ron Paul suggests to a time before the middle class even existed.
Idahomeable 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
Idahomeable 2 months ago
Comment removed
Idahomeable 2 months ago
Keynes won hands-down. The only thing the Hayek's have to offer are strawmen followed by "well that extreme doesnt work, therefore we are correct".
SezSays 2 months ago 2
1:11:50 Pauline, LSE student working at the Institute of Economic Affairs has learned "just the other day" the difference between debt and deficit. I sincerely hope the Institute of Economic Affairs doesn't allow her to enter in the room with the nuke-related buttons.
distopiadnb 3 months ago
Skidelsky does not seem to be amused by the the presence of rap videos, "tweets", youthful slang, and shouting
sk8blunted 3 months ago
@BeholdZeus
There was never any deregulation. "Deregulation caused the crisis" has become a meme with little basis in fact.
libertine527 4 months ago
YO HAYEK!
beingfunisfun 5 months ago
I can't believe that, in 2011, they spent 10 minutes adjusting the mikes and volumes. What's more striking is that intro speeches were read out.
2007season 5 months ago
Many people conveniently forget that market deregulation of the Hayekian variety created the crisis in the first place. Its worth remembering the public debt was not the problem, at least not in the UK; indeed, it was only when the private debt was added to the public balance sheet that the debt became utterly unsustainable. Without targeted government spending there is no chance that the UK economy will grow. That is a Keynesian measure and it is both tried and proven.
BeholdZeus 5 months ago
The problem with Duncan Weldon's dentist is he doesn't pull out your rotten teeth, he just gives you a shot of Novocaine and a bill so you have to come see him again and again and again.
justintempler 6 months ago
Skidelsky "borrowing" money from people that haven't even been born yet? How does work?
justintempler 6 months ago
The Keynesians got spanked!!
Blkglssjw 6 months ago 11
To say that Keynes was "asimmetrical" because he focused only on expansionary policy is wrong. Keynes focused on expansionary policy *under conditions of underemployement equilibrium*. Expansion was an anti-cyclical device by definition, not to be relentlessly performed at any time, any place. As soon as private sector investment recovered -and Keynes thought it to be more responsive than what post-Keynesian later argued- monetary restriction was even suggested by him.
distopiadnb 6 months ago
Skidelsky you are one of the dumbest individuals i've ever seen claim to be an economist. You'd fit right in here at any one of the American Universities.
winterrosscharlton 6 months ago
FYI: Doesn't really start until 7:29 . I haven't watched it all yet, but so far just been audio testing and preparation to start.
GreatG0dOm 6 months ago 2
49:28 Wasn't Keynes also against the National Minimum Wage and labour laws?
erelpc 6 months ago
Honestly the audio need's work. Great video otherwise.
Joe11Blue 6 months ago
The LSE has some fab events.
bertiethetoupee4 6 months ago
Selgin makes a good point on QE about the banks shoring up their balance sheets but we are taking Keynesian fiscal policy here aren't we? Keynes would not have gone for QE, he wanted fiscal policy. Build infrastructure etc
johndonnelly100 6 months ago
@johndonnelly100 This is not 100% true, it's only rumored near his death that was against QE. The only person that would know was Hayek though, as they were working together during this time. The rest of his life he supported short term liquidity injections.
Joe11Blue 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So Hayekians are like auditors; after the battle they come in and kick the dead bodies? Don't do it again they say!
Seems like they have little to offer other than do nothing. Granted the Fed and Treasury missed and encouraged the housing bubble and they should be fired for it. But I don't see where Hayek can get us out of the hole. Hayek-like ECB policies are in action in Spain, Portugal and Greece and it is tough going and contractionary.
johndonnelly100 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
johndonnelly100 6 months ago
Hayek beats Keynes everytime.
Handshaines 6 months ago 43
@Handshaines Not a great accomplishment when you actually take the time to read Keynes's work. Reading it makes a person feel confused when trying to remember how a zipper works again.
Joe11Blue 6 months ago
@Handshaines Wait to see what Hayekian austerity does first: then we'll see who triumphs!
BeholdZeus 5 months ago
@BeholdZeus
Tried post WWII, GDP fell but private sector grew by like 28% (single year of highest growth in US history). I suggest looking the Robert Higgs vid where he goes over this(i think it's called Myth of War Prosperity or something like that)
stealthswimmer 5 months ago
Silgin fails to realise that unregulated markets lead to artificial price fixing - which is what is happening now. And yet he has the cheek to talk about government price controls. What a hypocrite.
BeholdZeus 5 months ago
@BeholdZeus
Just about every example I hear about involves government created barriers to entry, which favors already-established businesses. So paradoxically, regulated markets can (and often do) lead to price fixing and cartel-like behavior.
stealthswimmer 5 months ago
I'm afraid this was an incredibly biased audience. Far more Hayekians in the room, as befitting neoliberal LSE. Should of been had in a real public forum.
BeholdZeus 5 months ago
Should HAVE ... should HAVE.
youfatstinkypoo 5 months ago
@BeholdZeus
what would be the point of a public forum? The actual public probably knows little if anything about this sorta thing.
stealthswimmer 5 months ago
@BeholdZeus lol typical socialist go to china and see how Hayek is used on their economy. You invest 50000gbp in china and you have a return of 7% in 6 months, can you do that is a Keynes economy such as UK or USA? I cannot wait until the west is finished, then and only then people will start to wake up and realise.
yoyuepz 3 months ago
@yoyuepz Retard China is far more centrally planned than the neo-libral west. In China to be able to do business the government must own a stake in your company. It's Keynes they follow not Hayek. Go China!
honjo294 3 months ago
@honjo294 Actually, China is curbing their consumption. That's why they hold so many American dollars. That would be anathema to Keynes.
ssgurgs9 3 months ago
@ssgurgs9 Exactly, the demand for Chinese goods comes from the USA. With out that consumption they would not have the growth they get, however the over consumption in the USA has lead to a high private debt. Which means china will have to increase internal demand if it wishes to maintain high growth. Here in New Zealand and Australia we focus on government controls and we are in a far better state than the USA.
honjo294 3 months ago
@honjo294 No son, China will just invest internal market with there 1.3 billion population. And Countries such as Australia and New Zealand will work more closer to China then compared to USA such as lambs and what not. Additional to this indonesia and other south east asian countries benefit from china trade and additional to this so does Russia supplying china with gas and oil. China keeps USD however China is buying GOLD/SILVER/COOPER for there own currency to make that the international $
yoyuepz 3 months ago
As far as Keynes went anyway, still free markets with freely floating exchange rates.
honjo294 3 months ago
@honjo294 If you are a foreigner they want to have a "joint partnership". What talks in china is one thing, MONEY. You can bribe the officals, the key is money. It is more central planned before then today, however China is opening up. If it is "Keynes" then why are the chinese good at saving money? Why do they invest? And do not consumer much? That alone would be a Hayek not Keynes theory. Even chinese farmers are rich, the west is socialist while the east is capitalist.
yoyuepz 3 months ago
@Handshaines Except for the great depression.....
GTdnrSTANG 2 months ago
No mention of fractional reserve, no mention of the 1920-21 USA recovery as a result of reducing government spending and the fed not printing money.
poseidonVI 6 months ago 2
The audio on bbc analysis lasts only roughly 30 minutes, let us see what has been left...
theatchico 6 months ago