The Keynes-Hayek showdown

By Nicholas Wapshott
November 7, 2011

By Nicholas Wapshott
The views expressed are his own.

Eighty years ago an anguished debate between two economists began in Britain — and came to shape the politics of the world after World War Two. The differences between John Maynard Keynes and his nemesis Friedrich Hayek sharply described alternative approaches to addressing the ebb and flow of the business cycle, with Keynes arguing that to put the jobless back to work governments could and should intervene in the market and Hayek insisting that such actions were based on an inadequate understanding of how economics really worked and would only delay the day of reckoning.

That snarky disagreement was so vicious and ill-mannered that one old-school economics professor described it as “the method of the duello” being “conducted in the manner of Kilkenny cats.” On Tuesday, in the Asia Society on Park Avenue, New York, two teams of economists, one representing Keynes, the other Hayek, will slug it out before an audience of 250 and bring the debate to America. Seventy years ago, Keynes’s ideas were eagerly embraced by young American economists who began implementing the Cambridge economist’s ideas first in Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, then in every government until Jimmy Carter, when Hayek’s disciple Milton Friedman introduced monetarism as a guiding principle.

The Keynes-Hayek debate has never been so topical. Today the fault line between right and left can be defined as the difference between those, like President Obama, who believe that the broken economy can be fixed by the government providing a giant fiscal stimulus, and those, like all the Republican presidential contenders, who believe government in America is too big and should be dismantled to make way for the operation of the free market. While Obama pushes his Jobs Bill, which would inject about half a trillion dollars into the economy, the GOP in the House is preventing any such manipulation of the economy from taking place.

The belated American Keynes-Hayek debate was provoked after the stock market crash of 2008 and the freezing up of the banks and Wall Street financial institutions the following year. A trillion-dollar Keynesian stimulus was quickly followed by a Hayekian wave of buyers’ remorse that deemed that the swift reduction of the national debt was more important than giving jobs to the unemployed. Congressman* Paul Ryan’s economic plans urging fiscal continence without delay were supported by the Tea Party movement that demanded that new government borrowing cease. Last summer’s debt ceiling talks continued the battle and was met by Obama’s doomed Jobs Bill by which the president is attempting to pin blame for joblessness upon his opponents.

The Reuters debate will put such practical prescriptions and counter-arguments into perspective. Four Keynesians – economist James Galbraith, son of the high priest of Keynesianism, John K. Galbraith; New Yorker columnist John Cassidy,  Sylvia Nasar, the historian of economic thought and author of Grand Pursuit; Steve Rattner, the architect of Obama’s auto company bail-out – will slug it out with four Hayekians – Economics Nobel Prize-winner Edmund Phelps; Professor Lawrence H. White of George Mason University; Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute; and Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal. If this group of distinguished thinkers follows the spirit of the original debate, the usual academic civilities may soon make way for acerbic fireworks.

The spirit of the original debate is likely to inform Tuesday’s lively discussion, framed like an Oxford Union debate and presided over by Sir Harry Evans, Thomson Reuters’ editor-at-large. Keynes and Hayek first argued over whether deliberately creating new demand in an economy — by cheap money lent by banks, by slashing taxes, and by governments directly investing in public works programs –- could be sustained, or whether, as Hayek argued, such measures would only in the long run delay the day of reckoning. Keynes’s famous riposte was that even temporary jobs were worth having because “in the long run we are all dead.”

After publication of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom in 1944, a second front was opened against the Keynesians that suggested that the increase in the size of government that accompanied widespread intervention in the economy tended towards a loss of individual freedom and the rise of authoritarianism, a charge that was hotly denied. It is this accusation of inadvertently inviting tyranny that has sharpened the language in what was always a vituperative clash of personalities and ideas.

The ever-quotable Keynes once remarked that “even the most practical man of affairs is usually in the thrall of the ideas of some long-dead economist.” Those words of wisdom have never been more true than today as we face next November a Keynes-Hayek presidential election. Those who attend the Reuters Keynes-Hayek debate, to be relayed live on Reuters.com and posted for all those unable to be there in person, will witness the opening salvos in the latest American chapter of a saga that came to define politics and economics in the twentieth century. What is said may frame the intellectual background for how Americans vote next year.

Nicholas Wapshott’s “Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics” is published by W. W. Norton.

PHOTO: Boxing gloves are seen at a gym in the low-income neighborhood of La Vega in Caracas, March 18, 2011. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

*Editor’s note: This article originally identified Paul Ryan as a senator. The sentence has been corrected.

33 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

This arguement is a part of a bigger conflict…

Popper vs. Wittgenstein

Left wing Hegelists vs Right wing Hegelists

Hume vs Rousseau

It’s about time that we get to the third and final stage of this dialectic.

Posted by PhilGrimm | Report as abusive

In two dimensional reasoning there is only black or white good or evil and in capitalistic economy it is the reasoning of either Keynes and followers or Hayek and followers who are either for or against intervention by a powerful entity in this case the government to either stimulate or hold sway .For when the economy is on the verge of catastrophe and will cause massive social disaster when left to its own device.As the crisis economy is going to self destruct itself and wipe out the lives of the multitude that fall within its swirl.In such situations the job of maintaining order and some semblance of normalcy falls on the government mandate which is its primary responsibility.So under two dimensional reasoning there cannot be any other entity.The only other intervention that is strong enough is the divine one or for the atheists by the force of nature,however it cannot be timed to serve the purpose in this regard.

Posted by schadha100 | Report as abusive

The debate will be good and long over due, but inconsequential. The two very competent sides will put on a nice performance and listeners will take sides and all go home to a glass of wine and a chuckle at how awful those other people were, and our economy and culture and society will continue to collapse.

Phil’s comment above is the correct one. All of this is a part of a much larger debate that has been going on for generations and even centuries. It’s time to move on. There are more options for the future meaning and purpose of humanity than two.

Posted by standuncan | Report as abusive

What most business journalists fail to report is that Keynes specified that governments run SURPLUSES during prosperous times, and that government SPEND THE SAVED SURPLUSES during down times. No lefty government, either FDR or LBJ or Clinton or Obama ever run a surplus, and Keynesianism has no chance of working when governments deficit spend in good and bad times, with debt that crowds out all private economic activity. Give them Hell, Steve Moore and team Hayek! Paul in Atlanta

Posted by shovel99 | Report as abusive

[...] The Great Keynes vs Hayek Debate Continues Tomorrow Posted by Dave on November 7, 2011 Here’s the info: Was John Maynard Keynes correct, can government fix the mass unemployment generated by a financial slump? Or is that a dangerous delusion as argued by his arch critic, Friedrich von Hayek? Sir Harold Evans chairs this Oxford-style debate, which focuses on the publication of Nicholas Wapshott’s Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics. [...]

Free markets are a figment of the imagination ; they simply do not exist and have never existed. Note that those who are most vociferous in their adherence to free market economics and at the same time most against government intervention are the first to apply their priciples to others but not to themselves or their friends.Tax breaks for the richest and big wasteful government contracts for same are a patriotic duty; expenditures in the social sphere that aim to alleviate misery and stimulate demand are the work of the devil.And no, I am neither a communist nor a socialist.

Posted by Biscayne | Report as abusive

That Hayekian second front sounds like the argument that fascism is inevitable and irreversible in wartime, but didn’t Harry Truman prove that wrong?

Posted by borisjimski | Report as abusive

Milton Friedman was Hayek’s disciple? This has to be a mistake..

Hayek belonged to the Austrian school, which to today still rejects monetarism as just another form of government planning. Friedman was Chicago school.. vastly different animals.

The two disagreed on a large number of issues.. Seriously, do some research before you publish an article.

Posted by OOPSIE123 | Report as abusive

Is it possible that they were BOTH right?

That (for example) in a debt+deficit bounded downturn, Hayek is right (that borrowing more for temporary stimulus only deepens the malaise and postpones the inevitable day of reckoning);

but that (for example) in a fast-growing society with plenty of investment needs (in schooling etc.) and with less than its optimal debt balance; deficit-stimulus can have a positive long-term effect if the funds are spent wisely?

I think both Hayek and Keynes were right, but that their theories work best in different circumstances. In many ways, economics is like chemistry… Keynes fans should take note of this principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelie r's_principle

An interesting historical discussion can be found at the end of this recent BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15619 946

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive

In the real world neither Keynes nor Hayek win the day one-hundred percent.It’s a mixture of the principles of Keynes and Hayek that are at work. The only variable is the degree applied by either doctrines at different points in time.

Posted by jlpeng | Report as abusive

“That snarky disagreement was so vicious and ill-mannered…”

Keynes and Hayek were good friends. Exactly when was the disagreement “vicious and ill-mannered”?

“Hayek’s disciple Milton Friedman”

Friedman was in no way “Hayek’s disciple”! I now conclude Wapshott has no idea what he is talking about.

Posted by NickDanger3 | Report as abusive

[...] It was the economic equivalent of the epic Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier fight when John Maynard Keynes and Friederich Hayek met to debate economic theory. Eighty years later, the battle that shaped contemporary politics rages on. Nicholas Wapshott, author of Keynes-Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics,” looks back on that the historic debate. [...]

Keynes provided us with an incomplete but sometimes useful economic theory. Most of the Hayek school provides us with an ideologically based theories. They determine what they think the answer should be based on a right wing ideology, then work very hard to put together often very clever arguments to justify the answer. Hayek’s disciples can often win a war of words, but in practice their theories fail.
The current Keynes vs Hayek debate can be thought of as follows. The policies of the Bush administration (impure Hayek) led to the worst economic crisis of the post Depression era. The Obama administration (Keynes but severely hampered by Congress) prevented a 2nd Depression, restored GDP progress, but has failed to restore jobs (many of which have been sent overseas never to return under any economic theory). Now the right wing wants to try a purer Hayek approach. That is, more of what got us here in the first place. This approach is similar to a primitive religion, when the sacrifice of a virgin fails to appease the Volcano gods, they conclude that maybe the first wasn’t really virgin enough and sacrifice some more virgins.

Posted by QuietThinker | Report as abusive

I agree with shovel99 that a true Keynesian approach would have the government run a surplus during good times. However, he is wrong in his condemnation of all Democratic presidents. Clinton, a moderate, did run a surplus, which rapidly vanished with Bush’s tax cuts. Like many right wingers, he views everything in black and white, ignoring the successes of moderates.

Posted by QuietThinker | Report as abusive

I vote Schumpeter. “Schumpeter told many that he aspired to be the greatest economist, lover, and horseman in the world — but then would add that he was having trouble with the horses.” Economists with a sense of humor are hard to come by, the rest seem trapped in interminable meta-physical debates, even the dead ones.

Posted by ARJTurgot2 | Report as abusive

QuietThinker you’re quite wrong on many accounts. Bush never had ‘impure Hayek’, he had deficit spending, governmental bailouts (or did you forget that?) and a number of other things that make him like chalk to the Hayek Cheese. You clearly don’t understand Hayek and the Austrian philosophy. Read up on it. You would know instantly that the kind of deficits and the debt-burden Bush and Obama operate/d with would be impossible if we had Hayek’s theory. Continuing, the people informing the Obama administration, in an economic sense, are exactly the same people who informed the Bush administration. Look it up. This partisan rubbish that the right and ‘impure hayek’ caused the biggest post depression collapse is rubbish. This crisis is of bipartisan creation spanning many, many years.

And no, the libertarians don’t want to try a ‘purer’ Hayek approach. They want to try a Hayek approach- as it hasn’t been done by either party in anything close to recent memory.

Btw, I’m not republican, I’m not democrat. This problem goes beyond partisan squabbles and finger pointing.

One more thing. You championed the fact Obama’s policies (which were the same as Bush’s post crisis (e.g. bailouts)) saved us from another great depression. So, a statement on your belief – if you believe we are back at the level of economic output pre-recession (GDP is now equal to pre-recession figure) then we also must conclude that the US worker has become staggeringly, mind-bogglingly more productive, as there are millions upon millions less yet they have the same level of output. To me that seems very improbable, if not impossible.

What I conclude makes much more sense. GDP and stock markets can be buoyed by vast sums of money printing but with them come no new resources to create jobs. It’s just paper. So really what is happening is the money printing just papers over the problem, makes it seem as if the economy is growing due to inflation and easy credit (handy for the politicians), but at the same time we have a 9 percent unemployment rate and a record number of people requiring food stamps. Do you see how the recovery data (stock market rally and GDP) don’t correlate with reality? If I were you I wouldn’t be so confident that we actually have avoided a depression.

Posted by Petarghh | Report as abusive

QuietThinker should remain more silent and do some more thinking.

In essence, his dispatch amounts to “right wing views are bad.”

He does not mount an argument, for him it is merely a priori, ergo, he need not actually think critically about what theory {or blend of theories} might be best practice.

For folks of his ilk, the world and everything in it is a contest between good and evil, and they labor under the misconception that they possess a rare, especially enlightened view.

Apart from being wrong, Sir, you are what Orwell was writing about.

Posted by CounterSophist | Report as abusive

Problem with economics and economists is that they are not scientists although they desperately crave to be viewed as such (and increasingly use mathematics to bolster their arguments and gain the keys to the scientific kingdom).

But the underlying scientific approach is to use empirical data to validate mathematical argument. Without objective verification the math is simply empty musings. (Consider the Guassian Copula Function used for proving that bundling mortgages was impossible to fail – it was never verified in practice.)

The closest we have to verified experiment is the Obama administration’s pumping almost a trillion dollars into the economy. If that is not Keynesian then what is? And it failed.

So far it looks as though Hayek was right.

Posted by eleno | Report as abusive

Obama’s spend ‘failed’ (to be more precise fell short) not because it was Keynesian but because it was too small. His Jobs Bill similarly goes in the right direction and uses the right words – infrastructure spending and the like – but even if passed would again, alas, be too little too late. You can only test Keynesianism by doing it properly, as, pretty well, in Britain in the Depression

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive

@eleno

And the Chinese started their current development with considerable government investment while maintaining large degrees of state ownership. From that, one deduces Marxist-Keynesian solutions are optimal.

Posted by ARJTurgot2 | Report as abusive

I think the great test of the Hayak do-nothing approach was the Great Depression. You can argue whether the New Deal or WWII was responsible for bringing us back, but in the current situation waiting around for WWIII doesn’t seem like good policy. For me, this debate is useless, both are proven failed theories.

Posted by xyxl | Report as abusive

@ Eleno, You’re out of your mind if you think Hayek’s theories would work in the real world when you have wall street greed running the show!
We need a governing body to oversee them and monitor them 24/7.
Depression was caused by people like Mr Hayek’s theory of laissez faire!

Posted by bipolar1 | Report as abusive

Wasn’t that debate shown on YouTube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo- Sk

Posted by Greenspan2 | Report as abusive

@eleno, you are right about one thing: economists are not scientists anymore than sociologists are. The problem is that the “models” can never take into account the complex, dynamic world. So, neither model can be proven or dis-proven. Arguments are won on subjective values.

My subjective value is to raise all boats because the alternative theory is deregulation and deregulation seems to always lead to catastrophe. Face it, we need the Government to reign in the greedy. But we need the greedy to stimulate the market. However, during this recession the greedy have failed to stimulate the markets so there’s no one left but the Government to do it.

The WAY Government should do it is to tax the wealthy to pay for the stimulus for two reasons: The wealthy are not doing their part to stimulate growth, and we all can’t go into debt doing what the wealthy should be doing.

I am pro Government stimulus suggesting that I’m a Keynesian, but note that I am also pro balanced budget. As an economist, I like a balanced, sustainable approach because it’s just more practical.

Posted by LEEDAP | Report as abusive

[...] nice article from Reuters. Spread the word:EmailPrintFacebookTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

@shovel99: You are absolutely right. People thinking a government can stimulate by LENDING money don’t understand the social psychology of debt. At best one can avoid direct mayhem with supplying liquidity into the market. But sustainable growth ? No way. Growth is related to employment. Because it creates positive EXPECTATIONS on future market demand.

In fact, a government that runs itself into a gross debt of GDP above 100 % only makes it worse. How can someone build a positive view on the economy with a huge Sword of Damocles hanging above it ? The real-life situations in Europe, Japan and the US should have shown us enough.

Posted by FBreughel1 | Report as abusive

[...] Read about the debate from Reuters. CommentsPowered by Facebook Comments [...]

It is interesting and important to discuss these theories. This is what they are, just theories because we have not yet managed to get things right. I feel there are other issues that need to be taken in account. These are Misuse of Power, Corruption of our Political and Financial system, Lack of Democratic participation by ALL voters through poverty and poor education, mis-use of psychological knowledge and financial power to manipulate the electorate,……we can come up with a long list. Unless we have a true democratic system and true level playing field in all human activities, including an impartial legal system, we won’t achieve anything through such debates.

Posted by Omen100 | Report as abusive

Are we truely free if government doesn’t allow us to fail! Is it cost effective or proper for government to try to be everything to everyone? Even our poorest in America make more than 90% of the rest of planet earth! We’re living miles above our means and the resst of the globe and next year we’ll be the great adjustment folks-prepare for deflation for years! Hope we come out the other end a better country-with a balanced budget somewhere in the US someday!

Posted by DrJJJJ | Report as abusive

QuietThinker,
I’m a staunch Hayekian but I have to admit that your points are pungent and your mataphors more so. Nevertheless, Bush’s “crony capitalism” is far from a free-market system. Hayekians are not saying: “Give us more Bush” or “sacrifice more virgins”, we’re saying the exact opposite, “Give us less Bush” and “sacrifice more Keynesians”.

Posted by NewsAddict | Report as abusive

[...] Wapshott wrote a good article in Reuters about the on-going intellectual boxing match between two long-dead economists - in [...]

“This approach is similar to a primitive religion, when the sacrifice of a virgin fails to appease the Volcano gods, they conclude that maybe the first wasn’t really virgin enough and sacrifice some more virgins.”

Ahem… then there was the time that the Progressive Left was outraged that anyone would view yet another debt-financed ‘stimulus’ with some suspicion, and did heap scorn upon them, saying, debt is savings, consumption is production, and war is peace…

Posted by CounterSophist | Report as abusive

[...] Reuters introduce their Keynes Hayeck debate running tonight from 5.30 p.m. ET with this caption:Was John Maynard Keynes correct, can government fix the mass unemployment generated by a financial slump? Or is that a dangerous delusion as argued by his arch critic, Friedrich von Hayek? Sir Harold Evans chairs this Oxford-style debate, which focuses on the publication of Nicholas Wapshott’s Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics. [...]

Where’s the video of the debate? Was it not recorded?

Posted by qwertyasdf | Report as abusive

So far, Keynes has fared better than Hayek in their race to attract supporters. One of the reasons can be that Keynes has an analytical theory, while Hayek uses one words. Hayek, in his Road to Serfdom, attacks monopoly and especially state monopoly, but he offers no analytical theory. So far, no Hayekian economists can offer better monopoly model and prove more significant damage done by monopoly. Gordon Tullock has made some contribution in the latter aspect, but not in the former one. In addition, the Hayekians also need to disprove Keynes’ theory analytically. These, and many other wrong economic theories, are discussed in my ebook “Economics in Deep Trouble” (Amazon).

Posted by HakChoi | Report as abusive

Nice points Eleno.

Let me dis-spell a common Keynesian myth to counter those who say ‘stimulus’ is what we need. You forget that the ‘stimulus’ is simply shifting coins from the economy’s left pocket to it’s right. The government can’t create wealth, it can only tax and then redistribute. And in this case it’s shifting from the private sector, which is indisputably more efficient and creates more productive jobs, to the public sector, which is notoriously more inefficient and creates unproductive jobs. This is indisputable.

But yes, throw in the printing press and the government can ‘create’ this wealth (aka debt). But the problem with this is that no new resources, the means to produce, are conjured into existence with this paper money. You still have an economy capable of the same output only you are pulling resources to a certain governmental-designated sector with this new money (which is also inflationary). So no, governmental stimulus is not the solution, it is the problem. It is taking capital and flushing it down the toilet, or worse, inflating bubbles that burst and all they leave behind is the debt we accrued to inflate them.

HakChoi trying to substantiate economy-encompassing theories such as these with obtuse mathematical theory to predict outcomes is folly. It’s not reality. Seriously, one man and a few underlings deciding on the interest rate of the largest economy in history? Give me a break.

It still baffles me that we don’t listen to Austrians with more attentiveness when they have warned of this exact crisis and given a play by play of startling accuracy years and years before. We seem to look to the people who created the problem, who had no idea the crisis was coming to fix it when they don’t understand what they did to create it in the first place.

One more thing, to the person who said that the Great Depression happened because we did ‘nothing’ Hayek-style. You need to stop reading revisionist history and understand that Hoover and FDR were two very interventionist presidents and what was practised preceding and anteceding the collapse of 1929 was not Hayek-inspired capitalism (although it was closer to it that what we have now). The reason the Depression went on so long is the same reason Japan has been in the doldrums so long, they don’t let their economies correct and try and prop up unsustainably structured economies with inflationary monetary policy. They also did strange things like price fixing.

Posted by Petarghh | Report as abusive

I’m reading Wapshott (I bought it from the US) and he was very quick to point at that Friedman and Hayek were at odds on many things, only really agreeing that prices were the important signal sent by the market and price manipulation was wrong. So Wapshott is exempt from criticism on that point.

With regard to the reasons for the crisis, I can see merit in both Keynes & Hayek. Keynes, like Herbert Simon who won a Nobel prize for saying something similar, felt that the classical assumption of “rationality” was inapplicable to man. Man simply wasn’t clever enough to be a fully rational profit maximiser. Instead he was a momentum investor with a bias to the short term, and hence the market often witnessed “waves of irrational psychology”. Banks too were pro-cyclical, lending too much in good times and not enough in bad times. Later, post-Keynesians like Hyman Minsky offered very plausible (especially in hindsight) and simple explanations of financial crises. Minsky warned that long economic expansions were potentially deadly because they lead to a build up of “Ponzi debt” which is what happened. He also predicted in the 1980s that anything that could be securitised, would be. In this context, Greenspan’s “put” which minimised market downturns and prolonged the upturn, and his relaxed view on financial innovation can be shown to have been foreseen as deadly by Minsky.

Both Keynes and Minsky recognised that free markets and the banking sector had to be regulated to keep activity within normal bounds, and not going from boom to bust.

Hayek (I think) contended that artificially low monetary policy distorted the balance between saving and investment, and led to a build up of “malinvestment”. This can be seen to have happened too. So Keynes and Hayek were compatible in describing the roots of the crisis. Tut, tut, Mr. Greenspan.

Technically I think Hayek’s prescription to resolve the crisis is correct, but morally Keynes’ solutions are better. Propping up failed institutions introduces moral hazard and rewards failure by socialising losses. However, the social cost of prolonged unemployment and poverty justify state sponsored solutions. Hayek felt that in the long run free markets would allow the economy to self-heal, but as Keynes famously said “in the long run we’re all dead”.

Wapshott describes Hayek’s contradictions very well. Despite being very pro free markets, he recognised that utilities and other natural monopolies required regulation, as well as recognising other market failures. As Keynes said, they both recognised that a line needs to be drawn where free markets were left unfettered, they just disagreed where that line should be.

Hayek was, surprisingly to me, very anti-Conservative. He would have loathed the Tea Party. Conservatives were too nationalistic (hear hear) and not open to change. They wanted to retain the dominance of wealthy interests in the system and as such, were potentially as tyrannical as socialists. Ironically, Wapshott points out that Hayek never once worked in the private sector! Keynes was a master trader & speculator so clearly did believe in the markets. He distrusted socialism and advocated spending to alleviate the unemployment that would lead to extreme politics.

Both Keynes and Hayek have been badly misrepresented by many. Keynes, as said above, wanted intervention to dampen surplus eras too and only wanted deficits when necessary to alleviate periods of insufficient demand. His multiplier theory still holds water as far as I know. Keynes, it is often forgotten, wanted looser monetary policy to accompany his fiscal policies. He wasn’t “one or the other”. I read Peter Clarke’s bio of Keynes earlier this year. In that book I think it is said that Keynes, in all his works, only ever mentioned the word “deficit” a handful of times.

Was rescuing AIG and RBS, and “cash for clunkers” really Keynesian? I don’t think so.

Posted by Stuttgart88 | Report as abusive

A trillion-dollar Keynesian stimulus? Really? Funny no one noticed that at the time. I didn’t notice anything near that size in terms of Keynesian ‘stimulus’. Spending perhaps…but certainly not stimulus.

Posted by larrymotuz | Report as abusive

What did Keynes or Hayek say about Demand Side Depreciation?

It is 42 years after the Moon landing. The economics profession cannot specify what has been lost on the depreciation of automobiles each year for any country or for the planet. So if planned obsolescence has been going on how would that affect the figures?

But we are supposed to care about these pseudo-debates about the ideas of a man who died 23 years before the Moon landing? We don’t even know the depreciation during those 23 years.

Posted by psikeyhackr | Report as abusive

[...] is a great pity that we only hear about the Keynes-Hayek debate. Unlike those two towering figures, Cassel was consistent throughout. Economics, and the world [...]

… [Trackback]

[...] Read More here: blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/11/0 7/the-keynes-hayek-showdown/ [...]