1/7 Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics, by Nicholas Wapshott

Nov 25, 2018, 03:47 AM

Photo: Friedrich August von Hayek, 27th January 1981, the 50th Anniversary of his first lecture at LSE, 1981. Professor of Economic Science at LSE 1931-1950. In 1932, Hayek had suggested that private investment in the public markets was a better road to wealth and economic co-ordination in Britain than government spending programs as argued in an exchange of letters with John Maynard Keynes, co-signed with Lionel Robbins and others in The Times. Hayek won the Nobel prize for Economic Sciences in 1974. Permissions: No known copyright restrictions

http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact .

http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules

Twitter: @BatchelorShow

Participants: John Taylor, Hoover; Michael Boskin, Hoover; Russell Roberts, Hoover; Mary Kissel, Wall Street Journal; Nicholas Henry Wapshott (@NWapshott), author.

Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics Oct 11, 2011; by Nicholas Wapshott

“I defy anybody―Keynesian, Hayekian, or uncommitted―to read [Wapshott’s] work and not learn something new.”―John Cassidy, The New Yorker As the stock market crash of 1929 plunged the world into turmoil, two men emerged with competing claims on how to restore balance to economies gone awry. John Maynard Keynes, the mercurial Cambridge economist, believed that government had a duty to spend when others would not. He met his opposite in a little-known Austrian economics professor, Freidrich Hayek, who considered attempts to intervene both pointless and potentially dangerous. The battle lines thus drawn, Keynesian economics would dominate for decades and coincide with an era of unprecedented prosperity, but conservative economists and political leaders would eventually embrace and execute Hayek's contrary vision.

From their first face-to-face encounter to the heated arguments between their ardent disciples, Nicholas Wapshott here unearths the contemporary relevance of Keynes and Hayek, as present-day arguments over the virtues of the free market and government intervention rage with the same ferocity as they did in the 1930s. .. .. ..