Editorial Reviews. Review. Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics. Nicholas Wapshott. Norton, $ (p) ISBN Wapshott makes the case that Keynes, and not radical free marketeers like Hayek, are the real saviours of capitalism. The final quote, from John Kenneth. Nicholas Wapshott, author of Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about John.

Author: JoJorr Zolojin
Country: Gambia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 12 September 2015
Pages: 192
PDF File Size: 14.98 Mb
ePub File Size: 20.88 Mb
ISBN: 512-9-98899-618-4
Downloads: 89940
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Daigrel

Rauchway on the Great Depression and the New Deal.

As an outsider to the debate ala Hayek vs. An interesting chronology of the back-and-forth between the two economists and their proteges. There’s some truth to that, of course.

Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics by Nicholas Wapshott

If you can have regrets about this stuff–of course, today everything would be web-streamed, and so we’d be able to see all this stuff and see Hayek and Keynes hqyek around with each other’s arguments and knocking them on the head.

Richard Kahn was the guy who actually took an idea which had been floated by Keynes in the s really as a sound practical meynes to the Liberal Party [in Britain] about how to get people back to work.

It’s funny, as you were saying that I had the exact hayeek image of your opponent being carried off on the shoulders of the crowd with the cheers and delight; and you are standing in the corner and you uayek to say: I liked how it almost, almost refused to take sides.


Thatcher, certainly, insured that she saw him on a regular basis. Chapter 2 in L. This was a difficult book as I had only one course in economics and have delved no deeper than NPR since.

But he did other things, too. Paperbackpages. KevinF Nov 5 at 2: The famous silence of Hayek in the face of it. I think it would be interesting to learn more about his time in Chicago. But what would be ideal and what would be amazingly helpful today looking at the problems that we had is to have Hayek’s proper, definitive checklist of why The General Theory was wrong.

Want nayek Read saving…. Very readable introduction to Keynes and Hayek. He notes the paradox of a right-wing U. Talk about their friendship. It requires a level of humility kenes honesty in the face of which most economists would prefer not to speak. These are academics, and they are very open public academics, and you might expect them to argue.

And so the debate between these two schools of economic thought will continue, on and on. On the left side are followers of John Maynard Keynes, who believe that government actions can and should smooth the destructive swings of business cycles.

Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics

And he’s made a number of, well, barely credible things. He was always falling out with people. The clamor and thirst that was slaked by its appearance was due not so much to its being true or proven or empirically right but it was it was the right medicine–it appealed to ekynes lot of people.


For example, there is a famous exchange of comments between Keynes and a young Hayek over Keynes’ tract on monetary theory.

His account By Robert Cole Since the s, one clash has defined both academic macroeconomics and the economic policies of governments. Absolutely agog, because they couldn’t understand a word he said. Aug 21, Peter rated it really liked it.

Keynes – Hayek by Nicholas Wapshott – review

Nicholas Wapshott presents us here with an impressive study of how a Micro-Economic debate between Cambridge University and the LSE in the late s concerning the equilibrium between savings and investment eventually cascaded into the wider world until, bythe future of capitalism seemed dependent on which side of the Keynes-Hayek camp you belonged to.

Wapshott gave the “what” but not the “why” or “how.

And in a way, economics, which is all macroeconomics–it’s true–which is all economics today is sort of modeling; it’s econometricians trying to measure different pieces. Yet everyone recognises this dimension as macro-economic today, even those who are strongly opposed to Keynesian policies for stimulating wapzhott regulating effective demand.

And this to me is the punchline to the story, which is: