You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.77 AVERAGE
3.77 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
medium-paced
I had to read this book for school but I really liked it. Like so much I should really reread it. It made economics as a whole really make sense to me
informative
medium-paced
Great snapshot those Keynesian versus Hayek economics.
Very good, seemingly balanced look at the opposite economic theories alive in the US today. The first half of the book deals too much with their personal stories, but the second half does a good job of covering their legacies in American politics.
Educational, but kind of a slog to finish. This was a broccoli book for me, not dessert.
The history was definitely interesting. I got more out of it because I had just finished Justin Fox's "Myth of the Rational Market", so I saw some of the same characters and themes.
The economics in question are somewhat described, but this is by no means a textbook. So you're not going to get a lot of "economic learning" from it. And you will also get more out of the story if you know some about economics.
Highly recommended for the amateur economist at heart.
The economics in question are somewhat described, but this is by no means a textbook. So you're not going to get a lot of "economic learning" from it. And you will also get more out of the story if you know some about economics.
Highly recommended for the amateur economist at heart.
The debate between Keynes and Hayek is essentially the debate over the government's role in the economy, and this book tries to explain that struggle by telling the personal story of the two economists. It's a good idea. Of course, the actual debate between Hayek and Keynes, the men, dealt largely with obscure battles over economic terms, sexed up with personal attacks and sarcastic tirades. But the author packs the real significance of their ideas around the underwhelming personal back and forth, and I came away with more about economic theory than I went in with.
The narrative gets muddied once Keynes dies, and the book turns to the economic policies of European and American policymakers over the last 50 years. The main reason for this seems to be that, for politicians, Keynes and Hayek are just tropes signalling whether they are conservatives or liberals. So set aside a major point that the first half of the book, which argued against that reasoning. Of course, we can't really blame the author for the incoherence of the stated economic philosophies of politicians. Apparently when John Kennedy cuts taxes, it's Keynesian, and when Reagan does it, it's Hayekian.
For those who are not going to read this whole book, I also recommend the rap video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
The narrative gets muddied once Keynes dies, and the book turns to the economic policies of European and American policymakers over the last 50 years. The main reason for this seems to be that, for politicians, Keynes and Hayek are just tropes signalling whether they are conservatives or liberals. So set aside a major point that the first half of the book, which argued against that reasoning. Of course, we can't really blame the author for the incoherence of the stated economic philosophies of politicians. Apparently when John Kennedy cuts taxes, it's Keynesian, and when Reagan does it, it's Hayekian.
For those who are not going to read this whole book, I also recommend the rap video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
Mooi gebalanceerd boek, doet echt recht aan zowel Keynes als Hayek. Interessant op economisch, historisch en politiek vlak, maar geeft ook veel inzicht in Keynes en Hayek als personen en hoe hun levensloop hun economische en politieke ideeën heeft beïnvloed.
Enkele "leuke" quotes:
(1) Hayek over conservatisme:
Classical economists and conservatives do not fare much better than socialists and communists in Hayek’s stark analysis. He condemns the “wooden” advocates of free-market solutions, while rejecting conservatism, a devotion to existing institutions. “Though a necessary element in any stable society, [conservatism] is not a social program,” he wrote. “In its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never . . . appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
(2) Hayek over conservatisme en liberalisme
“The conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are.”
(3) George Orwell over Hayek:
“Professor Hayek . . . does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them."
(4) Leuke quote van Truman
Truman had little interest in economics and little time for economists. He joked that he would like to meet a one-armed economist so he could not be told, “On the one hand, on the other.”
(5) John Kenneth Galbraith over Keynesianism
“Keynes was exceedingly comfortable with the economic system he so brilliantly explored,” observed Galbraith. “So the broad thrust of his efforts, like that of Roosevelt, was conservative; it was to help ensure that the system would survive. But such conservatism in the English-speaking countries does not appeal to the truly committed conservative. . . . Better to accept the unemployment, idled plants, and mass despair of the Great Depression, with all the resulting damage to the reputation of the capitalist system, than to retreat on true principle. . . . When capitalism finally succumbs, it will be to the thunderous cheers of those who are celebrating their final victory over people like Keynes.”
Enkele "leuke" quotes:
(1) Hayek over conservatisme:
Classical economists and conservatives do not fare much better than socialists and communists in Hayek’s stark analysis. He condemns the “wooden” advocates of free-market solutions, while rejecting conservatism, a devotion to existing institutions. “Though a necessary element in any stable society, [conservatism] is not a social program,” he wrote. “In its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never . . . appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
(2) Hayek over conservatisme en liberalisme
“The conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are.”
(3) George Orwell over Hayek:
“Professor Hayek . . . does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them."
(4) Leuke quote van Truman
Truman had little interest in economics and little time for economists. He joked that he would like to meet a one-armed economist so he could not be told, “On the one hand, on the other.”
(5) John Kenneth Galbraith over Keynesianism
“Keynes was exceedingly comfortable with the economic system he so brilliantly explored,” observed Galbraith. “So the broad thrust of his efforts, like that of Roosevelt, was conservative; it was to help ensure that the system would survive. But such conservatism in the English-speaking countries does not appeal to the truly committed conservative. . . . Better to accept the unemployment, idled plants, and mass despair of the Great Depression, with all the resulting damage to the reputation of the capitalist system, than to retreat on true principle. . . . When capitalism finally succumbs, it will be to the thunderous cheers of those who are celebrating their final victory over people like Keynes.”
informative
slow-paced
A well researched, wonderful bio of two powerful intellects. I'm very much a Keynesian at heart and I appreciate the warning Hayek have.
This book was fair to both men - though I think we all appreciate Keynes more as the economist and Hayek more as the philosopher. At least in terms of impact.
This book was fair to both men - though I think we all appreciate Keynes more as the economist and Hayek more as the philosopher. At least in terms of impact.