You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.77 AVERAGE
3.77 AVERAGE
The author obviously struggled to give Hayek equal billing in this book, despite the vacancy of application, thought and proof in the Austrian's theories. There wasn't actually a clash between the two - there was some letter exchanges and a bit of reaching out by Keynes to help a newcomer to the field. But Hayek was obviously deferential to the founder of modern economic theory. It was only later in Hayek's career, after Keynes was gone that the Austrian pretended to take Keynes to task by mischaracterizing his economic theories and tilting at strawmen like a knight practicing for a joust which would only happen in his own mind.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
Great and important book. Rewards the serious reader. Abstruse and half-digested economic jargon leaves it short of five stars.
This book does a good job in understanding the economics battle between Keynes and Hayek. Starting all the way from the beginning of their lives to the present day after the 2008 Financial Crisis. While there are times where I felt lost at some points given that I did not get much of the economic terminology or concepts, I still was very impressed with how good Wapshott did in describing the history of the feud between Keynes and Hayek.
Not for laymen in economics, or at least not this layman. It spends far too much time discussing in detail the sniping between Keynes and Hayek and not enough time actually breaking down the details of their theoretical disagreements in understandable terms.
informative
fast-paced
This book was a combination of biography, history and economic analysis. I don't think it did a great job individually with any of them. Overall I enjoyed the read and felt like I learned a little bit about economic history. I think it will date itself really quickly with the analysis of the modern political and economic situation. I'm not sure I feel like I have any more insight into the economic picture, just more about the story of the rhetoric.
Although I have a huge appreciation for the research and content of this book, the presentation is confusing. It toes the line between dramatic biography and academic analysis and therefore does both mediocrely. It both expects prior economic knowledge but also doesn’t go very deep into the actual arguments? It spends pages and pages talking about how they were in conflict but doesn’t go into detail on what specifically they were arguing about. A lot of the explanations are over complicated yet didn’t explain much past my very limited prior knowledge. I’m not exactly sure what this book is trying to do or who it’s for. This book tries to be something like At The Existentialist Café but fails.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve learned a lot in this book at least in regard to the personal lives of Hayek and Keynes. It was exciting to read about LSE and Cambridge in the 30s and trace different writings to the author’s environment at the time. I was so happy to hear about how many incredible people went to Cambridge. Pigou, (this man saves me in every single policy debate I ever do), Wittgenstein, Keynes, the list goes on. As I learn more about philosophy and economics I’m awed by how closely people worked together even across disciplines. I’m not really certified to critique the information in this book, but I’m still a little disappointed that Wapshott focused biographically rather than on their writings. I’ll definitely have to revisit this review after reading the original texts of the two
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve learned a lot in this book at least in regard to the personal lives of Hayek and Keynes. It was exciting to read about LSE and Cambridge in the 30s and trace different writings to the author’s environment at the time. I was so happy to hear about how many incredible people went to Cambridge. Pigou, (this man saves me in every single policy debate I ever do), Wittgenstein, Keynes, the list goes on. As I learn more about philosophy and economics I’m awed by how closely people worked together even across disciplines. I’m not really certified to critique the information in this book, but I’m still a little disappointed that Wapshott focused biographically rather than on their writings. I’ll definitely have to revisit this review after reading the original texts of the two
Briskly told, albeit way way overly dramatic, "Keynes and Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics" falls short in establishing the thesis in its subtitle. But it does provide an interesting account of Keynes's development of his ideas, their initial spread, and a counterpoint in Hayek--who himself gets a mini-biography and a valiant attempt to explain his economics in this book. But by the time I learned that Alan Blinder had won the Nobel Prize in economics and Robert Lucas was "the founder of New Keynesianism" I started to worry about the accuracy of the depiction of Richard Kahn and John Hicks.
It falls short because John Maynard Keynes is not a foil for his half of the argument, he is his half of the argument. Whereas Hayek in terms of his personal role and his specific ideas is an interesting figure, but hardly the defining other side of the argument with Keynes and someone that has little in common with say, Milton Friedman, as the book makes clear.
That said, the historical parts were still interesting and worth reading.
It falls short because John Maynard Keynes is not a foil for his half of the argument, he is his half of the argument. Whereas Hayek in terms of his personal role and his specific ideas is an interesting figure, but hardly the defining other side of the argument with Keynes and someone that has little in common with say, Milton Friedman, as the book makes clear.
That said, the historical parts were still interesting and worth reading.