Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Hayek v Keynes the 'Boom and Bust' rap



This is rather brilliant.

We’ve been going back and forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Hayek] Blame low interest rates.
[Keynes] No… it’s the animal spirits


(Bless you, Mr Morus)

15 Comments:

Anonymous Old Dry Sherry said...

Your Grace

Fine indeed. Given we only got 0.1% growth with Keynes and quantitative easing perhaps we would have been better to have used Milton Friedmans eponymous helicopter. Random chance would have seen some of it at least find a more deserving home than the bankers or the present government.

On the previous thread. I thought today (26th Jan) was Australia Day. I wonder if someone is making game of our Antipodean cousins. Perhaps the BBC has been infiltrated by New Zealanders

26 January 2010 at 14:31  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Free the market. We've had it up to our ears with the Keynesian crap.

26 January 2010 at 14:56  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Bloody brilliant!

26 January 2010 at 15:22  
Blogger The Glitch said...

The only industry that seems to have benefited from zero interest rates is the car industry. Credit is still an illusion everywhere else unless you are rock solid in the Experian Dept. It is quantitative easing that is proping things up, ie printing loads of dosh.

Whack up the interest rates and get them prison ships afloat I say (I might even get a job on one). I know it must be real hard pretending to be like Jesus an all, but sometimes you just have to lay it on the table Your Grace. And in any case, what does Jesus know about boom and bust?

26 January 2010 at 17:04  
Anonymous left-footer said...

I'm sure there is someone who can tell me whether or not 0.1% is within the margin of error?

I must admit to being no statistician, but it seems to be a very tiny amount, certainly not enough to take much encouragement from?

Given that the pre-Christmas spending frenzy is included in this and that the VAT return to 17.5%, and probably more to come has dampened spending, how much faith can we have in these figures?

left-footer.

26 January 2010 at 17:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

I needed that. Thank you. Brilliant selection!

Oh, I nearly forgot: ‘And in any case, what does Jesus know about boom and bust?’

Seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine.

'He know plenty.'

Is there a stockbroker out there who would (anonymously) care to suggest how much insider information like that would cost to buy, say in the sugar industry?

26 January 2010 at 17:56  
Blogger The Glitch said...

"Seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine"

But we now have quantitative easing and the only famine is for those who have investments -have you not worked it out yet - "No more boom and bust" just permanent bust.

You are starting to ramble on again by the way.

26 January 2010 at 19:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you find yourself in possession of 0.1% of something, then my advice is to keep looking because basically you have got fuck all - in fact you don't even have that much.

JESUS GORDON YOU ARE A PRICK

26 January 2010 at 22:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why am I getting emails addressed to 'Cranmer' from the Whitehouse? I think you need to upgrade your anti virus and purge your system sometime soon.

26 January 2010 at 22:15  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Far be it from me your grace to criticise the Mr Dawkins and his "cut and paste philosophy, the religous nutters are out to get me its oppresion I tell you blind ignorant oppression " , or his belief that an athiest community of science lovers will somehow take us all into the realms of time warp intergalactic travell.

However using licence money for a propoganda show is different , should you be comfortable in port stocks and in need of some distraction , suggest you take a look at bbc4s offering of nerdstock , laughable ?? perhaps more bitsize athiesm for the fast moving internet age.

26 January 2010 at 23:44  
Anonymous Morus said...

Very welcome, Your Grace.

Best wishes from across the sea...

M

27 January 2010 at 05:05  
Anonymous corporeal said...

The fundamental basis of Keynesianism is counter-cyclical spending. Reducing spending and saving in the years of plenty in order to increase spending when the economy declines.

Spending hugely through the the growth years (i.e. what the current government has been doing) is not Keyesian.

27 January 2010 at 16:38  
Anonymous Charles said...

Corporeal makes a very important point.

Keynes stated the need for a balanced budget over the cycle with budget SURPLUSES in boom year and only temporary pump priming in the bust.

It's jsut a name (like Beveridge) that incompetent politicans reach for when they can't think what to say.

27 January 2010 at 22:18  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I'm a Von Mises / Ron Paul man myself, anything else is just Complex sounding economics /Communistic Jibberish
Mises Video

28 January 2010 at 02:18  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Your Grace, it is ironic that Adrian P identifies himself with the classical liberal/libertarian part of politics and yet during a post below he says that Hitler created an 'economic miracle'. But how did he achieve low unemployment (aside from sending millions of Jews and others to camps to be gassed?)? Yep, he did it via Keynesian spending (which is identified as being the economic solution of the political left) and by engaging industry to a de facto corporatist model (which is opposite to a liberal/libertarian position, in which markets should be free to do whatever they want).

Thus Hitler built motorways, increased armaments spending etc, which did eliminate unemployment, as the video above says, this was Keynes theory. Although by the mid 1930s, Germany has run out of any foreign currency and the German economy was overheating because it could not take the strain placed upon it by the many demands of the fascist state (in effect the opposite economic argument). Thus Hitler's attempts at autkary and Keynesian economics resulted in him having to barter with other states for vital materials. It is not surprising that this is when he began his plundering of neighbouring states and eventually World War II.

So perhaps Adrian P needs to rethink his believes or go back and do some economic history.

28 January 2010 at 07:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older