Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics
- Downloads：9172
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-08-30 08:53:53
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Nicholas Wapshott
- ISBN：0393343634
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
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。
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。
Reviews
Lynn
，
Modern Economics This is very much an introductory book for me on Keynes and Hayek。 It’s very interesting but I definitely need to learn more about economics。
paper0r0ss0
，
Un'occasione persa di proporre un vero libro di alta divulgazione。 Lo "scontro" epico tra due delle menti piu' brillanti del XX secolo viene descritto， a mio modo di vedere， in maniera interessante per quanto riguarda l'aspetto umano dei rapporti Keynes - Hayek， ma in maniera insoddisfacente per quanto riguarda il cuore della questione， la trattazione piu' prettamente economica。 Si rimane palesemente in mezzo al guado: troppo superficiale per un competente， troppo ostico per un profano seppur be Un'occasione persa di proporre un vero libro di alta divulgazione。 Lo "scontro" epico tra due delle menti piu' brillanti del XX secolo viene descritto， a mio modo di vedere， in maniera interessante per quanto riguarda l'aspetto umano dei rapporti Keynes - Hayek， ma in maniera insoddisfacente per quanto riguarda il cuore della questione， la trattazione piu' prettamente economica。 Si rimane palesemente in mezzo al guado: troppo superficiale per un competente， troppo ostico per un profano seppur benintenzionato。 Una maggiore inquadramento tecnico scientifico avrebbe senza dubbio giovato alla riuscita finale。 。。。more
Cesare Conti
，
Quello di Hayek è un pensiero complesso e intelligente， purtroppo travisato e banalizzato dai suoi stessi fans posteri e dal quale sono nati i peggiori neoliberisti alla bene e meglio come Reagan e come la Tatcher。 Hayek è un po' come Gigi D'Alessio， il suo problema sono i fans。 A parte gli scherzi， bellissimo libro， a mio modo di vedere è il più completo e， allo stesso tempo， il più comprensibile dello scontro intellettuale tra due mostri del pensiero economico moderno。 Quello di Hayek è un pensiero complesso e intelligente， purtroppo travisato e banalizzato dai suoi stessi fans posteri e dal quale sono nati i peggiori neoliberisti alla bene e meglio come Reagan e come la Tatcher。 Hayek è un po' come Gigi D'Alessio， il suo problema sono i fans。 A parte gli scherzi， bellissimo libro， a mio modo di vedere è il più completo e， allo stesso tempo， il più comprensibile dello scontro intellettuale tra due mostri del pensiero economico moderno。 。。。more
Mmetevelis
，
An excellent introduction one of the most consequential debates in modern public policy: How and why should governments intervene in free markets。 Wapshott does two things - he gives an account of the parallel and intersecting lives of two major economists and then relates how their ideas impacted not only their time but the post-war decades when both their remedies were tried。 This book provides illuminating biographical information and explains the key economic concepts well。 My only concern w An excellent introduction one of the most consequential debates in modern public policy: How and why should governments intervene in free markets。 Wapshott does two things - he gives an account of the parallel and intersecting lives of two major economists and then relates how their ideas impacted not only their time but the post-war decades when both their remedies were tried。 This book provides illuminating biographical information and explains the key economic concepts well。 My only concern with this book was how little material there was laying out anything but major arguments in both of their works。 Overall a worthwhile read and for someone who knows very little about economics I rarely got lost。 。。。more
Casey
，
A great book， providing an overview of the ‘debate’ between economists Keynes and Hayek。 The author， Nicholas Wapshott， does a great job presenting a dual biography of these two gargantuan figures of 20th century thought。 He dissects the complex economic theories of each man， providing details on how their individual environments and academic upbringing influenced the two different theories。 The back and forth is clear and concise， giving a “real time” narrative of their interactions。 Wapshott’s A great book， providing an overview of the ‘debate’ between economists Keynes and Hayek。 The author， Nicholas Wapshott， does a great job presenting a dual biography of these two gargantuan figures of 20th century thought。 He dissects the complex economic theories of each man， providing details on how their individual environments and academic upbringing influenced the two different theories。 The back and forth is clear and concise， giving a “real time” narrative of their interactions。 Wapshott’s detailed presentation and analysis of their communications is the best part。 It really helped me understand both theories much better than I did prior to this reading。 The book ends with a lengthy summary of how the two theories have collided in the years since their original development。 Wapshott shows how both concepts have been interpreted to fit the moment， moving them away from their very academic origins into the messiness of reality。 Wapshott does not explicitly state a ‘winner’ of the debate， maintaining his well-attuned neutrality to the very end。 A great book for better understanding Keynesian Macroeconomics and Hayekian Liberalism without all the dismal mathematics。 Highly recommended for any armchair economist。 。。。more
Tim
，
This is a great book to get brief biographies of Hayek （the free marketer） and Keynes （the interventionist）， an understanding of their philosophical differences， and a historical overview of who “won” both in the intellectual and political arenas。 The economics stuff does get a bit technical at times， but I think Wapshott does an excellent job at making it understandable to a broad audience。It was the historical overview of who “won” that was my favorite part of the book。 Wapshott explains who w This is a great book to get brief biographies of Hayek （the free marketer） and Keynes （the interventionist）， an understanding of their philosophical differences， and a historical overview of who “won” both in the intellectual and political arenas。 The economics stuff does get a bit technical at times， but I think Wapshott does an excellent job at making it understandable to a broad audience。It was the historical overview of who “won” that was my favorite part of the book。 Wapshott explains who was more relevant across different time periods。 In the beginning， Keynes took a commanding lead。 He had a lot of advantages in selling his ideas。 He was more charismatic and persuasive， which enabled him to spread his ideas to influential politicians and economists。 He was a better writer than Hayek。 Keynes being an Englishman put him closer to the center of the study of Economics， and conversely Hayek being Austrian and a non-native English speaker put him at a disadvantage。 I also think Keynes had an intellectual product that was a lot more exciting to sell than Hayek’s。 With Keynesian economics， there is the promise of eliminating economic downturns。 Economists would be more powerful in a Keynesian world than a Hayekian one。 And politicians are told that they can spend money， giving people what they want， and they don’t need to worry about deficits。But Hayek held his own。 He did have something of a “status quo” advantage， as at the time Hayek’s free market approach was closer to the standard view。 It is interesting to think how things might have turned out differently if Hayek was a more dynamic personality。Around 1980， Hayekian ideas had a resurgence。 Reagan and Thatcher were elected。 Persistent struggles with inflation damaged the credibility of Keynesian ideas to eliminate economic downturns。 Even with the election of Clinton， historically speaking it was a time where “big government” was out of fashion。 But this turned around again with the Great Recession events starting in about 2007。 Suddenly， the economic intellectual community moved back toward Keynes。 The recession did end after massive stimulus amounts were poured into the economy， and while we can’t conclude causality， it is a challenge for Hayekians。 The book was written in 2011 so that’s about where it ends。I became interested in the Keynes / Hayek debates from listening to the excellent Econtalk podcast。 Wapshott was on the podcast once and I think this interview is great， whether you use it as a supplement or a substitute for reading the book。https://www。econtalk。org/wapshott-on-。。。 。。。more
Claudia Rondón
，
3。5。 Estrellas capitalistas。 Este libro ha sido tedioso y a la vez más ligero， teniendo en cuenta que no soy economista。 Sin embargo， para los ajenos a este campo， pero que quieran ampliar sus conocimientos y eliminar sus sesgos ideológicos， resulta digerible。Básicamente， como el título invita， es una contraposición de ideas en el campo de la política económica。 Tenemos a la escuela austriaca con Hayek y por el otro al socialista Keynes。Hayek > Keynes
Paulla Ferreira Pinto
，
Surpreendentemente acessível a leigos， chegando mesmo a ser empolgante。Uma excelente leitura。
Giovanna
，
Initially， I need to say that this is my first reading about Economics。 I am speechless and very excited about this experience。 Really， if every economic book is as interesting， fluid and acid as this one， I just discovered a new favorite subject for my life。Wapshott starts "Keynes x。 Hayek" with a very curious scene: both economists are sat together， above King's College's roof， armed with shovels adding up their efforts to protect the University from World War bombs。 I found this cutout so sig Initially， I need to say that this is my first reading about Economics。 I am speechless and very excited about this experience。 Really， if every economic book is as interesting， fluid and acid as this one， I just discovered a new favorite subject for my life。Wapshott starts "Keynes x。 Hayek" with a very curious scene: both economists are sat together， above King's College's roof， armed with shovels adding up their efforts to protect the University from World War bombs。 I found this cutout so significant because I guess it synthesizes the book's main message: it is about confronting honestly and intellectually the other and coexisting with different points of view。 Despite their inflamed speeches and all the politics involved， they coexist loyally to their beliefs and were trying to find solutions to universal problems。 The books is at the same time surgical and didactic。 Wapshott gives us quotes and specific concepts all the time which， in my opinion， makes the reader up to date with the discussion。 My impression is that he really wanted to catch people who are enthusiatic about the subject and at the same time do a respectfull research about all the events along this intelectual journey。 I found myself reading entire paragraphs to my boyfriend， crazy about Keynes and Hayek's arguments and noting comments on page footer。So， I am in love with this book and very happy for having courage enough to finish it （I started it once but stopped）。 Read it！ It's a thrilling， present and seductive work！ 。。。more
Boris Minkin
，
Interesting read， especially the last few chapters
Anderson De castro
，
A principal lição desse livro é entender que “a sabedoria está no meio”。 Nenhum dos lados tem todas as respostas， simplesmente， porque economia não é a Ciência regra universal， mas sim a Ciência da Exceção。Da mesma forma que mais Estado pode se traduzir em menos liberdade， crises sistêmicas podem ser agudas demais para permitir a sociedade ter paciência para suportar todos os seus males。Dessa forma podemos dizer que todo mundo é liberal， até que apareça uma crise econômica global。
Doug
，
I was disapointed， because it had no definitive answers - but that's the way it really is。 So that's on me。 The subject is ambiguous， changing with the culture， the technology， the politics， etc。， I was disapointed， because it had no definitive answers - but that's the way it really is。 So that's on me。 The subject is ambiguous， changing with the culture， the technology， the politics， etc。， 。。。more
Leello Dadi
，
This book was a delightful read。 Not being an economist myself， I found it difficult， at times， to parse some of the ideas being discussed， especially those coming from Hayek。 But it was manageable with some light googling。 What make this book so enjoyable were the fascinating historical and biographical elements it includes。 It mainly presents itself as accounting of two dueling ideas and does not pretend to be an economics textbook although I wish some more time was spent on Friedman's monetar This book was a delightful read。 Not being an economist myself， I found it difficult， at times， to parse some of the ideas being discussed， especially those coming from Hayek。 But it was manageable with some light googling。 What make this book so enjoyable were the fascinating historical and biographical elements it includes。 It mainly presents itself as accounting of two dueling ideas and does not pretend to be an economics textbook although I wish some more time was spent on Friedman's monetarism as well as on the mechanisms of stagflation which， according to the book， is what put an end to the Keynesian era。 To the editors: Footnotes are great。 No one likes notes at the end of the book。 。。。more
Mike
，
Started reading this book to better understand the economic theories of Keynes and Hayek。 It started off giving a brief biographical sketch of the lives of these two men。 After getting around 10% of the way through this book I decided I would get more out of it with a grounding in more basic economics。 I am finding the The Undercover Economist an excellent book to accomplish this。 So for now setting this one aside。 I'll be back。 Started reading this book to better understand the economic theories of Keynes and Hayek。 It started off giving a brief biographical sketch of the lives of these two men。 After getting around 10% of the way through this book I decided I would get more out of it with a grounding in more basic economics。 I am finding the The Undercover Economist an excellent book to accomplish this。 So for now setting this one aside。 I'll be back。 。。。more
Oscar De Ita
，
«Solía […] considerarse como la obligación y el privilegio del economista estudiar y resaltar los efectos que pueden acabar ocultándose al ojo inexperto， y dejar los efectos más inmediatos para el hombre práctico»， escribió。 «Es tremendo que tras haber pasado por el proceso de desarrollo de una explicación sistemática de las fuerzas que， a largo plazo， acaban determinando los precios y la producción， tengamos que descartarla， para reemplazarla por la miope filosofía del empresario elevada a la c «Solía […] considerarse como la obligación y el privilegio del economista estudiar y resaltar los efectos que pueden acabar ocultándose al ojo inexperto， y dejar los efectos más inmediatos para el hombre práctico»， escribió。 «Es tremendo que tras haber pasado por el proceso de desarrollo de una explicación sistemática de las fuerzas que， a largo plazo， acaban determinando los precios y la producción， tengamos que descartarla， para reemplazarla por la miope filosofía del empresario elevada a la categoría de una ciencia[540]»。 。。。more
Santiago José Gil Mosquera
，
Es un libro interesante， pero pensé que iba a estar escrito mas centrado en sus propuestas económicas en lugar de su vida。 Al repasar toda la vida de ambos escritores se me ha hecho un poco largo y aburrido en algunos momentos。 Me hubiera gustado que simplemente se centrase en comparar sus ideas。
Dave Schoettinger
，
Nicholas Wapschott wrote this book almost a decade ago when he saw American politicians， in dealing with the 2008 recession， having the same arguments that Keynes and Hayek were engaged in during the Great Depression。 These 21st century exchanges were decidedly less academic in nature than the originals and were conducted， as Wapschott notes， "as if the last 80 years had not happened"。To put their differences simplistically， Keynes thought that governments could impact the economy in ways that w Nicholas Wapschott wrote this book almost a decade ago when he saw American politicians， in dealing with the 2008 recession， having the same arguments that Keynes and Hayek were engaged in during the Great Depression。 These 21st century exchanges were decidedly less academic in nature than the originals and were conducted， as Wapschott notes， "as if the last 80 years had not happened"。To put their differences simplistically， Keynes thought that governments could impact the economy in ways that would benefit their citizens at times when the economy was having problems。 Hayek responded Reaganesquesly that whatever problems the economy was having were the result of government interference， and that if left to its own devices， the economy would be just fine in the long run。 Keynes famously responded that in the long run we are all dead。 Wapschott tries to make some of the more esoteric points of their disputes intelligible to the layperson， not always successfully， but in fairness， it appears that Keynes and Hayek may not have fully understood what the other was trying to say， either。 I found his descriptions of their personal lives the most entertaining portion of the book （more than a little soap-operaish; maybe Wapschott was looking for a docu-drama deal）， but there is also a lot of insight into the attacks of current politicians concerning the way their opponents are handling the economy。 。。。more
George
，
Imperfect on its politics （it really is too short a book to take up all the issues it casually throws around in the second half）， its economics （which it doesn't engage with substantively）， and even its storytelling （the book really could have ended with one summary chapter after the death of keynes - not 5）， this book is nonetheless great fun， sheds light on the personal backgrounds and interconnections between economists， and - in so doing - reveals the small size and social inbreddedness of t Imperfect on its politics （it really is too short a book to take up all the issues it casually throws around in the second half）， its economics （which it doesn't engage with substantively）， and even its storytelling （the book really could have ended with one summary chapter after the death of keynes - not 5）， this book is nonetheless great fun， sheds light on the personal backgrounds and interconnections between economists， and - in so doing - reveals the small size and social inbreddedness of the coterie in charge of our world。 This book is written by a journalist and both gains from the emphasis on narrative craft and suffers from the emphasis on （usually biographical） colour that are the mark of books written by journalists。 The （first half of the） book's methodological individualism is at once predictable and deadening - and yet also the reason why this book is good fun。 Ultimately， once the fun has been had， one is left with the beginnings of a structure for developing a history of contemporary economic thought。 This is no useless thing， given a world of economics instruction that teaches theories in isolation from the context that produced them or even， indeed， competing theories。 It is， of course， only a beginning。 。。。more
Marina Motta
，
Fiquei muito feliz de ler esse livro e poder entender melhor como， quando e por que （do ponto de vista do período histórico） que as políticas monetárias e fiscais keynesianas e hayekianas surgiram da forma que surgiram。 A leitura é leve， visto que o autor faz questão de explicar cada termo econômico repetidas vezes。 Além disso， o livro é recheado de curiosidades pessoais de Keynes， Hayek， Friedman， todos que conduziram o pensamento econômico do século 20。Para as pessoas que se interessam por eco Fiquei muito feliz de ler esse livro e poder entender melhor como， quando e por que （do ponto de vista do período histórico） que as políticas monetárias e fiscais keynesianas e hayekianas surgiram da forma que surgiram。 A leitura é leve， visto que o autor faz questão de explicar cada termo econômico repetidas vezes。 Além disso， o livro é recheado de curiosidades pessoais de Keynes， Hayek， Friedman， todos que conduziram o pensamento econômico do século 20。Para as pessoas que se interessam por economia， o livro bastante vale a pena！ 。。。more
Marcel Santos
，
An impartial and informative account on the intelectual rivalry between giant economists John Maynard Keynes and Friederich Hayek。 The author tells this story by pointing out the main differences between each of them and the importance both have had in the economic debate from the early 20th century on。 Good analysis of the economic measures taken by both US and UK governments throughout the years from the perspective of each of them。 The book goes through the essential arguments exposed in the An impartial and informative account on the intelectual rivalry between giant economists John Maynard Keynes and Friederich Hayek。 The author tells this story by pointing out the main differences between each of them and the importance both have had in the economic debate from the early 20th century on。 Good analysis of the economic measures taken by both US and UK governments throughout the years from the perspective of each of them。 The book goes through the essential arguments exposed in the controversy without being too technical as it targets the general public with interest in the theme， even those lacking of background in economics。 One may get the feeling that the author excessively narrowed or restrained the focus on the story after having heard modern economists cite many others who carried on the original discussion over time。 The book shall serve as a good introduction for those who wish to deepen their knowledge about the famous clash between both intellectuals， or would just like to know where all the main jargon routinely heard in the economics section of the news comes from。 。。。more
Jose Gaona
，
https://conclusionirrelevante。blogspo。。。Thomas Kuhn decía que la ciencia， lejos de avanzar linealmente， en una suerte de proceso acumulativo de conocimiento， lo hacía por medio de discontinuidades o， en su terminología， por medio de cambios de paradigma。 A pesar de la oscuridad del término （Kuhn ofrece dos docenas de definiciones en su obra La estructura de las revoluciones científicas， no siempre coherentes entre sí）， un paradigma puede entenderse intuitivamente como la visión del mundo ofrecid https://conclusionirrelevante。blogspo。。。Thomas Kuhn decía que la ciencia， lejos de avanzar linealmente， en una suerte de proceso acumulativo de conocimiento， lo hacía por medio de discontinuidades o， en su terminología， por medio de cambios de paradigma。 A pesar de la oscuridad del término （Kuhn ofrece dos docenas de definiciones en su obra La estructura de las revoluciones científicas， no siempre coherentes entre sí）， un paradigma puede entenderse intuitivamente como la visión del mundo ofrecida por una o varias teorías científicas compatibles entre sí。 Cuando hay un cambio de paradigma， la vieja ciencia se vuelve obsoleta， y sus explicaciones quedan desbancadas por las del nuevo paradigma， razón por la que el proceso epistemológico no sería acumulativo。 Ejemplos de cambio de paradigma serían el paso del modelo geocéntrico del universo de Ptolomeo al modelo heliocéntrico de Copérnico， el cambio en la visión del espacio y el tiempo de la teoría de la relatividad respecto a la de la mecánica newtoniana o el tránsito en la explicación de la evolución de las especies entendida desde la selección natural respecto a la teoría de Lamarck。 La economía no sería ajena a esta explicación metacientífica y tendría， en los trabajos de John Maynard Keynes， su particular revolución epistémica。Keynes revolucionó la economía por muchas razones， pero tres sobresalen entre todas las demás。 Por un lado， creó una disciplina autónoma， la macroeconomía， es decir， el estudio de las interacciones económicas que se producen en las sociedades a través no de los análisis particulares de cada mercado， sino por medio de magnitudes totalmente nuevas， magnitudes agregadas que dan cuenta del comportamiento de la economía desde una óptica global。 En segundo lugar， diseñó una poderosa explicación intelectual para justificar la intervención del sector público en la economía sobre bases que cuestionaban varios de los pilares básicos de toda la economía anterior。 En tercer lugar， convirtió el recurso al déficit público en la medicina universal para revertir las contracciones de la economía。Las ideas de Keynes se mostraron efectivas en el combate contra la recesión causada por el crack del 29， y sedujeron a políticos y académicos。 El mundo posterior a la segunda guerra mundial， probablemente la etapa de mayor prosperidad económica de la historia， fue keynesiano。 Sin embargo， en los años 70， las políticas keynesianas se mostraron incapaces de revertir los desequilibrios estructurales de las economías occidentales。 La estanflación （estancamiento acompañado de inflación） vivida en aquellos años， no solo puso en la picota la sacrosanta curva de Phillips， sino que mostró los límites de toda una filosofía económica basada en la intervención del Estado como catalizador de la recuperación y el crecimiento económicos。 Durante aquellos años， el pensamiento económico dominante viró hacia posiciones menos partidarias de la intervención estatal y proclives a la liberalización de la economía。 Posiciones defendidas por autores tan importantes como Milton Friedman o Robert Lucas， pero que tuvieron en la figura de Friedrich Hayek a uno de sus defensores más inconmovibles。Hayek， dieciséis años más joven que Keynes， continuó las teorías de la escuela austriaca de Menger， Bawerk， Wieser y Mises。 Enfocada principalmente en la crítica de la metodología de la economía y de las ciencias sociales， la escuela austriaca realizó aportaciones fundamentales relacionadas con la imposibilidad del socialismo， la teoría del coste de oportunidad， el funcionamiento dinámico del mercado o el rol del crédito en los ciclos económicos。 En concreto， Hayek desarrolló y profundizó las ideas de Mises en lo concerniente al cálculo económico y dio cuerpo a la teoría según la cual los ciclos económicos se deben a la expansión del crédito propiciada por la fijación de tipos de interés artificialmente bajos。 No obstante， pese a sus contribuciones al análisis económico， Hayek es principalmente recordado por la integración del patrimonio teórico de la escuela austriaca en un marco filosófico más general en el que la libertad del individuo y la crítica al estatismo y al colectivismo social serían su principal divisa de cambio。 Fruto de esa labor fue su archiconocido Camino de Servidumbre， en el que， naturalmente， las ideas keynesianas eran criticadas implícitamente。Keynes vs Hayek: El choque que definió la economía moderna， de Nicholas Wapshott —corresponsal en EEUU de The Times y colaborador habitual en CNN， Fox News o ABC—， es un detallado repaso a la vida y obras de estos dos titanes del pensamiento económico。 Con un estilo sobrio y descriptivo， Whapshott pasa revista a las vicisitudes vitales de ambos autores， sus progresos conceptuales， y enmarca el relato en el contexto histórico en el que desarrollaron sus vidas， contexto que con sus teorías contribuyeron a dar forma。El grueso del libro se desarrollan durante los años veinte y treinta， con un Keynes asentado en el mainstream económico y político tras la publicación de Las Consecuencias Económicas de la Paz （1919）， y un joven Hayek —si es que el autor austriaco alguna vez fue joven。。。— que trataba de abrirse camino en el mundo académico angloparlante。 Aquella obra de Keynes —un éxito editorial en Alemania y Austria por su feroz crítica a las reparaciones de guerra impuestas por el Tratado de Versalles a las dos potencias perdedoras— dejó una fuerte impronta en el joven Hayek （a la sazón， partidario de la socialdemocracia）。 Sin embargo， el estudio meticuloso de los autores de la escuela austriaca llevaron al autor vienés a replantearse radicalmente sus ideas， de forma que cuando aterrizó en Inglaterra， era ya un ferviente y convencido defensor de las bondades del liberalismo。Durante aquellos años， el pensamiento económico reinante en Gran Bretaña era deudor del Principios de Economía （1890） de Alfred Marshall， manual con el que se inició en economía el propio Keynes。 Marshall realizó la síntesis de las teorías de los economistas clásicos （Mill， Ricardo， Smith， etc。） con las， por entonces， novedosas teorías marginalistas de Jevons y Dupuit， al tiempo que puso en valor las críticas procedentes del socialismo y el historicismo alemán al análisis clásico。 El formidable y heterodoxo trabajo de síntesis de Marshall， sin embargo， no abordó los trabajos de la escuela austriaca， razón por la cual cuando Hayek dio sus primeras conferencias en suelo británico， tuvo la sensación de estar predicando en el desierto。 Pero no fue ese el caso。Durante la segunda mitad de los años 20， Cambridge ostentaba la hegemonía sobre la ciencia económica en suelo británico。 Los principales economistas del momento trabajaban allí。 Así que cuando Lionel Robbins， un joven economista influenciado por la escuela austriaca y que por aquel entonces trabajaba para la London School of Economics， supo de la presencia de Hayek en Inglaterra， automáticamente lo convirtió en su protegido， viendo en el economista vienés el estilete necesario para derribar la primacía intelectual de Cambridge。 Su intención era crear una rivalidad entre Keynes y Hayek。 Con ese objetivo， organizó una serie de conferencias impartidas por Hayek —las cuales darían lugar al libro Precios y Producción—， y publicó una dura recensión de Hayek en la revista Economica sobre Tratado del Dinero （1930）。 Keynes que， otra cosa no， pero el debate y la refriega intelectual le gustaban más que a un tonto un lápiz， no evitó la polémica y le contestó， generándose una ruda y visceral polémica， precisamente el objetivo que Robbins que perseguía。El intercambio de ataques de Keynes y Hayek hizo gala de muchas cosas， pero una de ellas destacaba sobre todas las demás: incomprensión mutua。 Keynes no entendía las objeciones de Hayek basadas en los trabajos de la escuela austriaca （que Keynes no había leído）， y el autor vienés， por su parte， se atascaba pidiendo definiciones precisas de los novedosos conceptos empleados por Keynes sin esforzarse por comprender la lógica general de sus ideas。 En el fondo， bajo esa incomprensión subyacían diferencias radicales de enfoque en el contexto del análisis económico。 Mientras Keynes no concebía la ciencia económica desligada de los problemas prácticos， Hayek la concebía como una empresa abstracta y teórica。 Keynes acabó desarrollando un enfoque de arriba a abajo， podríamos decir sistémico， de magnitudes agregadas， mientras que Hayek abogada por el enfoque inverso， de abajo a arriba。 Keynes era un optimista y proporcionó bases intelectuales sólidas para depositar nuestro optimismo en la labor de los gobiernos， mientras que el pesimismo de Hayek se fundamentaba en el escepticismo acerca de la precisión de las labores de medición económica y la futilidad y el papel distorsionador de la intervención gubernamental sobre esas endebles bases。 Keynes era más un economista que un filósofo; Hayek era más un filósofo que un economista。 No me chilles， que no te veo。 Keynes acabaría renunciando a proseguir la riña para centrarse en la que acabaría siendo su obra magna， aquella con la que pasaría a la historia del pensamiento: el Tratado sobre la ocupación， el interés y el dinero （1936）。Whapshott se recrea en este episodio， el más importante del libro， porque fue el último en el que se desarrolló una interacción entre ambos autores en relativa igualdad de condiciones （"relativa" porque Keynes gozaba ya de un prestigio que Hayek solo podía envidiar）。 A partir de la publicación del Tratado sobre la ocupación， la primacía de Keynes se haría prácticamente absoluta en el mundo académico y político， y la travesía por el desierto de Hayek se extendería hasta bien entrados los años setenta con la concesión del Nobel y la revitalización de algunas de sus ideas por la escuela de Chicago。A pesar de lo que pueda parecer， el dramatis personae de Keynes vs Hayek rebosa ampliamente los nombres de las figuras que dan título al libro。 En sus páginas nos encontramos a Ludwig von Mises， Richard Kahn （creador del multiplicador del empleo y que inspiró el multiplicador de la inversión keynesiano）， Joan Robinson （la creadora del brillante modelo de competencia imperfecta）， Piero Sraffa （al que Wittgenstein reconoció el honor de ser el pensador que le hizo abandonar el camino emprendido en su Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus）， Hicks y Hansen （creadores del modelo IS-LM que serviría de armazón matemático para expresar tanto las ideas keynesianas como la nueva macroeconomía neoclásica）， Paul Samuelson， John Kenneth Galbraith， Milton Friedman， Arthur Pigou， Simon Kuznets y un sin fin de economistas relevantes de todo el siglo XX。 En cierta forma， el libro de Whapshott， no trata tanto de una rivalidad personal como de una rivalidad entre filosofías económicas y constituye un repaso a la historia de la economía del siglo XX。El libro， escrito durante la resaca de la crisis financiera de 2008， dedica sus últimos capítulos al examen de la cuestión de si el mundo actual es keynesiano o más bien hayekiano。 Para ello， analiza los principales hitos históricos de las últimas décadas en relación a las políticas fiscales y monetarias de los principales países del mundo， en un relato que le conduce inexorablemente a la quiebra de Lehman Brothers y a las distintas políticas implementadas a ambos lados del atlántico para hacer frente a la subsiguiente crisis。 Fiel a su tono sobrio， Whapshott expone aciertos y errores de ambas corrientes de pensamiento en su implementación práctica， y deja la responsabilidad de contestar esa pregunta en manos del lector。En resumen， Keynes vs Hayek presenta el debate intelectual que definió la economía y la política del siglo XX: intervención pública en la economía frente a laissez faire。 Lo hace a través de las biografías intelectuales de sus dos principales protagonistas， pero， llegado un punto， el debate se emancipa de los personajes y adquiere dimensión propia。 Es una lectura que， a pesar de ciertas imprecisiones en la presentación de algunos conceptos， tanto el especialista como el lego interesado en estos asuntos devorarán。 El especialista encontrará en él detalles biográficos interesantes y la génesis intelectual de muchos conceptos que en las facultades de Economía se enseñan analíticamente。 El lego descubrirá la profundidad subyacente a los debates existentes en los medios de comunicación。 Ambos saldrán ganando。 。。。more
Mat
，
You will like it if you have an interest in economics。 Many of the actions taken by Governments today can be attributed to Kaynes and Hayek。 This book not only talks about the difference in thinking of the two great economists it also talk about politicians who put it to use and has succeeded/ failed。 It took many decades for the world to find out whose thinking was better。 Even then I see a mix of both in most of the actions taken by Politicians today。 Some part in between become too theoretica You will like it if you have an interest in economics。 Many of the actions taken by Governments today can be attributed to Kaynes and Hayek。 This book not only talks about the difference in thinking of the two great economists it also talk about politicians who put it to use and has succeeded/ failed。 It took many decades for the world to find out whose thinking was better。 Even then I see a mix of both in most of the actions taken by Politicians today。 Some part in between become too theoretical and hence slightly boring。 The book also introduce the reader to economists like Milton Friedman， Ludwig Von Mises， Robbins ， Kahn etc。 。。。more
Mario
，
Masterfully written， heavily influenced my understanding of economic theory。
Jake Berlin
，
certainly an interesting topic at times， but the book’s pacing is inconsistent （sometimes diving deeply into personal correspondence and at other times glossing over whole decades at a time）， it’s overly focused on britain and the united states， and it can be confusing with its economic concepts and their co-mingling。 still， i’m glad i read it。
Roger
，
During the Great Depression， Keynes wrote a great work。 Hayek didn't。 There is this sad asymmetry to their debate。 This book explains why Hayek didn't and in the process makes the Austrian seem modest and wise。 During the Great Depression， Keynes wrote a great work。 Hayek didn't。 There is this sad asymmetry to their debate。 This book explains why Hayek didn't and in the process makes the Austrian seem modest and wise。 。。。more
Héctor
，
Entretenido sobre todo por las anécdotas。 Aunque en general es bastante equilibrado le tira un poco， si no sé si tanto en lo económico sí en lo personal hacia Hayek。
Thijs van Bemmel
，
Besides giving some personal insight on the lives of Keynes and Hayek， this book is a great guide to understanding government policy of the past 100 years。 The very different interpretation the two economists had of the business cycle and how to "fix" it， and in what way this explained economic policy， is explained in great detail。 Here and there the story would have benefited from a little more structure， but overall it is definitely a must read for people who're interested in the history of ec Besides giving some personal insight on the lives of Keynes and Hayek， this book is a great guide to understanding government policy of the past 100 years。 The very different interpretation the two economists had of the business cycle and how to "fix" it， and in what way this explained economic policy， is explained in great detail。 Here and there the story would have benefited from a little more structure， but overall it is definitely a must read for people who're interested in the history of economics。 。。。more
Frank Peters
，
This is a book covering a topic that I knew virtually nothing about， and had no previous interest in。 Given this unfavourable starting point， the book was surprisingly interesting， especially toward the end。 The book describes the intellectual conflict between the two （apparently） most significant modern economists， and then follows the historic results of this conflict as played out in western （mostly US） economies。 The historical part of the book was very interesting， and often enjoyable。 The This is a book covering a topic that I knew virtually nothing about， and had no previous interest in。 Given this unfavourable starting point， the book was surprisingly interesting， especially toward the end。 The book describes the intellectual conflict between the two （apparently） most significant modern economists， and then follows the historic results of this conflict as played out in western （mostly US） economies。 The historical part of the book was very interesting， and often enjoyable。 The technical parts of the book， and especially the quotations from the main players was mostly incomprehensible to me， and when I tried rereading to gain a better understanding， I struggled to care。 Thankfully， there is more history in the book than arguments about the economics。 It was enlightening to see how someone like US presidents Kennedy and Clinton were much more economically conservative than US president Bush （the younger）。 The book leaves me with a better understanding of how little the economic policies of a US president make any short term differences to the US economy。 。。。more
Valentina Salvatierra
，
A chronologically wide-ranging account （nearly 100 years， from 1919 to 2008， long after the deaths of both of its protagonists） of the theoretical and political clash between the ideas of two pivotal 20th century economists that suffers perhaps from being too wide-ranging。 Some pivotal historical events were only summarily mentioned， and some economic concepts were likewise only broadly sketched。I picked this book up in the hopes of acquiring some general notions of contemporary economics throug A chronologically wide-ranging account （nearly 100 years， from 1919 to 2008， long after the deaths of both of its protagonists） of the theoretical and political clash between the ideas of two pivotal 20th century economists that suffers perhaps from being too wide-ranging。 Some pivotal historical events were only summarily mentioned， and some economic concepts were likewise only broadly sketched。I picked this book up in the hopes of acquiring some general notions of contemporary economics through an entertaining narrative， and I'm not sure that goal was fulfilled。 The narrative was fairly entertaining: it even had its epic moments， as well as some ironically humorous shade thrown both at Hayek and Keynes。 For example， the snarky way in which Wapshott finishes an anecdote about Hayek's first visit to the US is brilliant: Hayek is about to start working as a dishwasher in a NY restaurant， when he gets the call from an NYU professor that he's been waiting for。 Wapshott writes "This was the nearest Hayek came to performing manual labor。 Indeed， in all his ninety-two years， he never worked for the private sector" （27） - which can only be ironic for a man who spent so many of those years advocating in favor of the public sector being in charge even of printing money （p。 288）， and that saw the free market as "the only mechanism that has ever been discovered for achieving participatory democracy" （p。 292）。In terms of economics， though， I feel like I scarcely understand more now than when I began the book。 Recurring economics concepts （such as the macroeconomic effect of raising interest rates， or "monetarism"， or the idea of "natural" versus "market" rates of interest） never really became clear in my mind。 Maybe someone with a solid grounding in economics would understand these things with ease and so explanations would be redundant。 But this is presented as a book for a lay audience and in that sense further clarification at some points would have been useful。 Admittedly， other concepts I do feel like I understood better， although maybe they also felt more intuitive: Keynes's "multiplier"， the idea that "public investment， even on borrowed money， could soon recoup its cost while drastically reducing unemployment" （p。 129） was explained and exemplified in depth throughout the book， both in terms of its limitations and advantages。 Similarly， the contrast between Hayek's Austrian school thinking and the Chicago school's （e。g。 Milton Friedman） monetarist ideas of "government regulation of the supply of money" （p。 217）， was enjoyable and useful， especially because in Chile the two tend to be conflated in public discourse about our very own 'Chicago boys'。 At the same time， it confirmed that both share the idea that "prices hold the key to understanding the economy， and that the free market is preferable to intervention" （217）。 The book's greatest strength is perhaps how Wapshott works with quotes directly from the two thinkers he is discussing， as well as many of their disciples。 It made it feel like I was reading a useful summary of texts I know I will never grapple with in their entirety， gleaning just enough to have a reasonably informed opinion for a non-economist。 For instance， the overview of Keynes's "The End of Laissez Faire" is a nice compact refutation of the idea that "enlightened self interest always operates in the public interest" （p。 35） - while at the same time explaining very clearly that this view did not make Keynes a closet socialist: "he was not advocating that the state replace private enterprise" （p。 36）。 Indeed， as his recipes for facing the 1929 Great Depression show， he saw it more as a matter of staving off revolution and therefore saving capitalism rather than replacing it with something else （p。 157）。 On the Hayekian side， I enjoyed Wapshott's account of Hayek's 1936 lecture "Economics and Knowledge"。 I appreciate the humility involved in a Hayekian view of the economy that recognizes the informational difficulty of planning: "no single person， not even an 'omniscient dictator，' as he put it， can know the minds， desires and hopes of all the individuals that make up an economy" （p。 180）。 This is persuasive， and it is part of what makes me personally wary of solely State-based solutions。 At least in markets， both information and responsibility are somewhat diluted and there is therefore less chance that a single authority will be able to "curtail the happiness and liberties of the individuals in whose interest they claimed to act" （p。 180-181）。 Throughout this book， Hayek emerges as a likeable if dogmatic fellow despite being less charismatic than Keynes。 I even felt sad for the man when， after Keynes publishes his General Theory （1936）， Hayek's disciples start deserting him for the more fashionable Keynes （p。 182）。 Of course， this doesn't diminish the fact that Hayek's Road to Serfdom， where he asserts that economic planning leads to despotism （p。 194）， seems like one huge slippery-slope fallacy of a book， a textbook example of neoliberalism's （and capitalism more generally） There Is No Alternative ideology， which makes even imagining non/post-capitalist social orders akin to advocating for totalitarianism。 In the end， despite my lack of comprehension of many finer points， I have to say I find myself on Keynes's side， perhaps confirming my prejudices about Hayek and his free-market "utopianism" （291） in favor of a view that seems both more humane and more attuned to political and social realities as well as economic principles。 。。。more
Jose
，