He met his opposite in a little-known Austrian economics professor, Freidrich Hayek, who consider 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. The book does a good job at taking fairly detailed and abstract discussions and presenting them so that nonspecialists can follow and know what issues were at play. Republicans starting with Reagan appear particularly intellectually flexible and even duplicitous, perfidious and guileful. The book itself is approachable as a result, and provides a good summary of both the economic debate and the context in which it was being had. Adesso va male, e dopo sarà peggio. This war would play out through much of the Twentieth Century and to our time, as we experienced the Great Recession like a previous generation experienced the Great Depression. They have little in common.
It flows very well, however, and is well organized so that the reader knows how to move around if that is desired. With deficit-financed investment, sovereign debt ever accumulates. He outlines how government leaders, applied Keynesian solutions to resolve many issues of the time period. And every industrialised nation lapped it up from 1950 to 1975, while Hayek looked like a hopeless relic preaching a nineteenth-century creed. To convince a fellow conservative that this book is necessary, show them the last paragraph. Resta il dubbio, a distanza di tanti anni che, invece che di fronte ad economisti, scienza triste per definizione, ci si trovi di fronte a maestri mora Testo Accessibile , ma non accessibilissimo, l'autore lascia troppo spazio, specialmente all'inizio, a citazioni di opere degli autori che, specialmente per Haywek non sono cristalline, anzi decisamente esoteriche.
Wapshott has written an important book. We gather that the author did not like the book. Such a structure would be consistent with consumer preferences. Still, a must- read for anyone interested in macroeconomics and the history of economic thoughts. Very balanced, refusing to take sides until the last paragraph Wapshott gives J. Hayek, was not a hater of government and he was not a conservative.
His ideas were cha Keynes and Hayek both won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Keynes, unlike what the ignorant talk radio and network mob will tell you, was not a socialist. So neglect the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal for one week and read this instead. I had preached for forty years that the time to prevent the coming of a depression is during the boom. Perhaps the one criticism of this excellent book, is that not enough time is devoted to conveying how the stagflation of the 1970s shattered the Keynesian consensus.
More so for Hayek for sure, if you think Keynes may lean more towards political economist. He met his opposite in a little-known Austrian economics professor, Freidrich Hayek, who considered attempts to intervene both pointless and potentially dangerous. It weirdly oscillated between being too partisan to one side then the other, which I took as essentially a failure of journalism — written by an economist rather than a disinterested third party, and therefore never able to really separate from the material. As a result, the capitalist system is prone to suffer from a systemic lack of demand and, as a consequence, a chronic level of unemployment. رغم هذا نجح وابشوت في تأليف كتاب مسل ومسترسل، لا يكتفي بالأفكار الجاهزة للاستهلاك الشعبي ولا يثقل القارئ بالنظريات معالجا الأفكار الأساسية التي برزت في أربع مؤلفات لكينز ومؤلفين لهايك.
This was one of the reason why Hayek fell into a deep depression in the early 60s, especially after the commercial disappointment of his 1959 masterpiece, The Constitution of Liberty now, of course, a bestseller. In fact, up to the end it just seemed to favor Keynes, maybe simply because he was an eminently likable personality and had an original vision of macroeconomics. Keynes would be King and Hayek unread. An equilibrium can be predicted only if the intentions of each of the participants is known, and that is impossible both in theory and in practice. Il Libro prende il giusto, anzi ottimo, abbrivio, con riferimento agli effetti delle idee degli autori sulle economie che li applicano.
Could have at least 50 pages less. Hanno ottimi rapporti nella vita privata, sono uniti contro le barbarie totalitarie, ma le loro idee si scontreranno in una strenua battaglia che, sino ai giorni nostri, ha impegnato le migliori menti in campo economico. Or on the flip side, let them go bankrupt and let the free market pick up the pieces? For social disrupters who are just plain concerned, this book could give some shape to arguments which are currently muddled. However, we search in vain for any details justifying that dislike. Keynes: meglio intervenire oggi, spendere, andare in deficit, e chi se ne frega di domani, tanto domani saremo tutti morti.
Un elogio particolare a Wapshott, che riesce a mantenersi equidistante. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam. In addition to growing the economy by stimulus spending, he also advocated --shocking surprise! The theory, therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank, and fiscal policy interventions by the government, to stabilize economic output over a business cycle. But centrists, like Clinton, show no loyalty to Keynes either. This book explains what they were talking about, and how political and economic history got us from them to the Tea Party. في تلك الأثناء رغبت كلية لندن للإقتصاد في مقاومة صعود كامبريدج وتعزيز مكانة الفكر الكلاسيكي بنشر فكر المدرسة الإقتصادية النمساوية القارية التي بدأت تضع لبنات نظرية للفكر الكلاسيكي قائمة على الدارات الإقتصادية. He played the market, becoming very rich.
You will end up with a reasonable understanding, of how these men shaped their opinions. All in all, a great read for those interested in economics and its impact in policy-making. For example, the books shows how Milton Friedman was supportive of Hayek's approach to the role of government, but was closer to Keynes in his actual economics. Why did very smart people in government and academia come to think of economic prescriptions, again, a science, as a sports team vs. A true Renaissance man, Hayek also made intellectual contributions in political theory, psychology, and methodology. On the former there are some flaws. Readers are led from the outset.
ولعل ما يثير الإستغراب اليوم هو كيف أن كينز أصبح بطلا للأحزاب الإشتراكية في أوروبا في حين كان طول حياته يسعى لإنقاذ الرأسمالية، بالمقابل أصبح هايك بطل الأحزاب المحافظة في أمريكا في حين كان طوال حياته لادينيا. They were continually looking for a new theory that would describe and forecast current and future economic events. Reading Keynes and Hayek won't help. For anyone who would like to be just a little better educated about these issues, the book is well-written, fairly short, and contains not one economic formula. John Maynard Keynes, the mercurial Cambridge economist, believed that government had a duty to spend when others would not.