Keynes vs Hayek Rap Battles

[ArchonAlarion]

Watch both. First one is great, but second is better. They are obviously biased in favor of Hayek, but all the better.






Keynes is ENTp and Hayek is INTj in these videos (imo).

[Birdie]

I love Hayek.
The man.
Not this rap.

[mu4]

The Chinese are Keynesians, when you realize that Singapore, Hong Kong, and China all have adopted Keynesian policies, you'll realize that this has been one of the major methodologies they've used to promote their economics. And I say, methodology and not ideology, because Hayek is just that, doomsday rhetoric. Certainly there is a danger in what he warns against, but ultimately offer no methodology to manage the consequences. Maybe some number cruncher is going to figure out that methodology and salvage what can be salvaged but people that dwell on certain doom can bring it upon themselves prematurely.

[consentingadult]

I think Keynes was ILE in real life as well.

Keynes theory is a great theory. The reason why this theory fails in practice, is that Western politicians and other people only used Keynes' theory in bad times, but not in good times. That's the major problem with a lot of innovations brought to us by ILEs in general: that these innovations are not used by other people as intended by the ILEs themselves, and the ILEs having too much confidence in the good nature of other people.

[ArchonAlarion]

The Chinese are Keynesians, when you realize that Singapore, Hong Kong, and China all have adopted Keynesian policies, you'll realize that this has been one of the major methodologies they've used to promote their economics. And I say, methodology and not ideology, because Hayek is just that, doomsday rhetoric. Certainly there is a danger in what he warns against, but ultimately offer no methodology to manage the consequences. Maybe some number cruncher is going to figure out that methodology and salvage what can be salvaged but people that dwell on certain doom can bring it upon themselves prematurely.

He is saying that no one can manage the consequences: Central planning does not work. In the rap he says specifically that there are no numbers to crunch or methodology to manage. Tell me Hkkmr, what percentage of the Chinese are benefiting from keynesian economics? Who benefits more (proportionately), international corporations or the average chinese subject?

I think Keynes was ILE in real life as well.

Yes, I think so too.

Keynes theory is a great theory. The reason why this theory fails in practice, is that Western politicians and other people only used Keynes' theory in bad times, but not in good times. That's the major problem with a lot of innovations brought to us by ILEs in general: that these innovations are not used by other people as intended by the ILEs themselves, and the ILEs having too much confidence in the good nature of other people.

No economic theory that fails in practice is a great theory. The problem is that it attempts to justify the central planning of a nation's economy by an economically unproductive, wasteful monopoly.

[consentingadult]

No economic theory that fails in practice is a great theory. The problem is that it attempts to justify the central planning of a nation's economy by an economically unproductive, wasteful monopoly.

Nonsense. Keynes never advocated central planning of a nation's economy. You are making a caricature out of him by confusing him with later, post war Keynesians.

[mu4]

No economic theory that fails in practice is a great theory. The problem is that it attempts to justify the central planning of a nation's economy by an economically unproductive, wasteful monopoly.

Keynes never advocated for central planning, yet there exists generally some apparatus which exercises some central control.

Every theory fails in practice. In practice everything fails eventually. There are apparatus for centralized decisions, governments will act based on the parameters of the system and environment factor. Some will survive and flourish for a period of time longer then other systems which will collapse. This could be due to wrong activity, no activity, impossible circumstance, any number of scenarios.

People want to do stuff, act, not wallow in the knowledge of their impending doom. Even if it's inevitable, we do not want to die in vain without a struggle, we wish to leave behind something, perhaps it's just a vanity, but this is what humans do. Denying this struggle kills the soul of humanity, and ultimately leaves only sustenance, economy, futility, the slow hellish spiral towards oblivion.

People engage in economically unproductive, wasteful things quite often, and not because they do not know it's wasteful or unproductive, but because its the only thing that made life worth living.

[mu4]

Keynes theory is a great theory. The reason why this theory fails in practice, is that Western politicians and other people only used Keynes' theory in bad times, but not in good times. That's the major problem with a lot of innovations brought to us by ILEs in general: that these innovations are not used by other people as intended by the ILEs themselves, and the ILEs having too much confidence in the good nature of other people.

The Chinese have used many Keynesian methods in good times, and have prepared themselves for the consequences of these methods, it's also centrally organized to be able to react to these consequences in a fashion which the West cannot do. Ultimately, this will play out in the next 50 years, we'll see how it all works out.

I think ILE's don't have confidence in the good nature of other people, it's more about the alternative being rather pointless. IMO, if individuals within a society no longer has the capacity to cooperate and be decent(refrain from malice) to each other, than it is unlikely anything will work.

[consentingadult]

The Chinese have used many Keynesian methods in good times, and have prepared themselves for the consequences of these methods, it's also centrally organized to be able to react to these consequences in a fashion which the West cannot do. Ultimately, this will play out in the next 50 years, we'll see how it all works out.

Keynesian recommendations were already given in Genesis 40, but people never learn.

[ArchonAlarion]

People engage in economically unproductive, wasteful things quite often, and not because they do not know it's wasteful or unproductive, but because its the only thing that made life worth living.

Activities that fulfill people's desires cannot be unproductive to them (ass far as they or anybody can know). The total productiveness of a collection of people is the sum of those activities. Central planning cannot take into account all these desires and will always tend toward bias in favor of the desires of those who run it. How do you measure productiveness?

I don't know what you are talking about with the doomsday stuff. Hayek had a justifiable concern about the problems of central planning and predicted numerous issues that did occur.

[mu4]

Activities that fulfill people's desires cannot be unproductive to them (ass far as they or anybody can know). The total productiveness of a collection of people is the sum of those activities. Central planning cannot take into account all these desires and will always tend toward bias in favor of the desires of those who run it. How do you measure productiveness?

I don't know what you are talking about with the doomsday stuff. Hayek had a justifiable concern about the problems of central planning and predicted numerous issues that did occur.

Predicted issues others already knew about? Anyways, I'm not even talking about central planning, but organization of concerted action, temporary or otherwise. There are mechanisms in place which facilitate this, which are already in place.This is problem of Hayek's followers, too pussy for a revolution, too scared to act right or wrong. Deer in headlights behavior as they predict all the various problems of the world, real and imagined. You keep thinking in ideological terms when others aren't even concerned about that...

I don't actually think Hayek advocated what his followers advocate, which is just sustained stagnation disguised as freedom.

Hayek also wrote that the state has a role to play in the economy, and specifically, in creating a "safety net". He wrote, "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

Check this out, this is Hayek.

[krieger]

He is saying that no one can manage the consequences: Central planning does not work. In the rap he says specifically that there are no numbers to crunch or methodology to manage. Tell me Hkkmr, what percentage of the Chinese are benefiting from keynesian economics? Who benefits more (proportionately), international corporations or the average chinese subject?

something makes me suspicious about the implication that these corporations' shareholders and CEOs' standard of living went up by 6 times in 25 years and their life expectancy by a commensurate amount from their dealings with China alone...

[mu4]

something makes me suspicious about the implication that these corporations' shareholders and CEOs' standard of living went up by 6 times in 25 years and their life expectancy by a commensurate amount from their dealings with China alone...

I think western corporations and businessmen have profited from doing business in China, but it doesn't mean the Chinese people have not benefited.

As far as Chinese people which is something I didn't address before. Over 600 million people have been brought out of poverty, which is a large part of the working population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

There have been problems with this rise out of poverty, and it is generally the ills of market economics. If you notice the recent news on labor movements and wage increases, one should realize that the changes in China is a shift towards better wages and more income equality, at the expense of the rich. The Chinese have much strong mechanism for wealth redistribution and have ideological qualms about using them.

The biggest problem the Chinese people are angry about is poor working conditions, wage slavery, and wealth disparity.

What's the solution to these problems? Lower taxes on the rich?

[krieger]

I think western corporations and businessmen have profited from doing business in China, but it doesn't mean the Chinese people have not benefited.

As far as Chinese people which is something I didn't address before. Over 600 million people have been brought out of poverty, which is a large part of the working population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

There have been problems with this rise out of poverty, and it is generally the ills of market economics. If you notice the recent news on labor movements and wage increases, one should realize that the changes in China is a shift towards better wages and more income equality, at the expense of the rich. The Chinese have much strong mechanism for wealth redistribution and have ideological qualms about using them.

The biggest problem the Chinese people are angry about is poor working conditions, wage slavery, and wealth disparity.

What's the solution to these problems? Lower taxes on the rich?

hahah, hkk... read my post again. you're a little confused.

[mu4]

I'm not even going to even speculate on who is right or wrong. Time will tell... Anyways, It might be true that Hayek is not wrong, but I don't think his followers even bother to listen to what he says or deal with the arguments. Nobody's is asking for central planning, it's about intervention.

As far as intervention is concerned, Hayek had some ideas about that, however, he did not make any practical recommendations.

Keynes said he entirely agreed with The Road to Serfdom, but criticize the lack of practical use.

John Maynard Keynes said of it: "In my opinion it is a grand book...Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement." Having said that, Keynes did not think Hayek's philosophy was of practical use; this was explained later in the same letter, through the following comment:"What we need therefore, in my opinion, is not a change in our economic programmes, which would only lead in practice to disillusion with the results of your philosophy; but perhaps even the contrary, namely, an enlargement of them. Your greatest danger is the probable practical failure of the application of your philosophy in the United States."

A role for government

The Road To Serfdom is often cited today by politicians and media commentators for the proposition that government should not intervene at all in free markets; for example,Glenn Beck said "The book clearly and logically explained how any form of central government planning eventually leads to serfdom (or servitude) and extinguishes freedom."

Although Hayek believed that government intervention in markets would lead to a loss of freedom, he recognized a limited role for government to perform tasks of which free markets were not capable:The successful use of competition as the principle of social organization precludes certain types of coercive interference with economic life, but it admits of others which sometimes may very considerably assist its work and even requires certain kinds of government action.


While Hayek is opposed to regulations which restrict the freedom to enter a trade, or to buy and sell at any price, or to control quantities, he acknowledges the utility of regulations which restrict allowed methods of production, so long as these are applied equally to everyone and not used as an indirect way of controlling prices or quantities, and without forgetting the cost of such restrictions:
To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances, or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs which they impose.


He notes that there are certain areas, such as the environment, where activities which cause damage to third parties (known to economists as "negative externalities") cannot effectively be regulated solely by the marketplace:Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question, or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation.


The government also has a role in preventing fraud:Even the most essential prerequisite of its [the market's] proper functioning, the prevention of fraud and deception (including exploitation of ignorance), provides a great and by no means fully accomplished object of legislative activity.


The government also has a role in creating a safety net:There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

He concludes: "In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing."

It's easy to boast that you're right or wrong, but that actually doesn't matter, what matters is having the appropriate mechanism in place to intervene when necessary, all of which is justified by Hayek and Keynes. Except Keynes designed a implementation which some governments have adopted, and Hayek suggests an in-determinant amount of intervention, yet still intervention, which has been interpreted by his followers as no intervention.

As far as I'm concerned Keynes vs Hayek isn't that useful, it's more about what's next and what mechanisms can be designed. Until then, states will continue to intervene based on the mechanisms that have been put in place.