Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek - Economics Rap Battle Round Two
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 04. 2011
- Subscribe to our channel: / econstories
If you enjoyed this video, you should watch this one next: • EconPop - The Economic...
Produced by Emergent Order. Visit us at emergentorder.com.
"Fight of the Century" is the new economics hip-hop music video by John Papola and Russ Roberts at EconStories.tv.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession ended in the summer of 2009. Yet we're all uneasy. Job growth has been disappointing. The recovery seems fragile. Where should we head from here? Is that question even meaningful? Can the government steer the economy or have past attempts helped create the mess we're still in?
In "Fight of the Century", Keynes and Hayek weigh in on these central questions. Do we need more government spending or less? What's the evidence that government spending promotes prosperity in troubled times? Can war or natural disasters paradoxically be good for an economy in a slump? Should more spending come from the top down or from the bottom up? What are the ultimate sources of prosperity?
Keynes and Hayek never agreed on the answers to these questions and they still don't. Let's listen to the greats. See Keynes and Hayek throwing down in "Fight of the Century"!
Starring Billy and Adam from www.billyandadam.com
DOWNLOAD THE SONG in the highest quality possible here: itunes.apple.com/us/album/fig...
If your'e a fan of the rap battles, check out our interview with co-creator Russ Roberts over on the Dad Saves America channel: czcams.com/video/aTKcJdgz7U4/video.html
part 3 when?
Yeah honestly part 1 and 2 are amazing a part 3 would be awesome
a model of proper conflict here
Yes, but now Milei🦁 is turning this fight in favor of Hayek
As it should be
“Have a look, the Great Recession ended in ‘09”
Hits different in 2022
Year of a recession at this point.
@@TheIceGryphon wrecked supply chains, lock down stimulus, check to be paid in 2023 ( with interest )
@@server1ok stimulus, you can think Keynes for that, and the government causing a lockdown, helped to create the economic recession we are currently in if we could extract our natural resources like oil, we would be able to get out of this recession quicker we don’t need state intervention it hinders us
Correct, except the last part about oil. As far as the US GDP goes, oil, gasoline and mining represents less than 5 % of the economic activity. Yes ofc. it will alleviate the US GDP with less regulation in energy ( as it probably helps with less regulation in all activities except banking ) but the main issue is the aftereffect of the lock down with the sacked supply lines and bankrupt small companies, that still hasn't had time to resolve. Less regulation for energy, this will mainly help the 3'rd World and Russia. It will help countries who are reliant on an effect called the "petrodollar" of which the US is NOT a member but merely provides the banking network and settlement mechanism. In 2023, the US is a SERVICES economy and nothing else. This is something that is widely misunderstood on the Internet.@@RandomRothbardian
the recession never ended. its effects were delayed through QE and other mechnisms. the pandemic forced the government to dig an even deeper grave by keeping the economy on life support through money printing. Now everything is going to crumble as QE cannot be maintained anymore and interest rates have to be raised back to normal levels to keep inflation down.
I love the symbolism of the politician choosing Keynes as the winner.
Well in the Greek bailout they didn't the entire package was dependent on non-Keynesian assumptions of expansionary fiscal adjustments....turns out it didn't work
anon Bailouts themselves are based on Keynesian assumptions.
Deep_Convection tbf Greece wasn't doing too hot before the bailout
The Greek situation with the forced austerity is neither Keynes or Hayek. it was government intervention to cut spending, which is an idiotic idea in both models.
Yeah, that was perfect.
I cant believe it took me 10 years to find this...
i see now why you are the king.
@@RFMongoose because I'm slow to change and incompetent?
@@Doctoranthetardis because your op has the right syllables to be a haiku.
I @@RFMongoose nah my name only has 4...
yu r hayek team or keynes team?
"Jobs are just means, not ends in themselves
People work to live better, to put food on the shelves"
Accurate 💯
Marx: "Well, I think they have been manipulated by the exploitation of those who control production."
Hayek and Keynes: *Sigh*
But they are means better than government
Those means are what feed so many people, and we cant risk them by killing businesses
@Varad the comment above says jobs are just means
But those means...
@@rubix4195 Exactly. Marx was right
@@rubix4195 With CEOs commanding 31 million dollar a year salaries, how could you possibly dispute this?
this is the nerdiest bullshit and I fucking love it
I love it, I wish daddy would come back and make more.
Absolutely, lol
Gabe Blair Lol
True
Vous avez raison mon général !
Hayek absolutely destroyed Keynes, but in the end, Keynes won. Seems like real life.
Exactly.
bah ha ha ha! This has got to be the dumbest repeated line of bullshit on the internet. Objectively not true. Not even the Chicago school demi-god Milton Friedman agreed with Hayek's work. Keynes' ideas won because they were far more accurate and predictive in the real world.
Yes Keynes won because an alliance between the assholes and the morons always takes over in a democracy , the assholes being the politicians whose only goal is to win the next election,and the morons being the masses with brains so tiny they can't understand that nothing is free , that today's government "free" goodies will only come at the expense of tomorrow's economic opportunities, Hayek lost because honorable intelligent people who think long term are always a minority.
At least you are honest that you want to use government force to steal from some you deem evil to give to those you deem pure. It is like if the pope had guns.
Sorry how much did you pay to watch that clip. And all they ask is to buy products from the advertising on the site if it improves your life. You want to define good and evil at the barrel if a gun.
I love how at the end Keynes is speaking with the news and the politicians, and Hayak is surrounded by the observers. The symbolism is depressingly realistic.
We will win
@@Revjuan14 No you won't, since basically nobody in the economics profession takes Austrian economics' policy prescriptions for recessions seriously.
@@chrisbrowy929 Probably because they dont fucking work
@@chrisbrowy929 Exactly. That's why we have stagnation, inflation and other problems. Thanks you, keynesian. 🤦🏻♂️
@@faustosar6151without KEYNESIAN. THE WORLD WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLAPSED. You’re not tired of being retar* ? Don’t you see how the inaction of HOOVER, the no regulation of economy destroyed EVERYTHING. WHY DON’T YOU THINK THAT DURING THE CORONAVIRUS THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM SURVIVED ? WHY? It’s the first time in human history that lost people on the world are confined, they’re still paid AND the economic system is doing OK.
The best line of the whole piece:
"If every worker was staffed in the Army and fleet, we'd have full employment - and nothing to eat."
@Jason Simmons And where did you get all that bullshit from?
@@stretopovermind9680 Red Scare propaganda obviously. People bash communism, marxism, leninism, socialism etc... Without even fully knowing what it is. I bet you my ass off that most people that hate communism haven't read a single socialist book and their only reference for socialism are Venezuela and the USSR.
@@fredericiideprusse9892 I bet most people who love communism haven't read a single socialist book. There was a running joke in this former-socialist country: there are 2 types of people. People who do understand marxism-leninism, and the communists.
@@andyp2000 since when is a joke a fact ? Nowadays, most leftists read theory (and a lot of it) because that's the only way they can actually discover all forms of marxism, socialism, communism etc.... They can't even do anything else anyway, most people shut them down before hearing what you have to say if you're a leftist.
@@fredericiideprusse9892 Oh come on - have a look a the PragerU videos when the guys are walking around campuses asking people what actually is socialism. Yet many do love socialism. I have the exact same experience with people who like socialism; I have actually read some Marx - they haven't.
And since when is a joke a fact? I'd say something like 99% of people who like socialism have zero knowledge of economic theory. It's actually quite easy not to grasp the meaning of socialism if you don't know anything about economics. If you do, it's much easier to understand the implications.
Time for round 3 already
PLEASE
Milton Friedman
Hermans Hoppe.
I have suggested some rap battles with other people. Like Lysander Spooner vs. Abraham Lincoln, Bastiat vs Proudhon and Eugen Böhm von Bawerk vs Karl Marx
M P I guess there could be a Ludwig von Mises vs Milton Friedman one ;)
"If every worker was staffed in the army and fleet, we'd have full employment... and nothing to eat." Somebody get Keynes some aloe for that.
Interestingly world War 2 created the middle class as we know it today
@Kevin Warburton Yeah, but if you keep spending money you cant save to invest. How do capitals grow if you keep spending? How are you going to start a business and create jobs if you dont have enough money? Spending isnt a solution to anything.
@Kevin Warburton no, just no. Remove money and people will still produce and consume and the economy will still find some means of providing a currency even beyond basic bartering. There have been businesses that started their own currency even. The government has tried farming, wasnt too good at it.
@Kevin Warburton entrepreneurship is defined by identifying a possible want or need, applying that to making a new product, and introducing it through a business to the rest of the world, all in the hopes of being able to make a profit. And there's nothing wrong with that. But that kind of ruins the whole idea of there needs to be a demand for a product first. Like people didn't demand create the first smartphone. Someone (Apple) created it, people saw it and tried it. They liked it. It became popular. Then those people who keep the money "nesting at the top" invest the money they have into administration, paying current employees, research and development, that of which includes polling, testing of new methods/products/versions of products, and potentially creating new jobs. Then of course there is the ability to create even more of said product. All of this produces jobs, and gives people good quality products and services. And trickle down isn't a thing. No one has ever proposed trickle down. The term is a mischaracterizing insult by critics who either failed to understand Supply-side, or just wanted to lie about it for political gain. But wealth doesn't trickle down. No one has ever thought that. And it doesn't make sense. And arguably, it was mainly poor spending habits by consumers that led to the Great Depression. Constantly using credit, driving themselves into debt, spending money they didn't have or that just didn't exist, inflating stock prices, and then when the curtain came down, stocks crashed, people invested went broke, couldn't pay debt to banks, banks had less money to lend out, then they started collecting on debts, taking peoples homes then people, in an attempt to hold on to the money they had left, went on bank runs, destroying most banks overnight, so now theres no one to lend money, including to any businesses, and the few that remain, try to sell houses, but the demand is so high and the supply is so low that the prices for them were ridiculously high, and everyone was already dirt poor by this point. So the continued use of credit and potentially endless debt is what drove the United States into a depression. Had people only spent their own money, and learned to save when they were running low instead of driving themselves into further debt, they could've kept living in prosperity theoretically. And the taxes had been at an all time low, the country was seeing a booming economy. Ngl I kinda lost what I was tryna say because I kinda squirreled a little bit. But trickle down economics is a mischaracterization of Supply-side, which actually was shown to work as long as people weren't putting themselves into debt. And there's not really a good argument that I've heard so far that made sense for demand-side? So if you have a counter, I'd be glad to hear it
Brian Barrick I don’t think you could be more wrong agriculturally speaking.
Yes the “Green Revolution” was co-opted by the chemical industry which became big Agro, born from Germany’s wartime discovery of nitrate synthesis.
So they instituted a monoculture, pumped the land full of salts, burned the waste, destroyed the insect-fungi-microbe eco-webs which sustained the land’s fertility which lead to the dustbowl. Giving rise to the artificial life support systems which became necessary to defend the crops once the fast multiplying herbivorous insects no longer were kept in check by the carnivorous insects which having more complex physiology, have slower rates of reproduction and evolutionarily were designed to survive for many years. Thus pesticides like DDT, and Roundup and Roundup-ready™️ crops arose to fill the needs of the market. Each one Further exacerbating the root problem while temporarily producing a short term profitability.
Now why you’re wrong: The United States Government leads the world in developing best practices for agricultural production. State Cooperate extension programs which operate trough the state universities Dispense evidence based methods of farming which incorporate the contemporary biological understanding into modern farming. These governing bodies expend great efforts trying to convince the farmers that these techniques: cover cropping, no-till, polyculture, permaculture, Et al. Are not only environmentally tenable, but more cost effective in the long run. Other honorable mentions include the government of Cuba which inspires even the US with their innovations in aquaponics throughout the last decade, and India whose cultural tradition of breeding has hybridized phenomenally versatile and economically viable seed stock from heirloom varieties once thought to be lost to time.
Here we see, as throughout history,
The Socialization of the costs.
The privatization of the profits.
Our tax dollars fund the research which is used by farmers, to increase their yields.
American soybean farmers didn’t outproduce Chinese farmers by “the invisible hand of the market”.
No. It took scientists. Working in a systematic, organized fashion on a federal scale.
Reminds me, the Chinese government through its foresight and organization has engineered a remedy to desertification. Look up John D Liu and be amazed as the Chinese people transform sand dunes into misty forests. The government came in handed everyone a shovel and said here’s he plan this is what we’re doing.
And now those same people are collectively entitled to the rich productive land they helped create and are entitled to the wealth. There: socialization of costs. Socialization of profits.
It’s time, once again, to resurrect this banger.
Argentina going all in on this one! Viva libertad Carojo!
Real story: Keynes and Hayek were on the roof of Cambridge one night with a shovel each, protecting the building from bombs during WWII.
Nobody knows what they talked about that night. But they become good correspondence pals.
I'm no expert but I don't think shovels are very effective against bombs lol
@@Chatherbox that's is what i'm wondering.🤔🤔🤔😂
Yeah, where did the shovels come from? They were literally just standing on a roof, firewatch.
@@Chatherbox They both volunteered to put out flames created by the bombs
A lesson for all in these times: disagreement does not mean the other is an evil that must first be unpersoned then destroyed.
I just figured out, after almost five years, that the guard represents the Government.
+Ever Flores The guard is also the head of penn state school of economics
+Ever Flores Also, the ref represents the fed. "Calling the shots." In spite of Keynes getting nearly KO'd, the ref declares him the winner anyway.
+Adam Alexander The government bails out the loser yet again
Like national guard?
Ahhh yes it can be seen that way!
Top 10 rappers Eminem was afraid to diss
"The economy's organic!"
If only people understood this basic principle
Funny given current covid relief Bill's coming in
@@harmanjotsingh4230 you mean the covid inflation bill?
@@thesaint9276 no no no
The inflation bill of bailouts and foreign aid
And Americans pay for crumbs with a uncertain future of indebtedness and the weak dollar
All this is making me sure of who to vote for in 24
@@harmanjotsingh4230 But nobody has even declared any intention to run in 24
@@georgebrantley776 I got Rand Paul for myself lol, but I doubt he will make past 3rd or 2nd at best in primaries
governments naturally choose keynes, as governments would rather have influence in the economy, than not. they are pursuing their own self , in the end.
Well, I don't think that your point is corect if you consider that governing classes are realy linked with economic elits (at least in france) and are trying to sell all of the state services to their friends (Macron tried to do that with paris airport).
Anyway, sorry for my bad english, and have a great day.
@@fifous45gammes Same thing with Australia's Internet
@Johan Liebert Selling strategic services is ok? From who's perspectuve? I don't get your point.
Btw we have the same first noun beau gosse galbé.
the truth is that they can pick keynes all they want but in the end free market always wins. Market has much more power than all governments in the world combined. Because market is the people. They can keep the charade up until the people don't believe in the government or in the dollar, then the free market takes over
@Johan Liebert Sadly, it didn't worjed out on france, where the prices of the roads that once where nationalized, increased with the privatization; thus making the french people pay them twice, via taxes, and via high prices.
the symbolism in this video is ridiculously good.
+tismlover the symbolism is where Hayek wins the boxing match, yet Keynes is declared the winner even though he clearly lost.
What? Say?
Also, the committee refers to Kaynes with his full name, whereas Hayek gets his initials
Mises and Say helping Hayek.
Just perfect...
Also the intro (Keynes? Nice to meet you. Justo go; Stop. Who are you? Heyek?)
lol I love how Hayek's trainer is Mises
And Say.
And Keynes Malthus
And Hicks
Hicks and Malthus are Keynes trainers.
@Timothy Chandler Funny thing about Hick and Malthus. Both of their lines of thinking ignore human ingenuity and believe that invention and the solution to problems is a flat route. If either was right, there'd only be 380m people on this rock.
Everyone is quoting but can we just appreciate how awesome this song is, usually these Rap battles are rather cringe but this is just so good!
This honestly slaps so hard, I'm straight up listening to it unironically for how good it sounds
I mean, I searched for this. It indeed is good.
I've listened to these religiously for at least 20 times every year
And now is the perfect moment for a third part...
Second
Opt out. Get Bitcoin.
Satoshi has shown the way.
Financial evolution for all.
@@teegamew766 * revolution
No doubt economists are going to be arguing about the pandemic spending for a long time to come.
AAAAAAAhhh
Best line: "The economy's us!"
boyonstilts rare case when all lines are pure gold standard
Yes, the idea that the economy can be reduced to some mechanical equation is stupid when all it is is people making decisions.
@@Sebastian_1177 Where does the economy come from if not the trades and exchanges that people do? Can you prove that it exists?
@@Sebastian_1177 The Austrian Business Cycle Theory has literally predicted bothe 1929 and 2008. It was proposed by Mises and Hayek. But sure, such depressions should be cleared by, according to me, monetary policy, as opposed to fiscal policy, for it does not plunge the budget surplus.
@@Sebastian_1177 Is this late-stage keynes arguments?
honestly i could watch hours of Keynes and Hayek arguing
yea same and then talk about witch one should be used how and wen it should be used and to wat extend.
Nah thats not a debate thats proganda.@@dennisvisser3910
Who’s watching in 2020 during the Coronavirus pandemic?
Mexico's not bailing out anyone... lets see how that works....
Me
Here here
Who knew Trump was Keynes reencarnated?
@@rjadolf6782 It's not about bailing out anyone. It's about not closing the economy in the first place and having clear and concise rules if a state of emergency is declared.
The problem is that the government has shut everything down, basically putting the hammer down on the economy, which it shouldn't have done in the first place.
There should have been a proper plan (testing, tracking and isolating) from the government - having control over and massively involved in healthcare anyway - to deal with the pandemic in a reasonable manner without locking up the whole economy and destroying people's livelihoods.
“I want plans by the many, not by the few.” One of the best lines in the battle.
Have you seen how brain fuckingly stupid the average person is about money and business? I absolutely do not want their "plans" anywhere near a national discussion. That's how you get flat earthers and anti-vaxxers.
You can live in a deadlocked world where absolutely nothing gets accomplished because of the "plans by the many". I'll keep living in the real world that's made me a multi-millionaire because getting money in the US is basically easy mode.
@@brianb8003 It's a way of saying everybody gives input to the market. Like how you "vote" for the things that you like by paying for it. It's better than democracy in that sense.
@@brianb8003 That’s why we want *many* people educated on how to spend in the market. I swear, it’s so silly to see people bootlick giant corporations. We want many people with a million dollars, not 5 with a trillion.
@@brianb8003 it doesn't mean that "the many plan" the economy it means "the many" choose how the economy functions by their own choices, what they buy, what they sell, how much they spend, how much they save, how much they work etc
@@brianb8003 Many doesn't mean all if English is not your first language and if i were to put words in his mouth it would be to avoid central authority because the opposite is rarely true .
"People aren't chessmen you move on a board/At your whim, their dreams and desires ignored."
So powerful.
@@MuhammadAhmed-qh7ut so the majority can ignore the dreams and desires of the minority?
@@MuhammadAhmed-qh7ut they have taxes in somolia. and what should i do if they colonize antarctica? and it does happen, it's happening right now.
@@MuhammadAhmed-qh7ut you can impose taxes if you choose. but when the time comes, i'll stop you. with as much force as it takes.
@@MuhammadAhmed-qh7ut yeah and when the mafia demands protection money I'll just leave the neighborhood. Nah, politicians need to be reminded that they rule by consent
@@gabrieleberle4422 hey tough guy, get off the internet because you seem to despise government funded projects and DARPA is responsible for this tax funded government project. I'm sure you can go read Adam Smith by candlelight somewhere🙄
The lesson I’d learned is how little we know
The world is complex, not some circular flow
The economy’s not something you can master in college
To think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge
This is really the nail in the coffin
Socratic af
You can master it in CZcams though
Most people don't know what the pretense of knowledge is because they are so pretentious
yes it did now let's spot the ignorant ones who don't understand of what the video was actualy about.
Ye we also dont understand the universe completely, we dont understand mechanics completely, we dont understand biology completely etc. and we may never be able to do so. Yet we have theories and knowledge about all of these topics and use this knowledge to our benefit. So where is the difference to economics here? Its complex, yes, and we dont understand everything but we can see which effects different policies have and we can then use them accordingly where is the problem with that?
We build combustion engines but we are unable to simulate them completely yet we have a fairly good understanding of how they work, we have a rough understanding of how the brain works and we can in some cases cure deseases by specifically changing the brain. We dont say, hey let the brain heal itself no matter what, why should we do this in the economy? I dont get it.
"Same economists, new moustaches"
Who's watching in 2019? Instant classic!
Preach, Brother Bridgetown. Preach
Literally the night before my Hist. of Economic Thought final
I watch it now and its beautiful
I am watching in 2020!
You're behind the times, Bridgetown. It's 2020 and this is _still_ a classic
Round three, with a special guest appearance by Friedman.
And Rothbard
And mises
And Thaler, Ackerman, Stiglitz...
And schiff
Compared too Hayek; Friedman was a socialist. But Rothbard would be awesome too appear
It's been long enough.
We need round three.
They did one with Mises and Marx. Crowdfunded it and everything.
They're waiting to use their own mustaches
7:39 - "Give us a chance so we can discover the most valuable way to serve each other"
Best line to end it!!
Oh yeah, and that is coming from the guy that supported Pinochet government, and authoritarism itself, as means of imposing proper liberal agenda.
This line, so much this line! i just want voluntary solutions to my problems, not an excuse for the government politicians to butt in and decide how much of my paycheck should go into their pockets for their "help".
@@rodrigocarnier8035 Sounds like Ad-hom...
Ok, politics aside, the audio quality is absolutely amazing.
This video is NINE years old, and it has better audio quality than most videos today.
Kudos my dudes.
Every lyric, every scene, every emotion, every reaction, and the entire progression was perfect. In 1000 years, it will still be relevant. In the spirit of Hayek: Timeless genius...
Its 2018 and its still relevant
So amazingly acurate, extremely well made!
I don't know about 1000 years but i'm still watching in 2019!
2020 and it still relevant
I mean.... the music, the rapping, the boxing match, the courtroom, and the rap battle genre itself won't be relevant, but the ideas will be.
My econ teacher opened this in class for us and then we had to analyze the lyrics :v
Kudos for your teacher
Mine too
Tbh your teacher was cool as fuck
U have a good econs teacher
10 years on and these two are still just as incredible as when they came. I just wish more people would wake up.
Wake up to who though?
@@CSRL8 Obviously Austrian economic school - which Hayek represent. Its kinda sad, that Hayek grabbed most of the fame, but contributed less than great idols - Menger and Mises. Even Nobel prize for bussines cycle wasnt his work, but Mises. Keynes and Friedman disciples ruling economy for almost 100 years, as a Keynes said, in the long run we´re all dead - today Keynes is dead and long run is here (love u Rothbard)
In the 11 years since this video came out, the Fed has pumped the Dow up about 200%. Roaring 20s were ~250%. This is going to be epic
Russ and John deserve a lot of credit for both videos. They have taken a subject that would be considered completely antithetical to a music video, and through brilliant creativity made something enormously entertaining.
I mean really it’s the dismal science for crap sakes. No one has ever made something considered to be so inherently bland, into something so engaging.
Well done.
Oh, and how do I get to be one of those economic cowboys I saw on this thread? Sounds like a sweet gig.
+Evan Fast I showed these videos to my AP Macro students. I find econ fascinating but I can see how some people are very turned off by the subject. Love these guys!!!!
My college macro-economics teacher in college had this video as a required view in our curriculum, that we had to watch, and dissect. We had to be ready to discuss all the subtle references like who's in who's corner and why, for the boxing match [I will not spoil it, get educated xD]
This was at a community college many years ago (it's now a state college, they became larger).
+
@@brittanyyurkovitch8248 Thank you so much for the comment! The rap battles are returning soon, and they’re going to be bigger and better than ever. Over the years, we’ve heard from plenty of fans like you sharing how the Keynes vs. Hayek and Mises vs. Marx videos have impacted their lives.
If you want to help us make more - please record a quick video about how the rap battles have impacted you, and upload it to the link below.
eo-f.com/impactstory
nothing like watching this in an AP Macroeconomics class lol
AP?
Gonssavm AP means advanced placement at least in the United States
thanks, my 1st macroeconomics teacher showed us this at the last day of class
what do you study on AP macroeconomics? anything austriac?
gamerdude612 same lol
Years ago, had to watch this for my macro-economics class.
We had to analyze who was in who's corner, and why. We had to explain it.
It was a great class discussion and we actually learned a lot.
I still am a proprietor of Hieck. Spending is not free.
Literally doing that right now for my macro-economics class as well lol
Hieck? You mean Hayek?
@@CSRL8 It may be a spelling depending another language?
What I hate about Kaynes and his model is that it doesnt fit the model of a Free nation. It simply can't.
Kaynes model essenrially bools down to Borrowing Money to Spend when you Don't have it. And Saving Money to pay off debts when you do. A sort of inverse of traditional Capitalist Economics.
And whole it works in theory. No Government is ever going to stop the Spending after the good times come. If putting in the spending gets them elected and loved. Why wouldn't they keep the spending spigot going?
And no free nation is going yo let its government turn off the spending spigot either. Look at America and it's Welfare.
So in order to turn it off so your narion doesn't collapse into Financial Ruin. You HAVE to enslave the people.
Who outside of the government who prospers from spending supports keynesian economics honestly
We have never needed round 3 more. I hope everyone at Emergent Order is doing well :)
They could play chess while they are also rapping.
3 million views is pretty good, but thats only about 1/100 of the number of people who need to see this.
3 million for a eonomics video is good, wish more ppl understood basic economics and not keep getting fooled by politicians
aviomaster No, there is no evidence that this would ever happen, and no VALID theoretical mechanism as to why this should happen, at least in a free market. Central banking, however, does cause something that looks like what you describe to happen. They print up huge amounts of paper money, which is usually spent by governments to pay for military and "infrastructure", and most of this money goes to rich contractors. Or the money is borrowed by banks and then in turn borrowed by rich Wall Street corporations and they use it to get even richer at everyone else's expense. Also, all the regulation we have makes it ever harder for people to go into business for themselves, thus make a decent living independent of the rich corporations you seem to think take over because of the free market.
The closest thing to what you describe happening in a free market is that as an economy becomes more capital intensive, more of the money exchanged goes to purchasing capital goods instead of consumer goods. The remaining money that goes to paying for consumer goods buys a larger supply of those goods, so prices fall. We have what economists are more and more coming to see as "good" deflation. It means that consumers in the general population have to work less to earn the money needed to buy the goods they need from day to day, so they become more prosperous. This is a GOOD thing, not the bad thing you seem to think it is.
There are two things I would like to add. Firstly, the main problem of capitalism is exogenous and is actually the desire of humans for power. It just so happens that through the pervertisation of incentives from increasing the purchase of capital goods, the achievement of power (and or glory) is done through the very weird proxy of money. We've seen this in the evolution of shareholder value, shifting it from long-term value creation to greater short-termism. When the prospects for growth strangle those of betterment, there is quite a big issue. Regulation is absolutely necessary in such cases. This became blatantly clear when health and safety were not covered in the industries of the US at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th - people losing limbs or even their lives during their working hours, fires being common and there being other forms of direct mistreatment and harassment of the labour force. Then, there are issues of information asymmetry, but this could go on and on.
The second point I wish to make is that, while I fully agree on the impartiality of central banks, I believe that the current credit-creation paradigm, which is actually missing from today's economic models should be addressed. Economic textbooks still use fractional reserve theory to describe how money is made, when empirical studies have clarified that commercial banks CREATE credit, without requiring a deposit in the first place. The money that is credited, does not require a deposit - it is not lent - just poofs out of thin air. In this case, some proposals that include full-reserve lending seem very attractive and the central bank, so long as political incentives are absolutely decoupled, would be the institution to do the job of creating all the monies within the monetary system.
Depending on how you structure the system, it will produce exactly that good inflation mentioned above. One issue though would mean that savings are going to be more valuable. I hereby have to ponder that maybe in this way, houses might not need to be the assets that are purchased so that the rich can store their wealth, but rather that currency might be the best wealth storage, since it would see continuous deflation (get higher in value). This is a very interesting thought.
To summarise my two actual points however:
1) Regulation is necessary to some extent, to keep the fairness in the game, because people's nature is to find ways to 'game' the system that was once established (e.g. toy makers are not going to try and make flammable plushies)
2) Credit cycles might be fully stopped with a possible full-reserve system which would involve an impartial central bank
I am sad this account stopped making brilliant videos. You guys are the best. Thank you
They just came back. Part 3 in autumn.
They’ll be doing Mises vs Marx
Mariano Andrés Horianski are you for real? Oh man I want to see their current feedback with the current stocks (COVID-19 Outbreak and aftermath affects)
@@marianoandreshorianski162 Cant wait, the actors gonna be too old....cant wait 10 years in between.
@@Toddcinca i forgot that they'd have aged in these 10 years...
My teacher showed it to the class... This song lives in my head forever now
Same.
Same
This video was one of the many things that made me interested in economics during high school (~2013). I am now graduating from college and about to start to my PhD in Economics at Columbia. How time flies!
(And, somewhat shamefully, I still do not totally get certain jokes in the two videos...)
That's amazing, you never know what can make your life change.
then you're stupid and should study something else.
Thank you so much for the comment! The rap battles are returning soon, and they’re going to be bigger and better than ever. Over the years, we’ve heard from plenty of fans like you sharing how the Keynes vs. Hayek and Mises vs. Marx videos have impacted their lives.
If you want to help us make more - please record a quick video about how the rap battles have impacted you, and upload it to the link below.
eo-f.com/impactstory
Politicians accept Keynes because it allows them to control output (i.e. pay off cronies). Hayek had a better understanding of the fact the "economics" is less a "system" and more human interaction.
Indeed, that's why the "economy is organic" line is so powerful.
@@censorduck bububullshit. its just a platitude. Capitalist economics is entirely dependent on the decisions made by states and a powerful few who own the majority share of the markets. A pro-labor and liberal democracy being the foundation for the government intervention into markets is necessary for capitalism to remain viable less it falls into oligarchy and autocracy.
@@fotboy804 no it isn't, if it was why do state run communist economies always fail? Surely if communist countries wanted to succeed they could just will it to happen? Keynesian Economics is pretty much creationism of Economics.
@@censorduck Keynesian economics is the dominant school of economic thought that presided the largest periods of economic growth and wealth creation in the history of the world and is the dominate economic theory of developed every country in the world.
@@fotboy804 That or market economics work in spite of the government's attempts to control it. Regardless, are you going to answer my question about top down communist countries or do you have no answers for me?
I'm just now figuring out that the bearded man at the dimly lit table full of rich people is supposed to be Ben Bernanke...
... and at 1:36 the men in front of Keynes are Malthus and Hicks
Wow you're a genius
+Sam Wolf stay off my mans and go concentrate in a camp or smtn
thank mr. bernke
It is this rap that unironically made me read the road to serfdom by Hayek.
Ben Bernanke just received the Nobel Prize in Economics. Unbelievable. All I could do is shake my head in disbelief and watch this video again.
I am amazed by the brilliance and excellence of this each time that I watch it.
Aria DiMezzo hayek is bae
Me too honey
+
Without Rulers
This comment is confusing
I am hoping for a Marx vs. Mises version!
up
Mises wipes the floor with Marx. Marx is declared the winner. Mises is sent to the gulag. True story.
Karl Marx starves to death
they would complement each other pretty well.
Mises won
I like Mises vs Marx, but in comparison, the rap quality of this one is waaay higher.
I love how they use silence in some parts to bring a huge "weight" to the words.
Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics book is an eye opener.
Indeed!
Easier to read and not as big of a book but still eye opening: Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt
People who disliked are obviously keynesians
truth
Keynes is right though
@@eruno_ No way, cmon dont you see the mess in the world right now?
@@d68st90 I would argue that it is the result of not enough intervention, not the opposite
@@eruno_ what the hell? I'm astonished by how much people are out of reality. Let's be 100% interventionist then just like a Marxist economy. What if the world becomes USRR? Will we be in paradise?
Better than mayweather vs paqciao
More entertaining, that's for sure!
Josue Barboza well yeah. Who likes seeing one guy running away..
11 years later this is still awesome.
The little inserts of quotes from the books, little economics phrases....just wonderful. And a great tune!
We need a round 3 more than ever! I'd love to see both cite the economy so far in the 2020s and blame each other and how they both view the inflation as well as the stimulus checks, with Hayek pointing out that the Kaynes method was used, but we're even worse off now than before.
The part of modern Keynesian econ that politicians like to forget is that he preferred higher taxes, and spending cuts during the good economic times--essentially to prevent inflation and bubbles. Of course, taxes and spending cuts are both unpopular -> losing elections, so idk if will work properly in a democracy
Bidens money printer go brrrr
Keynes never advocated for unlimited spending. He advocated for higher taxes and interest rates during inflationary periods just as much as increased spending during recessionary periods.
We are worse off because an artificial supply shock and aggregate demand shock was injected into the economy through lockdowns, massive stimulus was provided to fix this iatrogenic problem at a time when the economy was previously at or close to full employment already.
It’s not as simple as oh Keynes would have stood for this and Hayek would have stood for that. Both would be disgusted at how the government handled 2020.
Nowadays both parties are obsessed with leaking government money everywhere. No one care about the second part of what Keynes said. Republicans hemorrhage money through tax cuts and democrats hemorrhage it through spending.
The debt balloons, and we are wasting so much of our tax dollars on merely financing it. It is a disgrace.
I love the "detour down the road to serfdom" joke
He name drops The Fatal Conceit too.
The economics of Hayek as lead us down the path to surveillance capitalism and police state authoritarianism we live under today
Lost it laughing for literal minutes after it
@@johnberesford9906 In what way does the Hayek method lead to surveillance capitalism? He's all about letting the market be free. If anything, Keynes is the one wanting regulation by the government. That is what leads to surveillance capitalism and state authoritarianism.
@@Michael-Cross03 And free markets have led us to where we are today. The last 40 years were Hayek's not Keynes. I assume you know what surveillance capitalism is so I won't bother getting into it but the rise in authoritarianism and now far-right ideology has happened at the tail end of the neoliberal free-market era. When people's political interaction is reduced to consumer choice, there is going to be a reaction sooner or later
"The economy is not a class you can master in college, to think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge"
La típica justificación de la mediocridad. Justamente por esa falacia hecha para los ignaros es que los ricos pueden MANEJAR el mercado xq han hecho que los ignaros crean que estando desrregulado no va a haber "manipulación" jajajajaja
It is notable how Austrians disregard economic modeling. It is not that it can't be done. It is just tough.
@@adelatorremothelet More like it couldn't have been done in their times. Not enough accurate real time data and processing power. Today with the use of AI we could probably got good approximation. Just like with the weather.
@@uHasioorr indeed. It is just I don't see any Austrians embracing dynamic systems modeling. Oh , and you seem to talk as if "Austrians" existed only in the past.
The Austrian school still exists, yet I haven't seen any Austrians ( like Peter Murphy) embracing dynamic system modeling.
When Hayek won the Economic Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel, he used that line in his speech to the Committee that gave the prize. It was deliberately meant to offend them and it worked, nobody who is from the Austrian-school has won the prize since.
It's funny to see people throwing opinions around without reading none of the authors.
People have become too lazy to read books.
Ive read on all of it....Keynes still sucks ass
I agree with Dave
You need basic common sense to know senseless spending only does artificial growth and could lead to bubbles.
Keynes gave a quick solution to government and that's what they wanted. Government will never give up keynesian Economics cause then it means pulling government out of economy and less control.
@@gabbar51ngh damn straight
@@gabbar51ngh Keynesian economics is the social science equivalent of red bull. Yeah, it cranks you up, but the hangover is usually worse than the initial problem. But you see energy drinks everywhere, so what does that say about people? long term planning for most people is getting a pay cheque friday and saving enough to pay rent saturday.
This is quite literally the *_only_* thing that clicked in my head from all the economics classes that l attended in high school and college, and l don't even like rap in general.
What an absolute masterpiece, even to this day.
Thank you so much for the comment! The rap battles are returning soon, and they’re going to be bigger and better than ever. Over the years, we’ve heard from plenty of fans like you sharing how the Keynes vs. Hayek and Mises vs. Marx videos have impacted their lives.
If you want to help us make more - please record a quick video about how the rap battles have impacted you, and upload it to the link below.
eo-f.com/impactstory
"I see you took a detour down the road of serfdom" - Best pun ever
+Smarticalparticles "Talk about the end of laissez faire"
Loads of literature references in this video. I'm fairly certain I heard a reference to Ludwig Von Mises' Human Action.
please explain this pun to me
Hayek wrote a book called, "The Road to Serfdom." It discusses how economic control can lead to tyranny in the long run. It's arguably his most famous work.
Trygve Plaustrum ah,
Fuck, I didn't even realize Hayek was being helped by Mises and Keynes was being helped by Malthus!
Also, Jean Baptiste Say for Hayek and John Hicks for Keynes.
Since Keynes was a eugenicist, Malthus being there makes sense.
I watched this when it came out, was just starting high school and didn't understand a thing. Im watching it 10 years later with a bachelor in economics now understanding the concepts and it's amazing how good they've made it.
"I want plans by the plenty, not by the few." Epic.
Although it's obvious that the video makers are in the Hayek camp, this video does accurate lay out why current practitioners of Keynesianism have been ruining the economy. You could say that Keynes wouldn't have said these things, but legislators today who are clearly inspired by Keynes say and do those things today.
Colin Bell "Wouldn't have said those things"? That's an understatement. It's a song, so for the sake of fitting the lyrics in, Keynes' views are distorted here quite severely. It's an entertaining clip, but don't take it as an indication of what Keynesian economics is.
Golden Boy Colin Bell Whether the real Keynes would have agreed with the statements made by Keynes in this video is irrelevant. Marx wouldn't have agreed with the policies of The Soviet Union, or really with any country that calls itself Communist or Socialist. It doesn't change the fact that these are the natural consequences of his ideas.
Barry Gormley You're right.
Barry Gormley "It doesn't change the fact that these are the natural consequences of his ideas."
It does, actually. You change the ideas, you change the consequences. You can't just distort someone's economic policy for the sake of a song and then pretend it doesn't change anything else. The ideas and the consequences change together.
Golden Boy I agree
Why aren't we talking about how on-point they got Ben Bernanke.
Nice pfp
lmao that is so true
@06:35 "The economy's not a class you can master in knowledge, to think otherwise is 'THE PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE'' - that phrase in CAPs was the knock out punch from Hayek, the great!!! And yet when Keynes is declared the apparent winner by the referee (i.e. the Fed Chair, the politicians, the media, the cronies!) - that was the ending I am pretty sure no one felt good about!!!
Keynes' methodology allows the state to accumulate more power. Of course they love him. It's why he's the champion of the upper class, while Hayek is the champion of the little people.
@@stateofopportunity1286 In Argentina, Javier Milei who is an Austrian economist decided to run for presidency. He gave numerous speeches and spread knowledge about how state interference was ruining the economy, and explained to the people what was needed to be done to stop the over 130% inflation Argentina was in. He won most of his votes in the poor districts of the country, meanwhile all the votes of his opposing candidates came from the rich upper classes who kept voting for corrupt and failed leftist politicians, like they kept doing for the past 5 decades. Javier Milei is now the president of Argentina, a champion of the people indeed!
It is quite sweet that these two guys are friends throughout their differences
7:23 was the truest sentence about the economy I’ve ever head
Give us a chance so we can discover the most valuable ways to serve one another!!
@@mdleavitt Both of those are playing on emotions of the viewer rather then a realistic statement.
@@generalissimusleon The first one is a statement of the free will of people and how you cannot just simply control them. Although the wording is emotional, the underlying premise is an actual realistic statement against keynesian economics
I'd pay money for more of these
Tven go put and spread the word so there is a market demand.
There's Mises vs Marx
After 11 years I still get chills here
People debating here often miss that the government tried both approaches. The great depression showed the cost of waiting for the economy to bounce back on it's own with most people unemployed and staving for years during that kind of down turn. Keynes isn't the perfect solution, so just meet in the middle.
incorrect, there were government bailouts prior to the depression which likely ensured it. not to mention the government was handing out low interest loans to people, who were then in turn making risky investments in the stock market. which in and of itself is or isn't a problem depending on how you feel about debt. but the bigger issue was that the stock market at that time was housed in new york, America's sunrise city if you will. so investors in new york would run pump and dump schemes, which in a live feed market would be fine I suppose, however unethical it is. however, these pump and dump schemes would slowly travel with the time zones until there was no one left to catch the proverbial falling knife on the west coast. the great depression actually wasn't that big of an economic collapse, but what really made it bad was the dustbowl in the center of the us, causing food prices to skyrocket. none the less Calvin Coolidge got elected. he is, to my knowledge, the last us president to engage in letting the market be. and the market was indeed showing signs of recovery at the end of his term. while the media at the time painted him as a sleepy do nothing, he was actually a no man for government spending, and say no he did. however after him came Herbert Hoover, and while I am glad and agree with Hoovers red cross efforts the unfortunate truth is that he set a precedent for the next president: Franklin "look how much I can spend" Roosevelt. who proceeded to give the US enough debt that we would never again be free of it. as for weather of not frank led the US out of the great depression or prolonged it, consider this. at the time most low skilled employees were making something like a dollar and a quarter a day (don't quote me I didn't look this up to validate my fading memory), but Roosevelt implemented an unemployment wage that was more like a buck fifty. causing the labor force to be stunted.
The depression also occurred after Weimar Germany printed money to pay off war debts
Please make a third. It's been 5 years, and the message needs to grow.
Waitin' for part three
the channel went inactive a year ago...
waiting to die
dan lastname The channel is still active, last video was a month ago.
it's 2023 and we need another round now
This video is so brilliant in so many ways. I like how Thomas Malthus is Keynes wingman, thats really neat. I like how Say and Ludwig Mises were the wingmen of Hayek. That was really cool. I also enjoy how the politician chose Keynes as the winner, which is symbolic for reality.
Interesting visual metaphor with Keynes surrounded by older people and Hayek by younger people.
Dunno why, in America it seems the younger liberal college student hoards favor Keynesian economics over Hayek.
+Mercenary7 It seemed to me that Keynes was surrounded by the press and Hayek by individuals
Actually if you take a closer look, they- people surrounding Keynes - were the people (cronies) from the earlier scene : "cronies get fatter..." and few press guys who serve their masters (the cronies).
@Rushabh
The hard-working laymen are exactly why we have Keynsian economics. Politicians can't afford that 20% of their voters lose everything.
The Hayek cocksuckers in the comments don't think about individuals. They think about large corporations. To rich people a crisis is a disappointment. To the poor it's a catastrophe.
@@MrCmon113 Intentions and results don't always go in the right direction. I think you approach this from a feeling of envy. Long term results come from letting the market work. It's political shenanigans that put Keynesian stuff in place. Politicians are desperate for relevance which they get by pandering to fears and immediate gratification.
Epic Rap Battle of Economics!
These videos predates ERB they are very old the first battle came out more than a year before the first ERB, and this battle came out in between the first ERB with Bill O'Reilly vs John Lennon, and the second ERB season 1 battle which I think was Vader vs Hitler
@@machscga6238 I don't think he was claiming they were ripping them off, just making a joke. But I would also like to see ERB do a figure of economics (probably the only person I could see them doing is Adam Smith, but still).
Except 1,000x better than ERB in every way!
@@machscga6238 your pfp checks out
Such a great timeless video. Coming up on 10 years since its release and I still come back to watch it every couple months. Liberty & Austrian economics are such beautiful philosophy.
"we have full employment. And nothing to eat!" Gave me chills
Hyperbole as of course under real full employment many will be primary secondary & tertiary associated with food production ...but also becomes less relevant as food production becomes more and more automated/roboticised.
Loved the Mises cameo.
Parke Pro Tennis You are forgetting some Objectivists.
It's not surprising that Keynes gets the spotlight, Hayek's views are a threat to the powerful, much like how the enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century were to monarchs.
@Dieter Pete WTF????????
@@DsantosGE4PA Hitler's ideas were a threat to the powerful, like UK or USSR. That doesn't make it good.
hayeks views is the views of the powerful. hayek is exactly what the rich people want
@@pellejohansen The powerful are dependent on the government to subsidize them with corporate wellfare and to keep competition out of the market through regulation. Under Austrian economics they would actually be forced into serious competition.
@@pellejohansen No Hayek supports full Capitalism, which suggests the complete elimination of all rich and powerful that fail. And Capitalist theory suggests that EVENTUALLY EVERYONE will get eliminated by Capitalism because eventually everyone fails at competing against others at some point!
India's first PM Nehru spent many years attending Keynes's lectures and it encouraged him to embark on central planning. Boy do I wish he had attended Hayek's lectures.
Lmao Nehru was inspired by Fabian socialism and Soviets. He was lost case
Wut no you fuckwit if India was kaynesian we would be booming as hell!
India is a socialist state!
@@amiyavatsa IMF is kaynesian almost all successful countries are kaynesian .
@@amiyavatsa Yeah!
He is and look at the boom of entrepreneurs since 1991 all new names emerged from the ashes of many old guards.
India before 1991 was a socialist-oriented mixed economy. It was NOT communist. Period. It has always been a democracy. But Congress Party which ruled the country for 50 of its 70 years of Independence, practiced Democratic Socialism and resulted in India lagging behind other major developing countries.
The main claim of mmt is that "the only thing to worry about is _inflation_ when offering cheap credit"
Which is simply not true.
Cheap credit misallocates resources to undemanded/lesser demanded ventures, & at the same time as higher order production (thereby distorting our time preference/the structure of production). Monetary expansion also creates a dependency on continuous overvaluations. Not to mention distorts price signals, because of relative price stickiness, unequal velocity within different sectors, & circular demand within scarce demanded goods (assets). Then there's the cantillon effect, where wage & fixed-income earners see their savings relatively hurt & income lag behind, while rich asset owners see their net worth rise. It's a wealth transfer. Small businesses with less assets are hurt while large corps grow, leading to a privileged few with all the purchasing & bargaining power. Speculation also increases as lesser educated consumers borrow, invest, & consume, thereby exacerbating volatility & the misallocation of resources. They do this because borrowing is made less expensive & cause in many areas throughout the economy (especially assets) prices rise given time, so it's better to spend now. People are incentivized to save in assets instead of money, which is bad for productivity & ultimately satisfying customer demands. The housing & land people buy & flip nowadays could've been bought with actual use value by consumers & producers. Saving in money only aids in the production cycle.
When these ever-growing malinvestments inevitably must end, & the spigots of cheap credit are cut, a _'deflationary death spiral'_ must ensue.
You *have to* allow resources to be freed up, consumption to be detered, & then properly allocate them to where they're demanded.
Market set interest rates & a scarce divisible currency naturally fix this. Lenders & borrowers must compete for scarce savings. Through sound credit standards, based on proper price signals, these funds are allocated to demanded ventures. In direct proportion to how demanded they are & how much consumption is detered through saving. Since there's no inflationary effects, our time preference of consumption & production is balanced, thereby allowing projects to reach their full potential.
Monetary expansion interferes with needed corrections & exacerbates structural issues. We need to raise rates, default, & let the market properly restructure.
Building up our productive capacity is the only way to viably get demanded goods & services.
There's no shortcut.
Mmters also define 'inflation' differently, which leads to a lot of confusion in the debate over their stupid policies. They define it as the *cpi,* & a *terrible* measure of it at that. There's obvious problems with this, as each (numerical) price can be affected differently by monetary expansion. Prices could drop, rise, or flatten out in various sectors. What they're not factoring in is *opportunity cost & foreign investment.*
Prices would've been lower had we not intervened.
Foreigners finance our reckless spending. We get most of our produce from imports & don't produce much of anything, especially that the world demands. Nor do we have any plan to in the future. Our trade & budget deficit grows evermore.
In other words, our entire economy is a bubble built on inflationary credit, at the world's expense, & we have no surplus coming anytime soon.
The world would abandon us, if their job markets weren't built on fueling consumption & if the US wasn't their biggest buyer. Plus they have a huge amount of public & private dollar denominated debt, & will get sanctioned out of the global economy if they don't comply with the US's wishes. That or we pull a Bush & invade in the name of _'freedom'._ This all started when the world decided to go on a iou system. A dollar-standard backed by gold. The US printed the ious (dollars), thereby encouraging debt, then defaulted by refusing to redeem them in gold. Leaving the world stuck in dollar-denominated debt & addicted to cheap credit to prop up their zombie markets. Combine that with the tyrannical petro-dollar system & it's clear why there's so much _'demand'_ for the dollar.
It's a global monetary order that *should* break down. Since it's conception real wages have comparatively stagnated, productivity has worsened, & the only way out of further global deterioration is to swallow the painful medicine of a credit crunch & freer markets. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to correct these malinvestments & put us on a better path.
This is an amazing write up
One of the few good youtube comments I've ever read. You should check out 'the price of time' by Edward Chancellor which covers the history of these effects in detail.
@@MrOdsplut thank you. Gonna check out that book tonight 😊
Someone who understand Hayek and Austrian Economics. Thanks for your comment!
we watched this in our econ class last year, and I've watched it 100 times after. It's just amazing. Thank you guys
The problem with Keynesian economics is that we only ever implement 1/2 of it... It was designed to stimulate the economy in bad times and then PAY OFF THE DEBT in good times. Instead, Keynesian economies stimulate the economy all th etime and never pay off the debt.
That is why I much prefer Austrian economics.
+capierce There's almost nothing to prefer in Austrian economics, Rothbard and such were morons who disguised political ideology under an economic theory. They never tried to search what matters in economy likes Keynes did, they only wanted to get the government out of their life (I understand it from the standpoint of a person from a post-communist country quite ok, Hayek was quite good, others not so much in this.)
Rather look into REAL theories which are present today (Monetarism, Institutionalism - I maybe have the names wrong, in my languages they would be translated as such), because the work with numbers is what made Austrian economics into an ideology more than a explanation for economics.
I am not being critical because I am only passable in a couple of other languages, but I am not sure what your point is. You believe that Austrian economics is not an economic system, rather a political system? How do you figure that?
Austrian economics is quite well defined:
www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AustrianSchoolofEconomics.html
mises.org/about-mises/what-austrian-economics
and part of that includes how people RESPOND to market conditions. Is that what you object to?
capierce Austrian economics are known for two things: 1) saying government is bad, and 2) saying the market will collapse, always.
I know only the history of the Austrians since Mises, since it's when they become relevant for macroeconomics. So I can't speak for the earlier guys.
The problem is, they actually don't tell how the economy works, they have no idea what will happen if you do anything.
I mean shit like this: "Socialism, Mises predicted, would result in utter chaos and the end of civilization." Is just what makes me think these guys had no real understanding of the real world.
Praxeology is like the worst way one can research things.
And the fetish Austrians have for hyperinflation is just laughable. My country abandoned the gold standard after a period of inflation, now prints paper money out of thin air and is in constant danger of deflation spiral. Austrians have no idea why hyperinflation happens, only that the government will neccessarily make it worse. And then nobody can prove it wrong because praxeology isn't based on the real world. totally genius.
No, they say that the government should be the watchman... stay out of things unless there is someone taking unfair advantage of another. They do not say that the market will always collapse, they say that spikes lead to falls.... which is why they do not support the Keynesian model of government stimulus.
And they certainly explain how action results in reaction. I understand that you may be a Keynesian and Keynesian economics might actually work if it was ever fully implemented... but be honest about the system you disagree with as well. The Keynes model is supported by those who prefer a large government, the Austrian model by those who support a small government... is that what you are aiming at?
capierce Well, yes, the big government/small government issue is on my mind too, I just wanted to point out, that contrary to Austrians, it wasn't Keynes' motive to make a big government. I hate Austrians, because they really didn't do anything, their ideas are a Lasseiz Faire mess of saying government is always corrupt.
While Keynes explored one way of dealing with a crisis, which can or can not work, Austrians' addition to the humanity's knowledge was just another dogmatic worldview. You know, dealing with crisis' is in my eyes more important than blaming someone, because people only have 70 years to live.
I'm not a full Keynesian, I support some programs from all sides of politics and economics (I want some safety net, small bureaucracy, effective and small regulation, and a constitutional monarchy for stable decisions, and a flat income tax rate about 20%), though I'd like if someone quantified the effect of Laissez Faire in real numbers, not just some speudological mumbo-jumbo.
I know there can be no action without reactions, that's why I want to empirically see, what do the implications of all economics schools in practise.
And have a nice day, btw. sorry for that English, I'm just learning another germanic language, so I sometimes mess up the sentence structure ;)
We need more of these videos, especially with my generation turning towards socialism, big government planning and away from free markets.
Are You Gen Z?
@voxel67 Yes I am and I know it is a generalization but out here it is true.
@@NeverDoubtMe23 it’s a generalization that’s true many of my peers are (I’m also gen z)
Hayek is represented very well, so many punches - and yet Keynes is chosen by the attending public. Of course many/most (?) people would rather believe in the idea of a guarding eye and always helping strong hand - as it has always been. Thanks a lot to the authors for giving both sides a voice and present the arguments of both sides to a wide audience.
The symbolism of the ending is damn powerful. Both have their sets of admirers and supporters and in the end both share a look and shrug. In the end, there will always be disagreement about the best way forward but both Keynes and Hayek believe that forward is the way to go and there is some common ground between them.
Underrated comment
pointless comment. water is wet.
@@Ivan-bk9xs no water isnt wet, thats like saying fire is burnt
@@trist6073 you get the point.
Your comment is incomplete, you forgot to mention that politicians and periodists choose Keynes and businessmen and people choose Hayek
the quality in this video could only be achieved by capitalism
No, it is achieved by a conscious individual/group who cares more about spreading the idea than money. If they wanted profit (capitalism), they would've released cd/dvds of this video or hid it behind paywall instead of releasing it on youtube for free.
@@sandeepsaroha7593 Mate capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, it has nothing to do with profit other than allowing it to exist. This is capitalism because someone owns the video and decides to release it for free. Charity is capitalist as you cannot give away what you do not own. A non-capitalist system is where no one owns the video/the government owns the video/the workers own the video.
@@sandeepsaroha7593 Actually, using your logic, there could be profit since this video and/or whole channel might be monetized. =)
@@sandeepsaroha7593 I think you don't know what is capitalism...and you are even wrong on what is this channel...they are "liberals" (i don't know how do you call it in USA "classical liberals" maybe ?) and that's a company which earn money...so you are not only ignorant on the channel ideas and capitalism but also on marketing 😅
@@shakya00??? He's only saying that's capitalism is irrelevant to the quality of the video
This just gets more and more relevant.
I remember having to watch this video and the first one for college. Great videos to write a report on in Economics classes.
"I want Real growth, not serious of bubbles!" - Genius))
And yet this is (neoliberal) capitalism and not Keynisianism that brings us bubbles all over again. Was it Keynes who created 2008 crisis? No, it was neoliberal capitalism.
Really absurd that they portray Hayek being against bubbles as it's (among many others) his creation that actively produces them.
@@yanas9871
The 2008 crisis happened because the governments bailed out the banks, which is a Keynesian idea. The banks put loans on the stock market (kinda), it crashed and then the Government bailed them, making people lose money, and thus they didn't spend.
The whole thing was messed up because the banks didn't have to worry about responsibilities. Neoliberal Capitalism had nothing to do with it.
If you don't try to steer the market it will not go berserk.
the real problem that creates bubbles is the money printing obviously. If the money supply was constant there would be no bubbles because the market would always adjust before the bubble could form. Money would flow from one asset class to another which makes one asset class undervalued, that would quickly correct itself because it makes an investment opportunity. But if you constantly increase the money supply then all the asset classes raise yet some raise faster than others and create a bubble, but its harder for the market to judge it because of inflation confusing everybody so the bubble gets too big and causes more issues when it finally pops
A girl who is generally disinterested in politics but otherwise very nice and likeable asked me what I was reading. "Intellectuals and Socialism", I answered. "In it, the author defines the intellectual as the 2nd hand dealer of ideas, one who does not come up with original ideas but due to his network, new ideas reach him faster than other people, and from him, the ideas spread to the masses. In it, Hayek explains why intellectuals have been drawn towards socialism since the end of the 1800s." "Oh! Hayek. I remember him from social studies in high school. I remember we watched a music video where they presented the opposing views of spending money in a recession and saving money," she said.
+1 for making Austrian economics reach the mainstream.
german economic power and thoughts are no joke.
wether it is peacetime or war they always find a way for the economy to stay strong and in the top.
like the economic wonder afther ww2 and how they kept the economy gowing troughout the war.
any other nation would have collaupsed like a domino's.
Don't know. But the course was social studies in high school.
@Jimbo As opposed to Keynesian economics where you literally have to believe in "animal spirits" driving the economy? Nothing could sound more foolish in econ than that phrase right there.
Every passing year, this only gets more and more relevant.
Round Three desperately needed these times.
THIS IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THE BEST VIDEOS I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE.
This is so well done and so accurate too, right down to the end where Keynes is arbitrarily declared the winner. Love it!
Such production value.... Thank you so much, I had a blast.