Oy, and Hayek and I weren't the only two who realized this

By -
Okay, so I am liveblogging Goodspeed's book, and I made my last post before reading the following:

"Dennis Robertson and George Shackle would in fact later even go so far as to suggest that Keynes and Hayek were theorizing on opposite sides of the same, Wicksellian coin. Robertson suggested that Hayek's analysis explained the boom and turning point of an inflationary expansion, while Keynes's was necessary to understand the phenomenon of secondary deflation..." -- Goodspeed, Rethinking the Keynesian Revolution, p. 147

So my recent "insights" have been understood by very smart economists for decades. Why, then, are people still talking about Hayek versus Keynes? Partisan political purposes, anyone?

Comments

  1. rob9:59 AM

    Maybe so.

    But take a look at chapter 27 of TPToC where Hayek is not especially polite about Keynesian economics. Hayek does not seem to share the insight that he and Keynes were on the opposite side of the same coin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:40 PM

      Yes, Rob, Hayek-1941 still thought his views were far from keynes's. but as noted here earlier, by 1967 Hayek clearly agreed with Robertson.

      Delete
  2. fivefiftytwo9:24 PM

    Might the "Keynes vs. Hayek" way of thinking about the two have something to do with the policy implications they drew their respective theories? One of them did not write "The End of Laissez-Faire", after all...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:31 PM

      Well, in one sense yes: their followers have tried to use each figure as a holy icon to bash the other sides politics. In an other sense, no: in the end, Hayek and Keynes moved close together on policy as well.

      Delete
    2. Bob Murphy1:14 AM

      in the end, Hayek and Keynes moved close together on policy as well.

      Can you spell out what you mean by this? Keynes died in 1946 so I don't know what you mean.

      Delete
    3. gcallah9:44 PM

      Goodspeed. He documents this extensively.

      Delete
  3. rob12:42 PM

    By "Keynes and Hayek were theorizing on opposite sides of the same, Wicksellian" I assume it is meant that Hayek was looking at scenarios where the money rate was below the natural rate , while Keynes was looking at scenarios where it was above?

    My concern is that the definition of "the natural rate" adopted by the two is so different to make the comparison a bit stretched.

    Hayek's definition is derived from Wicksell, and he thinks that if the money rate is kept close to the natural rate then the economy will stay close to full employment.

    Keynes differs significantly from Wicksell and (if one calls the MEC the natural rate as Goodsped seems to) even at the ongoing natural rate there may still be unemployment (Keynes says there will be a different natural rate for each level of employment, right ?)

    This seems to have quite major implications in terms of policy. For Keynes ongoing fiscal and monetary policy will be needed to maintain full employment. For Hayek the main thing that is needed is for the monetary authorities to refrain from inflating (or deflating?) the money supply and causing a rift between the money and natural rates.

    So Keynes thinks a recession can occur simply because MEC falls, while for Hayek it is a reaction to a boom. Keynes has very clear policy advice for a recession while Hayek only vague suggestions that some stimulus may be needed to fight the "secondary deflation".

    So with 2 different views of the natural rate I remain skeptical that Hayek and Keynes are operating within the same theoretical framework. Specifically when Hayek refers to "conventional means" I doubt it indicates he is embracing a Keynsian view of a "unemployment equilibrium" which is the implications of your earlier post unless I am misreading it.

    I plan however to read Goodspeed, Hayek and Keynes over the next few weeks (or months) so perhaps that will change my mind.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:52 PM

      Well, Rob, Goodspeed's case is that Keynes was a Wicksellian, and that he and Hayek responded to Sraffa in much the same way in the debate on own rates of interest. I am not at all certain that Goodspeed is correct; however I am certain he knows this topic better than me, so my best guess is that he is correct, pending further investigation.

      Delete
  4. rob1:06 PM

    I am already convinced he (Goodspeed) is right about the own-rates of interest thing - Hayek derives the natural rate of interest in much the same was as Keynes derives the MEC.

    But for Hayek the natural rate is a long-term equilibrating rate that the market will seek-out, while for Keynes the MEC is a short-term rate based on "animal spirits" that can easily leave the economy in recession and needing intervention to maintain full employment.

    I'm not saying the framework are totally different - just that the conclusion they draw are hard to reconcile with each other.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more