Funny Rap Hayek vs. Keynes

[DavidMcK]

Here's a link to the rap between Keynes and Hayek " I want to steer the economy ... I want to set it free". It is surprisingly detailed with most of the important concepts from Keynes and Hayek, and it is kind of catchy...unlike anything else you are likely to see on youtube.

http://mises.org/daily/4095

I don't know how to embed a youtube video, thus the link.

Edited February 8, 2010 by DavidMcK

[DavidMcK]

I'm going to keep this thread alive, I'm mesmerized by this video and watched it about 5 times. The words are posted at http://www.econstories.tv/home.html I suppose what I like about it is that Keynes and Hayek are given equal chances to make their case. Surprised no one has commented on this.

[Selene]

I'm going to keep this thread alive, I'm mesmerized by this video and watched it about 5 times. The words are posted at http://www.econstories.tv/home.html I suppose what I like about it is that Keynes and Hayek are given equal chances to make their case. Surprised no one has commented on this.

David:

Thanks.

It actually verifies the Kennedy Nixon debate theory and conclusion that the medium is the message as McLuhan argued. It would be truly interesting to get three (3) four (4) randomized groups and expose them to:

1) the full video with sound;

2) just the sound;

3) just the video/visual;

4) just the text on a sheet of white paper.

And then test for various patterns.

Adam

George Mason is a good school - they are behind this production

EconStories.tv is a project of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and the The Productioneers, LLC

E

Copyright 2010 EconStories.tv

Edited February 7, 2010 by Selene

[DavidMcK]

That would be an interesting experiment, and then ask who won the debate as with Nixon/Kennedy. As I'm sure most know on here the radio audience thought Nixon won and the TV audience thought Kennedy won.

[DavidMcK]

Keeping the link alive one last time: http://www.econstories.tv/home.html

[Selene]

Keeping the link alive one last time: http://www.econstories.tv/home.html

I am confused...what do you mean by that...

Adam

[DavidMcK]

I mean that most of us click on 'View New Posts' so if no one has replied to a topic for longer than a day it becomes a dead topic, and people most likely won't* view it. Didn't mean to be obtuse, just wanted to see if people enjoyed this video as much as I did. I'm surprised it hasn't showed up on MSNBC or somewhere else. Thanks for your input Selene.

* NOTE FROM MSK: See here.

[syrakusos]

Ayn Rand hated Hayek, a fact that seems to have eluded the Objectivists who are touting the hot new rap video. The fact seems clear, but the reasons for it are not. A bit of googling was unproductive. (Usually, it is not hard to find Ayn Rand Quotes, but here she was mute.) In The Ayn Rand Cult, Jeff Walker provides a few paragraphs on that.

It was the rap video that took me to Hayek, actually. I read over his Counter-revolution of science; studies on the abuse of reason. (I just read from it, rather than actually reading it. He made his point early on, but very often.) Now, I am reading a collection of his essays, Studies in philosophy, politics and economics and I am having a better time with it. I can see why Ayn Rand hated him. He is more of a rationalist than von Mises was. His embrace of European liberalism motivated him to invite Walter Lippmann to the first Mount Pelerin conference. (Lippmann could not attend.)

I understand now, the pun on the Hayek blog, "Cafe Hayek: Where Orders Emerge." On this French language site http://fahayek.org/ I found his essay "Why I am not a Conservative."

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike..

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=53

Given that, it is hard to imagine why any Objectivist would tout Hayek over Keynes any more than they would boost Buckley over Stalin.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[9thdoctor]

(Usually, it is not hard to find Ayn Rand Quotes, but here she was mute.)

She characterized him as a supporter of the mixed economy, I believe the question period of the Faith & Force lecture has her comments on him, she recommends Hazlitt and Mises and specifically recommends against Hayek. I thought the video was pretty funny, but I wasn’t blown away by it.

[Christopher]

(Usually, it is not hard to find Ayn Rand Quotes, but here she was mute.)

She characterized him as a supporter of the mixed economy, I believe the question period of the Faith & Force lecture has her comments on him, she recommends Hazlitt and Mises and specifically recommends against Hayek. I thought the video was pretty funny, but I wasn’t blown away by it.

You know, Rand would have been a lot better person if instead of full rejection, she recognized the contributions by people in ever-developing theories. I imagine she would call the first caveman who invented a semi-wheel "stupid" for making it an octogon instead of a circle. Hello, it's still the first octogon, and that's a hell of a lot better than a square!

[9thdoctor]

You know, Rand would have been a lot better person if instead of full rejection, she recognized the contributions by people in ever-developing theories.

There are examples where she did, Aristotle and Aquinas come immediately to mind. I think she saw Hayek as an immediate threat, however, and there’s the difference. She advocated the full separation of state and economics, he accepted compromise on this principle, and was a well respected figure on the contemporary Right. And she probably thought he should know better.

For full disclosure, I read The Road to Serfdom in college, and recall that in the introduction he specifically says he favors a mixed economy. That’s all the Hayek I’ve read, I thought it was a great book.

As for how Rand could have been a better person, she bore the burden of genius, allowances must be made. Sounds border line Randroidish, but there it is. A hilarious anecdote comes to mind, there was a taped lecture by Edwin Locke I heard once, I think it was on Animal Rights, it was definitely given to an Objectivist-only group, where at the end he traces the evolutionary development of humans, so Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus etc. and after Homo Sapiens Sapiens, he added, facetiously, Homo Randus, whose genius we’ve only begun to understand. Something like that, meant as a joke. Otherwise it would be really embarrassing. Yes, there was vigorous laughter and applause, far be it for me to suggest an ARI audience took it literally. The majority of them, that is.

[DavidMcK]

I've just noticed that I used the word 'want' for 'won't'...I can't edit it out now and it is very embarrassing. I used to be a terrific speller but I haven't written a lot since college and I'm older so I seem to have lost something. Thanks for the comments, I liked 'The Road to Serfdom' also, and the fact that the other side hated it is probably indicative of how important it is. I think he will be remembered for his approach and concepts concerning social issues than his actual positions. I'm thinking of his famous triangle (the structure of production); his development of von Mises' idea about the lack of information in a socialist economy, and so on. The welfare state positions he takes can just be ignored.

Edited February 14, 2010 by DavidMcK

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

David,

I did something about your misery...

I normally won't want to do that, but I could not resist.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

You know, Rand would have been a lot better person if instead of full rejection, she recognized the contributions by people in ever-developing theories.

There are examples where she did, Aristotle and Aquinas come immediately to mind. I think she saw Hayek as an immediate threat, however, and there’s the difference. She advocated the full separation of state and economics, he accepted compromise on this principle, and was a well respected figure on the contemporary Right. And she probably thought he should know better.

For full disclosure, I read The Road to Serfdom in college, and recall that in the introduction he specifically says he favors a mixed economy. That’s all the Hayek I’ve read, I thought it was a great book.

As for how Rand could have been a better person, she bore the burden of genius, allowances must be made. Sounds border line Randroidish, but there it is. A hilarious anecdote comes to mind, there was a taped lecture by Edwin Locke I heard once, I think it was on Animal Rights, it was definitely given to an Objectivist-only group, where at the end he traces the evolutionary development of humans, so Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus etc. and after Homo Sapiens Sapiens, he added, facetiously, Homo Randus, whose genius we’ve only begun to understand. Something like that, meant as a joke. Otherwise it would be really embarrassing. Yes, there was vigorous laughter and applause, far be it for me to suggest an ARI audience took it literally. The majority of them, that is.

"[Hayek] was a well respected figure on the contemporary Right . . ."

Hayek was never a part of the Right, for reasons he explained admirably in his essay, "Why I Am Not a Conservative."

Would that more Objectivists would read it and see in it the folly of their belief that conservatives are in any sense our allies.

JR

[Selene]

Jeff:

Conservatives support the 1-10 amendments. I thought we did also.

Do you think we can we be their allies on those issues?

Conservatives want lower taxes.

Do you think we can we be their allies on that issue?

Adam

[9thdoctor]

"[Hayek] was a well respected figure on the contemporary Right . . ."

Would you be satisfied if instead of “on” I wrote “by” in the above sentence? In the period in question, the early 60’s, Rand was trying to have an influence on contemporary politics, favoring Goldwater, and even offering to write for him. Hayek, and particularly The Road to Serfdom, was popular among the people Rand was trying to influence, otherwise she wouldn’t have felt the need to single him out. The “Right” is admittedly a loose term, but I wasn’t writing a book here.

[Selene]

9th:

It is that evil Burns woman with her Ayn Rand and the American Right!

[9thdoctor]

9th:

It is that evil Burns woman with her Ayn Rand and the American Right!

Jeff took her to task for not defining the “Right”, I thought his review was much more perceptive than any of the MSM or Orthodox ones, including Valliant. Anyway, here’s a link to the Hayek piece he recommended, I’ll get around to reading it some time.

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

The “our allies” part didn’t have anything to do with what I wrote, I got into this by trying to point Michael Marotta to the source quote for Rand’s antipathy to Hayek.

Finally, I guess the Homo Randus story isn’t very funny in the retelling.

[jriggenbach]

Jeff:

Conservatives support the 1-10 amendments. I thought we did also.

Do you think we can we be their allies on those issues?

Conservatives want lower taxes.

Do you think we can we be their allies on that issue?

Adam

Adam:

Where did you get the hilarious idea that "[c]onservatives support the 1-10 amendments"? Was it, for example, Ronald Reagan's fervent support for freedom of speech that led him to create the Meese Commission on "pornography"?

And if ""[c]onservatives want lower taxes," why is it that conservative politicians consistently and predictably raise the overall tax burden (though they may muddy the waters a bit by reducing this tax or that tax in the process)?

Could it be that you're listening to the libertarian rhetoric conservatives employ to win elections and ignoring what they actually do in office?

JR

[Selene]

Jeff:

Conservatives support the 1-10 amendments. I thought we did also.

Do you think we can we be their allies on those issues?

Conservatives want lower taxes.

Do you think we can we be their allies on that issue?

Adam

Adam:

Where did you get the hilarious idea that "[c]onservatives support the 1-10 amendments"? Was it, for example, Ronald Reagan's fervent support for freedom of speech that led him to create the Meese Commission on "pornography"?

And if ""[c]onservatives want lower taxes," why is it that conservative politicians consistently and predictably raise the overall tax burden (though they may muddy the waters a bit by reducing this tax or that tax in the process)?

Could it be that you're listening to the libertarian rhetoric conservatives employ to win elections and ignoring what they actually do in office?

JR

I listen to a number of voices.

It is that I would rather have some chance of effecting change politically and I am willing to get my hands dirty rather than sit in my aerie and curse the system for not being perfectly in tune with a self induced fantasy.

Adam

[jriggenbach]

I would rather have some chance of effecting change politically and I am willing to get my hands dirty rather than sit in my aerie and curse the system for not being perfectly in tune with a self induced fantasy.

Adam

In other words, you would rather pretend that your worst enemies are actually your allies, because that makes you feel good. I see. Good luck with that.

JR

[Selene]

Thanks for the good luck.

I find your best to worst parameters a little confusing.

My worst enemies are marxist, statists, et. al., then would come self proclaimed intellectuals, then leftists, socialists, fascists, communists, progressives, religious fanatics, democrats, republicans, conservatives, libertarians and big "O"objectivists.

I can basically tolerate and live with the last five (5) or six (6) and work with them on common goals. You know, kinda do the ally thing.

Adam

[jriggenbach]

Thanks for the good luck.

I find your best to worst parameters a little confusing.

My worst enemies are marxist, statists, et. al., then would come self proclaimed intellectuals, then leftists, socialists, fascists, communists, progressives, religious fanatics, democrats, republicans, conservatives, libertarians and big "O"objectivists.

I can basically tolerate and live with the last five (5) or six (6) and work with them on common goals. You know, kinda do the ally thing.

Adam

This is your delusion at work. A conservative is an almost pure statist. A conservative is, for all practical purposes, identical to a fascist. And the Republican Party is and always has been the principal enemy of individual liberty in this country.

JR

[Selene]

Thanks for the good luck.

I find your best to worst parameters a little confusing.

My worst enemies are marxist, statists, et. al., then would come self proclaimed intellectuals, then leftists, socialists, fascists, communists, progressives, religious fanatics, democrats, republicans, conservatives, libertarians and big "O"objectivists.

I can basically tolerate and live with the last five (5) or six (6) and work with them on common goals. You know, kinda do the ally thing.

Adam

This is your delusion at work. A conservative is an almost pure statist. A conservative is, for all practical purposes, identical to a fascist. And the Republican Party is and always has been the principal enemy of individual liberty in this country.

JR

Jeff:

I understand your extreme position.

I believe you are wrong. Let us leave it at that since we have no common references to even begin a debate.

Adam