Todo mundo (ou quase) já teve oportunidade de assistir ao primeiro embate entre Keynes e Hayek, um rap genial, já postado aqui, inclusive com excelente introdução do Instituto Mises do Brasil.
Neste link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/04/2105-keynes-vs-hayek-ou-vice-versa-um.html
Agora aparece o segundo round (ao qual ainda não assisti, mas vou fazê-lo agora).
Está anunciado no New York Times:
Keynes vs. Hayek: The Fight of the Century
By THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 28, 2011, 6:29 PM
Round 2 of the great economics smackdown is now available on video. In the impressively produced rap video “Fight of the Century” by the economist Russ Roberts and the producer and director John Papola, Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes square off to argue over such questions as whether the government should spent less or more, the source of prosperity, and whether war or natural disasters be a blessing in disguise. (Part 1 came out last year.)
In the latest installment, Keynes raps:
It’s just like an engine that’s stalled and gone dark
To bring it to life, we need a quick spark
Spending’s the life blood that gets the flow going
Where it goes doesn’t matter, just get spending flowing
And Hayek responds:
You see slack in some sectors as a “general glut”
But some sectors are healthy, and some in a rut
So spending’s not free – that’s the heart of the matter
Too much is wasted as cronies get fatter.
Will there be a Round 3? In a conversation about the project, Mr. Roberts, an economist at George Mason University, didn’t rule it out.
Q. Where did the idea for the video come?
Mr. Roberts: John Papola, the filmmaker who works with me on these, approached me about two and a half years ago and said ‘Let’s do a video together.” He heard my podcasts and is an economics geek. I said “What for?” But then we talked about it.
Read more here: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/keynes-vs-hayek-a-rap-battle-renewed/#more-110279
Tem também a presença dos dois num encontro da Economist, nos EUA, no ano passado.
Vejam este link no meu blog:
http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/11/hayek-e-keynes-de-volta-ao-palco-o.html
Mostrando postagens com marcador F. A. Hayek. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador F. A. Hayek. Mostrar todas as postagens
sexta-feira, 29 de abril de 2011
terça-feira, 25 de maio de 2010
Adam Smith, Keynes, Hayek e os outros..
Do blog:
Super-Economy
Kurdish-Swedish perspectives on the American Economy
Hayek defeats Marx once again
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tino Sanandaji *
Justin Wolfers, a clever up and coming economist, thinks that Friedrich von Hayek was not an important enough economist to be included in the company of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman.
He basis this on a search on JSTOR, that shows Hayek to have the same influence as Larry Summers.
But Wolfers methodology is faulty. First of all, it seems to be very sensitive to wording. Second, it does not tell us the influence of the most important idea.
I instead use Google Scholar to look at the number of citations for the 20 most cited works of each economist. Since I can see exactly who wrote what, this does not have the problem associated with Wolfer's method.
The result confirms what (at least my) common sense tells me, Hayek is very influential.
First, number of citations of most cited work (regardless of spelling):
1. Adam Smith (15616).
2. John Maynard Keynes (11445)
3. Friedrich von Hayek (5397)
4. Milton Friedman (3528)
5. Karl Marx (3210)
6. Larry Summers (2082)
Which confirms another point, Hayek's theory on dispersed knowledge is more important than any *single* article Milton Friedman wrote, even though Friedman was a broad guy who made contributions in several parts of economics. Marx does not do as well here, because his followers made their strongest impression conducting revolutions (and more recently analyzing language as a tool of oppression) rather than doing mainstream economics.
Second, number of citations of 20 most cited work:
1. Milton Friedman (35867)
2. Adam Smith (22997)
3. Friedrich von Hayek (22668)
4. John Maynard Keynes (21679)
5. Karl Marx (19695)
6. Larry Summers (13039)
(for those curious, and as a measure of how much a "normal" top economist gets, Wolfers himself has 3170 citations).
By Wolfer's own criteria, a quantitative measure of scholarly influence, Hayek beats or ties with Keynes and with Milton Friedman, and beats Marx in both measures. He is far above Larry Summers (an unfair comparison, since prolific Summers is contemporary, which boosts you in this type of count.).
What Wolfers also fails to take into account is the diversity of the idea. Hayek is extremely original, and his insights about decentralized knowledge and spontaneous order are quite different from mainstream neoclassical arguments for the market.
This is a *plus* for putting him in the textbooks. You don't want a dozen more neoclassical intellectuals who make the exact same argument Adam Smith and Milton Friedman made. Hayek had a unique mind and offered unique insights.
* Tino Sanandaji is a 29 year old PhD student in Public Policy at the University of Chicago, and the Chief Economist of the free-market think tank Captus.
Super-Economy
Kurdish-Swedish perspectives on the American Economy
Hayek defeats Marx once again
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tino Sanandaji *
Justin Wolfers, a clever up and coming economist, thinks that Friedrich von Hayek was not an important enough economist to be included in the company of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman.
He basis this on a search on JSTOR, that shows Hayek to have the same influence as Larry Summers.
But Wolfers methodology is faulty. First of all, it seems to be very sensitive to wording. Second, it does not tell us the influence of the most important idea.
I instead use Google Scholar to look at the number of citations for the 20 most cited works of each economist. Since I can see exactly who wrote what, this does not have the problem associated with Wolfer's method.
The result confirms what (at least my) common sense tells me, Hayek is very influential.
First, number of citations of most cited work (regardless of spelling):
1. Adam Smith (15616).
2. John Maynard Keynes (11445)
3. Friedrich von Hayek (5397)
4. Milton Friedman (3528)
5. Karl Marx (3210)
6. Larry Summers (2082)
Which confirms another point, Hayek's theory on dispersed knowledge is more important than any *single* article Milton Friedman wrote, even though Friedman was a broad guy who made contributions in several parts of economics. Marx does not do as well here, because his followers made their strongest impression conducting revolutions (and more recently analyzing language as a tool of oppression) rather than doing mainstream economics.
Second, number of citations of 20 most cited work:
1. Milton Friedman (35867)
2. Adam Smith (22997)
3. Friedrich von Hayek (22668)
4. John Maynard Keynes (21679)
5. Karl Marx (19695)
6. Larry Summers (13039)
(for those curious, and as a measure of how much a "normal" top economist gets, Wolfers himself has 3170 citations).
By Wolfer's own criteria, a quantitative measure of scholarly influence, Hayek beats or ties with Keynes and with Milton Friedman, and beats Marx in both measures. He is far above Larry Summers (an unfair comparison, since prolific Summers is contemporary, which boosts you in this type of count.).
What Wolfers also fails to take into account is the diversity of the idea. Hayek is extremely original, and his insights about decentralized knowledge and spontaneous order are quite different from mainstream neoclassical arguments for the market.
This is a *plus* for putting him in the textbooks. You don't want a dozen more neoclassical intellectuals who make the exact same argument Adam Smith and Milton Friedman made. Hayek had a unique mind and offered unique insights.
* Tino Sanandaji is a 29 year old PhD student in Public Policy at the University of Chicago, and the Chief Economist of the free-market think tank Captus.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)