Fight of the Century

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession ended almost two years ago, in the summer of 2009. But 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?

John Maynard Keynes and F. A. 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.”

Share or Bookmark:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
FOTC-thumb

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession ended almost two years ago, 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”!  And, if you’re interested in learning more about the ideas debated in the video, check out additional content and references that will help you get the story behind “Fight of the Century.”

 

“Fight of the Century” Lyrics

Written by John Papola and Russ Roberts

KEYNES

Here we are… peace out! great recession
thanks to me, as you see, we’re not in a depression
Recovery, destiny if you follow my lesson
Lord Keynes, here I come, line up for the procession

HAYEK
We brought out the shovels and we’re still in a ditch…
And still digging. don’t you think that it’s time for a switch…
From that hair of the dog. Friend, the party is over.
The long run is here. It’s time to get sober!

KEYNES
Are you kidding? my cure works perfectly fine…
have a look, the great recession ended back in ’09.
I deserve credit. Things would have been worse
All the estimates prove it—I’ll quote chapter and verse

HAYEK
Econometricians, they’re ever so pious
Are they doing real science or confirming their bias?
Their “Keynesian” models are tidy and neat
But that top down approach is a fatal conceit

REFRAIN
Which way should we choose?
more bottom up or more top down
…the fight continues…
Keynes and Hayek’s second round

it’s time to weigh in…
more from the top or from the ground
…lets listen to the greats
Keynes and Hayek throwing down

KEYNES
We could have done better, had we only spent more
Too bad that only happens when there’s a World War
You can carp all you want about stats and regression
Do you deny World War II cut short the Depression?

HAYEK
Wow. One data point and you’re jumping for joy
the Last time I checked, wars only destroy
There was no multiplier, consumption just shrank
As we used scarce resources for every new tank

Pretty perverse to call that prosperity
Rationed meat, Rationed butter… a life of austerity
When that war spending ended your friends cried disaster
yet the economy thrived and grew faster

KEYNES
You too only see what you want to see
The spending on war clearly goosed GDP
Unemployment was over, almost down to zero
That’s why I’m the master, that’s why I’m the hero

HAYEK
Creating employment’s a straightforward craft
When the nation’s at war, and there’s a draft
If every worker was staffed in the army and fleet
We’d have full employment and nothing to eat

REFRAIN REPEATS

HAYEK
jobs are a means, not the ends in themselves
people work to live better, to put food on the shelves
real growth means production of what people demand
That’s entrepreneurship not your central plan

KEYNES
My solution is simple and easy to handle..
its spending that matters, why’s that such a scandal?
The money sloshes through the pipes and the sluices
revitalizing the economy’s juices

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

HAYEK
You see slack in some sectors as a “general glut”
But some sectors are healthy, only some in a rut
So spending’s not free – that’s the heart of the matter
too much is wasted as cronies get fatter.

The economy’s not a car, there’s no engine to stall
no expert can fix it, there’s no “it” at all.
The economy’s us, we don’t need a mechanic
Put away the wrenches, the economy’s organic

REFRAIN REPEATS

KEYNES
so what would you do to help those unemployed?
this is the question you seem to avoid
when we’re in a mess, would you just have us wait?
Doing nothing until markets equilibrate?

HAYEK
I don’t want to do nothing, there’s plenty to do
The question I ponder is who plans for whom?
Do I plan for myself or leave it to you?
I want plans by the many, not by the few.

Let’s not repeat what created our troubles
I want real growth not a series of bubbles
Stop bailing out loser, let prices work
If we don’t try to steer them they won’t go berserk

KEYNES
Come on, Are you kidding? Don’t Wall Street’s gyrations
Challenge your world view of self-regulation?
Even you must admit that the lesson we’ve learned
Is more oversight’s needed or else we’ll get burned

HAYEK
Oversight? The government’s long been in bed
With those Wall Street execs and the firms that they’ve bled
Capitalism’s about profit and loss
you bail out the losers there’s no end to the cost

the lesson I’ve learned? It’s how little we know,
the world is complex, not some circular flow
the economy’s not a class you can master in college
to think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge

REFRAIN REPEATS

KEYNES
You get on your high horse and you’re off to the races
I look at the world on a case by case basis
When people are suffering I roll up my sleeves
And do what I can to cure our disease

The future’s uncertain, our outlooks are frail
Thats why free markets are so prone to fail
In a volatile world we need more discretion
So state intervention can counter depression

HAYEK
People aren’t chessmen you move on a board
at your whim–their dreams and desires ignored
With political incentives, discretion’s a joke
Those dials you’re twisting… just mirrors and smoke

We need stable rules and real market prices
so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis
give us a chance so we can discover
the most valuable ways to serve one another

FINAL REFRAIN
Which way should we choose?
more bottom up or more top down
the fight continues…
Keynes and Hayek’s second round

it’s time to weigh in…
more from the top or from the ground
…lets listen to the greats
Keynes and Hayek throwing down

You can dive deeper into the ideas debated here when you Get the Story behind “Fight of the Century”.

Share or Bookmark:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
Comments Link
  • http://profiles.google.com/frederic.faille frederic faille

    Excellent!

  • Bwilhoite

    Will there be a download for this song as well? Fear the Boom and the Bust got lots of airplay on iPod over the PA system at work and I’d love to add this one to the mix.

  • Gabe E

    Amazing!

  • http://twitter.com/MisesinHebrew מיזס בעברית

    I’ve had the nerve to upload the text into crowdsourcing translation platform Translated.by
    While myself I’m starting the Hebrew translation, the same paltform can be used to translate into any given language:
    http://translated.by/you/fight-of-the-century/original/?show-translation-form=1

  • Steve Fritzinger

    What I want to know is why is the limo driver now a security guard? Keynes’ stimulus didn’t seem to have helped him over the last year.

    Still, Keynes certainly made an impression on the guard. Makes me wonder what happened in that limo between the bar and the hotel.

    • stl73

      He got a government Job. Those are the only jobs available thanks to Keynes.

      • Anonymous

        That’s not correct. Check the name tag he appears in later at the bar. He’s a very specific gatekeeper.

        There is a LOT of subtlety built into this video — notice who’s wearing the middle-class clothes, and what they’re doing as the video ends?

    • Mr. Fetz

      That is Austrian economist and libertarian Mike Munger.

  • Cjm337

    I absolutely love this song. A download would be very nice.

    • http://www.cordblomquist.com cordblomquist

      A podcast of all the EconStories.TV audio files will be available on iTunes shortly.

      • http://mackers-world.com Macker

        When will the video be available for QuickTime, like the rest?

  • Pontus

    Awesome

  • http://traditionalliberalism.blogspot.com/ classicalliberal

    I have been waiting so very patiently for this and here it is. Superbly done! BRAVO!!!

    Hayek for the win.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FUS25DQ5YUQVPPJ3UZNNH5NELA Bryan B

    A great production on so many levels. I especially liked the end where Hayek’s followers, minus the media fanfare around Keynes, turned out for him. Nice touch.

    • Rafael

      Oscar Niemeyer?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FUS25DQ5YUQVPPJ3UZNNH5NELA Bryan B

        Yes, actually. Good call. The image is from, I think, a Yahoo story where they asked him what it’s like to be over 100 years old, and his terse reply? “It’s crap.”

  • http://profiles.google.com/matmaloney Mathew Maloney

    Great job, excellent content and it sounds fantastic.

  • http://profiles.google.com/matmaloney Mathew Maloney

    Great job, excellent content and it sounds fantastic.

  • William

    I will definitely donate money to you guys. Hope a download will come out soon

  • kryx

    SWEET!!!!!! Need more be said, except WHERE is the download!!!

  • Anonymous

    Free Markets, Free Trade, Free Banking, Currency competition, No government enforced monopolies for ANYONE.No favoritism (got that, Immelt?). Want a free country? Do It!

    • Darc Syster

      And allow greed and anarchy rule?
      Adam Smith, the person who wrote the book on the free-market economy (See “The Wealth of Nations”) said that the government had 3 responsibilities:
      1) Protect the nation from foreign invaders. (See military.)
      2) Protect members of society from each other. (See Law, order, and regulation.)
      3) Provide those services which cannot be practically and effectively provided by the private sector. (See infrastructure e.g.interstate highways.)
      [The above description incidentally, much to the hatred of the neo-conservatives of the tea party, is what is called "Classic Liberalism". Don't believe me? Look it up. "Liberal" has its root in the word "Liberty". Classic liberals are all for maximizing personal liberty and for the free market.]

      The problem is rule number 2. In an effort to protect members of society from each other, governments can over-regulate, which from Hayak’s point of view, can stifle entrepreneurship and is thus bad for the economy.

      • http://twitter.com/KC_EDM Eric Mertz

        Speaking as a member of the Tea Party, I have no problems with a govt. which limits itself to the absolute minimum necessary to carry out these tasks, and I have no problem with the Interstate Highway System and some of the Utility Systems which cannot currently be provided in an efficient or practical manner at this time by the free market.  The Tea Party, contrary to the propaganda promoted by some, is not actually an anarchistic movement, we are MINARCHISTS who are motivated by the works of the Classical Liberals such as Jefferson, Hayek, Mises, Menger, Say, Bastiat, and Madison who argued for the minimal amount of government necessary to secure the rights of the people.

        A good example of what we do not support can be seen on K-Street.  The more rules and regulations that Congress or one of the Executive Agencies pass, the more lobbyists that industry sends to Congress to lobby for special favors so that the law might be used as a weapon against their competition both within and without their industry.  That was what Hayek was talking about in this song when he talks about Congress being in bed with corporations as they bleed them dry.

        FedEx and UPS is a great example.  FedEx was organized as an Airline, and thus is under the National Railroad Labor Act, while UPS is organized as a Trucking Company under the National Labor Relations Act.  As such, FedEx has a single Union across the entire Company, whereas UPS has to deal with every Teamster Union in the areas they operate.  This means UPS has higher operating costs, as they have to deal with each Union Local separately, any one of which can cripple the entire organization with a single well-placed strike.

        FedEx has tried for years to get UPS reorganized as an Airline, seeing the increased competition as a benefit to them and their customers, while UPS has tried to get FedEx reclassified as a Trucking Company in order to similarly cripple them.  That is one example out of thousands going on right now where the govt. is being urged to pick winners and losers in the market by the Lobbyists from the industries they are over-regulating.

        • Darc Syster

          There are, with out a doubt, some tea party members who have a reasonably solid head on their shoulders. But like any popular movement, they seem to be a small minority.

          My biggest issue is with a particularly vocal part of the tea party which feel that the U.S. is, or should be, a “Christian” nation and therefore want to shove their beliefs down everyone else’s throat. It’s the same problem, albeit through a different religion, as the Islamists in the middle east. These radical “Christians”, if they actually knew much about Jesus and the founding fathers, would be forced to conceed that they are simply fans of Jesus, not his followers, and that their desire for a “Christian” America is very much unAmerican. What these people don’t realize is that the U.S. became a super power built by immigrants who came to the U.S. to escape the very kind of religious persecution they are now (although they blindly deny it) trying to force on their own country. Intelligent people see through this. But except for the tremendous economic damage these people would inflict, that’s completely off topic.

          My other big issue with a great many tea party members, and the one I was trying to address with teapartydoc, is that many of them yell simple platitudes about things which they know very little about. This isn’t unique to them. It’s common to virtually all popular movements. As Hayek puts it “the lesson I’ve learned? It’s how little we know, the world is complex…” Our problems are complex, and cannot be solved by simple(minded) solutions. That was the very same thing Hayek chastised Keynes about. teapartydoc’s suggestions are not even on the same level as Keynes. It’s simply not as simple as he implies.

          Since you mention some of the great classic liberal thinkers, including Jefferson, I take it you are not a member of either group within the tea party. Too bad your group was hijacked. It could have done something useful otherwise.

          While not a member of the tea party, I am a classic liberal. I do believe in the free market. I wish more people knew who Hayek was and what his Austrian Perspective was. And I do believe in minimal government regulation, enough to ensure the rights of the citizenry.

          I also see that Role #2 for the government as proposed by Adam Smith means that we do need some government regulations in and on the free market. As an example, the “New Deal” prevented more than 30% of the capital within the futures markets from being from speculators. This regulation meant that the price of commodities such as wheat tended to be very near what they were worth, which was good for both bakers and farmers. Having this capital within the market “lubricated” the market to everyone’s benefit. However, prior to that, and ever since the act was repealed, when speculators made/make up more than 30% of the capital within the market, the price of wheat had no bearing on its actual worth, bankrupting farmers and bakers alike, and making matters worse for everyone. As Hayek pointed out, it’s not that we don’t need regulation, it’s that we need proper regulation, stable regulation. “We need stable rules and real market prices
          so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis”

          Instead, the government(s) regulate and deregulate to the benefit of their supporters, thus bankrupting everyone else. This is the worst part of Crony Capitalism. Entrepreneurs, the people who built the United States and made it a great country, are finding themselves within an ever changing regulatory landscape. Just when the road ahead seems clear, the government, at the behest of some large corporation, places a mountain in their way. As a result, the entrepreneurial types have no chance of discovering “the most valuable ways to serve one another”.

          There is clearly something wrong with the system. Tea Party or OWS, I think we all recognise that.

          • C. Smith

            Darc Syster,
            You remind me of a member of Calvary Chapel stating that Catholics are not Christians.  Maybe you should come to Mass with me sometime.

            By that I mean, Tea Party is not about Christianity, it is about Liberty.  But then so is Christianity.  Sorry about the overlap, but Tea Party is simply about the Constitution, limited government and fiscal responsibility.  Period.  There are a lot of very smart people in it.  You should drop by sometime.  You might find you are one of us. 

      • C. Smith

        Darc Syster, “[The above description incidentally, much to the hatred of the neo-conservatives of the tea party, is what is called "Classic Liberalism". Don't believe me? Look it up. "Liberal" has its root in the word "Liberty". Classic liberals are all for maximizing personal liberty and for the free market.]”

        Why the snark? Tea Party would love to reclaim the classical definition of Liberalism.  It is what we are. The Tea Party is technically Classical Liberals.    Unfortunately, and much to our chagrin, the term “Liberalism” was hijacked by Progressives way back when   “Progressive” became a dirty word,  NowLiberal has become a term to distance one’s self from, so they will go back to calling themselves Progressives again..   ”Neo Conservatives” are not Tea Party.  I never have been able to find a consistent definition of NeoConservative.  The best definition I have heard is a Democrat who converted to Republican, but still thinks like a Democrat.  That would not describe a Tea Party type.  Progressives are all about hijacking the language so they can control the narrative and confuse the issue. No truth..

        • Darc Syster

          “Unfortunately, and much to our chagrin, the term “Liberalism” was hijacked by Progressives way back when   “Progressive” became a dirty word”

          The reason for the snark is related exactly to what you have said. All the tea-partiers I’ve met so far, go into name-calling hysterics when you tell them they’re really “liberals”, even if you prefix it with “classic”. I probably should have called these people “neo-ULTRA-conservatives” instead of neo-conservatives, because they are not neoconservatives.
          “Progressives are all about hijacking the language so they can control the narrative and confuse the issue. No truth..” Sorry. That applies to both sides of the equation.In the 70s, you had the rise of “Social Liberalism”. This has its roots in Adam Smith’s 3rd government responsibility. If everyone is making a living wage, there is no problem and you don’t need “social liberalism”. But the problem you face in reality is that in a free market system, some people succeed, and others fail. Failure then puts demands on society, and thus, government. After all, starving people are not productive people. Dead people are even less productive. And worse, someone needs to bury the dead people or you’ll end up with diseases which will further decrease productivity. So the central idea of “Social Liberalism” was to take classic Liberalism and add a dose of compassion, to have not only a free and just society, but also a compassionate society. The purpose of social services was simply as a safety net to allow people to get back on to their feet so they could return to being productive members of society. These kinds of services can not practically, economically, or effectively, be delivered by the private sector, and therefore, according to Adam Smith, must be provided by the government under the 3rd principle. Because these are not traditional infrastructure, but social infrastructure, they pull liberalism towards socialism, hence the term “Social Liberalism”. This helped give the term “liberal” a more “socialist” connotation. “Compassionate Liberalism” might have been a better term but it’s too late now.Much the same way that NeoConservatism is a branch of liberalism, NeoLiberalism is actually a branch of conservatism. Classic Conservatism is concerned with maintaining the privileges of the ruling classes. NeoLiberalism is concerned with liberalising the markets for the benefit of the ruling classes. Free markets are a liberal core idea, but in a neoliberal market, the only people who can truly benefit from them are the ruling classes. So in neoliberalism, there is an inherent concept of liberty but also of inequality. The heart of classic liberalism is the concept of “equality of opportunity”, everyone has a chance to succeed and become rich. NeoLiberalism aims, in the name of liberty, to quash “equality of opportunity”, thus preserving the ruling classes, and through free markets, allow the rich to become richer. But the core problem with neoliberalism is that it eventually undermines its very foundations.Henry ford, one the greatest American Capitalists, recognized that he could expand his potential market by making it so his own employees could afford to buy the products they were making. This meant first of all, increasing productivity so he could pay a higher wage. Following WWII, in the U.S., the unions and employers, arranged wage increases so that they would match increases in productivity corrected for inflation. Thus, if inflation was 2% and productivity grew by 3%, employees could expect a 5% raise that year. This led to a balance between growth and wages that maintained a healthy domestic market. However, about 20 or 30 years ago, when the first neoliberals were entering government, because this process minimised profits, this began to be dismantled. The result has been increases in profits in the short term, but the slow evaporation of the domestic market as real wages have stagnated and dropped. People simply can’t afford to buy as much stuff any more, thus decreasing demand.But in doing all of this, we’ve been led here by “liberals”, “social liberals”, and “neoliberals”. Is it any wonder the term “liberal” has gotten a bad name?But now we have a problem. We want to discuss how we can arrange the economy so as to liberate the people, which was one of the goals of free markets. But we have a whole philosophy that wants to use the same methods to arrange the economy to benefit just a few. To make matters worse, it is this latter philosophy that has become ingrained in so many people.In the past, when I have spoken with a number of tea party members, they have spouted classic liberal philosophy, but neoliberal solutions. When I have spoken to members of OWS, they have spouted social-democratic dogma, and neoliberal solutions. Sorry people. For both of you, the neoliberals are the enemy. Get your head out of the box they stuck over it and let’s start thinking of better solutions.”give us a chance so we can discoverthe most valuable ways to serve one another”

          • Darc Syster

            What happened to all of my paragraphs?!

  • Thegipper

    Where was this filmed?

    • Djm20

      Drew University in Madison, New Jersey

    • Djm20

      Drew University in Madison, New Jersey

  • http://twitter.com/stevenborg Steven Borg

    Insanely well done! Just like Fear the Boom and Bust. You guys are absolutely amazing! Nicely done. Great production. Great political balance. Great inside jokes for economists while still appealing to a broader audience. Nice! :-D

  • Lewis

    Not as good as the original. This one seemed more biased, more simplistic, and with faker mustaches. It made Keynes all about stimulus and war–completely ignoring his monetary and interest rate policy– but even Keynesians would recognize that real investment is much preferable to empty stimulus, and no one can legitimately claim that Keynes has been knocked out. Only when a perspective we disagree with is characterized fairly do criticisms of it (and jokes about it) ring true. This video may appeal to the tight-knit circle of libertarian ideologues you seem to surround yourself with on your sites, but it will not appeal as much as the original to the wider group of economists and general public.

    • http://pudge.net/ pudge

      “no one can legitimately claim that Keynes has been knocked out”

      I’d say no one can legitimately claim he HASN’T been. YMMV, I suppose.

    • Joseph

      I agree that this one is more simplistic, but the first one focused on interest rates, monetary policy, and investment, this one focuses more on the main concept in The Road to Serfdom and the fallacies that emerged from the Great Depression. The point is that Keynes, like in the first one, put’s consumption above all else. I think it’s a great companion piece.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FUS25DQ5YUQVPPJ3UZNNH5NELA Bryan B

      Whoa, buzzkill. This video will appeal to, I submit, a fairly larger circle on the Venn diagram than you describe. For starters, it’ll appeal to folks that like a jazzy tune. Ah yeeah, the kids are coming for the sweet riffs and staying for the Austrian perspective.

      • http://twitter.com/SoundSystemSDC Steve in Bloomington

        As somebody decidedly outside any tight-knit circle of libertarian ideologues I will (grudgingly) give props on the really great job that was done putting this together, and applaud efforts to communicate ideas in creative ways like this, whether I agree with the ideas or not.

        Also, that chorus is really stuck in my head now…

      • Shawn Nichols

        I absolutely agree with you. I know how to look at both sides because I was damn near socialist when I was younger, but I am completely subscribed to Austrian theory and Libertarianism now. I thought this video was an amazing testament to the true nature of both sides of the aisle.

    • Olivo

      The video as a video is better, it is almost perfect. But it is true that it is very biased against Keynes…

      • RWL

        Very biased…?  I suppose if laying out the facts of a case, and then those facts pointing to the truth you consider bias then sure it’s very biased

    • Bill_

      Wow…so that’s how economist’s have dialog. 

      Hey Lewis, I’m not from academia but I wish Hayek would have knocked Keynes on his fucking ass you elitist piece of bourgeoisie…  I’m thinking the video appeals to us  dumb-ass proletarians that aren’t anywhere near as smart as you but create, build, and actually earn a living are going to ‘get it’.  I’m putting this up on every piece of social media I can and FUCK the ‘wider group’ of Economists…..I’m thinking Mr. Roberts didn’t make this video for you…..ass.

      • Aw

        don’t attack the man attack the ideas if you don’t like them, preferably using facts and figures, make them up if you have to . . .
        that’s how they do it in real life . . .

    • Peter

      There are plenty of historical episodes when Keynes has been proven retarded. How about all the “stimulus” after the crash of 1929, then the depression lasted until the end of WWII when Keynes and his followers were saying that the government can’t cut back spending because the economy can’t absorb all the unemployed. However, in 1921 there was a bigger crash after all the inflation of the first world war and the government did nothing. Then in 1921 the economy rebounded. Keynesians seem to ignore that episode. But the “stimulus” from Hoover and Roosevelt dragged out the depression until WWII sucked up all the unemployed, the Keynesians claiming the depression “over” because 5 million men were drafted. But the single biggest year of growth for the American economy occurred in 1946 when the Federal government reduced it’s spending by two thirds and cut the regulations and rations of the war. In the post war years there were plenty of episodes to prove Keynes retarded. For example when the bills came due from the inflation of the sixties (the Vietnam war, LBJ’s “great society”, and the trip to the moon) and we had to come off the gold standard (default), precipitating in our current inflation crisis.

      • David

        I would just like to make two points:

        1. The stimulus in 1929 didn’t work for a similar reason to the reason the American stimulus in 2009 didn’t work: it wasn’t big enough or prolonged enough for the size of the recession. Not all recessions are created equal and not all market crashes lead to similar sizes recessions.
        2. The reason there was such a boom in 1946 is because there of all the pent up private savings from war time that could not be spent due to rationing, government restrictions on investment, etc. that you mention were finally unleashed.

    • B2401127

      Keynes try to save people who’s dying within short time. People hope that his idea works.  

    • Aw

      the point is to make people aware so they may decide for themselves . . .
      additionally it points out the main debate of what the role of government is in the economy . . .
      which IS the entire debate

    • Bigdaddyt

      not true keynes theories were debunked over 40 years ago.  that’s the reason behind the “knockout” in the video. the reason he still won the fight is because many counries still follow it as the way to turn around an economy. Hayak disputed this and was critizied for it. research history and you too will see that every supporter of keyes(Carter, Clinton Obama) had troubled economies. supporters of hayek had flush economies (Reagan, Thatcher, both Bushes) if you research both and see the “company” they kept you will see the brilliant minds behind hayek (Wise and Mises) don’t fall for the liberal clap trap research research research

      • Jake R

        If you believe Keynes is dead, you need to look at any macroeconomics textbook. Fiscal and Monetary policy is Keynes…

      • K Sorensen

         Flush economies? In 2008? In Oct. 2007, Dow Jones was over 14000. In January 2009, Bush still president, the Dow Jones was at 8281.
        Wow.

        • C. Smith

          Pelosi/Reid Congress. 2006.  That was the beginning of the end.  It isn’t about the President, It is about the Congress. (With the exception of Reagan and Tip O’Neill)

    • Lysanderpfs

      The video isn’t meant to be unbiased, it’s meant to show what groups each economist appeals to. Keynes appeals to big business and government, because his theories make it easy and simply to point to programs and say, “Hey, look! We’re doing something!”
           ”My solution is simple and easy to handle.”
      Keynes’s theories look at the broad picture, where, by its nature, it is easy to mistake one thing for another. As such, it appeals to organizations that want to appear to be making a difference while still deriving as great a gain as possible. The video shows that by dressing Keynes in a tailored suit and having his admirers be big business execs, government officials, and media outlets. They want an easy, presentable “solution” that they can, as a business, make money off of. It isn’t morally right or wrong, it’s just business motivation.
      Hayek, meanwhile, appeals to the people. He doesn’t dress down his ideas for appeal, and he doesn’t pretend to have a single solution. He claims that the economy isn’t a mechanism that follows easily-identifiable natural laws.
           ”The economy’s us, we don’t need a mechanic. Put away the wrenches, the economy’s organic.”
      Hayek doesn’t give a solution, because he doesn’t have one. He approaches economics from a perspective of wanting understanding. In the video, he’s shown dressed in a tweed-ish outfit, looking like a college professor. He’s an academic, not a businessman. However, his desire for understanding how the economy works requires every part be accounted for in as much detail as possible. As such, his ideas need individuals to be taken into account. This causes individuals to like him more since he wants to account for individuals, but he doesn’t set out to appeal. At the end of the video, the people congratulating Hayek are the “common people” who appreciate his accounting for everyone.
      The video doesn’t really set out to set Hayek above Keynes, just to show how they are perceived on the world-stage. Keynes appeals to those resistant to change and who want an identifiable solution. Hayek appeals to those who want true understanding and progress. One promotes action, the other knowledge. Which economist is personally preferred depends on which goal, action or knowledge, is desired. You usually can’t have both.

      • Liberal European Guy

        I would put it like that: A house build of wood is on fire. The town has a water reservoir that is used for watering the crops during the summer draught. Keynes is the guy that says: “Let’s use the water, we can worry about the crops later!” And as you say, it is tempting for a politician to be the one who saves the day, in particular if he won’t be in office anymore once the drought hits the farms. Still, with good policy-making and a bit of luck it could be possible to both save the house and the harvest. But it is a gamble, and because of the political bias in favour of short term fixes it usually leads to desaster in the long run.
        Hayek is the guy who says:
        “You shouldn’t have build the house out of wood.” While this is true, it is not at all helpful in the situation. And then he suggests:
        “Let the house burn, the fire will eventually go out by itself. You can rebuild it with stone afterwards, which would be much better anyway. Let’s not allow politicians to use our precious water. Otherwise they will be using it for all kinds of things, and eventually we’ll starve.” The fire will indeed go out by itself eventually, but the house owner will certainly compain loudly, which makes it a tough sell, in particular if the public doesn’t really understand the importance of the water. Keeping the water may still be the right to do under normal circumstances. But imagine that many of the town’s houses are build of wood, and situated dangerously close to the house on fire… Wouldn’t it be better to have the houses replaced gradually, rather than putting the city to the torch? (Btw this shows nicely how government intervention – putting out the fire – leads to more government intervention: Fire safety regulations house owner must comply with).

  • http://profiles.google.com/cwhitten Chris Whitten

    I think this is even better than the first, if that’s possible.

    It’s probably easier to follow for non-economists. They’re both so jam-packed with information. It feels like this one focuses more on a basic point and restates it in different ways. That will enable people to absorb more. Yet, like someone else said, there are still plenty of inside jokes for the economics students.

    And so, so funny. And it’s a catchy song.

    When the first one came out I wasn’t sure something that great could be repeated. I’m so glad I was wrong.

  • http://profiles.google.com/cwhitten Chris Whitten

    Is there a non-YouTube version of the video? The corporate network at my wife’s office blocks YouTube. Her colleagues would enjoy this.

  • Cedric Pineau

    There is an error in the lyrics :

    the market’s a process where we can discover
    the most valuable ways to serve one another
    we need stable rules and real market prices
    so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis
    =>
    we need stable rules and real market prices
    so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis
    Give us a chance so we can discover
    the most valuable ways to serve one another

    • Jeff Little

      Just one error?

  • Anonymous

    I think I have to say that this is even better than the original! The complexity of ideas from both sides was presented very accessibly and eloquently. And you gotta love the shoutouts to Bastiat and Mises!!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NJ42QHJFTPGM2Y6JIWZMQTEJHU Rinaldo Watch

    It is like I’ve fallen through a portal into the real universe.

  • Joη

    Please add a transcript to the youtube video!

  • Lreasonover

    Keynesian Economics effect us more than most folks know. Example: In 1970 I could have filled up my truck 4 times with an ounce of gold. Today an ounce of gold would fill the same truck 15 TIMES! We are being duped… fuel is cheaper today than in 1970, it is your dollars that are becoming worth-less! UNTIL THE “SHEEPLE” WAKE UP WE WILL CONTINUE ON “THE ROAD TO SURFDOM”!

  • http://twitter.com/DougUtberg Doug Utberg

    The security guard looks like Mike Munger …

    • No

      it is!

  • Claudio

    Where did Mr. Papola shot this movie? It reminded of the University of Chicago….

  • Jongwon1013

    Firstly, was the security guard Mike Munger? And secondly, this was so incredibly well done. I learned about this website yesterday and it never even occurred to me that there could be hip-hop music about economics. The people behind this website has certainly made a fan out of me.

  • Howslide

    Outstanding…… Both of these videos show that economics is relevant to our lives. It also helps that they are funny and use a medium students will enjoy.

  • Lsaotome

    Thanks to Keynes there’s are bubbles all around the world. We are beholding the exportation of bubbles. They’ve seen in China, Brazil…..
    I hope we have a good end in the long run.

    • Christine_D

      Keynes is not directly responsible for our own mal adjusted economic situation. He is just the idea, the responsibility lies with those who have the audacity to dream up the right ways to fix the problem. His is just the scapegoat theory, really, the one that people want to use when they don’t have the gumption to find new solutions. Don’t blame Keynes, blame the men who embrace the many loopholes in the system.

    • Sdoherty

      Bubbles occur with or without Keynes.

  • Hybrid

    can you make them avialable on Amazon MP3 downloads as well?

  • huadude

    Beautiful work, guys! My newsfeed on Facebook filled with announcements from friends that this was out, and I was so excited to watch it.

    The cadence and song’s a bit different, but I’m sure after I get a copy on my iPod, I’ll learn the lyrics just as fast as I learned “Fear the Boom and Bust.”

  • Peter Lindener

    Regarding “Fight of the Century”…
    Wow…. I have to say….you certainly have the debate to the street..
    .in the most eloquent form on modern communication….
    In my book, all of you who have worked on this Video with the vision it so artfully expresses…
    . should be given knighted as modern day Saints…
    - Peter Lindener

  • HayekFan

    This ROCKS!

  • petri

    Finnish subtitles are ready: http://bit.ly/mombvw (lyrics here: http://bit.ly/lP1dVX)

  • Usama_Fayyad

    This is great stuff. Keep it coming and make econ cool

  • http://twitter.com/socksandstocks Socksandstocks

    You guys are doing some great work! Thanks for all the videos, including the ones with historians/economists!

  • Anonymous

    Vyborne.Perfect. Every sentenec full of hought. Congratulations. Rado from Slovakia

  • haael

    One word: OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

    • Borkborkborkbork

      You mean one acronym. OMFG is four words.

      • Mr. Fetz

        Let’s not get pedantic about it or anything. ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joshua-Harvey/829214815 Joshua Harvey

    You guys have to put out a dance remix, get it in the clubs!

  • Anonymous

    thanks guys, these videos are awesome.

  • Al Lemerande

    Did anyone else notice the James Grant character coming up to shake Hayek’s hand at the end? Nice touch! This thing is near perfection! What a masterpiece! Al Lemerande

  • Anonymous

    Super LIKE!

  • Kilikinecv

    This is so great! These are things we need to discuss. Thanks for airing it out in this manner.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/As-Assov/100001327518040 As Assov

    MP3?

  • JonE

    I’m wondering what people read the end of the video to mean. I’m personally more of a libertarian, and I shared this with a more Keynesian-minded friend, and we find the ending to mean completely opposite things. I think that it symbolizes that Hayek won the fight, but most people get wrapped up in the Keynes promises and follow him anyway. He thinks it’s an analogy for the 70s, 80s, and 90s where Keynes just flat out wins the fight for the majority of the population and regulators.

    I don’t know anything about the actual beliefs of the creators of these, but the Boom and the Bust seemed to be very balanced so as to appeal to everyone, and I would assume that’s what they were going for here as well. Just wondering about everyone’s perceptions.

    • ModMan

      I take it to mean that, clearly, Hayek won the fight but since the Congressional Chairman is also the referee, it links Congress to Keynes and shows how they ignore the victor (and promise of actual prosperity) in support of more and continued government spending, control and power.

  • BobPM

    Wow what a distortion of Keynes views. Heyek’s refrain in reply to Keynes question about unemployment is to talk about central planning? Please, Keynes approach is to provide a stabilization mechanism to allow markets to go forward without devastating peoples lives. Quibble all you want about whether or not it is effective, but to suggest its central planning is a gross distortion. Keynes was not a Marxist or socialist and Hayek’s reply’s inferring as much comes off as an attempt to divert attention away from his general lack of concern for the portions of society hit hardest by the re-equilibration he demands.

    • Tim

      If the “stabilization mechanism” is run by the government, that makes it central planning.

      • BobPM

        Hayek above stretches the argument reducio ad absurdum, by implying that everyone will soon be soldiers and no one will be growing food. Suggesting that moderate intervention to ease unemployment is some slippery slope into totalitarian society is nonsense and flies in the face of 75 years of social democratic policies that like it or not have achieved the highest living standard and the largest middle class in world history. I respectfully disagree with the assertion apparently that all government activity is central planning, and I have yet to understand the implied value judgment that all government action is bad. It is this implication that we can somehow exist without government that makes the high fiving on this video troubling. Gmboy51 below simply wants to believe a false premise, since it appears to me that new-keynesian theory pretty much has been the most accurate predictor of how this near depression has been unfolding.

        • Loki

          Capitalist policies are what have achieved the hight living standard in history. Think I’m wrong? Then why is that living standard dropping as we distance ourselves laissez-fair (Real capitalism)? And please don’t bring up the absurd viewpoint the we are or have recently had anything near Capitalism. Just take a look at government regulations as one example.

          • Aw

            “real capitalism” is as horrible as it is wonderful
            example people would killed every day in factories, we would live in pollution and much of the natural world would be torn apart . . .

            our would can be improved by regulation to steer self interest toward more productive outcomes

        • Marksvt

          The point he is making is not that we will all be soldiers, he is countering the argument that government spending through the great depression and WWII ended the great depression. He said clearly in repsonse to Keynes and pointed out to Keynes that even thought employment during WWII was almost zero, and government spending was at 44% it didn’t really improve the living conditions of Americans at the time. Commodities were rationed for the war and employing people in a war is not a productive use of resources. It wasn’t until after the war under Truman that spending was cut to 11% and then the Post-war economic boom occured. We actually reversed the debt during that time.

          This is even true today as government is becoming the largest employer and it will soon eclipse the private sector. The problem with that is government jobs i.e. layers of burocrats in state and federal government don’t produce they just consume.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mark.mays1 Mark Mays

            Not all govt. jobs*have* to be non-producing jobs. They can, and over the past two years should have been, construction projects that do produce. Also, the govt can fund projects that lead to production. If you count funding for R&D and subsidies for R&D and agriculture, the govt is already in the business of production.

          • Aw

            in some cases investments are too costly for the private sector because there benefits are intangible in the short run, in this case the government cane be helpful, inventions like the internet, and agricultural research as well as in computers and space flight have revolutionized the world . .  I would like to see the private sector take those risks . .

            in effect the government can make long term investments that ensure future prosperity

        • Aw

          well technically there is no government because it is made up or people who are elected, excluding bureaucrats . . .
          and technically your right because we give those we elect the power to plan for us, hopefully they make responsible decisions, wait let me rephrase hopefully we elect people who make responsible decisions

      • Olivo

        Thus any kind of action run by the government is “central planning”?. No planning but control. As in control of prices. Completely different from the real central planning of the socialist states.

        Using the wrong label to desprestigiate something is intelectually dishonest.

        • Mtanous

          Are you attempting to tell us that the stimulus and bailouts did not constitute “central planning”?  That they did not pick which people got the money?  And I know for a fact that government, when spending money, sets price controls – just look at what Medicare spends on healthcare compared to the “market” price (which is higher precisely due to losses from Medicare).

        • Mtanous

          Are you attempting to tell us that the stimulus and bailouts did not constitute “central planning”?  That they did not pick which people got the money?  And I know for a fact that government, when spending money, sets price controls – just look at what Medicare spends on healthcare compared to the “market” price (which is higher precisely due to losses from Medicare).

    • Gmboy51

      WHAT do you mean, “quibble…about whether or not it is effective”? Damn right I’ll quibble about it….If Keynesian theory is NOT effective, then what’s the point? Keynesian economics is the worst thing to happen to the US since the Federal Reserve.

    • Aw

      yeah but when the government spends money, it determines where it goes . . .
      isn’t that kind of central planning?
      although one might point out the people who decide are elected by the people . .
      the best part about democracy is that you can’t blame politicians you can only blame those who elect them, ie: yourself

    • Darc Syster

      Then you haven’t read “The Road To Surfdom” by Hayak. Hayak made that argument there in response to Keynes. If the government is doing it, it’s “central planning”.

  • http://twitter.com/mikesmullin mikesmullin

    AWESOME! DESERVES AN AWARD!

  • Matthew

    I’m pretty sure the lyric goes “let’s listen to the beats”, not “let’s listen to the greats”. It makes more sense if it’s “beats” too.

  • Christine_D

    These are great to get people to be more aware. Though I don’t believe either school of thought is entirely right or wrong, it seems to me that there ought to be a way to find a middle ground. You can certainly learn from both sides.

  • http://maximumbrooks.com Christine
  • http://twitter.com/AllenLewis Allen Lewis

    Both videos are pure genius! I think I like the tune to #2 better though. Job well done.

  • joetunn

    Gr8 stuff, you made my day. go hayek go…

  • fishheadsoup

    Outstanding, the Bernanke pat on the back at the end is a perfect touch.

  • Steve Primavera

    Absolutely without a doubt the best tool for todays youth to grasp the magnitude of this nations situation. Keep up the good work.

  • http://twitter.com/WilliamMP William Palumbo

    This is great. What a marvelous summary.

  • aepryus

    Nice job on the shout out to Glenn Hubbard’s video at the start. On another note, reference to Battle of Hastings? Continental Hayak about to conquer British Keynes?

  • Liberty Lover

    Thank you very much. It sickens me that I paid for junior college for 2 years and learned more from your music video published freely to the public. Thank you free market. Thank you human action.

  • Prime Director

    Between rounds, take a look at the corner men :)

    Forget Blackburn, Goldman and Dundee… in the championship rounds, you want Mises in your corner.

    • http://twitter.com/KC_EDM Eric Mertz

      Don’t forget Say, his “Blasphemous” law about markets clearing is mentioned in this song as well.  As a fan of Bastiat, I was also happy to hear a shout-out to him in the credits.

  • Theo_Neiros

    Hmmm… we never got to see the name of Keynes’s other corner man. It must have been Silvio Gesell!

    • Mr. Fetz

      It is John R. Hicks. You can see his name on his back as Keynes enters the arena.

      • Anonymous

        Indeed it is John R. Hicks. The shot of Hicks’ shirt in the ring didn’t read very well in the edit, unfortunately, so we couldn’t use it in the sequence with Malthus, Say and Mises.

  • Sterkuleze

    WELL DONE Mr. Papola!!! Thanks so much for bringing this great knowledge into a form that the current generation will listen to. Such a great beat!!

  • q.dog

    Any chance you could release the sheet music for either of the songs?

  • josefec

    I’ve added the video to the Universal Subtitles where subtitles in any language can be added to the video. I’ve myself made a Czech translation and a French translation is also already there. Come on, join in in translating this great video. :) :) :)

  • Pandrews

    One of the best videos I’ve seen yet. When can we expect your next video?

  • Jezza

    Keep up the great work! Possibly the smartest two songs available for viewing on YouTube!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/maninthetub maninthetub

    I felt like I was I was at the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel when Mike Munger slipped on his rubber gloves.

  • Jonathan Kellis

    Lawyers, bankers, and brokers (stock, insurance) have made a mess of the most prosperous economy in the world while complicit politicians use smoke and mirrors to conceal their involvement or ignorance. Our only hope is for the day when Mr. Smith returns to Washington.

  • http://twitter.com/cnoelle_c C. Noelle Coleman

    Wow. I’m learning this song when I should be studying for econ.

  • Anonymous

    Fantastic.

  • Hugopimentel79

    This is very one sided and anti Keynes I hope everyone can see that and I hope this will not be used in any type of classroom setting as it distorts the facts of the debate.

    • http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

      Like “Keynesians” haven’t been distorting their accomplishments for decades? I definitely plan on using it in my class room so I can give a little balance to the pro-deficit spending trash my kids will certainly encounter in their academic careers. Let’s teach the truth (from this video for example) to give them the ammunition to combat the planners in this world. “To set them free…”

      • Goldcap

        Funny, Hayek made a number of “predictions” about the danger of impending rising interest rates, none of which came true, which should ring familiar to those who oppose “pro-deficit” policy on the same grounds. He likewise attributed the great depression to deficits that were created after it had already occured, which is specious reasoning at best.

        Libertarianism is terrific when you don’t mind high unemployment and believe in a “moral cost” to economic downturn. But let’s see if we don’t end up exactly where Japan did after the 90′s, with low investment, high unemployment, and crippled productivity. My opinion is that you might have picked a better foil for Keynes, maybe Milton Friedman? He not only believed in this “moral cost”, but advocated it as a way to destroy opposition to a “free” ideology. Talk about the “anti-Keynes”.

        But it is true, Keynsianism was “knocked out” by the mid-seventies, and absolutely carried out of the ring in the eighties, which is IMHO why economic policy and common wisdom about said policy is so vapid and ineffective now.

  • HayekianPsych

    Another excellent track & video. The public outcry demanding more Mike Munger was heard! The ending was sort of a cliffhanger…can’t wait for round 3!

  • heterodoxic

    Oh hey wasnt F.A. Hayek influencial in the shaping of the Augosto Pinochet dictatorship?

    • JonE

      No more than Keynes was in FDR’s dictatorship

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Timur-Carpeev/100000434181832 Timur Carpeev

    You are geniuses guys! That is so awesome! Thank you!

  • Canucklehead

    Guys, hello from Canada. That second video is great! My son’s grade 9 class happens to be doing economics in social studies right now, so my son showed the link to the teacher who then showed the video to the class today and generated some discussion about it. The kids liked the tune, and some were appropriately confused at the end when Keynes was declared the winner of the match. They of course didn’t get all the nuances, but as a way to introduce junior/middle school and high school kids to basic economic debates, this video fits the bill.

  • Artur_reis00

    Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, it’s’ genial . I’m from Brazil and unfortunately the people here are very alienated, but we have the Ludwig von Mises Institute to open the doors of our mind, directed by the incredible Helio Beltrão. The future is Austrian, will be the new mainstream !!!! Artur Reis.

    • Lúcio Marques Bemquerer

      Hello Artur Reis,
      I’m from Brasil too. Liberty is the future for sure. Many brrasilians wat to learn this too. Our schools and government are still socialist/interventionist, that’s bad. But let’s continue to spread these ideas. Thats the best way to change this country. Lúcio Marques

  • Artur_reis00

    Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, it’s’ genial . I’m from Brazil and unfortunately the people here are very alienated, but we have the Ludwig von Mises Institute to open the doors of our mind, directed by the incredible Helio Beltrão. The future is Austrian, will be the new mainstream !!!! Artur Reis.

  • jh

    Great video! What would have made it even better is getting rid of the typos in the subtitles.

  • Molly
  • Mduncan

    Thank yal soooo much for giving a download, Fear the Boom or Bust got me pumped. Also, I feel this is somewhat bias towards Hayek, which counterbalances popular perception towards Keynes, however I feel a nice medium between the two is best. Total free market is essentially anarchy, and as much as I like Social Darwinism, some measures need to be implemented to protect the population.

  • Christine_D

    These are the best, I can’t believe they didn’t spend as much time with Hayek as they did with Keynes in high school (eons and eons ago) though.

  • Dr Avicemariegriffin

    “Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, yet that scaffold sways the future and behind the dim unknown stands God keeping watch on His own.” Longfellow

  • Tmak421

    Next video should be some big bankers from the world markets going to war over who controls the currency flows in and out of nations. Then the FED looking up in awe at the IMF and the World Bank thinking that could have been me if only I got inflation under control. Then Rap about Fractional Reserve Banking and how it creates money from nothing, eventually shortchanging participants in the economy while the bankers reap the profits from interest.

  • Ltfrancois

    What is often passed over of Hayek’s explination of Central Planning is that with very very few exceptions the inevitable result is tyranny.  Be it Facism or Social/Communism it results in tyranny.  Hayek rightly argues that for Socialism to work one must use practices often opposed by those same socialists.  Take the healthcare debate.  Most of those who support government control of the healthcare system would never think that the government should have uncontrolled access to your most personal information.  However for their plan to work the government would have to have access to your medical records as well financial records.

    • Aw

      there is no privacy . . .
      if the government or for that matter anyone is really interested in you they can get all of your information anyway . . .
      so moot . .
      your “privacy” comes from people not really being that interested in you . . . (=

    • http://twitter.com/KC_EDM Eric Mertz

      Well said.  My favorite argument by Hayek is on the nature of equality.  After so many eloquent speeches over so many decaddes, Hayek boils it down and lays it out in black and white.

      “From the fact that people are very different it
      follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in
      their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal
      position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and
      material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict
      with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not
      both at the same time.”

      and to echo your point

      “A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”

    • Darc Syster

      I mentioned Adam Smith and “The Wealth of Nations” before.  The third role for government was to provide those services which could not effectively or economically be provided by the private sector.

      Healthcare is an odd one. We have private healthcare, but it’s not cost effective. Countries such as Denmark, which have public health care, are able to provide health services at similar levels for cheaper. (I’m leaving Canada out because they have a Doctor and Nurse shortage created by bad management, thus resulting in a lower level of care than they should have.) So while health care can be provided privately, the question is, would it be more effective provided publicly?

      One of the noted benefits of public healthcare is that it provides “equality of opportunity”. By taking the expense out of healthcare from the private citizen, more of them are then able to participate in the free market.

  • Domser

     This material should be mandatory for all students, as it has the potential to stir up the interest in economics which is so desperately needed right now.

  • Aaronsox

    Here is a RINGTONE of the ending of this great song….during the end credits: “I don’t mean to be subjective, but this my Austrian perspective…Yo where you at Mises? Shoutout to Malthus”   enjoy….

    http://www.2shared.com/audio/18PytgJK/SubjectiveAustrianPerspective.html

  • Tekdotiki2

    Amazing video! For anyone interested I have added greek subtitles in this address:

    http://www.universalsubtitles.org/el/videos/ug5mqh7dxjIt/el/97614/

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RJZJOF2R75HUK3RSEMP6JSFWGA Ravi Agarwal

     You are doing a marvelous job. My hearty cheers to all involved in your motion picture projects. Excellent ! Excellent !

  • Lil E

    any download available for ZUNE???  PLEASE help.

  • ALEJANDRO

    you guys are WAY TOOOO NEO-CLASICAL

  • alex

    the best rap ever!! XD

  • Lamissdu75

    Just AWESOME! Good Job!

  • Wapshott

     

     

    Please note
    that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published
    by W.W.Norton in October.

    Professor
    John B.Taylor of Stanford and the Hoover Institution says that: “Nicholas
    Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making
    the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic
    crises of the 21st century.”

                Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/

    Nicholas
    Wapshott

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • PAB

    I love it! That is how EVERY subject should be taught. Economy, particle physics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM),…

  • Bill

    First off, loved it.  Loved it.  Brilliant. 

    That said, why did you guys prop up Keynes as the “winner”?  I think it sends a mixed message.  Pretty much every freakin’ adult I know has hardly heard of Keynes let alone Hayek.  I respect the effort to be fair/ironic, but heck, I want to use this as a tool to teach people.  All in all I love it…but you know that Liberals would not and are not so fair minded.  We need sledgehammers right now, not clever claw hammers….just sayin’.  

    How can I help get your message out further?  I’m posting it everywhere I can but would like to do more.   Sincerely.

  • Bill

    First off, loved it.  Loved it.  Brilliant. 

    That said, why did you guys prop up Keynes as the “winner”?  I think it sends a mixed message.  Pretty much every freakin’ adult I know has hardly heard of Keynes let alone Hayek.  I respect the effort to be fair/ironic, but heck, I want to use this as a tool to teach people.  All in all I love it…but you know that Liberals would not and are not so fair minded.  We need sledgehammers right now, not clever claw hammers….just sayin’.  

    How can I help get your message out further?  I’m posting it everywhere I can but would like to do more.   Sincerely.

  • Bill

    First off, loved it.  Loved it.  Brilliant. 

    That said, why did you guys prop up Keynes as the “winner”?  I think it sends a mixed message.  Pretty much every freakin’ adult I know has hardly heard of Keynes let alone Hayek.  I respect the effort to be fair/ironic, but heck, I want to use this as a tool to teach people.  All in all I love it…but you know that Liberals would not and are not so fair minded.  We need sledgehammers right now, not clever claw hammers….just sayin’.  

    How can I help get your message out further?  I’m posting it everywhere I can but would like to do more.   Sincerely.

    • Christinedanielle

      I would have like this comment, Bill, however the bit about liberals was off-putting. 

    • SushisamuraiXD

      I take it to mean that, clearly, Hayek won the fight but since the Congressional Chairman is also the referee, it links Congress to Keynes and shows how they ignore the victor (and promise of actual prosperity) in support of more and continued government spending, control and power.” ~ ModMan, from another comment above. :)

    • SushisamuraiXD

      I take it to mean that, clearly, Hayek won the fight but since the Congressional Chairman is also the referee, it links Congress to Keynes and shows how they ignore the victor (and promise of actual prosperity) in support of more and continued government spending, control and power.” ~ ModMan, from another comment above. :)

  • CanadianBeaver

    Engaging. I’d like to hear Hayek vs. Keynes on the unemployment question. I’m a Canadian, so forgive me if “Federal” is out of place. Keynes starts with: “A Public Works program is what you need” Hayek recants: “Employing every man women and child we see?, that would only cause our Federal arteries to bleed”

  • CanadianBeaver

    Engaging. I’d like to hear Hayek vs. Keynes on the unemployment question. I’m a Canadian, so forgive me if “Federal” is out of place. Keynes starts with: “A Public Works program is what you need” Hayek recants: “Employing every man women and child we see?, that would only cause our Federal arteries to bleed”

  • E.G. Wilson

    http://mises.org/books/inflationinfrance.pdf fee.org freedomainradio.com dancarlin.com http://mises.org/books

    Start educating yourself for times to come.

  • Tonyzzz7

    Amazing talent.
    Thank you

  • PMA101

    Wow! That’s great! As a videographer, I appreciate the work that went into that production. And, the message is great! F.A. Hayek was right!!!
    We should all learn to Become Our Own Bankers! http://legacyinsuranceagency.com/family/familybanking.html

  • Russell

    There is no bias here. The conventional wisdom is that we need more spending. You hear this left and right from politicians (mostly liberals) and psudo-economists like Freidman. They speak of stimulus like its the word of god. They proclaim that the only thing wrong with the first Obama stimulus was its small size. Actually, the problem with the first stimulus was that it stimulated the need for more stimulus.

    The Obama stimulus funneled billions of dollars to states to close budget gaps principally created by over spending in the public sector. This influx of money allowed states to ignore their own structural problems and continue on their binge spending spree. Couple this with throwing billions at shovel ready projects, of which there were very few and extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and the liberals successfully created an unsustainable culture of people who are demanding more and providing less. People now believe that an extension of unemployment beyond 99 weeks is an absolute necessity, but when you subsidize the unemployed, you only get more unemployed.

     This administration believes programs like unemployment benefits and food stamps actually creates jobs. They think the government actually has its own money and that money is just as powerful, and in many cases, more powerful than money spent and earned by people participating in a free market. They fail to realize that taking a dollar from a successful individual, filtering it though various government bureaucracies, and then giving it as a handout only dilutes the power of the initial dollar. Really, what the administration (and many previous administrations including Republican ones) is telling us is that they don’t believe that individuals are capable of making the right choices and must be coerced through taxes and subsidies to conform to a more perfect notion of society. It makes one wonder that if humans are so flawed and can’t be trusted to make the right decisions, why on earth would we trust politicians who are equally flawed and perhaps more so?

    • Jack

      Diluted dollars = Low fat and less calories…

    • Aw

      it should be Darwinism for business

      companies that fail DIE and hopefully do not reproduce
      and companies that succeed hopefully get big enough to break up into smaller companies (reproduction)

      • Bryan

        By this logic Wall Street and Motor City should have been destroyed in the great recession. They, and the loose banks and mortgage companies were the real culprits. The problem is that we put way more faith in corporations than we do in government. I think the last few years has proven where that gets us, and given rise to the OWS movement (thank god people are finally waking up!). Main Street continues to suffer while Wall Street just keeps getting fatter.

  • LK

    WHOA!!  You captured the essence of the economic and political debate!   I dont know what I liked better, the clear, concise, and accurate debate, or the humor, or the musical treatment.  Its a work of art.  Everyone should see this!

  • Anonymous

    This video is absolutely wonderful. BRAVO!

  • joeditt

    That’s rather disappointing.

    Part I already was rather simplifying – but that’s inevitable when attempting to summarize such a complex matter in one easily comprehensible song. Considering this, I’d even say it’s a masterpiece.

    But this one? Having Keynes focusing on a kinda “war’s the origin of all things” philosophy and Hayek appear as a pacifist, Keynes not objecting he’s for “planned” economy lead by a “few” while Hayek lets the “masses” decide? Which masses – those sitting in bank and corporation boards? The “masses” Thatcher, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II listened to?

    Well, THAT’s not analyzing things factual to then muse whether to handle them ”more bottom up or more top down”. No, it’s describing main facts upside down in the first place.

  • Christophe

    amazing video and very good actors

    What I don’t understand about the austrian school is the following:

    Other countries can also be suppliers of loanable funds and can shift the supply curve for loanable funds to the right. This has the same lowering effect on the intrest rate as a monetary stimulus. And also with the same negative consequences. Should investment from abroad be abolished?

    Christophe

    • Christine

      I don’t believe it should necessarily, only bad investments should be monitored and good investments should be encouraged.  Remember Hayek said in the video “you bail out the losers there’s no end to the cost”…this can also be applied to the same idea of investing with a losing company or a company who is not going to produce something the market is willing to demand.

    • Aw

      depends if the funds are used to invest ie: for future productivity
      or if the funds are used as spending on non investments and consumption of goods that do not produce anything

  • bw

    I like how Keynes was declared the winner. The only way he could “win” is to be “bailed out” by the ref and still favored by the media, while the PEOPLE clearly favored Hayek. Hayek is being treated the way people treat Ron Paul now, whom the media pretends not to exist, but actually has a lot of support from the PEOPLE.

  • Mr. Ruiz

    I think I agree with the assessment that this video biased somewhat against Keynes while at the same time, admitting that Hayek makes a compelling argument here for less government moderation of the markets. However, I’d argues that the main point here isn’t the economy it’s self but the average America. As Keynes states, he’s trying to help the unemployed by stabilizing a deteratating situation in the market. Someone earlier pointed out the welfare and unemployment continued until the the US entered WWII and the military complex absorbed the unemployed and increased resource consumption (Hayek). However, this only reset the economy back to optimum stable conditions where it could have fallen or increased from that state. The determining factor was the mood of the average consumer following the war and the change of mindset towards good and consumption. This resultant state clearly indicated two things. The first be being that both systems have aspected necessary for the continuing stability and recovery of the economy. Secondly, that neither system alone can provide for recovery of the economy when in reference of affecting national moral and atmosphere necessary for a recovery, even if conditions are optimal. That being said, the only conclusion is both systems are flawed and a new (perhaps hybrid) system (with the flexibility to compensate for certain conditions) is necessary to prevent and alleviate economic downturns should be developed.

    • Aw

      That makes sense, instead of taking one stance or another why not figure out what really works? perhaps creating a new theory that works better?

  • Snich-in-Time

    Hats off gentlemen, this is genius.

  • http://twitter.com/Skanda_42 Martin Masilko

    The major cause of the global protests, OWS – Occupy movement,  and (not just European) debt crisis is the political control of the money.

    “The more intelligently the governments try to act, the more harm they seem to do — because once they are known to aim at particular goals the less they can avoid serving sectional interests. And the demands of all organised group interests are almost invariably harmful.A system of competitive, privately issued currencies, would deliver a superior currency and also better outcomes in terms of macroeconomic stability.”¨

    Text: http://skanda42.wordpress.com/­2011/10/17/the-major-cause-of-­the-global-protests-is-the-pol­itical-control-of-the-money/

    Hayek data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F­riedrich_Hayek, winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974

    Related videos: http://bit.ly/vuB4K6

    • Darc Syster

      I recently had a dream where the currency in use by everyone was the Watt-hour (Wh). The Wh is easier for humans to handle than the Watt-second which is also called the Joule. A Joule is fairly tiny. I had this dream after reading about, I think it’s a group in Switzerland, that is proposing that everyone should be able to get by on 2000Watts. That works out to about 48kWh per day.

      A Wh makes a kind of sense. It’s a measure of mechanical work. It’s also a measure of potential energy. It’s also not subject to appreciation or depreciation because it’s an actual measurement of something real.

      After all, if you think about the dollar, or an ounce of gold, how much are they really worth? How many ounces of gold does it take to bake a loaf of bread? Dollars, and gold, don’t really have value except according to what we arbitrarily say their value is. But a Wh currency would have an absolute value. You’d always know what it was worth.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PZZGH7BAW3VPJENHUSY3ARUPIM Matthew

        Obviously you mentioned that it was just a dream but I still think it is worthy of commenting on.  If currency was measured in the energy output of a person it would simply be absurd.  People could be “paid” for lying around thinking of what a cloud look likes because the brain activity requires some work.  Heck I can sit at home and masturbate through my daily worth of work.  Just because someone is using energy doesn’t mean that it is productively applied nor does it mean that other individuals desire what you output.  Simply put “currency” should be determined by what the individuals desire.  In my own opinion I think I should be able to barter and trade whatever I desired with another as long as both parties voluntarily agree to it through contract.  Heck just recently an Alaska man was cited for illegal bartering by making the statement “I Need Some Firewood and I’m Willing to Trade Some Moose Meat.”

  • Philip Coffey

    A great video that presents both sides of the argument eloquently and in an incredibly entertaining manner. Even though I’m more inclined towards Hayek’s philosophy, I like this video as it gives the good points to both sides. Bravo!

  • David Herbst

    When will I be able to find this song on GoogleMusic?

  • Hithere

    I would’ve known absolutely nothing about Hayek or Keynes if it wasn’t for this (I’m 16, and yes, we do listen to raps and beats… even in economist forms). Thanks for the information, and it’s brilliantly done! :)

    • Shawn Nichols

      Hopefully you look into it more, what would you say you agree with more? Hayek’s Austrian school or Kaynes’ state interventionalism?

  • Felix

    he guys this is amazing stuff!!!!!!!
    keep it up!

  • Jmreed97

    It’s a shame these videos. Especially the 2nd one are so slanted to the Austrian View. You should do a 3rd video which discusses the failure of austerity measures in Europe.

  • http://twitter.com/Samuel_E_Amer Sam Amer

    So ruddy marvelous!

  • sean lee

    can you make an instrumental version??or can you give me the name/link of the beat of this song?cuz i wanna use it for my school project i have to make a rap song due next monday

  • Hockeyking_101

    I really enjoyed the song and the insight. I think it’s incredible how you’re able to implement true ideas into a song with such tenacity and rhythm. However, I was curious as to the name of the speaker/referee 

  • Evammg

    Hello, you are great! Congrats for your work, it really rocks! But just one thing I’d like you to consider: because the videos you make are targeted for a very heterogeneous public, so please take this into account and try to make your videos a little shorter. It’s very important so there are more chances people see them until the end! Congratulations again! Eva from Spain

  • bambuey

    Congratulations! The videos are superb! And the music is so nice! I wait for more videos to see!

  • jonnygalt

    I’ve been reading lots of Keynes and Hayek recently. This video is just an awesome summary of both sides of their “argument” and is a wonderful presentation. Thanks for all the hard work you guys put into this.

    Robert Higgs is listed in the credits as an extra, but I couldn’t spot him…where does he appear?

  • Cata3

    Really Great video/music. I studied econ in the 70′s, it was all about Keynes. Never heard about any other viewpoints. I knew something wasn’t quite right. I didn’t know enough to look elsewhere for answers. I didn’t pursue econ as a profession, but it has been an interest of mine ever since. Learned of Hayek from reading Libertarian stuff like Reason and Liberty magazines over the last 10 years or so. I think there is hope for the future yet.

  • Shail

    Great work again, I really enjoyed it. Keep pouring more of such videos. But I felt that the video was more biased towards Hayek, and keynes ideas were not well supported in the video. 

  • bellucci guillaume

    Hi guys I’m a french student.
    Someone in my class told me about your video, and when i saw it… what a pearl !
    This idea to organize a rap between Keynes and Hayek it’s so amazing !
    The song is very good, rhymes sound good too.
    It’s a very good job, maybe a little simplistic but it doesn’t matter.
    I hope that you will make new raps !

  • M Beacom

    Fantastic!!
    Cannot wait to show my economist colleagues and my students.
    Great work.
    Thanks