Author: Nicholas Wapshott is a British journalist and writer. He is a columnist for Reuters and writes articles for various online publishers. He was the editor of the Saturday Times, and the founder and editor of The Times magazine. He has written several biographies, including Margaret Thatcher and Carol Reed.
Book: The book narrates the clash of ideas between Keynes and Hayek, from their first face-to-face encounter to the heated arguments between their disciples. Keynes in Cambridge, and Friedrich Hayek in the LSE, had opposing views, not only on the solutions for the economic recovery of the west but also on the adequate methodology for economic research.
Opinion: This is an entertaining book for those who are into economics and understand both Austrian and Keynesian ideas. However, there are many concepts that may be difficult to understand for laymen. I liked how the author shares not only the theoretical debate between Hayek and Keynes, but also their personalities, private life, and political issues. The book is thought to be impartial, however, it is clear to me that the author is (highly) biased toward Keynesianism – no problem with that if it is stated, as I acknowledge that axiological neutrality is impossible to obtain. The average reader may think that the “debate” was slightly won by Keynes. In my view, that’s an insult to history and economics - Keynes was a quack, ignorant about (Austrian) economics and trapped in the Anglo-Saxon thinking of his mentor Marshall. But it was not a fair debate because: (i) Keynes was an intelligent, persuasive, and good looking 2 meters tall man. Even if Hayek was intellectually confident (and superior), he could barely write/speak in English. (ii) The solutions of Keynes were much more appealing to politicians and the public even if their long term consequences were terrible. It would have been interesting to see just the debate of ideas, without frictions of the “halo effect” and the interests of politicians… I think that we could only blame Hayek for not critiquing The General Theory right after it was published. Less harm would have been made.
Comentários