Originally posted by adam warlock
And all the dismal science guys/girls...
Is this as good as it seems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded
Bear in mind that only now I've begun to read up on economy but this seems to be a pretty accurate summary of both men views on a lot of issues.
And by the way, what's your take (you being Palynka and the other dismal science guys/girls) on this dichotomy?
That, adam warlock, was truly enjoyable levated entertainment... much like chess.
My take is that Hayek's position represents true long-term issues and reflect the responsibility incumbent on policy makers to consider why not to over-do the boom cycle and also demonstrates why spending is not a solution.
That being said, during the Great Depression and during this so-called great recession, I can see why there would be a great temptation to rely on Keynsian stimulus since during market extremes the disruptions of every-day life can be huge and the aim to prevent panic (and manage animal spirits) is understandable.
However, it remains true that preventing the bust by not feeding the boom in the first place would be wisest.
Keynes would cheer a politician, giving him an excuse to spend and cut taxes during bad times, and Hayek would be a wise consul to prevent the busts in the first place.
Hayek's policy perspectives are better for people in the medium and long term and would even help limit the length and duration of a recession.