Keynes: Pragmatist. Hayek: Utopian. Who Sez?
…if you read about the tussle between the two great economists, you are struck by two things. First, how pragmatic a man John Maynard Keynes was. And second, how utopian the ideals of Friedrich Hayek are. This is odd, as each man attached himself to a polar opposite political philosophy: Keynes’s ideas were adopted by idealistic lefties, while Hayek’s thoughts were lapped up by conservatism, a philosophy that by definition rejects dogma. It is as if we have gone through the looking glass.
Who could have said such a thing?!
Keynes and Hayek: Adventures in Wonderland | The Economist.
More:
Hayek was concerned with principles, not with the political reality of implementing them. It is noteworthy, too, that Hayek—unlike Keynes—spent most of his life as an academic. Hayek never campaigned for a political party or advised the government of the day. He had little time for men who did not share his view.
This is the antithesis of the conservative tradition. From Disraeli to Oakeshott, conservatism has been defined for its distrust of ideology, and a preference for pragmatism, compromise and what has gone before.
Cross-posted at Asymptosis.
I think as we consider the words of economists in the past we need to realize we have to develop new philosophies in a world that is changing rapidly. The old ones can be revised but a new approach is key to success.
“conservatism, a philosophy that by definition rejects dogma.”
Ah! The musings of a conservative so dogmatic that mere opinions appear to be received truth. 🙂
Min is spot on. Conservatism is all about dogma. The whole point is to defend what exists and the conventional thought about it without challenging it. A pragmatic or principled conservative usually winds up being a liberal.
I stopped reading the economist when they endorsed GW Bush.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2000/11/the_economist_really_endorses_george_w_bush.html
I mean WTF!?
Years ago, I came to expect that “The Economist” would slip its editorial view into its analysis and reporting, and do it by writing convincingly. That’s one of the things that made The Economist dangerous.
Well either I’ve raised my standards or editors at The Economist have lowered theirs. This is freshman composition stuff.
“… like Hayek, he thinks the seeds of the crisis were sown before the bust.”
Um, yeah just about everybody believes that causes come before effects in a great many cases. Usually, its anticipation of future events that allows causes to arrive after effects. (The Fed causes Christmas, don’tcha know?)
Everybody who has commented here seems to have gotten a kick out of the “conservatives don’t hold no truck with dogma” bit, so I’ll leave that alone.
Then, at the end, there’s that awful “punch line” thing that bad writers think is required at the end. Awful, empty and not clever.
If they mean to brainwash us, please let them hire better writers to do it.
Arriving late, I was struck by the same dogma line as everyone else.
What an utterly fatuous article.
JzB