The LSE and BBC Radio 4 are hosting a Hayek vs Keynes public debate, Tuesday July 26, 6:30 – 8 pm at the Old Theatre, Old Building, the London School of Economics featuring George Selgin, Robert Skidelsky, Duncan Weldon & Jamie Whyte, with BBC Radio host Paul Mason in the chair.
The debate will be broadcast twice on BBC Radio 4: Wed. Aug. 3 at 8 pm & Sat. Aug. 6 at 10:15 pm.
Transcript of Sarah Palin speaking at CSU-Stanislaus, June 25, 2010:
There’s an anecdote about Margaret Thatcher, who’s a big fan of America, she was a good friend of Ronald Reagan’s remembering, she agreed with this enshrinement of God given liberty. It’s said that during a meeting about the British Conservative Party’s best course of action to take during an economic crisis in the seventies that she was arguing with some so called political pragmatist who was arguing in favor of a third way between free market capitalism and socialism and before he was even finished Margaret Thatcher reached into her purse and pulled out a copy of Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty and she slapped it on the table and she says, “this is what we believe in, this Constitution of Liberty.”
And in that same way, every American should and could whenever she or he is challenged to define what America really stands for? That American should be able to pull out a copy of our very own Constitution of Liberty and say, “this is what we stand for, this, is what makes us different.”
The discussion begins at about 12:40 in the speech:
Here in Reuters. No, Chrystia, you won’t find “God-given rights” in Hayek. It pays to slow down enough to get your facts in order, while in the midst of typing away. Chrystia is “Global Editor-at-Large” for the often suspect news source Reuters.
International relations academic Francis Fukuyama thought he’d get away with an amateurish and error-ridded review of F.A Hayek’s reknowned The Constitution of Liberty. But it isn’t 1992 anymore. It’s 2011 and there’s now this thing called the “Internet” overstuffed with authentic experts on any topic you can think of, including scholars who’ve spent time carefully reading the work of F.A. Hayek. And some of these folks have begun to weigh in on Fukuyama on Hayek. Here are a few:
There were two other big conclusions I drew from that [2nd year macro] course.
The first was that the DSGE framework is a straitjacket that is strangling the field. It’s very costly in terms of time and computing resources to solve a model with more than one or two “frictions” (i.e. realistic elements), with more than a few structural parameters, with hysteresis, or with heterogeneity, etc. This means that what ends up getting published are the very simplest models – the basic RBC model, for example. (Incidentally, that also biases the field toward models in which markets are close to efficient, and in which government policy thus plays only a small role.)
Worse, all of the mathematical formalism and kludgy numerical solutions of DSGE give you basically zero forecasting ability (and, in almost all cases, no better than an SVAR). All you get from using DSGE, it seems, is the opportunity to puff up your chest and say “Well, MY model is fully microfounded, and contains only ‘deep structural’ parameters like tastes and technology!”…Well, that, and a shot at publication in a top journal.
Finally, my field course taught me what a bad deal the whole neoclassical paradigm was. When people like Jordi Gali found that RBC models didn’t square with the evidence, it did not give any discernible pause to the multitudes of researchers who assume that technology shocks cause recessions. The aforementioned paper by Basu, Fernald and Kimball uses RBC’s own framework to show its internal contradictions – it jumps through all the hoops set up by Lucas and Prescott – but I don’t exactly expect it to derail the neoclassical program any more than did Gali.
A complex civilization like ours is necessarily based on the individual’s adjusting himself to changes whose cause and nature he cannot understand: why he should have more or less, why he should have to move to another occupation, why some things he want should become more difficult to get than others, will always be connected with such a multitude of circumstances that no single mind will be able to grasp them. — F. A. Hayek