“I defy anybody—Keynesian, Hayekian, or uncommitted—to read [Wapshott’s] work and not learn something new.”—John Cassidy, The New Yorker As the stock market crash of 1929 plunged the world into turmoil, two men emerged with competing claims on how to restore balance to economies gone awry. John Maynard Keynes, the mercurial Cambridge economist, believed that government had a duty to spend when others would not. He met his opposite in a little-known Austrian economics professor, Freidrich Hayek, who considered attempts to intervene both pointless and potentially dangerous. The battle lines thus drawn, Keynesian economics would dominate for decades and coincide with an era of unprecedented prosperity, but conservative economists and political leaders would eventually embrace and execute Hayek's contrary vision. From their first face-to-face encounter to the heated arguments between their ardent disciples, Nicholas Wapshott here unearths the contemporary relevance of Keynes and Hayek, as present-day arguments over the virtues of the free market and government intervention rage with the same ferocity as they did in the 1930s.

Provides a history of the diverging economic viewpoints that emerged after the 1929 stock market crash, one from Cambridge economist John Maynard Keynes, the other from Austrian economics professor Freidrich Hayek.

Can government fix a broken economy? Two great economists disagreed 80 years ago, and their debate dominates politics to this day. As the stock-market crash of 1929 plunged the world into turmoil, two men emerged with competing claims about how to restore balance to economies gone awry. John Maynard Keynes, the mercurial Cambridge economist, believed that government had a duty to spend when others would not. He met his opposite in a little-known Austrian economics professor, Friedrich Hayek, who considered attempts to intervene both pointless and potentially dangerous. The battle lines thus drawn, Keynesian economics would dominate for decades and coincide with an era of unprecedented prosperity, but conservative economists and political leaders would eventually embrace and execute Hayek’s contrary vision. From their first face-to-face encounter to the heated disputes between their ardent disciples, Nicholas Wapshott here unearths the contemporary relevance of Keynes and Hayek, as arguments over the virtues of the free market and government intervention rage with the same ferocity as they did in the 1930s. PRAISE FOR NICHOLAS WAPSHOTT ‘I defy anybody — Keynesian, Hayekian, or uncommitted — to read [Wapshott’s] work and not learn something new.’ The New Yorker ‘With balance, understanding and clarity, Nicholas Wapshott, a New York-based English journalist and biographer, re-creates the duel between Keynes and Heyek … [T]his book is beguilingly written, well researched and cleverly argued.’ The Weekend Australian

Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money were written against a background of devastation following the First World War. Thomas Hoerber explains the historical context in which the books were written and shows how lessons can be drawn for current economic and political phenomena, such as the recent financial crisis, globalization and European integration. He illustrates how classical economic theory as well as a qualitative method in economics can enlighten our understanding of the present economic environment

First published in 1995. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

While standard accounts of the 1930s debates surrounding economic thought pit John Maynard Keynes against Friedrich von Hayek in a clash of ideology, this reflexive dichotomy is in many respects superficial. It is the argument of this book that both Keynes and Hayek developed their respective theories of the business cycle within the tradition of Swedish economist Knut Wicksell, and that this shared genealogy manifested itself in significant theoretical affinities between the two supposed antagonists. The salient features of Wicksell's work, namely the importance of money, the role of uncertainty, coordination failures, and the element of time in capital accumulation, all motivated the Keynesian and Hayekian theories of economic fluctuations. They also contributed to a fundamental convergence between the two economists during the 1930s. This shared, "Wicksellian" vision of economic problems points to a very different research agenda from that of the Walrasian-style, general equilibrium analysis that has dominated postwar macroeconomics. This book will appeal to economists interested in historical perspective of their discipline, as well as historians of economic thought. The author not only deconstructs some of the historical misconceptions of the Keynes versus Hayek debate, but also suggests how the insights uncovered can inform and instruct modern theory. While much of the analysis is technical, it does not assume previous knowledge of 1930s economic theory, and should be accessible to academics and graduate students with general economics training.

John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek had serious differences of opinion when it came to assessing the fractured inter-war world. G. R. Steele picks apart this debate and argues persuasively that Hayek's outlook will prove to be the more enduring.