Keynes' interpretation of Hayek is still relevant for today's economic policy makers

[SunTrader]

Only faith-based ideologues (read: fanatics) believe in absolutes. Real solutions reside somewhere between the extremes.

Nothing to do with faith or extremism and everything to do with liberty pure and simple.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety (or for an every present nannystate to wipe their azz) , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin

 

[cdcaveman]

See the book Hayek might have written if he thought Keynes was not going to change his flawed thinking.

The Failure of the New Economics (1959) by Henry Hazlitt

I love Hazlitt!

 

[cdcaveman]

Keynesians aren't free market.. they only agree with markets to the degree that they can intervene

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Nothing to do with faith or extremism and everything to do with liberty pure and simple.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety (or for an every present nannystate to wipe their azz) , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin

If you want "pure" liberty, then put your money where your mouth is and go live under the radar in the jungle or desert somewhere. Or maybe Galt's Gulch, if you can find it. Because you won't find it in any real or civilized society.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Keynesians aren't free market.. they only agree with markets to the degree that they can intervene

The only truly free markets that exist are in the untamed wilderness. Be sure to write when you get there.

 

[Martinghoul]

There is evidence to suggest that the Founding Fathers were well aware of the nuanced nature of these subjects. Not that this should surprise anyone.

“If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations.”
- John Adams, 1787

“It will be said that great societies cannot exist without government.”
- Thomas Jefferson, 1782

“The people must cede to [Government] some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”
- John Jay, 1787

Also, the entire Federalist 51 for James Madison's views, which are also nuanced.

 

[zdreg]

“It will be said that great societies cannot exist without government.”

Milton Friedman would have said that great societies cannot exist without rule of Law.
the main laws that Milton Friedman referred to was the law of contracts and the law of fraud.
most anything else is an impingement of freedom.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

There is evidence to suggest that the Founding Fathers were well aware of the nuanced nature of these subjects. Not that this should surprise anyone.

“If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations.”
- John Adams, 1787

“It will be said that great societies cannot exist without government.”
- Thomas Jefferson, 1782

“The people must cede to [Government] some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”
- John Jay, 1787

Also, the entire Federalist 51 for James Madison's views, which are also nuanced.

Makes sense, since the founding fathers formed the country and its government, and a government, by definition, precludes any notion of "pure" liberty.

 

[Martinghoul]

Milton Friedman would have said that great societies cannot exist without rule of Law.
the main laws that Milton Friedman referred to was the law of contracts and the law of fraud.
most anything else is an impingement of freedom.

Well before Milton Friedman, there was Adam Smith, whose views on the subject are predictably sensible. There's a wealth of really insightful comments in The Wealth of Nations (pun intended). He truly was one of the greats!

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Well before Milton Friedman, there was Adam Smith, whose views on the subject are predictably sensible. There's a wealth of really insightful comments in The Wealth of Nations (pun intended). He truly was one of the greats!

I've not read The Wealth of Nations, so you have me at a disadvantage. But, as I understand it, Smith was the Invisible Hand guy who was not averse to the notion of "trickle down."