Thomas Palley on Post Keynesian Economics

Thomas I. Palley gives a lecture on Post Keynesian economics below, a talk which he gave at the FMM Conference, The Spectre of Stagnation? Europe in the World Economy, in October 2015 in Berlin.

Jonathan Sperber on Karl Marx

This is an interesting lecture by Jonathan Sperber on Karl Marx. Sperber recently wrote this biography of Marx:

Sperber, Jonathan. 2014. Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life. Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York.

I am halfway through this biography and I highly recommend it.

The lecture begins at 9.21.

John Searle on Realism

John Searle gives a fascinating lecture on realism in modern philosophy at a conference at the University of Bonn on 26–28th March, 2012.



I think there are two points where Searle goes wrong: his unwillingness to accept that (1) some emergent properties – like the human mind – are so remarkable that they make a new ontological category, and (2), because of (1), we have good reason to consider Popper’s three worlds ontology as a realistic metaphysics.

On Popper’s three worlds ontology, see here and here.

Paul Davidson on the Keynes Solution

A great talk here from Paul Davidson, a leading American Post Keynesian and the editor and co-founder of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics.

A good introduction to Post Keynesian theory and an analysis of the current economic malaise.

Skidelsky on Keynes and the Crisis of Capitalism

This is an excellent lecture by Robert Skidelsky (Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick) recorded on 7 October, 2009, on Keynes, a critique of neoclassical economics, and the financial crisis of 2008 and resulting global recession.

Steve Keen on Advanced Political Economy 2

These are the second lecture of Steve Keen’s course on Advanced Political Economy, which he teaches at the University of Western Sydney.

More information here. Again, the sound is not the best. Turn the volume up!

Steve Keen on Advanced Political Economy 1

These videos are the first lecture of Steve Keen’s course on Advanced Political Economy, which he teaches at the University of Western Sydney.

More information here. The sound is not the best. Turn the volume up!

Audio Lecture by Ludwig M. Lachmann

I have just found this talk by Ludwig M. Lachmann, delivered at the Department of Economics at the University of Colorado in the 1970s. Some biographical trivia:

(1) Lachmann obtained a PhD from the University of Berlin, where from 1924 to 1933 he was a graduate student.

(2) Lachmann went to England in 1933, and was at the London School of Economics (LSE) as research assistant to Hayek.

(3) Lachmann went to South Africa in 1948.

Here are some comments:

(1) Lachmann ascribes the Austrian view of time to George L. S. Shackle, which I find interesting.

(2) From 8.31 onwards Lachmann gives what he calls the Austrian view of macroeconomic entities: he says Austrians don’t deny the existence of macroeconomic entities (consumption, investment, etc.). Lachmann objects to the idea that these entities have mechanical effects on each other.

(3) Lachmann (27.44 onwards) notes that Schumpeter was early on affiliated with the Austrian school, but became a Walrasian.

(4) From 43.14 Lachmann describes the victory of Keynesianism at the LSE: by 1939 he and Hayek, he says (perhaps with some exaggeration), were the only Austrians left!

(5) From 44.55, Lachmann refers to the early writings of George L. S. Shackle, and includes these writings as making a contribution to his own work on time.

(6) From 55.38, in response to a question about policies for the macroeconomy, Lachmann explicitly allows government intervention in a depression: he notes that Hayek retreated from his liquidationism of 1932 (“Hayek has now realised that that was wrong,” he says from 56.53). “In a situation in which nothing really is scarce” there can be government intervention to increase employment (56.57). That is very significant, and I have written about it here:

“A Startling Admission from Ludwig Lachmann,” July 11, 2011.

“Ludwig Lachmann on Government Intervention,” July 9, 2011.

Lachmann was a different Austrian from the hordes of modern Austrian anarcho-capitalists. In fact, one gets a wonderful insight into Lachmann’s thinking on this from his Austrian Economics Newsletter (AEN) interview:

“AEN: After you moved to England in 1933 you became a research assistant to Hayek. What type of topics were usually of interest in the famous Hayek-Robbins seminar.

Lachmann: In general, problems of the business cycle and of capital theory. I actually worked on secondary depressions. That is to say, what Hayek first used to call the process of secondary deflation, a word that had been coined by a German economist to denote that part of the process of depression which goes beyond any kind of primary maladjustment. That is to say, that kind of depression that would not be an adjustment process in the Hayekian sense. It was by then (1933) admitted that a depression of this kind could develop and I think everybody admitted that by 1933 the world was in a process of secondary depression.”

Ludwig Lachmann, “An Interview with Ludwig Lachmann,” The Austrian Economics Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 3 (Fall 1978), Mises.org.

When I read this I thought: it’s all falling into place! (as an aside, in the same interview, Lachmann talks of Paul Rosenstein-Rodan’s comments on the role of expectations and the Austrian trade cycle theory).

(7) From 59.14, Lachmann rejects the gold standard for the modern world.

(8) From 1.06.20 Lachmann gives his view on government. He confirms that he was a Classical liberal who supported a minimal state, like Mises, as the institutional foundation of the market. Lachmann sees modern democracy in which voters choose to re-distribute wealth as a problem.

(9) From 1.08.12 onwards, Lachmann argues that Austrian economics is consistent with Popper’s methodology. Lachmann quotes Keynes’s letter to Roy Harrod of 16 July 1938 on the proper method for the social sciences.

Other Resources on Lachmann:

Peter Lewin, “Biography of Ludwig Lachmann (1906-1990): Life and Work,” Mises.org.

Ludwig Lachmann, “An Interview with Ludwig Lachmann,” The Austrian Economics Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 3 (Fall 1978), Mises.org.

I strongly urge people to read the interview with Lachmann.

NOTE: The Ludwig von Mises Institute has given permission under the Creative Commons license that this audio presentation of Lachmann can be publicly reposted as long as credit is given to the Mises Institute and other guidelines are followed. More info at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

My blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective is in no way endorsed by or affiliated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, any of its lecturers or staff members.

Hayek on Social Evolution

This is a lecture by Hayek on social evolution of morality and social norms given in 1983 at George Mason University. More on the lecture can be read here. Hayek is introduced by Karen Vaughn, no less.

And, no, I have not converted to Austrian economics: this is of scholarly and historical interest to me. Furthermore, I do not buy the excessive emphasis by Hayek on unplanned, emergent processes in social, moral, legal and economic life. There is, and always has been, a great deal of planning and conscious design. Let me take one example: the Christian religion is fundamental to Western civilisation. How was it established as the offical religion of the Roman empire? The reason is that emperors decided to adopt it first as the state-sponsored religion (by Constantine) and later as the official religion by active violence and persecution of pagan religions and philosophies, which culminated in the anti-pagan decrees of the emperor Theodosius I (for a critical discussion of this repression, see Cameron 2011: 68-74). Christianity, as the religion of the West and with all of its moral influences, was established by conscious design, not by unplanned, emergent processes.

The conscious, planning, designing mind is one of the fundamental traits of our species. But I would say of course that many of our innate moral intuitions are the product of our evolution (cf. Hayek’s remarks from 20.21), as well as social and cultural influences.

At 46.14 onwards, I note that Hayek badly misunderstands the work of Richard Dawkins on social evolution and the idea of the meme.





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cameron, A. 2011. The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Steve Keen Lecture at the University of Buenos Aires

A lecture here from Steve Keen, given at the University of Buenos Aires, explaining amongst other things why neoclassical DSGE models are not capable of properly modeling the macroeconomy, and an outline of the Financial Instability Hypothesis (FIH) of Minsky.

Nicholas Wapshott Lecture on Keynes versus Hayek

This is a lecture by Nicholas Wapshott, given as part of the Hayek Lectures at Duke University (November 3, 2011). He is introduced by Bruce Caldwell, no less. Nicholas Wapshott is the author of Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics (W. W. Norton & Company, 2011).

Some meaningless trivia: Keynes was taller than Hayek! I was surprised by Wapshott’s mispronunciation of Mises’s name as “Meez” (it is actually pronounced as IPA ['mi:-zəs]).

More important points:

(1) Sraffa’s critique (1932) of Hayek’s Prices and Production was not vituperative. I have read it many times and Sraffa’s article is a careful criticism of Hayek’s arguments, not personal invective.

(2) In the debate of Hayek and Keynes on Hayek’s business cycle theory, it was Hayek who eventually changed his position: Hayek later approved of and supported monetary stabilisation and eventually limited fiscal policy.

(3) Milton Friedman was no Hayekian or even a “disciple” of Hayek, despite what Wapshott says from 37.30. Friedman’s brand of monetarism is in many ways far removed from Austrian economics.

(4) I am also of the opinion that Hayek’s influence is overrated:

“Hayek vs. Keynes Round 2: Amusing Rubbish,” May 4, 2011.

Certainly, in terms of his influence on contemporary neoclassical policy-makers in Europe and America, Hayek’s influence is in fact grossly overrated. Today’s debates are between New Keynesians and advocates of the New Consensus macroeconomics, with the more strident New Classicals and monetarists having the most poisonous and pernicious influence. All of these economists are neoclassicals, however, and the free market New Classicals and monetarists are not Austrians.

Steve Keen at Oxford

There is some excellent material from Steve Keen at the moment. This is a video of his recent lecture at Oxford on the second edition of his Debunking Economics (more on the talk here). The sound is not the best. Please turn your volume up!