Hayek versus Keynes


George Selgin, professor of economics at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business and a Freeman contributor, debated Robert Skidelsky of the University of Warwick on the merits of F. A. Hayek’s and John Maynard Keynes’s views on booms and busts. The debate was held at the London School of Economics, where Hayek taught for many years, and was sponsored by BBC Radio 4. Selgin is a leading exponent of free banking and the author of several related books. Lord Skidelsky is a biographer of Keynes. Selgin’s debate partner was Jamie Whyte, a management consultant. Skidelsky was supported by Duncan Weldon, an economics blogger.

The debate focused on Keynes’s view — and Hayek’s critique of it — that once an economy is mired in deep recession, the only solution is for the government to borrow and spend in order to increase aggregate demand and stimulate investment and job-creation. Thus for Skidelsky, cutting government spending is precisely the wrong thing to do. Selgin, however, insisted that government spending impedes recovery by depriving the private sector of capital for investment. He said that government spending, whether on digging and filling up ditches or bailing out insolvent banks, is a tragic mistake with many ramifications. Selgin also drew attention to the artificial boom created by central bank money creation, without which there would be no bust. “The economy is like a drunk throwing up the morning after the night before,” Selgin said.

You can download the 44-minute audio fileĀ here. Read accounts of the debate here and here.

Though I am admittedly biased, I believe Selgin and Whyte carried the day. The large audience came in decidedly pro-Hayek — and left that way as well.



Sheldon Richman is the former editor of The Freeman and, and a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. He is the author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America's Families.

comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


September 2014

For centuries, hierarchical models dominated human organizations. Kings, warlords, and emperors could rally groups--but also oppress them. Non-hierarchical forms of organization, though, are increasingly defining our lives. It's no secret how this shift has benefited our social lives, including dating, and it's becoming more commonplace even in the corporate world. But it has also now come even to organizations bent on domination rather than human flourishing, as the Islamic State shows. If even destructive groups rely on this form of entrepreneurial organization, then hierarchy's time could truly be coming to an end.
Download Free PDF