The debate between Keynes and Hayek is essentially the debate over the government's role in the economy, and this book tries to explain that struggle by telling the personal story of the two economists. It's a good idea. Of course, the actual debate between Hayek and Keynes, the men, dealt largely with obscure battles over economic terms, sexed up with personal attacks and sarcastic tirades. But the author packs the real significance of their ideas around the underwhelming personal back and forth, and I came away with more about economic theory than I went in with.

The narrative gets muddied once Keynes dies, and the book turns to the economic policies of European and American policymakers over the last 50 years. The main reason for this seems to be that, for politicians, Keynes and Hayek are just tropes signalling whether they are conservatives or liberals. So set aside a major point that the first half of the book, which argued against that reasoning. Of course, we can't really blame the author for the incoherence of the stated economic philosophies of politicians. Apparently when John Kennedy cuts taxes, it's Keynesian, and when Reagan does it, it's Hayekian.

For those who are not going to read this whole book, I also recommend the rap video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Mooi gebalanceerd boek, doet echt recht aan zowel Keynes als Hayek. Interessant op economisch, historisch en politiek vlak, maar geeft ook veel inzicht in Keynes en Hayek als personen en hoe hun levensloop hun economische en politieke ideeën heeft beïnvloed.

Enkele "leuke" quotes:

(1) Hayek over conservatisme:
Classical economists and conservatives do not fare much better than socialists and communists in Hayek’s stark analysis. He condemns the “wooden” advocates of free-market solutions, while rejecting conservatism, a devotion to existing institutions. “Though a necessary element in any stable society, [conservatism] is not a social program,” he wrote. “In its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never . . . appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."

(2) Hayek over conservatisme en liberalisme
“The conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are.”

(3) George Orwell over Hayek:
“Professor Hayek . . . does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them."

(4) Leuke quote van Truman
Truman had little interest in economics and little time for economists. He joked that he would like to meet a one-armed economist so he could not be told, “On the one hand, on the other.”

(5) John Kenneth Galbraith over Keynesianism
“Keynes was exceedingly comfortable with the economic system he so brilliantly explored,” observed Galbraith. “So the broad thrust of his efforts, like that of Roosevelt, was conservative; it was to help ensure that the system would survive. But such conservatism in the English-speaking countries does not appeal to the truly committed conservative. . . . Better to accept the unemployment, idled plants, and mass despair of the Great Depression, with all the resulting damage to the reputation of the capitalist system, than to retreat on true principle. . . . When capitalism finally succumbs, it will be to the thunderous cheers of those who are celebrating their final victory over people like Keynes.”

A well researched, wonderful bio of two powerful intellects. I'm very much a Keynesian at heart and I appreciate the warning Hayek have.

This book was fair to both men - though I think we all appreciate Keynes more as the economist and Hayek more as the philosopher. At least in terms of impact.

The author obviously struggled to give Hayek equal billing in this book, despite the vacancy of application, thought and proof in the Austrian's theories. There wasn't actually a clash between the two - there was some letter exchanges and a bit of reaching out by Keynes to help a newcomer to the field. But Hayek was obviously deferential to the founder of modern economic theory. It was only later in Hayek's career, after Keynes was gone that the Austrian pretended to take Keynes to task by mischaracterizing his economic theories and tilting at strawmen like a knight practicing for a joust which would only happen in his own mind.

Great and important book. Rewards the serious reader. Abstruse and half-digested economic jargon leaves it short of five stars.

This book does a good job in understanding the economics battle between Keynes and Hayek. Starting all the way from the beginning of their lives to the present day after the 2008 Financial Crisis. While there are times where I felt lost at some points given that I did not get much of the economic terminology or concepts, I still was very impressed with how good Wapshott did in describing the history of the feud between Keynes and Hayek.

Not for laymen in economics, or at least not this layman. It spends far too much time discussing in detail the sniping between Keynes and Hayek and not enough time actually breaking down the details of their theoretical disagreements in understandable terms.