“Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Wasn’t Keynes gay? I mean, what’s he doing with all those chicks in the video?

Buying them drinks? Flirting and dancing with them? and all the while he has no desire to get physical with them…?

I guess its another lesson in this video. Keynesianism leads to Malinvestment!

Here’s Hayek in another video.. that was featured today on youtube front page.

Not very funny.. just weird

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg4b3SIwDfc

you are right about the english speaking world ignoring Hayek. But fortunately in German the complete works of Hayek are underway to be in a really nice edition by the “Mohr-Verlag” in Tübingen. So you could read them – which does not stop the German gouvernment from ignoring any implication of Hayeks ideas.

That’s not entirely accurate. First, you’ve mistaken case law as matters of fact. Case law is determined by lawyers and judges, legal code is written by the legislative branch. Reality most frequently goes against such determinations. Just because a court decided that credit is just a book keeping entry doesn’t mean it is.

In our economy, credit IS money. When you receive your paycheck, does it signify what portion of it is real money and what portion was created due to the fractional reserve system? Would you even accept it if it was actually broken down that way? If your paycheck came in and it was broken down at 10% in Dollars and 90% in bank credit, which is roughly the ratio out there right now? I’m sure you’d have a fit and complain to Congress to regulate the ever lovin’ H*** out of it. But that’s what you’re being paid in, 10% of the actual value of your job plus 90% in credit for something that doesn’t exist.

It then gets exasperated when you deposit this in your bank. In accounting terminology, a credit is a reduction of assets, a debit is an increase of assets. This is why it’s called credit. Not becuase the individual taking out a loan is recieving credit (though his liabilities side is being credited in accounting vernacular), but becuase YOUR cash account is being credited, 90% of your 10% real money and the 90% accumulated credit money to be exact.

Money is not defined as Dollars. It’s just one source of money used in America. Credit is money because it is traded for real goods and services. Credit is denominated in Dollars, but this only goes to confuse individuals as to what credit really is, as is shown by your request to correct something that is already correct.

Another great touch that really puts it into perspective are the quotes made by both Keynes and Hayek at the end of the video. Those quotes show the importance economic theory holds over us all. From the politician right down to the individual we all are affected just as we see from the latest Keynesian real estate bust.

It is a pity that this video spreads and does not correct a factual error in Hayek’s work.

The error is evident in the words: “The boom starts with an expansion of credit. The new money is confused with real, loanable funds”. Any dictionary will show that credit and money are different. It is not “new money” that is confused with real loanable funds, it is credit!

For centuries, so called ‘fractional reserve’ banks have pretended to lend funds when all they did ans still do is give credit. That is the essence of a fraud maintained, since at least 1968, by corporate media suppression of facts. In Dec 1968 the President [Lawrence V. Morgan] of the First National Bank of Montgomery testified that his bank’s claim for title to the defendant’s property by foreclosing his bank’s mortgage was based on a bookkeeping entry and not on any loan of money. Documented
details of the case are available in the Minnesota law library.

It is not clear if Keynes was also a victim of the fraud, but it is possible that he was!

Can we get Roberts and Papola to release a short correction? How, and more importantly, how do we get it to go viral?

“…already?”

Ha!

Unfortunately, speaking as one who started studying economics in the early 1980s and again in the late 90s, this debate received no meaningful airtime in my faculties ( Rhodes and Unisa respectively). The entire macroeconic and monetary economics courses were narrowly cast in terms of the monetarist/Keynesian debate, where theconcept of intervention was axiomatic, and th eonly debate was what kind of intervention should be undertaKen. Which, with hindsight, is I suppose about as enlightening as a politics curriculum framed in Stalinist vs Maoist terms.

Seriously – these times are the opportunity we’ve all been waiting for.

http://statismwatch/tag/economics

“It’s, like — legit.”

You are exactly correct. That is the major flaw of Commanding Heights, and precisely the reason why I preceeded it with the two Mises Institute videos which focused upon monetary control by central banking authorities and Austrian business cycle theory.