1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16664/papolas-second-masterpiece/

Papola’s Second Masterpiece

April 28, 2011 by

This is brilliantly done.  Topic for discussion: what is Papola (who, it is clear now, is a creative genius) trying to say by structuring the outcome of the fight the way he does?

The way Hayek’s “Who plans for whom?” question is worked in as a lyric is superb. The question is the topic of an entire chapter in Road to Serfdom, which is the subject of an upcoming Mises Academy course.

{ 30 comments }

KK April 28, 2011 at 4:48 am

In the boxing metaphor, Keynes is declared the winner, but the crowd clearly supports Hayek, voicing their disapproval at the result. Likewise, following the [Congressional?] debate, Wall Street-Fed cronies, media, and politicians crowd around Keynes, but everyone else in the room crowds around Hayek. Both are meant to symbolize the growing popular appeal of free-market economics, and the continued adherence by those in power to Keynesian models and policies. Pretty simple, really.

I love these, they’re actual great music with an even better message. I just hope Mises gets his chance at some point.

KK April 28, 2011 at 4:59 am

Also, a lot of those who flock to Hayek are young, as economic sense is becoming more and more popular among the young, myself included.

Joe Peric April 28, 2011 at 7:02 pm

“In the boxing metaphor, Keynes is declared the winner, but the crowd clearly supports Hayek, voicing their disapproval at the result.”

Yes. Keynes lost the fight but won in terms of policy. I think it’s a metaphor for the Cambridge capital controversy. ;)

Salamanca34 April 28, 2011 at 5:54 am

Phenomenal! This needs to be seen by everyone!

Colin Phillips April 28, 2011 at 6:27 am

“Put away the wrenches, the economy’s organic” is an amazing line.

J. Murray April 28, 2011 at 6:55 am

The production value of these videos is amazing. Certainly puts a dagger in the heart of the concept that large budgets and IP is necessary to produce quality music and video productions.

Stephan Kinsella April 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm

zing

Art Carden April 28, 2011 at 8:33 am

I was going to post this, but Danny beat me to the punch. I was thinking about playing “spot the economist” in the video. I saw two–Duke economist/political scientist, frequent EconTalk guest, and fellow Wash U econ PhD Mike Munger as the security guard and Fayetteville State economist and Journal of Private Enterprise editor Ed Stringham as one of the reporters–and then someone pointed out that the gentleman portraying Mises is none other than Joe Salerno sans beard (which is why I didn’t recognize him). If you haven’t read Salerno’s postscript to “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” it’s phenomenal. Casting him as Mises was a stroke of genius that raised the new video to a whole new level of awesome.

Jeffrey April 28, 2011 at 8:36 am

Unbelievable. Fantastic. Papola is a genius.

By the way, Joe Salerno plays Mises in this video.

Chyd3nius April 28, 2011 at 8:55 am

700 likes and 300 views?

Nix April 28, 2011 at 9:00 am

The view count isn’t updated that frequently.

Tyrone Dell April 28, 2011 at 9:31 am

Oh wow. Oh wow wow wow.

Dick Fox April 28, 2011 at 10:01 am

I thought the first one was amazing but the second is even better. We are living in a new world and I love it. Keynes simply can’t stand much longer.

The Anti-Gnostic April 28, 2011 at 10:15 am

From a commenter here at Tyler Cowen’s site: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/04/keynes-vs-hayek-round-ii.html#comments

“Too slanted against Keynes.Here’s what Keynes should have said:

Liquidity preference determines money demand,
this simple fact you simply don’t understand.
Anxious investors hold an idle cash balance;
without loanable funds entrepreneurs can’t exercise their talents.
Investment is spending, don’t try to pretend,
that you support production while its partying I defend,
What’s truly irresponsible is letting jobless workers rot.
Expectations were shattered, real resources were not.”

Would appreciate some Austrian apologetics that can be worked into an appropriate rebuttal.

Nielsio April 28, 2011 at 10:46 am

The Economics of Legal Tender Laws (by Jörg Guido Hülsmann)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-xR-xB84XQ

Wandering Cynic April 28, 2011 at 11:32 am

Rebuttal? That’s easy. The US’s 40 year war on savers has helped drive the nation to the point that it is at now. Since the mid 1960s we’ve done everything Keynes could have hoped for. Gold and Silver are dead, debt is trendy and hip, we consume like no tomorrow, and personal savings rates are now bordering zero.

And what has this Keynesian dream accomplished? It turned what was once the envy of the world into a global laughing stock.

Joshua Park April 28, 2011 at 11:39 am

Liquidity preference determines money demand,
this simple fact you simply don’t understand.
Anxious investors hold an idle cash balance;
without loanable funds entrepreneurs can’t exercise their talents.
Investment is spending, don’t try to pretend,
that you support production while its partying I defend,
What’s truly irresponsible is letting jobless workers rot.
Expectations were shattered, real resources were not.

The liquid preference you speak of is a market function,
One that’s crowded and controlled like a railroad junction,
By the well-fed few at the central bank.
Unless the market picks the interest, the liquid is rank.
The resources wasted are empty lots and checkbooks,
False signals in the boom flashed by counterfeiting crooks.
Created from thin air, your currency doesn’t ease,
The average Joe’s life–it’s the bankers you please.

Kryx April 28, 2011 at 10:22 am

What about Russ Roberts? I enjoyed John’s presentation on the last video, but isn’t it like saying all the Beatle’s songs where written by Lennon rather than Lennon/McCartney . I enjoy the work Russ does with Econtalk and think it complements Mises.org.

Joshua Park April 28, 2011 at 11:13 am

So, you can see the lyrics at econstories.tv.

As I suspected, Hayek got more lines than Keynes. Our boy Fritz got 56; Johnny got 40. I don’t like that–it doesn’t seem fair. If Krugman had the creativity to craft a video like this and Keynes had that many more lines, then… well, we’d complain, wouldn’t we?

With a boxing metaphor, I know that each fighter doesn’t get x-number punches and a winner is declared. If that’s the point, I get it. I just wonder if it opens itself up to criticism.

That said, I liked the video a lot. Well-planned, produced, edited, cast, etc. (Who played the Bernank, by the way? Excellent beard chameleon!)

John James April 30, 2011 at 10:18 am

The Fed Chairman is credited as John Papola MD. I figured he’s Papola’s father.

Adam Berkowicz April 28, 2011 at 11:17 am

Josh,

Isn’t the point to show a different perspective on business cycles and recessions? Of course Hayek will get more lines; the video is made from an ardent supporter. I don’t see why it has to be balanced at all.

Augie April 28, 2011 at 11:46 am

Topic for discussion: what is Papola (who, it is clear now, is a creative genius) trying to say by structuring the outcome of the fight the way he does?

The referee bailed out the loser. No end to the costs.

Matthew Swaringen April 28, 2011 at 12:14 pm

What’s funny about the “it’s not balanced” argument is that how many places are you going to hear Hayek at all vs hearing of Keynes? You aren’t going to hear about Hayek in most public schools. You aren’t going to hear about him in most media. You are much more likely to hear of Friedman and even then compared to Keynes it’s not even close.

Also the number of lines “advantage” is a natural result of the fact that the free market case requires more time to make. The arguments for statism are simple, even if they are wrong.

sandre April 28, 2011 at 1:02 pm

creative genius.

Ohhh Henry April 28, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Keynes and Keynesianism are not the enemies. The people who follow in Keynes’ footsteps never acknowledge Keynes in public, nor do they refer to his theories, writings or speeches. Austrians recognize Keynes and his fallacies in the statements and policies that emanates from banks, governments and academia, but striking at Keynes is boxing with a shadow. Beating Keynes to a pulp proves nothing to non-Austrians because they have erased Keynes from history. So you beat up their grandfathers’ intellectual guru – so what? They’ll tell you, now it’s different.

As Mises pointed out, Keynes was not even an original thinker, but simply dressed up old fallacies in new terminology. AFAIK even Keynes’ terminology was dropped a long time ago, around the time when Keynes the man was forgotten. Keynes is just a forgotten milepost on a path of economic ruin which extends far, far back in history.

It would mean a lot more to non-Austrians if they could get a bead on their current antagonists – people like Bernanke. The public should be taught to associate Bernanke with the genocidal wars of the past 100 years which had “central bank inflation” written all over them. The clear relationship between debt, inflation and the collapse of civilizations should be emphasized, for example the clear link between currency debasement and the decline and fall of practically every empire in history. The enemy is not the befuddled and forgotten old geezer Keynes, but the clique of powerful people who throughout history have benefited from debt, inflation and war.

Franklin April 28, 2011 at 2:57 pm

Must quibble with you on this one, Ohhh. Heh, considering your namesake, I’d expect that witty and sardonic humor would be laudable!
I liked your “boxing with a shadow” metaphor and, fundamentally, you are right. Keynes’ mumbo-jumbo was little more than elitist rationalization for economic buttinskies, those who would hold the Mario Puzo-like puppet strings — and not much more ethical ones, either.

To me, this video provokes questions about the nature of banking and its twisted relation to inhumane, armed bedlam. Worth a second look.

Jim P. April 28, 2011 at 6:49 pm

I think this is a fine point. If you asked Bernanke supporters, they’d probably have only vaguely heard of Keynes. For example – ever heard the word “Keynes” on CNN? You never will, either. Government is able to follow the Keynesian line by simply distancing itself from it and never really bringing its fallacies up for discussion, but following it nonetheless. Only libertarians are interested in the history of ideas – nobody else gives a damn.

John James April 30, 2011 at 10:32 am

While you have a point, I don’t think the video is misguided at all. As little as people know or care about real economics, they want to know that there are “real economists” (read: “experts”) backing what the government does. They need to believe that while they themselves might not have a clue, there are the smartest people in the world, who know all the ends and outs, that are advising these policies and guiding the course of action.

And when people look for that verification the first name they’ll find is Keynes. The people who support the government policies are “Keynesians” after all. And while you might not hear actual names mentioned on CNN, you will hear terms like “aggregate demand” and “stimulus”. They talk about “GDP” and “liquidity traps” and all the other nonsense that can find its popular roots in Keynes. And the name is famous enough that it can ring enough of a bell that people feel comfortable in their appeal to authority as they hand off all intellectual responsibility to “the experts”.

Obviously Keynes is just the posterboy…the lyrics are the important thing because those are the ideas that are being presented and argued. But you need to have a platform and messenger. And the battle of Hayek and Keynes is a perfect one.

Keep em coming, Papola.

Bruce Koerber April 28, 2011 at 4:14 pm

High School And College Econ Students: Hayek Or Keynes?

If your teacher is obsolete please politely share this video with him or her.

And then “tear the house down!!!” Investigate for yourself Austrian economics and expose the economic fallacies of the economics taught by the government-funded ‘educational’ institutions!

Dave Rose May 1, 2011 at 8:07 pm

My economics study was a long time ago, so forgive if this is incorrect, but I seem to remember that “Keynesians” and the policies followed under that moniker don’t necessarily reflect what Keynes actually said? It was a distortion of one part of his theory, wasn’t it?
Second point – I also seem to remember that Keynes advocated that governments should build up reserves during booms (ie – limit the boom by raising taxes etc), and then spend more to alleviate the effects during recession (ie spend the taxes raised during the boom). OK, you can argue about how a government knows exactly how much and when to do that etc, but my point is that Governments now just spend in booms, spend in recessions, and print money to cover it all(or ‘quantitiavely ease’ it into the system). Not sure Keynes would have approved of that!
btw – I’m definitely on the Hayek side of the theoretical debate, just seeking to clarify the Keynes side … glad to be corrected by someone closer to the texts – like I said, it’s been a long time.
Video is great – should be watched in every economics class!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: