Uploaded by EconStories on Apr 27, 2011
"Fight of the Century" is the new economics hip-hop music video by John Papola and Russ Roberts at http://EconStories.tv.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession ended almost two years ago, in the summer of 2009. Yet we're all uneasy. Job growth has been disappointing. The recovery seems fragile. Where should we head from here? Is that question even meaningful? Can the government steer the economy or have past attempts helped create the mess we're still in?
In "Fight of the Century", Keynes and Hayek weigh in on these central questions. Do we need more government spending or less? What's the evidence that government spending promotes prosperity in troubled times? Can war or natural disasters paradoxically be good for an economy in a slump? Should more spending come from the top down or from the bottom up? What are the ultimate sources of prosperity?
Keynes and Hayek never agreed on the answers to these questions and they still don't. Let's listen to the greats. See Keynes and Hayek throwing down in "Fight of the Century"!
Starring Billy and Adam from http://www.billyandadam.com
Visit http://www.econstories.tv for the full lyrics.
- 11,979 likes, 151 dislikes
-
Suggestions
- 1:41Added to queue Darth Vader vs Hitler. Epic Rap Battles of Hi...by nicepeter22,926,060 views
Featured Video
- 10:04Added to queue Hayek vs. Keynes Sequel Sneak Peek at The Econo...by EconStories153,526 views
- 4:53Added to queue "The Cluster of Errors" - The Austrian Theory ...by EconStories23,189 views
- 7:30Added to queue "The Bust" - The Austrian Theory of Boom and B...by EconStories26,080 views
- 7:33Added to queue "Fear the Boom" - The Austrian Theory of Boom ...by EconStories31,050 views
- 5:10Added to queue Hayek on Keynesby Malthus0145,565 views
- 2:36Added to queue Einstein vs Stephen Hawking -Epic Rap Battles o...by nicepeter14,431,445 views
- 7:33Added to queue Keynes vs. Hayek: "Fear the Boom and Bust" (su...by papapepepenultimo42,983 views
- 2:54Added to queue I'm in Love with Friedrich Hayekby DORIANELECTRA81,592 views
- 6:48Added to queue Quantitative Easing Explainedby malekanoms4,670,953 views
- 5:01Added to queue Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom' in Five Minutesby theroadtoserfdom60,092 views
- 9:37Added to queue Keynes vs. Hayek: Late Economists' Rap Battleby SolmanClassroom8,035 views
- 10:47Added to queue The Brilliance of That Hayek vs. Keynes Rap | b...by LibertyInOurTime1,462 views
- 2:52Added to queue "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap...by MannViola2,181 views
- 27:36Added to queue Radical Economics: Yo Hayek!by Malthus02,426 views
- 1:02:47Added to queue College Conspiracyby InflationUS1,099,391 views
- 10:10Added to queue Keynes vs Hayek: Walka Stulecia napisy_PLby MisesInstitutePL19,458 views
- 8:56Added to queue Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek!by nick104632,323 views
- 49:12Added to queue Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression ...by misesmedia121,269 views
- 7:33Added to queue Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem - con sottotitoli i...by usemlab18,617 views
@g4macdad I answered all your questions, by the way, though I won't tell you who I'm voting for until you give me your 'take' on these economic theories.
@TDonnelly1989 Nuclear energy+ electric car? These technologies are a reality.
@g4macdad And I don't see how my 'lack of answers' proves this is just GOP propaganda. I didn't make this video. I am not Hayek, nor am I Keynes. You don't seem to have a very solid grip on reality. Do you even know who Keynes and Hayek are? Do you even know what the Austrians stand for or are you just here to open everyone's mind to the "PROPAGANDA" of a completely legitimate economic theory of the 20th century?
@BenFranklinFan I beg your pardon? I think you have the wrong guy. I was making a different point. You are absolutely right though.
@g4macdad I don't remember any 'take' of yours. You just say PROGANDA GOP LIES. The only things I've actually heard you suggest is to cut the military, but you are delusional if you think the Democrats are going to do this. They've EXPANDED the war, you dolt. Obama resigned the Patriot Act. But why acknowledge this? You would rather blame it all on the GOP, but keep in mind they are not the only assholes in power. Our Democrat president could bring all the troops home tomorrow if he wanted.
@TDonnelly1989 Yeah, you can put spaces in arbitrary spots though, or other modifiers to bypass the filter.
@ektrules You make a good point, especially since many people have paid into these programs and have planned their lives around them. However, if our creditors stop loaning to us, these people might be even worse off under austerity measures.
As for defense, it shouldn't matter if it puts people out of work. We don't have a military to keep people employed, we have it to protect our nation. Anything more than what we need is superfluous and should be cut. Otherwise, it's just another bubble.
@ektrules Private insurance is expensive because of government interference, which has created huge distortions in the healthcare markets. In a free market, consumers could purchase plans tailored to their needs and their budget. Mandates force people to buy coverage they don't want/need, prohibitions on selling insurance across state lines reduces competition, and tax policy turned employers into defacto purveyors of health insurance, pushing the individual consumer out of the equation.
@ektrules Fed Law prevents states from buying and selling H.Ins across state line which is a large part of why admin costs are high. States should be allowed to choose access to national plans or not. Then let the elderly parents be put on family insurance plans as dependents with a small subsidy and/or FICA credit. Creating a new Gov Run program to save one going bankrupt is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
Canada is short on docs too because of SPS. US is 40% SPS.
@TullyRiven They don't. I'm just saying that taking care of the elderly is expensive, will always take up a significant portion of GDP, and there's really no way to get around paying for them. Private insurance is more expensive than Medicare, and every country with a single-payer system has even cheaper health care. So, to me, it seems like if we want to save costs, dumping everyone into private insurance wouldn't be the way to go. IMO, the biggest problem is we need more doctors.
@ektrules How do running structural deficits causing ever-increasing debts help anyone? It will either need to be supported by increasingly onerous tax increases that will ultimately shrink revenue and burden families or we continue to monetize the debt driving up prices making the inflation adjusted payment to senior less. Maybe my “out of the box” reform wouldn’t work or maybe it’s just too complicated to work out in 500 letters. The status quo is everyone jumping off the cliff like lemmings
@AnarchisThinker -something that a lot of us can agree: Spending cuts would affect the poor the most initially. Whether prolonged poverty or better lives ensues for that group would be another issue. So what is it about destroying the middle class and "fake" spending cuts into systems already bloated and beginning to run into deficits that connects?
@AnarchisThinker Military spending AND SS and Medicare need to be cut. USA spends a lot of money on those areas. What I was trying to imply is that the big problem, looking at spending-wise, would be SS and Medicare, not Military spending. And what do you mean by either real spending cuts or destroying the middle class? ALL actual spending cuts that took place in history, or at least if they did at all, would be considered real. And I thought that cuts for spending hurt the poor more, something-
@g4macdad For the first part, the reply was made at the amount the person I replied to wanted to cut. He only went so far as to explain that amount of money, not the trillions that you said. And I never stated that it wasn't important to cut the military spending out, it IS still a big amount. But what I worry most is the big bubbles called SS and Medicare that, being based on the pay-go system, along with having the politicians to take surpluses out of it to use for other projects.
@plonski749 A capitalist holds it dearly to decrease the amount of regulations that restrict free trade between businesses. The whole 1980s century was taken by Republicans, the group you guys say that are decreasing the regulations and are the ones responsible for the messes. You can check it out for yourself: For the 1980s, there was a rate of increase in regulation papers from Federal government. It has been this way since the 1950s.
if there is a medicare it makes the free private insurances prices varie. You see if I start pumping money on the public one from people and it doesnt even need to work it chews down the private ones. That is also why usually private sector reduces costs compared to public. Also the high risk of the people with power to give nice safejobs from the private sector to their friends and relatives.
@TullyRiven How would children providing for their parents instead of through Medicare and SS reduce costs? That would just transfer the costs from the commons (FICA) directly to the kids. Not to mention that Medicare is cheaper than private insurance.
@joepeeler34 "Of course govt. enforced private property rights. ... You just claim I did." Where exactly did I make such a claim? I wasn't the one who jumped into an argument I didn't understand. Once again the question is what's necessary to understand the ideas in question. Not whether they are true, moral intelligent or otherwise. Marx got an awful lot wrong, but those who implemented his ideas got it wrong as well. People like you whose identity is based on ideology.
bahaha Hayek is tapping his foot along with Keynes at 5:39
@ektrules Before Med and SS elderly parents were cared for by their children. They would help with the home and children providing lessons about family and tradition. It was mutually beneficial for all concerned. Reduce FICA for families that care for their parents to provide incentives and use the balance to help elderly without children willing or able to provide for them. It would dramatically reduce costs and restore family cohesion.