This has been my life’s work for the past year is partnership with Russ Roberts and my Emergent Order partners Josh and Lisa. Be sure to visit EconStories.tv, the web portal for this and more economics done right. I think I can safely say that “Fight of the Century” is far and away the best thing I’ve ever created in my entire career so far…
…but what the hell do I know?
Congratulations on the video!
Brilliant. Thank you.
Fantastic job! Well-written. Nicely filmed (filmed? digitized?) Briskly edited. Love the subtle (and not-so-subtle) allusions and inferences!
Absolutely stellar work. This kind of stuff is hard enough to communicate clearly in a paper, let alone in verse.
The real question is why Keynes continues to entice – I think it’s because these ideas provide us with the illusion that we are masters of fates, that we can design what we so little understand, if you’ll pardon the expression.
Do you think the enticement might make more sense if people who to appreciate Keynes generally see him quite differently than he’s presented here?
Understand that the “Keynes” and “Hayek” presented here are our best effort to combine our understanding of both men in particular and in general with the most recent arguments made by modern proponents in each tradition.
This is not a historical piece. It’s modern argument made manifest as a film.
Daniel, I find your interpretation of Keynes quite unique. I look forward to a more extensive conversation about it so that we can discover where our real differences exist.
Mine is no different from DeLong, Krugman, or any number of other modern Keynesians. Not a single modern and very few past Keynesians (Lerner, Klein, etc. may be important exceptions) – are advocates of central planning as you present in the video.
You need to stop pretending I’m some kind of unique perspective on this. Karl Smith – no minor figure in the blogosphere – said much the same thing. You can’t throw “which way should we choose – more bottom up or more top down?” in there and not expect us to say “WTF is he talking about?”.
Like I’ve said in several places – it’s a fantastic video, and very enjoyable. But the fact that it’s quite enjoyable doesn’t magically make us advocates of top-down solutions or central planning.
We don’t see eye to eye, my friend. If you think keynesianism isn’t top down, both methodologically and in practice, I just don’t know what to say. Keynes himself said that his theory was more easily adapted to a totalitarian state, Daniel. It’s a fundamentally top-down, over-aggregated approach. “Economics” without people or prices. I appreciate your gracious praise of the video none the less and your efforts to engage other ideas and opponents.
On the German foreword: http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2010/07/keyness-foreword-to-german-edition-of.html
Absolutely beautiful.
I was blown away by the quality of your production on this music video! I’m not sure what your views on Ron Paul are, but seeing as his economic views lean towards Hayek/the Austrian School of Economics… I would like to see you work with Ron Paul for his 2012 campaign advertisements. I would love to donate knowing that a production team like YOURS would do amazing things for Ron Paul’s campaign. Which way should we choose?
more bottom up or more top down..
-Joe
Thank you so much for doing this – it is important.
I saw this first, this morning at breakfast, on one of NZs popular political blogs.
Among the comments are at least one teacher/lecturer who mentions “Fear the boom and bust” and asks for more.
Well Done Papola…Well. Done.
Well Done Papola…Well. Done.
Hi John,
I know what I like in economies and what I don’t like. I consider myself to be VERY liberal. I read that Hayek was embraced by Ronnie Raygun and Bush. Keynes was embraced prior to Reagan. This point seems to have me confused. I watched the video and found myself rooting for Hayek, but I don’t like the way things have gone since Reagan took over. It could be that the video portrays Hayek as anti-establishment (Keynes being declared the winner, fawned over, while Hayek gets the rubber glove). Can you help me understand, I clearly am missing a point…
That said the video was really well done! Both sides given a shot, entertaining, a good melody to the chorus, etc…
Thanks for connecting, Bedazio, and for being open enough to ask questions like this that don’t confirm your priors. Hayek is not a conservative and neither Reagan nor Bush were Hayekians (or advancers of smaller government). George W Bush and his cronies were big keynesians. Huge. How else can one explain “deficits don’t matter”, coming out of Dick Cheney.
Hayek and the Austrian economists are absolutely in favor of laissez faire, as am I, but because they are part of the LIBERAL tradition. They are reformers who believe in change and dynamism and see state intervention as a force which inherently serves the status quo. They are radical social reformers in the broad liberal tradition. I believe the evidence is quite compelling on that front. To that end, it was liberals who began the deregulation of some industries in the USA and in other countries during the 1970s. Carter was a bigger deregulator than Reagan, I believe. Austrians believe that “creative destruction” is the engine of prosperity, which is why failed firms should be allowed to fail and, if necessary, liquidate so that new entrepreneurs can step in.
Statism isn’t liberal. Not in the broader sense. The liberals like John Stuart Mill rejected the European monarchs and state-protected oligarchs. It was the conservative statists who transformed into socialist and later “progressives”. Hoover and FDR’s administrations were both very skeptical of small business and entrepreneurial competition. They saw big corporations as more “efficient” because all that competition and failure looked so messy from the top down.
Keynesianism as practiced in reality empowers the top-down forces of the unelected administrative state. This is a conservative force which is easily and instantly captured by big, moneyed, politically connected firms. Government spending flows into the big incumbents. Attempting to maintain “aggregate demand” through government spending as people adapt to changes (like buying smaller houses and fewer cars so that they can pay down their debts) ends up padding the pockets of, well, you’ve seen it. GM. Goldman Sachs. The big guys.
Why is there so little criticism from the American Keynesian “left” of the Federal Reserve and it’s obviously corrupt dealings with the “broker dealers”? Because it’s still part of that same thread. Big government is a magnifier of big business. Always has been.
I’m happy to go back and forth with you at length about this if you’d like. I consider myself today to be a liberal in that classical tradition. Here are a bunch of links that I think will help you:
“Why I am not a conservative” by F. A. Hayek:
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46
“Keynes was really a Conservative” by former Reagan aide, Bruce Bartlett:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/13/john-maynard-keynes-conservative-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
“Libertarian Left” by Sheldon Richman:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/libertarian-left/
“The Unacknowledged success of Neoliberalism” by Scott Sumner
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html
Maybe I’m coming at you with too much stuff. Sorry about that. You cracked open the door and I had to try.
Hi Bedazio,
Great question! I agree that this video can be confusing for someone unfamiliar with Hayek. I was educated in Keynesian economics at U.C. Santa Cruz, but have since abandoned that world view. Two years ago I started a similar journey as John did a few years before me, in listening to Econtalk and along the way, I ran into many confusing lessons. Like most humans, I found it difficult to give up my strongly held beliefs and found that it took repeated exploration to figure out where I stood. I’m still learning and still find it difficult to accept some of the information that I come across in my on going journey into economics. John and Russ are two of your best sources for learning about this stuff. One of the most valuable skills that I’ve learned from both of them is how to talk about this stuff without causing an argument. You seem to already have that part down!
Hayek is not the best place to start learning about this stuff. You’ll find a guru that suits you – start there, but keep an eye on Russ Roberts.
At some point in the future you may enjoy this interview with F.A. Hayek: http://vimeo.com/4063439
I watched it for the first time about a year ago and this quotation has stuck with me ever since. I’ve read it over and over, first to understand it and now to make me feel better when I encounter things in the world that hurt me.
“Altruism is an instinct that we’ve inherited from the small society where we know for whom we work, for whom we serve. When you pass from this, as I like to call, from a concrete society where we are guided by what we see, to an abstract society which far transcends our range of vision, it becomes necessary that we are guided not by the knowledge of the effect of what we do, but by abstract symbols. Now the only symbol which tells us where we can make the best contribution is profit. In fact by pursuing profit we are as altruistic as we can possibly be because we extend our concern to people who are beyond our range of personal conception. This is the condition which makes it possible to even produce what I call an extended order, an order which is not determined by our aim, by our knowing what are the most urgent means, but by impersonal mechanisms who by a system of communication which puts a label on certain things which is wholly impersonal. Now it’s exactly this where the conflict between the traditional moral, which is not altruistic which emphasizes private property and the instinctive moral, which is altruistic comes in constant conflict. The very tradition from a concrete society where each serves the needs of other people whom he knows to an extended, abstract society where most people serve the needs of others whom they do not know, whose existence they are not even aware was only made possible by the abandonment of altruism and solidarity as the main guiding factors, which I admit are still the main factors dominating our instincts, and, but restrains our instincts is the tradition of private property, and the family, the two traditional rules of morals, which are in conflict with instinct.” F.A. Hayek
Good luck Bedazio!
Scott G
http://www.studiohayek.com
This video is important work. Thank you. Here is my response: http://maximumbrooks.com/2011/04/30/musings-on-economics-and-society-aka-my-most-strident-and-political-post-yet/
My family loves both your videos! My 8 and 10 year olds are learning economic theory, it’s great. So is that your dad as Ben Bernanke in “Fight of the Century?” I noticed the same last name. Keep up the great work!
I love that your kids are in to our videos. Thank you. Yes, Ben Bernanke is my father!
John, you’re brilliant. Great work.
Thanks, Lee. It’s a team effort. Lots of good minds and talents, especially Russ, Lisa and Josh.
Bah! Quit deflecting my compliments onto others — this “humility” isn’t fooling anyone, y’know.
John, this is awesome. More please. This is the stuff that gets things changed for the better.
I saw below where people’s kids like the video. Mine do too! I can’t wait to explain it to them when they get a bit older. This video will reach people across the spectrum, which is what we need. Our government schools dumb us down so much that we must make these ideas accessible. Thank you again!
John, I put a link to this on my blog in a piece titled “The Most Important Video Ever?” If it garners more interest in extremely important and fundamental matters that receive little consideration from most. Your work is very important, and very much needed. Thank you.
Hello Mr. Papola,
today I’ve read an article about your new video “The fight…” in the major newspaper in Sapin, El Pais. I liked the idea behind it and I ‘ve followed the story clicking links. I was quite amazed about the use of storytelling, and the combination of transmedia and storytelling in order to help students understand basic concepts of economy trough popular culture remixes, to say it so. I’m very interested in politics, culture theory, activism, philosophy and other issues, which I try to read and blog about when I’m not working (or even:) as a creative director for a little digital agency in Barcelona.Well, all this introduction was only intended to tell you that I’ve posted a little article entitled “the eficency of transmedia storytelling” which you can find (well, in Spanish, but maybe Google translate will do…) my blog: http://loungecollective.blogspot.com.
I hope you can take a look at it. That’s all.
Congratulations for your great work!
Best regards,
Pau Todó
Wow, who sez economics has to be boring? Very entertaining, first-rate production values, catchy tune, informative lyrics. Bravo, Mr. Papola, and congrats to everyone involved on a job well done.
Will we see any videos regarding Adam Smith’s theories? These videos are great!
I want to thank you (John Papola) and Russ Roberts for putting this video together. I would like to consider myself and educated man, but I never heard of FA Hayek until I saw this video.
F.A. Hayek explains the current problems a lot better than John Keynes. Further, in my opinion, Keynesian economics justifies government intervention into the economy. This leads to problems in the economy.
John,
I’ve enjoyed your collaborations with Russ Roberts and the EconTalk interview was great. The best part was your insistance on the importance of Say’s Law of Markets. The fact that you are not a trained economist was a huge plus here. Russ is one of a few formal economists I respect, but even he doubted or missed the importance of Say’s Law. You deserve some kind of award for reviving this issue as the key difference between classical economics and Keynesiansim. I learned about Say’s Law via another self-trained economist, Jude Wanniski. Here’s my favorite piece on the issue: http://www.polyconomics.com/ssu/ssu-971003.htm
Your brief description of the issue in the EconTalk piece was beautiful.
The combination of point, counterpoint debate with a catchy tune to aid memory is a powerful teaching tool. I must admit I did not understand what they were saying in the chorus, but I have audio issues.
Did you ever think that your bus rides from NJ would lead to a debate at the LSE?
Have you seen the Praxgirl videos on you tube that teach praxeology? http://www.youtube.com/user/praxgirl#p/u/3/Nx_Rz0jDo80
It is a good attempt, but lacks effect of the music video. This may be a area for you and Russ to ponder.
Keep up the great work.
Hey man, my
name is Hugo Ary, I’m from Brazil then sorry
for my english.
I
found your work too
good.
I like economy, philosophy
and rap, even though my
college did not have
anything to do
with it. I do medicine, but I watch yesterday
your first video about twenty times and went to study each concept on the
internet. I’ve heard of those economic
phenomena, but as a fan of rap I have to confess that
it was a masterpiece
Anyway I’m just here to give positive
feedback.
Congrats.
Wow, thanks Hugo. That’s a great compliment.
john papola | creative director + co-founder | emergent order
web – http://emergentorder.com