Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics

** Disclaimer - Am a classical economist and prefer Austrian economics to Keynes remedies. ***

Unlike many economist authors, this author is unbiased and lays it out factually.
His ability to separate opinion from facts makes the book easy to digest. Hats off to the author.
His first brilliant assessment that Keynes talks about Macro while Hayek talks about Micro economics sets the stage and expectations that the two shall never compete on an equal platform.
Next, he walks us through each personal life, although i feel he explored and criticized Hayek's personal life more than Keynes.
The success of Keynes and how governments devoured his advice of intervention is elucidated clearly. I can now see how the world fell into his enthrall (and his ability of public speak).
Hayek's greatest weakness and the classical school's weakness was its extreme insistence on laissez faire to the point of being cruel.
Add to that, Hayek's inability as a public speaker. If probably Hayek were like President Reagan, we would have seen a Hayekian world now. Sadly Keynes was a better preacher.
The first Great conflict between Hayek and Keynes as criticism of Keynes's first book makes for interesting reading, anecdotally.
Keynesian economics assumes that the economy is a fragile thing, one that involves constant tweaking by the State. This automatically assumes that entrepreneurship is guided by the hand of the State. Keynes does not explain business cycles and why they happen. Instead he talks about how to spend yourself out of recession. However, the Great Depression was becoming a past thing by 1936 as the author noted, before keynes remedies were fully applied.
Hayek assumes that the economy is a living, breathing sentient being which can find its own path through the judgements and decisions of millions of entrepreneurs who make them. Much like the millions of cells in a human body.
Hayek proves that State intervention skews up the investment judgements made by individual investors and thus forces them to make bad judgements.
That may be true, but when an economy is in a slump, Hayek prescribes doom and despair to Keynes's optimistic approach.
In short, a book worth reading.

I was primarily interested in a discussion of the economic issues, where the economists agreed, where they disagreed, and how Hayek and Keynes changed their opinions over time.The book assumed more knowledge of the issues than I have, and while, making the positions of the economists clear, it did not help me understand the reasoning behind their conclusions. Nor did I get a clear understanding of how - and why- their positions changed over time.On the other hand, the biographies of not only Hayek and Keynes, but of their contemporaries - and the setting of their lives in the events of their times - were fascinating. I was especially impressed with the portrayal of Herbert Spencer, the Webbs, and Alfred Lord Marshall. The portrayal of the Austrian school was weaker but still made profitable listening.This work was both enjoyable and profitable. I expect to listen to it again.

This book does a good job of covering the battle between the theories of Keynes and Hayek, and reveals some insights into our 20th century presidents' economic ideas, successes and failures.

This is an excellent book describing the lives of the two most important economists of the XXth Century, Their debate on ideas forged the future events to this day.

The chronological story helps the reader to understand the impact of specific conferences, papers or books in the ongoing debate

Magnificent English for a non-English speaker

Yes, although I did not have the time to do it

An interesting read, but perhaps CLASH was the wrong word.

The story of two giants of their time, but the book is far more a history then a compelling story. Not high marks, yet if this subject matter is in your realm of interests I would recommend it, if you are new to economics then wishlist for later.