For the record, I agree 100 percent with Daniel Kuehn over what parts of Krugmans’ recent posts people should focus on the most. But, I just couldn’t help looking past Krugman’s retelling of the Hayek v. Keynes debate,
Or think about the economics rap video of Keynes versus Hayek everyone had fun with. Never mind that back in the 30s nobody except Hayek would have considered his views a serious rival to those of Keynes; the real shock should be, what happened to Friedman?
It’s true that framing Keynes versus Hayek in the same way as Barcelona versus Real Madrid (or Boston versus L.A., I guess) is misleading. There were many other well-known and important economists at the time who had the same, or even more, weight than Hayek. Names that come to mind: Hawtrey, Cassel, Kahn, Hicks, Robinson, Robertson, et cetera.
But, none of this takes away from the fact that Hayek’s views were serious rivals to those of Keynes, and that they were considered so by many of their peers. Otherwise, Keynes wouldn’t have drafted Sraffa into his debate with Hayek, and Hayek wouldn’t have received so much attention from Kaldor, Hicks, Knight, Pigou, et cetera (yes, the list does go on). In fact, it was expected of Hayek to stand as a significant intellectual opponent to Keynes, because this is one of the major reasons why Robbins had invited Hayek to the LSE in the first place. Finally, Hayek made such an impression on his peers that, around the time that Hicks wrote his reflections on the IS/LM model, Hicks was also involved in developing his “Neo-Austrian” theory of capital (Capital and Time).