[KR328] Keiser Report: Frankenmarkets and Austrian Economics

In this episode, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss unknown people whose solvency is uncertain operating faster than the speed of light in the “franken-market” and Max Keiser asks, “what if a high frequency trading algo bot shrugged?” In the second half of the show, Max Keiser talks to Sandeep Jaitly of feketeresearch.com about the real Austrian economics of Carl Menger versus the fake Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises. They also discuss how Ben Bernanke’s confusion about what money, how central banks are leading us into a second dark age and gold as the ultimate exinguisher of credit. Max and Sandeep also highlight the reason why rehypothecation in London is fraud. And, finally, Max hopes Lew Rockwell watches and learns.

KEISER: Hi I’m Max Keiser, time now to go to London and talk with Sandeep Jaitly of BullionBasis.com. Sandeep lectures throughout the world on Austrian Economics. Sandeep, welcome back to the Keiser Report.

JAITLY: Thanks very much, Max.

KEISER: Sandeep, I wanted to get you back on because you tweeted recently and I quote, “If it ain’t Menger or his direct student Eugene Von BB, it ain’t Austrian. Sorry #Mises : respectfully, too many mistakes were made.” Now the reason I wanted you to comment on this is that many Americans consider themselves Austrian school libertarians, but most will be following Mises. What are his mistakes?

**** UPDATED WITH TRANSCRIPT BELOW THE FOLD *** 

JAITLY: I think his mistakes are probably too great to elaborate on sort of on the show, but essentially Mises didn’t look back to Menger’s original axiom which was that value is not outside of your own consciousness. And he didn’t observe what Menger observed about market action in the sense that there are always two prices, there’s a bid and an offer. And von Mises didn’t like to admit that interest was a market phenomenon. He sort of wanted to imply that it’s a sort of natural consequence of not having a present good basically. So to develop a theory of interest without going back to Menger’s original observations is not continuing the tradition in the Austrian way as we would see it. It’s not insulting or denigrating what von Mises has done. He was certainly the greatest economists of the twentieth century. It’s just that he made a slight, few errors of observation. That’s all.

KEISER: Well, the reason why this is interesting and I’m bringing it up here is that this idea that value does not exist outside of mankind’s consciousness, this is pretty much the opposite of objectivism which is Ayn Rand’s philosophy . . .

JAITLY: Yes.

KEISER: . . . to which many American libertarians adhere and they cite von Mises as their justification . . .

JAITLY: Yes.

KEISER: . . . so this idea of objectivism is diametrically opposed to the true Austrian School of Economics . . .

JAITLY: Absolutely.

KEISER: . . . so that would be a fundamental flaw in any so-called libertarian’s philosophy.

JAITLY: Absolutely. And the amount of guff that you read that tries to associate itself with Austrian economics and Ayn Rand . . . I mean, it’s remarkable. Von Mises himself made the mistake of confusing the thing that occupies and object with the object itself. So he made the mistake of saying that a promise to gold is exactly the same as the object of a promise to gold. And if you stop and sort of think about it, that isn’t quite true. And the same applies for the whole philosophy of Austrian economics generally. Gold does not have intrinsic value per se. It has value because it satisfies human ends and it’s the means by which those ends are satisfied. It doesn’t have value in and of itself and that’s a big mistake that a lot of libertarians or people who call themselves ‘libertarian’ make.

KEISER: Right, I wanted to also ask your thoughts on what I call ‘fake libertarianism’ because you hear a lot of folks in the US who ascribe to von Mises – purportedly – but they’re actually when you scratch the surface more of the fake libertarian variety. And this comes up quite noticeably – this I would imagine is related to price discovery and what you’re talking about bid-offer and interest rates – they don’t include certain externalities, the actual use of force, which, of course, would be against the whole idea of libertarianism . . .

JAITLY: Oh yeah.

KEISER: . . . to realise an economic gain. So, in other words, when you have companies that are supposedly free market who are in the oil business and they don’t include the externalities of the pollution that they’re creating or the cost of that pollution, they are by force subjecting other people downstream to deal with the consequences and, in many cases, deadly consequences of the force of those externalities being pushed on those people. So again, a major failure by libertarianism . . .

JAITLY: Yes.

KEISER: . . . if, in fact, it’s supposed to be associated with these ideas of von Mises and free markets, etc. What are your thoughts?

JAITLY: Max, I don’t want to paint a bad picture of von Mises. I mean, it’s a perfectly honest mistake to make, confusing the object with the ends that it is satisfying. But it’s not a mistake that I expected someone like von Mises to weave into his economic theory so masterfully. So that’s all I will say on von Mises.

KEISER: Okay, well if you strip these things away from the current crop of libertarians in the US that are informing the Ayn Rand school, the Paul Ryans who are now on the Republican ticket, they’re not really libertarians.

JAITLY: No.

KEISER: They’re not really Austrian economists.

JAITLY: Absolutely not.

KEISER: What are they? They’re fake. What are they? What would you call these people?

JAITLY: I don’t know. I mean I haven’t really given much thought to what I would name these people, but Austrian economist is certainly not one of them by a very large measure. I have to give it some thought but it won’t be a kind nomenclature, let’s just put it that way. (laughs)

KEISER: Alright now Sandeep, in your latest Bullion Basis newsletter you write, “Money is gold and silver. Money is nothing else.” And yet when Ron Paul asked Ben Bernanke whether gold is money, the Chairman responded, “No. It’s a precious metal.” What’s going on there?

JAITLY: Well, respectively, Dr. Bernanke is wrong in that regard. But he’s not unique by any measure. Money is the universally acceptable ultimate extinguisher of any debt and, as far as I can tell, fiat credit which is the system that we have currently, doesn’t fit that bill. Throughout time, the universally accepted extinguisher of any debt has always been . . . ultimate extinguisher I should add . . . has always been gold or silver. Nothing else. That is the definition of money. So it doesn’t take much thought to realise that Dr. Bernanke is wrong. Plain and simple. He’s wrong.

KEISER: Alright, so we have clear evidence of this because the US has a debt problem and Ben Bernanke’s solution over there at the Fed is to adjust monetary policy, attempting to extinguish the debt not with gold and silver but with more debt.

JAITLY: Yes.

KEISER: What he’s doing cannot be considered money.

JAITLY No. No. Not at all. You can’t extinguish credit by issuing more credit. You just end up with a larger amount of credit outstanding. I don’t know whether Dr. Bernanke realises this in the back of his head – I’m sure he does, he’s not a dumb individual – but the consequences of what he’s doing, I don’t think he does realise, or, in fact, any country that’s monetising their debt to this degree. They do not realise the consequences of they’re doing and there will be nothing that they can do once everything starts kicking off, once everything starts spinning. What I want to make very clear Max is that you don’t need marginal quantitative easing from here for asset prices to start escalating. You only need what has already been printed to start spinning more quickly. And once things start spinning, nothing can slow it down. No central bank will be able to slow it down without sending the whole world economy into the second dark ages.

KEISER: Alright now, of course, if you take post world war 2 American economy, there’s always been this tension between escalation of debt and GDP growth and for decades there was on balance GDP growth in spite of the escalating debt, so for awhile, America was able to get away with this escalating debt, but now we see a period where what’s happening is directly outlined in the Austrian school of economics is that when you achieve a certain debt saturation point, you enter into a debt spiral and the attempt is to satisfy or extinguish the debt with more debt which creates this debt trap . . .

JAITLY: Yeah.

KEISER: . . . and is that . . . in Menger’s view, was he the first to articulate that aspect of the Austrian school?

JAITLY: Oh no, Menger was never that market-orientated or that specific in his observations because you must remember that the time that he was writing none of the shenanigans what we’re currently doing were happening. There was still a gold standard. There were some issues with silver in Austria specifically to do with Menger and the Austrian empire but Menger couldn’t even comprehend what we’re currently doing, so it wasn’t on his spectrum. It was on the spectrum of the later so-called Austrian economists like von Mises . . .

KEISER: So let me jump in here for a second, so we see the break then from Menger to von Mises really as we go from a world of gold to a world of fiat banking

JAITLY: Yes.

KEISER: . . . and fractional reserve banking where von Mises has attempted to shoe-horn Menger’s ideas into a new philosophy which is interesting in its own right but you can’t really confuse it with real Austrian school economics.

JAITLY: No you can’t. And another thing that people often get wrong is that once you have gold and silver, which is, as I said before, the universally accepted ultimate extinguisher of any debt, all of the obligations that you have that come across during the course of business are denominated in gold. And those obligations that are closest to expiry, to liquidation into gold, you can count as near money not money. And those instruments which take a long time to liquidate into gold, like Treasury bonds or long term corporate debt, is less money like. So the amount of obligations, the amount of credit in the system, has no restriction to it per se. It’s only bounded by how productive, how innovative we are as a species. So extending credit does not cause boom and bust cycles, it’s when you extend credit beyond the duration for which it was intended. And that we actually understand more colloquially as borrowing short to lend long. It’s when you don’t match the purpose to which the credit was taken with the purpose to which the credit was granted, basically. That is a much bigger problem.

KEISER: Well let’s take that a step further because in London now, banks in London are under extreme pressure, having been exposed to the scandal of rehypothecation. Forget about matching your short and long credit obligations, they’re re-loaning the same security out an infinite number of times . . .

JAITLY: Yeah.

KEISER: . . . leading to a total collapse in the UK banking system and economy. So it’s beyond even the mismatch of obligations, it’s become an outright fraud . . .

JAITLY: Yes it’s fraud . . .

KEISER: . . . where there is no collateral whatsoever.

JAITLY: It is fraud. Borrowing short to lend long is fraud because you’re disobeying the principles of bailment which is that a demand deposit should be available at all times so you can’t have your money available at all times and earn interest on it. The two don’t make sense yet we the people are willing to accept things like this without questioning them, so we get what we deserve in the end.

217 comments on “[KR328] Keiser Report: Frankenmarkets and Austrian Economics
  1. 100cmonkeys says:

    So when Max marries Stacy does that mean I can’t hit on her anymore?

    That’s terrorism.

    Just kidding, congrats guys.

    http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm

  2. Alan says:

    Em.. When did Mises ever say a promise to pay gold is as good as gold? I have my books in front of me, please point me to it.

    Hats off to Max and Stacey for exposing the fraud of banking, it has always existed under every system no matter what money is or who was the master of puppets. But seriously, if Max and his guest are such intellectual heavy weights, why don’t they put their theories to paper so we can all look back on them in 50 years time and pick them to bits and take them out of context to suit our own agenda. You guys are journalists so stick to reporting the news and don’t try to push your views on everybody else. The nature of man never changes. Greed, fear, ego, etc. if you want to get rich it’s easy, work harder, become smarter, spend much less than you earn and quit blaming everyone else for your failures. Look inward and do Good deeds for your fellow man. Become selfless or selfish, it’s your choice, it’s always your choice! Peace out.

  3. Alan says:

    The more I watch this the more mistruths become glaringly obvious! In fact too many to point out in the little time I have. For example, the statement about gold being the universally accepted extinguisher of debt and how all obligations and debt is denominated in gold. Most of you probably don’t realise that we had debt before we had money or indirect exchange. Debt was and still is in many instances, an obligation to return a favour or something we received without payment, with another favour or goods that the creditor deems to be equal in value. It goes way beyond the physical to the intangible such as power, status, recognition, friendship and loyalty. Many people give without respecting anything in return, for the real joy of life, real happiness, comes from giving – not receiving! This is the pillar of all religions and faiths. Unfortunately we live in a spiritually and morraly bankrupt world where it’s every man for himself.

  4. Bonn says:

    Or USA/UK starts another War somewhere in middle east(ie Iran) or Afrika to beat the Chinese…..

  5. dee says:

    I heard u say “common sense” on a.j.I just want to say common sense isn’t so common!I love and respect you…

  6. Alan says:

    Nick you nailed it! The problem is not the type of government, be it democratic, socialist, communist, or whatever you want to call it. The problem is bigness! It is not the lack of regulation, it is the regulators pretending to enforce the regulations. The nature of man never changes, as long as they can line their pockets, they will allow corruption and fraud. The big corporations and banks lobby the government so they can regulate their own industry, stifling competition and creating a virtual monopoly or cartel. This is why we have to reduce the size of government and get it out of the economy. Take way its power to pick winners and losers and subsidise extractive, uncompetitive businesses. The economy should serve the people. The people should not be made to serve the economy and by extension the government. That is how all empires and societies collapse. Study history and you will come to the same conclusion. Decentralised systems are always more stable than centralised systems. Central planners serve themselves and nobody else. Millions of individual actors transact and make decisions based on what is in their best interest, not the state’s interest. All you need is the rule of law and for it to be enforced. TBTF means that everyone is impacted whereas in a free market these financial crises would not occur because the state would not force or coerce the tax payers to bail out banks and corporations when they speculate and get it wrong or make grave errors of judgement or commit fraud. The state in all it’s bigness is a giant parasite that is killing the host (the economy).

  7. Jaitly appears to be consistent although his premise is difficult for many camps to stomach. Here was our take from his previous interview. The package should probably come with a warning.

    http://tradewithdave.com/?p=11593

    Dave Harrison

  8. Up_to_it_InSilver says:

    <q cite=“The whole intellectual edifice collapsed, I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms. . . . I was shocked.” Ayn Randian free market deregulationist Alan Greenspan Oct. 23, 2008 before House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

  9. Up_to_it_InSilver says:

    The Neo-Liberal ideologues always have an excuse for why their version of the unregulated markets fail. Economist Joseph E. Stiglitz writes about the failure of the Russian experiment with Neo-Liberalism in the forward of the famous critique of “Free Market” Neo-Liberalism, “The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time,”(1944) written by Karl Polanyi.
    [quote] THE CONSEQUENCES OF IMPOSSIBILITY
    The efforts of free market theorists to disembed the economy from society are doomed to fail. But the very utopianism of market liberalism is a source of its extraordinary intellectual resilience. Because societies invariably drawback from the brink of full-scale experimentation with market self-regulation, its theorists can always claim that any failures were not the result of the design but of a lack of political will in its implementation. The creed of market self-regulation thus cannot be discredited by historical experiences; its advocates have an airtight excuse for its failures. This has occurred most recently in the effort to impose market capitalism on the former Soviet Union through “shock therapy.” Although the failure of this effort is obvious for all to see, defenders of “shock therapy” continue to blame the failure on politicians who caved too quickly to political pressures; had they only persisted, the promised benefits of a rapid shift to the market would have been realized.17
    Polanyi, Karl (2001-03-28). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time . Beacon Press. Loc: 448,Kindle Edition. [/quote]

  10. Bonn says:

    @ mijj
    the best form of currency would be the lowest-common-denominator barter system
    True that !!!
    See what happens when Renewable -> infinity energy arrives on the Block….Though I already think its here and the Govt’s are puttin a lid on it !!

  11. Alan says:

    Look at China or Russia with their big governments and equally big pollution problems. The only way these polluting factories and mines can get away with it is because the government allows it as long as they can provide jobs and economic growth. The pollution and human suffering is the high price they pay to attract foreign capital and corporations to where return on investment is highest or cost of production is lowest. If Americans or europeans or any others want cheap goods and clean cities and rivers then they have to accept that the jobs get exported along with the pollution. Regulations have not stopped pollution, they have simply shifted it overseas along with the nations manufacturing capacity.

    Libertarians would argue that in order to attract capital and manufacturing back in to the country with the objective of real economic growth, we must make it more attractive for businesses to operate by reducing taxes and regulation. They are not saying there would be no pollution, only that it is a choice that ultimately the consumer has to make. Collectiviely, we make the choice with our wallet. If we don’t like the product or consider the environmental/health cost too great then we stop buying it and perhaps start buying a cleaner/greener but more expensive product of a competitor. When government gets involved we just end up with more expensive products and less choice as competitors are locked out of the market and the tax gets passed on to the consumer. Then there is no incentive to improve the quality of the product and innovate. Regulators can always be bought at the right price and that is why we have this mess we are in.
    I think it’s time we gave free markets a chance, enough of this crony capitalism! There is no evidence to suggest that the threat of bankruptcy cannot regulate as well as or better than government.

  12. Vonda Bra says:

    @ all

    today, LAST TAM !!! – 20.00 CET – until Sept. 25th!

    http://resonancefm.com/listen

  13. Up_to_it_InSilver says:

    [quote]Look at China or Russia with their big governments and equally big pollution problems. The only way these polluting factories and mines can get away with it is because the government allows it as long as they can provide jobs and economic growth[/quote]
    Pollution in China is not “equally big,” they have much worst environmental problems with air pollution and the burning of coal. Regulations are much stricter in the United States and that is why US industry exploits third world resources and seek cheap unregulated labor.
    [quote] If Americans or europeans or any others want cheap goods and clean cities and rivers then they have to accept that the jobs get exported along with the pollution. Regulations have not stopped pollution, they have simply shifted it overseas along with the nations manufacturing capacity.[/quote]
    This is a false dilemma: clean cities, rivers, and jobs in the US are achievable even if corporations work to circumvent government regulations by going outside the United States, or engage in corruption. Corporations simply have to be regulated and submit to the rule of law that protects the environment and jobs. Pollution is not the result of environmental regulation, but the consequence of regulations being absent.
    [quote]Libertarians would argue that in order to attract capital and manufacturing back in to the country with the objective of real economic growth, we must make it more attractive for businesses to operate by reducing taxes and regulation. They are not saying there would be no pollution, only that [/quote]
    If reducing taxes and regulation were the answer the Neo-Liberal strategy of deregulation would have worked by now. Businesses want and have achieved in some case zero corporation taxes and still manufacture overseas drive down wages and defeat collective bargaining.

  14. Up_to_it_InSilver says:

    [quote]…it is a choice that ultimately the consumer has to make. Collectiviely, we make the choice with our wallet. If we don’t like the product or consider the environmental/health cost too great then we stop buying it and perhaps start buying a cleaner/greener but more expensive product of a competitor.[/quote]
    The sovereign consumer doctrine is false. Looking at real life, one will find heresies everywhere that contradict this accepted sequence of market instruction from consumer to producer. In fact, consumer demand authority more often originates in the opposite direction from producers of consumer goods to individual consumers: producer sovereignty is more likely to guide production changes than individual citizen choices. There is ample evidence for this contradictory view of producer sovereignty.
    There are many of products not chosen by the individual consumer. Military weapons systems are not selected by individual choice. Space stations and space vehicles are not on many person’s shopping lists, nor are football stadiums, nuclear power station models, and large super sonic passenger transport airplanes. Yet, all of these products together make up a large portion of industrial production capacity that never hear of consumer desires, or conform to their will. In some cases, the consumer citizen gets delivery of advance fighter jets, submarines, football mega-stadiums, and nuclear power stations regardless of their preferences. In these situations the accepted sequence of consumer instruction is reversed.
    Nuclear power is a good case in point. In Japan 79.6 percent of the people polled by Japan Association for Public Opinion Research favored phasing out of nuclear power reactors in Japan. However, in spite of consumer preferences the Ohi nuclear reactor is restarted amid protests of 200,000 Japanese consumers. It appears the state police have to enforce free market preferences for nuclear power with truncheons.
    Another demonstration of producer sovereignty is resistance by agricultural biotechnology companies like Monsanto that spend millions to prevent labeling of genetically modified foods. Controlling production firms often exercise power in extra-market producer persuasion—or force of law–to manage consumer demand and behavior to protect producer investments. Producers impose their will on consumers so that market economies are no longer directed by sovereign consumers, but rather consumer choice is managed by a planned market economy of autonomous market makers. Henry Ford is reported to have said, ‘If I’d asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse’. A managed market by producers is necessary, from their point of view, to protect expensive technological product development, and massive investment in product advertisement.
    [quote] When government gets involved we just end up with more expensive products and less choice as competitors are locked out of the market and the tax gets passed on to the consumer. Then there is no incentive to improve the quality of the product and innovate. Regulators can always be bought at the right price and that is why we have this mess we are in.[/quote]
    Yes, regulation makes products more expensive-there is no free ride. Producers already limit consumer choice by market force by setting prices and manipulating demand through advertisement.
    [quote]I think it’s time we gave free markets a chance, enough of this crony capitalism! There is no evidence to suggest that the threat of bankruptcy cannot regulate as well as or better than government.[/quote]
    Crony capitalism seeks to abolish government regulation, not to enforce it. Regulation adds to the cost of production and so corporations believe they are avoiding costs by ignoring regulations. Corporations fear fines and incarceration and that is why legal sanctions are effective deterrents. Statutes that outlaw robberies do not cause robberies, they detour them. Abolishing statutes against robbery will not erase such crimes from society.

  15. John Robb says:

    ” The people should not be made to serve the economy and by extension the government. That is how all empires and societies collapse. Study history and you will come to the same conclusion. Decentralised systems are always more stable than centralised systems. Central planners serve themselves and nobody else. Millions of individual actors transact and make decisions based on what is in their best interest, not the state’s interest.” -Alan
    http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w438/jumpinpics/dws_uwf1.jpg
    http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w438/jumpinpics/dws_uwf0.jpg

  16. John Robb says:

    @Alan

    door number one – John Lithgow
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FFfbSWbLWw

    door number two – Red Hot Chili Peppers
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXWzbsnb638

  17. Up_to_it_InSilver says:

    Keynes’ critique of von Hayek’s “Road To Serfdom,”
    [quote]“No,” Keynes continued, “what we need is the restoration of right moral thinking—a return to proper moral values in our social philosophy. If only you could turn your crusade in that direction you would not look or feel quite so much like Don Quixote. I accuse you of perhaps confusing a little bit the moral and the material issues. Dangerous acts can be done safely in a community which thinks and feels rightly, which would be the way to hell if they were executed by those who think and feel wrongly.”45 This was an acute observation: that Hayek’s analysis rested on an understanding of economics or sociology rather than of people. While Hayek was wary of the relationship between government intervention and tyranny, Keynes believed that the tendency toward totalitarianism stemmed from individual moral choices. Hayek conceded in The Road to Serfdom that in the case of tackling chronic unemployment, planning might play its part and that the right form of planning might not lead to oppression. As he later expressed it, “So far as government plans for competition or steps in where competition cannot possibly do the job, there is no objection.”46 He also believed that the state may have a moral duty to step in and that was admissible so long as the spirit of free enterprise was not compromised. “There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody,” he wrote. “Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.”47 …. There may be a slippery slope from planning to totalitarianism, but Hayek was on a slippery slope too. “I come to what is really my only serious criticism,” Keynes wrote. “You admit here and there that it is a question of knowing where to draw the line. You agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere; and that the logical extreme is not possible. But you give us no guidance whatever as to where to draw it. It is true that you and I would probably draw it in different places. I should guess that according to my ideas you greatly underestimate the practicability of the middle course. But as soon as you admit that the extreme is not possible, and that a line has to be drawn, you are, on your own argument, done for, since you are trying to persuade us that so soon as one moves an inch in the planned direction you are necessarily launched on the slippery path which will lead you in due course over the precipice.”48 Wapshott, Nicholas (2011-10-03). Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics (pp. 199-200). Norton. Kindle Edition.[/quote]
    George Orwell’s critique of Hayek’s “Road To Serfdom.”
    [quote]… author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell,55 no slouch when it came to recognizing creeping authoritarianism. “In the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth,” he wrote. “Collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.” But he added, “Professor Hayek . . . does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.”56 Wapshott, Nicholas (2011-10-03). Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics (p. 202). Norton. Kindle Edition.