Morada, Anna Theresa L.

May 24, 2018

2014-20174 Professor Laarni Guillermo-Escresa

Masters of Money Reflection Paper

The documentary Masters of Money studied three different economists with radically
different views. These economists all observed that restraining the developing influence of
money was the vital test for the cutting-edge world. Keynes thought capitalism was splendid
was good but left to its own devices, it could likewise turn out badly. He also believed in
capacity of the government to intervene in economic markets and make them better. This goes
against what modern economists learn from the start of their studies, that there is an invisible
hand that always leads the market to the equilibrium point. This equilibrium hand, if not
completely removes then lessens the need for government intervention in economic dealings.
It is also highly possible that government intervention, in the face of imperfect information
exacerbate the issues faced by the economy. Regardless of these claims that many, most
especially modern economists, contradict, Keynes had the ear of any individual who mattered,
and this helped him become very influential. However, it was not until after his death when
people started considering his recommendation.
John Meynard Keynes’ involvement in the Bloomsbury group, a commune for artists,
writers, and one economist. It was there that he was allowed to step outside of the box and
think the unthinkable. Maybe it's no incident that a man with such boundless interests ought to
have the vision to build up a fundamentally new way to deal with financial matters.
The second economist discussed in the documentary is Freidrich Hayek. Freidrich Hayek,
in addition to his numerous contributions to economic theory, made fundamental contributions
in political theory, psychology, and economics. Of all the pro-market economists, Hayek was by
a long shot the most radical. He believed that economic markets should be left alone by
governments and allowed to be as free as possible. For Hayek, government meddling in the
face of economic issues only make matters worse. Hayek accepted any administration
mediation in the market, such as propping up failing businesses, setting tariffs or controlling
loan fees, gambled debacle. I believe in this to an extent. Because I was taught about the
invisible hand and how it eventually leads the market to equilibrium, I also believe that the
government should minimize its involvement with the market. However, I must concede that
there are instances that government intervention in needed. In cases wherein the welfare of
the people of the country, most especially the poor and those that will hard time adjusting, I
believe that the government must intervene. They should intervene because it is their duty to
protect the welfare and safety of their people.
The last economist discussed in the documentary is Marx. The documentary describes
his writings as “so radical, so revolutionary, they continue to divide the world. Karl Marx is the
father of communism, however majority of his works were written about capitalism. For Marx,
the best contention against capitalism was that it was inalienably unreasonable. Keynes and
Hayek argued about how to control capitalism, Marx wanted to get rid of it entirely.
I do not agree with Marx’s contention that capitalism should be removed. Capitalism
or the pursuit of money is what drives people to work hard. It is for the future earning of money
that people go out and get educated. The teachings of Marx can be viewed as repressive. In fact
communism had not delivered freedom for the laborers but oppressed them even more.
Additionally, the progress of western capitalist countries in the industrial era greatly surpassed
that of the communist nations.
Of all three economists discussed, I lean the most towards the beliefs of Hayek. I
believe that the economy will reach equilibrium without government intervention. The needs
and wants of people and their rationality will always drive the economy to reach a stable level.