Friedman's Chicago School seems to be relatively Free Market based from the reading I have done, but it recieves constant ridicule on Mises. If it is Free Market, against a central bank, and more, how is it different than the Austrian view on economics and how is it bad? I am just looking for links and answers in common terms so I can have knowledge for the time being, before I go off and read a long book about it. I am curious to the opposing views, and curious how so many "libertarians", or neolibertarians as I like to say, are for the Chicago School's thought on economics. Anyone want to fill me in? Thanks!
I suggest this thread
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11878.aspx
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
C Le Master:If it is Free Market
The Chicago school isn't a free market school of economics. For example, "Chicagoans" often favor stringent anti-trust laws.
C Le Master:against a central bank
All Chicagoans that I know of were in favor of some form of central banking or national monetary authority.
C Le Master:how is it different than the Austrian view on economics and how is it bad?
They overuse mathematics and have a positivist ideology. Both are recipes for intellectual disaster.
Political Atheists Blog
C Le Master:If it is Free Market, against a central bank, and more, how is it different than the Austrian view on economics and how is it bad?
Also, Friedman was in favor of a negative-income tax.
C Le Master:Friedman'
"One of Friedman’s most disastrous deeds was the important role he proudly played, during World War II in the Treasury Department, in foisting upon the suffering American public the system of the withholding tax. Before World War II, when income tax rates were far lower than now, there was no withholding system; everyone paid his annual bill in one lump sum, on March 15. It is obvious that under this system, the Internal Revenue Service could never hope to extract the entire annual sum, at current confiscatory rates, from the mass of the working population. The whole ghastly system would have happily broken down long before this. Only the Friedmanite withholding tax has permitted the government to use every employer as an unpaid tax collector, extracting the tax quietly and silently from each paycheck. In many ways, we have Milton Friedman to thank for the present monster Leviathan State in America." - MNR
Conza88: C Le Master:Friedman' "One of Friedman’s most disastrous deeds was the important role he proudly played, during World War II in the Treasury Department, in foisting upon the suffering American public the system of the withholding tax. Before World War II, when income tax rates were far lower than now, there was no withholding system; everyone paid his annual bill in one lump sum, on March 15. It is obvious that under this system, the Internal Revenue Service could never hope to extract the entire annual sum, at current confiscatory rates, from the mass of the working population. The whole ghastly system would have happily broken down long before this. Only the Friedmanite withholding tax has permitted the government to use every employer as an unpaid tax collector, extracting the tax quietly and silently from each paycheck. In many ways, we have Milton Friedman to thank for the present monster Leviathan State in America." - MNR
If I am not mistaken, I believe Friedman himself claimed he was a Keynesian before, but later realized how it was wrong.
Also, "....he argued the central government could not micromanage the economy. ....Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and he warned against efforts by a treasury or central bank to do otherwise."This gave me the impression that Chicago school followers were against a central bank if Friedman himself was. Any thoughts?
C Le Master:This gave me the impression that Chicago school followers were against a central bank if Friedman himself was. Any thoughts?
There is a critical article written by Rothbard about Friedman somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.
And I could've swore that Friedman supported central banking (I think I heard him say it in one of his videos on Gold).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html
The Chicago school doesn't vary a whole hell of a lot from the Keynesian school as the biggest drain on an economy is the inflation imposed upon society by a central bank. Many Chicago school adherents even suggest a 33% NST. An example of a Chicagoan, I'd say was Reagan. All he did was cut taxes to record lows (except inflation), which isn't nearly enough to make an economy free or prosperous.
Josh : http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html
Thanks for the link Josh. And while I am talking to you, I would like to apologize for that whole thing on Al Qaeda. I did draw an assumption with little knowledge. I thought you were arguing out of ignorance but that last post you had responding to "Myla" was very insightful and it seems you know more about it than I even do, although I disagree. Regardless, sorry about that whole thing.
No problem man, I'm sorry if I crossed any line with you.
C Le Master: Friedman's Chicago School seems to be relatively Free Market based from the reading I have done, but it recieves constant ridicule on Mises. If it is Free Market, against a central bank, and more, how is it different than the Austrian view on economics and how is it bad? I am just looking for links and answers in common terms so I can have knowledge for the time being, before I go off and read a long book about it. I am curious to the opposing views, and curious how so many "libertarians", or neolibertarians as I like to say, are for the Chicago School's thought on economics. Anyone want to fill me in? Thanks!
Well I'm still pretty much a beginner but I know a few major differences.
Chicago economists tend to believe in market failure, perfect competition,perfect knowledge,the idea utility can be compared, a positivist methodology and public goods.
They aren't as opposed to central banking as the austrians and in this area are close to keynesians or monetarists.
they often tend to be less radical libertarians than Austrians.
Milton Friedman for example believed in school vouchers instead of an end to state schooling, a negative income tax(essentially a modified welfare system) and argued for closing of tax loops.He was quite inconsistent.
"Neo-libertarians"
that term usually refers to libertarians who are not consistent with NAP or who support war etc.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Oh and a few other things....
There's alot of Rothbard audio recordings on his discussion chicago vs austrians.
Also look out for Block vs friedman a series of letter enchangements.No surprises,Block wins!
there's also a audio called the political economy of the chicago school: jacobin(which is close to socialist) or libertarian? -see here http://mises.org/media/1404