Is David Friedman a follower of the Austrian School of Economics? I know his father was the founder of the Chicago School, but I also know David Fiedman is an anarcho-capitalist. Is there a branch of the Chicago School that doesn't defend the Federal Reserve?
I am not a member of the Austrian school of economics.
Is there a branch of the Chicago School that does defend the Federal Reserve? My father argued that it was largely responsible for the Great Depression.
No, he's absolutely not an Austrian.
There are definitely neoclassical scholars that would topple the Federal Reserve (e.g., David Friedman, Bryan Caplan, Richard H. Timberlake).
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Plus, the monetarist school (if that's what you're referring to) doesn't "defend" the Federal Reserve; Milton Friedman wanted to abolish it. He believed, at least, replacing humans with a mechanical rule to be applied annually was a step in the right direction.
I think he's more of an eclectic. I have yet to find any conclusion of Friedman's that I very seriously disagree with.
Clayton -
Eclectic? Uhm, no.
His economic methodology is definitely Chicago school / neoclassical.
Yes, DF makes arguments using neoclassical rationality, but at least he's honest enough to take them to their logical conclusion.
Think about it, most economists use praxeology (even if they don't call it that way) for things they find obvious (e.g. why minimum wage doesn't work, all Phd students I know agree without reference to econometric studies), but in their area of research they insist on the empirical method. How convenient.
Neoclassical: Eclectic? Uhm, no.
Why isn't he an eclectic?
Neoclassical: His economic methodology is definitely Chicago school / neoclassical.
Is that supposed to be the explanation?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Chicago School, he once replied to this issue on these forums.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/12848/281795.aspx#281795
I. Ryan: Neoclassical: Eclectic? Uhm, no. Why isn't he an eclectic?
Since you made the first assertion, how 'bout you explain how he is eclectic?
Neoclassical: Since you made the first assertion, how 'bout you explain how he is eclectic?
Weird response. I didn't ever try to "explain how he is eclectic". I don't plan to, either.
Weird response? The burden of proof is on you. You made the first assertion.
Additionally, I clearly know that you "didn't ever try" to explain how he is eclectic; that's why I asked you to.
You said he was eclectic, without ever explaining it. I said he wasn't it, and I qualified that statement. Notice the difference?
Neoclassical: Weird response? The burden of proof is on you. You made the first assertion. Additionally, I clearly know that you "didn't ever try" to explain how he is eclectic; that's why I asked you to. You said he was eclectic, without ever explaining it. I said he wasn't it, and I qualified that statement. Notice the difference?
I never said that he was eclectic. Are you confusing me with Clayton?
Yes, I was!
My bad: he isn't eclectic in that his economic methodology is uniform, neoclassical (and his divergences there are still not Austrian--he would prefer Marshall to either Pareto or Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, for example).
Neoclassical: [H]e isn't eclectic in that his economic methodology is uniform, neoclassical (and his divergences there are still not Austrian--he would prefer Marshall to either Pareto or Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, for example).
[H]e isn't eclectic in that his economic methodology is uniform, neoclassical (and his divergences there are still not Austrian--he would prefer Marshall to either Pareto or Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, for example).
Can you recommend what I should start out with, and what I should end up with, to get an understanding of what that "uniform, neoclassical" methodology is?
As in recommendations for reading?