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.
David Friedman:This is part of a subset of comments in the thread that leave me wondering where in the world people get their ideas of other people's views--and suspecting that the answer is "from sources all of which are hostile to those other people."
Most disappointing fact I've learned from this forum: Austrians hate that they are neglected by mainstream economics, but they have little to no understanding of mainstream economics.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
As has already been pointed out to you, this is a site predominantly populated by novices. To infer what "Austrians understand" about mainstream economics from the content of posts here is frankly ridiculous.
Grayson Lilburne:As has already been pointed out to you, this is a site predominantly populated by novices. To infer what "Austrians understand" about mainstream economics from the content of posts here is frankly ridiculous.
I wouldn't disagree with you, except for the stubborn hostility to alternative economic viewpoints. It's either Austrian or it's wrong. No need to look into it. That's all I was addressing: the double standard for "closed-minded" mainstream economists while Austrianism is an unquestioned dogma here.
To back up Grayson, see this thread
It would be like watching a MLB teams single A affiliate, judging them on MLB standards, and concluding that the major league team had bullpen issues.
"But didn't Hume neglect the matter of wealth effects, which was so perceptively discussed by his rough contemporary Richard Cantillon? Although, to be fair to Hume, he probably wasn't able to read Cantillon's posthumously published book until (if ever) after he wrote his economics work: a likelihood not recognized by Rothbard, who was critical of Hume being a "step back" from Cantillon in his history of economic thought."
I don't know--I would have to look through Cantillon to see. I distrust anything Rothbard wrote on Smith and his contemporaries, since parts of his discussion are blatantly dishonest. For example, he offers as evidence that Smith wasn't really a libertarian the fact that he proposed an export tax on wool--without mentioning that what Smith was proposing was to replace an absolute ban on the export of wool, enforced by ferocious regulations, with a tax. He compares Smith unfavorably with Turgot, claims (falsely--but it could be an honest mistake) that Smith was in favor of government education—and fails to mention that Turgot proposed to the King of France a complete government takeover of the existing French educational system.
For a more extensive and detailed critique of Rothbard on Smith and his contemporaries, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/cc3e3b99db7ba2b1?hl=en&&q=Smith+Vincent+Cantillon+++author%3ADavid+author%3AFriedman
It's a post by me in a Usenet thread, in which I describe that part of Rothbard's book as a hatchet job, and defend that claim. David Gordon has an essay attacking me for it on the Mises site:
http://blog.mises.org/5182/friedman-contra-rothbard/
And I have some responses in the comment thread.
@ David Friedman
Thanks for posting the links, i have bookmarked them.
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
1. I am not an Austrian; methodologically I consider myself part of the Chicago school.
2. Why would you identify the Chicago school with defense of the Federal Reserve, given that it was Chicago school economists who argued that the Fed was largely responsible for the Great Depression as well as subsequent macro problems?
3. I suggest that identifying schools of thought by particular policy positions that some of their members hold is a bit risky. Among other things, it will require you to identify the Austrians as socialists, given Mises' support for state Opera.
David Friedman
Because the Chicago school argues that the Fed, if it knew what it was doing, could have averted the Great Depression and the susequent macro problems. The school likes the intstitution of the Fed in theory, seeing it as a force for good in the right hands, merely arguing that its powers were misused.
An Austrian would argue that the mere existence of the Fed, no matter who is in charge there or what he does [besides twiddling his thumbs], leads to problems.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Mises' support for state Opera.
As a minarchist (and, as you point out, the 'min' wasn't truly 'min'), Mises definitely had some inconsistencies.
Clayton -