|
DesideriScuri -> RE: The Obamacare Shock (5/31/2013 4:49:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR
Important point about the Nobel Prizes: Unlike the Peace Prize, which can be intensely political and spur even my eyes to roll, the other prizes are awarded of the basis of actual merit.
1974 Nobel Prize in Economics: Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich Hayek: "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."
1976 Nobel Prize in Economics: Milton Friedman: "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilisation policy"
2008 Nobel Prize in Economics: Paul Krugman: "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity"
Forgive me if Krugman's "merit" pales in comparison to the merits of two of previous Nobel Laureates who did not agree with Keynes (no comment on Myrdal; I have no idea of his beliefs).
Friedman definitely agreed with Keynes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now
Come on, Ken. You can do much better than that.
Is Milton Friedman a Keynesian?
Roger W. Garrison
quote:
There is a story about a young job candidate interviewing for an entry-level position in the geography department of a state university. One senior faculty member, whose opinion of our modern educational system was not especially high, asked the simple question, "Which way does the Mississippi River run?" In ignorance of the biases of this particular geography department and in fear of jeopardizing his employment prospects, the candidate boldly replied, "I can teach it either way."
When the question "Is Milton Friedman a Keynesian?" was first suggested to me as a topic, I couldn't help but think of the uncommitted geographer. But in this case, opposing answers can be defended with no loss of academic respectability. When teaching at the sophomore level to students who are hearing the names "Keynes" and "Friedman" for the first time, I provide the conventional contrast that emerges naturally out of the standard account of the "Keynesian Revolution" and the "Monetarist Counter-Revolution." To claim otherwise would come close to committing academic malpractice. Either a casual survey or a careful study of the writings of Keynes and Friedman reveals many issues on which these two theorists are poles apart.
Yet, one can make the claim that Friedman is a Keynesian and remain in good scholarly company. Both Don Patinkin (Gordon, 1974) and Harry Johnson (1971) see Friedman's monetary theory as an extension of the ideas commonly associated with Keynes. Some of their arguments, however, run counter to those of the Austrian school, which serves as a basis for this chapter. And while Friedman, by his own account, was quoted out of context as saying, "We're all Keynesians now," his in-context statement is thoroughly consistent with an Austrian assessment. More than two decades ago, during an interview with a reporter from Time magazine, Friedman commented that "in one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, no one is a Keynesian any longer." The two senses were identified in his subsequent elaboration: "We all use the Keynesian language and apparatus; none of us any longer accepts the initial Keynesian conclusions" (Friedman 1968b, p. 15).
|
|
|
|
