The visible hand of the recession has revitalized critics of the Chicago School of Economics. This intellectual school has led U.S. domestic and foreign policy for the last 3 decades. Will the current economic shock force the Chicago boys to change or adapt? Or will they simply keep prescribing to the same models? Is the Chicago School to blame for the economic disaster? According to Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel lareate in economics, “The Chicago School bears the blame for providing a seeming intellectual foundation for the idea that markets are self-adjusting and the best role for government is to do nothing.” Enjoy the article and let me know if you have any comments or concerns.
By Michael Fitzgerald--On a sunny day this spring, more than 1,000 people streamed into the Sheraton near the Gleacher Center for a conference on the Future of Markets. Its keynote panel, headlined by Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker, AM’53, PhD’55, featured six Chicago economists with differing viewpoints. The stock market was in the early part of a rally that would yield its best quarter since 1998. Stock-market turnarounds usually signal better times coming, but in an economy contracting 6 percent, better was relative.
So the rally didn’t change the feeling among the free-market enthusiasts at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business management conference that market economics was on shaky ground: most of the financial industry, they felt, had been nationalized in all but name. Two of the three U.S. automakers looked like they would follow suit. The government was capping pay in the financial services. What in the name of the Chicago School was going on? (read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment