自由的選擇

• 目送飞鸿

  2022-09-19
  2. Hayek or Ludwig von Mises had little influence on worldwide economist academics. (The same holds, from the left, for Galbraith’s small influence on academics.) Hayek’s stock as a theoretical economist was overpriced for a short period after his Prices and Production (1931). For students at Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, LSE, Stockholm, Rotterdam, or Tokyo, Hayek’s name dropped into a black hole in the 1932–1975 period. His The Road to Serfdom had a better vogue with lay readers antagonistic to the Mixed Economy. However, its thesis that modest social reforms are the gateway to the cruel totalitarian state was poorly confirmed by the economic and political history of 1939–2005 and few ever cracked the pages of his disappointing tome on capital theory.
• 目送飞鸿

  2022-09-19
  But certainly he was not on a level with Keynes.
• 目送飞鸿

  2022-09-19
  [re: Prices and Production] I must say, I think that’s one of the worst of Hayek’s books. Let me emphasize. I am an enormous admirer of Hayek, but not for his economics. … I think Prices and Production was a very flawed book. I think his capital theory book is unreadable. I cannot say I’ve read it.…I never could understand why they were so impressed [at the London School of Economics] with the lectures that ended up as Prices and Production, and I still can’t. . . . these very confused notions of periods of production, different orders of products, and so on.
• 目送飞鸿

  2022-09-18
  In their positions after the 1950s, Friedman, Stigler, and others at Chicago moved away from emphasis on equality, as well as from theories of imperfect competition requiring government intervention, and toward focus on monetary rather than fiscal policy in influencing economic activity. To this, Friedman in particular would add criticism of government at almost all times and in almost all ways, with far less empirical support than his and other Chicagoans’ work at other times in other areas. That is, in its reflexive antigovernment bias, the Friedman Chicago school of economics became more ideological than scientific, at least in addressing the general public.
• 目送飞鸿

  2022-09-18
  Paul Samuelson held that there were two Chicago schools:The first Chicago school was that of Knight, Viner, and Simons. It advocated use of the market, but recommended redistributive taxes and transfers to mitigate the worst inequalities of the laissez faire system . . .The second Chicago school ought properly to be associated with the names of Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Aaron Director, and Gary Becker. Call it the Friedman Chicago school for short. It has lost the Simonsian imperative to use the tax system to modify economic inequality . . .