January 31, 2014 at 5:03 pm #18231PartondigitalMember
I have many friends who are followers of both the Austrian school and Chicago school, or, as they often write, “Austro-Chicagoan.” I am puzzled as to what they truly mean, and why they do not consistently adhere to one school or the other. Is it a matter of, sadly, them relying partially on empiricism rather than always using praxeology? Do they treat economics as a positive science, like Milton Friedman? I am confused, so any clues to as what they mean would be greatly appreciated.January 31, 2014 at 9:21 pm #18232jmherbenerParticipant
They likely mean that theses are the two most prominent free-market schools (at least Chicago once was). But, as you point out, method is crucial. A model is a foundation of sand (as the decline of the Chicago school as a proponent of the free market illustrates) and leaves one open to the charge that one’s economic theory is just a scientific fig leaf for covering up one’s unseemly libertarian prejudice.
Liberty Magazine published a piece on the “Austro-Chicagoan Empire” in 2005:February 1, 2014 at 12:08 am #18233dardnerMember
You bring up an interesting question. That I even have an interest in economics can be traced back to my discovery of Milton Friedman on youtube. From there I clicked on a Tom woods video in the suggested videos section. Thank you Chicago school. The similarities in their general message left me with the question of, where are the two schools different? I don’t know why your friends think of themselves as Austro-Chicagoans but there are plenty of Chicagoans I like, despite differences of opinion I may have. Ronald Coase , a heavyweight of the economics profession, seems to differ largely with both schools yet is well regarded by each of them.
Here is a Bob Murphy article comparing the two schools. You may want to challenge your friends on whether it is consistent to commingle the two schools beyond supporting free-markets.February 1, 2014 at 9:51 am #18234PartondigitalMember
Thanks for the pdf.
Also, didn’t you switch from the Chicago school to the Austrian school? Why did you switch?
Edit: That was directed at the professor.February 1, 2014 at 5:30 pm #18235jmherbenerParticipant
During my college education as an economics major and then graduate student, none of my professors, save one, ever mentioned an Austrian school economist. I knew about the Chicago school from my undergraduate days and studied under a student of Milton Friedman’s in graduate school, but never considered myself a member of the Chicago school. In microeconomics, the free-market implications of general-equilibrium models were plain enough and reinforced my philosophical attachment to liberty. Friedman was fine in this realm, but his macroeconomics was a mess. Being dissatisfied with neoclassical economics after finishing my PhD, I started to read the Austrians, first Hayek, then Mises, then Rothbard. The power of their ideas convinced me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.