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 . . . (查看原文)
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. (查看原文)
memroyou
中信出版社2017版
1 有用 查无此人 2017-01-26 15:22:36
書寫經濟思想史不是一件容易的事，這本書雖然內容很豐富，但中心觀點略單薄，適合作為科普書籍。
1 有用 春风秋雨 2019-08-25 01:11:03
试图廓清萦绕在芝加哥经济学派历史中的几点迷思来为在当代美国振兴古典自由主义的经济学与公共政策传统树立合理性。 有些啰嗦，同样观点反复说。附录对弗里德曼和萨缪尔森的采访挺有意思。繁体译本也不太好，甚至出现同一术语同一页有不同翻译的现象。