Definitely one of your"Golden Oldies". At one point in my career, I attempted to write an intellectual history of Industrial Organization. Aside from an institutional environment which actively discouraged this sorry of scholarship, how to treat post-1950 Chicago IO completely defeated me.
Excellent, so glad you wrote this. Why if on the Monetary side the Fed is always the lender of the last resort, why don’t we ensure effective demand with a Federal Gov as a job provider of the last resort with a Federal Job for anyone who wants to work, thereby ensuring effective demand and supply dynamically?
Since inflation affects can be triggered by both hawkish monetary interests hikes(Powells rate hikes on a large fiscal debt base) and fiscal policies when all resources are fully employed ( WWII, Vietnam 1968) why not manage inflation through taxes (as LBJ did in June of 1968 with a tax surcharge) and effective demand and supply with a JG?
It seems to me that the past is not prologue but it is always present. Michael Kalecki past observations that Right wing political thought uses the present (identity politics) to ensure their narrow current economic advantage that keeps the We the People in disequilibrium.
"What the math really said that declaring an arrangement “Pareto optima” told you nothing about its relative desirability vis-à-vis any allocation other than those to which it was strictly Pareto-preferred."
Yep. And that showed up in a number of prominent ways. In macro, the mystical "natural" unemployment rate was upgraded in the "equilibrium business cycle" or the RBC models to the "vacation" view of unemployment. A 6% unemployment is as pareto optimal as 20% unemployment. Everyone's having one helluva time withdrawing from work. Pareto optimal, all.
I would suggest such an analysis in regards to the Chicago School should include research on whether the literal environment of the University of Chicago in the 1960s-70s factors into some of these viewpoints. During that time the University was literally waging war against the African-American residents of the South Side of Chicago to prevent them from living in, and presumably sullying, the U of C's Hyde Park neighborhood. In addition to the usual tactics in those situations the U of C went to the extent of buying and blowing up buildings in the surrounding neighborhoods to form "buffer zones" that they could control. This rather pointed approach to community relations must surely have had some effect on thought patterns within the walls.
I would add an unwitting participant to your list of intellectual villains: John Rawls. His minimax principle could be read to say that eventheliberals believe in inequality. And it was so read, given the spirit of the time. And even the liberals went along with it.
Isn't it possible to reject consideration of Negihi weights [new concept for me] for any other reason than racism?
Whatever the origin, I agree that the rejection [or maybe even a preference for higher Negishi weights for those with higher incomes* which alone can explain the Regan/Bush/Ryan tax cuts and deficits] is the key "error" of the Right (or Right neoliberalism). And can even that explain the de facto opposition to addressing externalities?
* provided they do not hold "wrong" opinions hence the enormous energy behind the elimination of the SALT deduction, hatred for Soros/Gates, etc. as traitors.
Definitely one of your"Golden Oldies". At one point in my career, I attempted to write an intellectual history of Industrial Organization. Aside from an institutional environment which actively discouraged this sorry of scholarship, how to treat post-1950 Chicago IO completely defeated me.
Thanks much...
Excellent, so glad you wrote this. Why if on the Monetary side the Fed is always the lender of the last resort, why don’t we ensure effective demand with a Federal Gov as a job provider of the last resort with a Federal Job for anyone who wants to work, thereby ensuring effective demand and supply dynamically?
Since inflation affects can be triggered by both hawkish monetary interests hikes(Powells rate hikes on a large fiscal debt base) and fiscal policies when all resources are fully employed ( WWII, Vietnam 1968) why not manage inflation through taxes (as LBJ did in June of 1968 with a tax surcharge) and effective demand and supply with a JG?
It seems to me that the past is not prologue but it is always present. Michael Kalecki past observations that Right wing political thought uses the present (identity politics) to ensure their narrow current economic advantage that keeps the We the People in disequilibrium.
"What the math really said that declaring an arrangement “Pareto optima” told you nothing about its relative desirability vis-à-vis any allocation other than those to which it was strictly Pareto-preferred."
Yep. And that showed up in a number of prominent ways. In macro, the mystical "natural" unemployment rate was upgraded in the "equilibrium business cycle" or the RBC models to the "vacation" view of unemployment. A 6% unemployment is as pareto optimal as 20% unemployment. Everyone's having one helluva time withdrawing from work. Pareto optimal, all.
I would suggest such an analysis in regards to the Chicago School should include research on whether the literal environment of the University of Chicago in the 1960s-70s factors into some of these viewpoints. During that time the University was literally waging war against the African-American residents of the South Side of Chicago to prevent them from living in, and presumably sullying, the U of C's Hyde Park neighborhood. In addition to the usual tactics in those situations the U of C went to the extent of buying and blowing up buildings in the surrounding neighborhoods to form "buffer zones" that they could control. This rather pointed approach to community relations must surely have had some effect on thought patterns within the walls.
I would add an unwitting participant to your list of intellectual villains: John Rawls. His minimax principle could be read to say that eventheliberals believe in inequality. And it was so read, given the spirit of the time. And even the liberals went along with it.
Isn't it possible to reject consideration of Negihi weights [new concept for me] for any other reason than racism?
Whatever the origin, I agree that the rejection [or maybe even a preference for higher Negishi weights for those with higher incomes* which alone can explain the Regan/Bush/Ryan tax cuts and deficits] is the key "error" of the Right (or Right neoliberalism). And can even that explain the de facto opposition to addressing externalities?
* provided they do not hold "wrong" opinions hence the enormous energy behind the elimination of the SALT deduction, hatred for Soros/Gates, etc. as traitors.