Advertisement

Two Counter-Revolutions: The Chicago and Austrian Schools and the Consumption Paradigm

  • Victor V. ClaarEmail author
  • Greg Forster
Chapter

Abstract

Looks at the major responses from Keynes’ critics, highlighting how they—ironically—participated in and actually strengthened the process of transforming economics into a moral crusade for the satisfaction of consumer appetites, while claiming to be morally neutral. The Austrian economists failed to challenge the core anthropological principles Keynes had laid out, while Milton Friedman and the Chicago school affirmatively embraced those principles. Both schools conflicted sharply with Keynesianism at the level of policy, but that very conflict had the effect of reinforcing the Consumption paradigm anthropology that was embraced or at least acquiesced in by all parties.

References

  1. EconStories. 2010. Fear the Boom and Bust. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk. Accessed 31 Jan 2019.
  2. Franklin, Benjamin. 1748. Advice to a Young Tradesman. July 21. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-03-02-0130. Accessed 28 Jan 2019.
  3. Friedman, Milton. 1953. The Methodology of Positive Economics. In Essays in Positive Economics, 3–43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  4. Friedman, Milton. 1957. A Theory of the Consumption Function. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH. Google Scholar
  5. Friedman, Milton. 1968. Why Economists Disagree. In Dollars and Deficits. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1981. A Life in Our Times. New York: Ballantine Books. Google Scholar
  7. Haberler Papers. Various Dates. Stanford University. Google Scholar
  8. Hayek, Friedrich. 1945. The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review 35: 519–530.Google Scholar
  9. Hayek, Friedrich. 1976. Law, Legislation and Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  10. Hayek, Friedrich. 2007 [1944]. The Road to Serfdom, 37. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  11. Hazlitt, Henry. 2007 [1959]. The Failure of the “New Economics”. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute. Google Scholar
  12. Heyne, Paul. 2008. Ethics on The Road to Serfdom and Beyond. In Are Economists Basically Immoral? And Other Essays on Economics, Ethics, and Religion, 339–347. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Google Scholar
  13. Hutt, W.H. 1963. Keynesianism. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Google Scholar
  14. Kirzner, Israel M. (undated). Another Look at the Subjectivism of Costs. Working Paper. https://history.fee.org/media/2632/1290-another-look-at-the-subjectivism-of-costs.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2019.
  15. McVicar, Michael J. 2011. Aggressive Philanthropy. Missouri Historical Review 105: 191–212.Google Scholar
  16. Skidelsky, Robert. 1992. John Maynard Keynes. London: Penguin. Google Scholar
  17. Skousen, Mark. 2001. The Making of Modern Economics. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Google Scholar
  18. Stigler, George J. 1950. The Development of Utility Theory: I. Journal of Political Economy 58: 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. von Mises, Ludwig. 2007 [1966]. Human Action. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Google Scholar
  20. Wapshott, Nicholas. 2011. Keynes Hayek. New York: W. W. Norton. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Gulf Coast UniversityFort MyersUSA
  2. 2.Trinity International UniversityDeerfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations