Liberterian sub at the high school

[eliotn]

Imagine my surprise when my Kenyesian high school teacher was replaced by a liberterian substitute.

Anyway, after discussing economics with him, I have a couple of questions:

1. Who is Milton Friedman? What does he have to say about economics?

2. Why do some economists believe that printing more money is the only thing that correlates with GDP and the business cycle?

[Jon_Irenicus]

1. Only one of the most famous 20th century economists, and a major advocate of laissez-faire. Still, a flawed figure, especially on methodological issues - he was a hardcore positivist, as well as the source of many strawmen and associations by guilt (e.g. his alleged involvement in Pinochet’s Chile) for libertarianism.

2. Elaborate.

-Jon

[liberty_student]

@eliotn

1. Who is Milton Friedman? What does he have to say about economics?

Leader of the Chicago School and one of, if not the, most famous monetarist of all time.

Friedman enjoyed a high profile and political influence. He’s a favorite of the Cato Institute, not so much LvMI.

[eliotn]

@Jon Irenicus

1. Only one of the most famous 20th century economists, and a major advocate of laissez-faire. Still, a flawed figure, especially on methodological issues - he was a hardcore positivist, as well as the source of many strawmen and associations by guilt (e.g. his alleged involvement in Pinochet’s Chile) for libertarianism.

2. Elaborate.

-Jon

2. When I talked to this person about the business cycle, he said it was a purely monetary phenomenon, that printing more money creates a recession, and that not printing more and more money (ie: gold standard) would not cause a recession.

Still, he had some good points. It is a shame that many kids goofed off and did not listen, and some tried to hush me when I asked, “Are you for the free market?”

[Jon_Irenicus]

He’s correct in that it is a monetary phenomenon, though it’s more than just printing money: it’s primarily credit expansion, by whatever means necessary.

-Jon

[MatthewWilliam]

@eliotn

2. When I talked to this person about the business cycle, he said it was a purely monetary phenomenon, that printing more money creates a recession, and that not printing more and more money (ie: gold standard) would not cause a recession.

Hayek won the Nobel prize for proving that, I beleive, two years before Friedman won it.

And it sounds like your sub was quoting Friedman: “Inflation is always and everywhere a Monetary phenomenon”

[Wren]

Not to be rude but, are you kidding me?

[Solid_Choke]

Most of my neoclassical economics classes hold Keynes and Friedman as being the most important economists of the 20th century. More of my political science professors had heard of Hayek than my economics professors.

[Wren]

@Solid_Choke

Most of my neoclassical economics classes hold Keynes and Friedman as being the most important economists of the 20th century. More of my political science professors had heard of Hayek than my economics professors.

I think that actually makes sense given the context. Economics is more narrow; you’re taught the standard, orthodox view of economics and you hardly ever deviate from that, I suspect even at the graduate level (especially at the graduate level? I wouldn’t know, I haven’t taken graduate economics). Political science on the other hand is more open.