Yes, the economic policies espoused by The Economist requires government intervention in the market. They'll argue in favor of regulation or deregulation based strictly on whether or not they believe it to be "more efficient."
But wouldnt you say the AEA is more academic whereas NBER is more "applied" types?
That's what the Chicago economists suggest. Again, I am rather detached from them. My position is that there needs to be a separation between government and economy because that's the right thing to do, the only moral solution.
not really, NBER researchers tend to be a subset of AEA members. Most NBER researchers are also professors at various universities
There are around 18,000 members of the AEA (down from 20k in 2003) but probably only about 1-2k researchers at NBER, the majority of which are members of the AEA
that's how everyone beyond the far left and the far right economists tend to evaluate policies, marginal analysis.
Friedman/U of Chicago haven't argued for zero regulations but have argued for fewer regulations because they believe particular regulations are not the optimal solution.
You can take Friedman's seminal paper on the causes of the Great Depression as an example, he criticized the Fed not for intervening in the market but for failing to properly intervene in the market and his solution was to propose a rule-based system that would take the place of the Fed and set the interest rate based on a variety of macroeconomic indicators.
Does that sound like deregulation to you or just a different sort of regulation, specifically a regulation Friedman (and others) believed would be more efficient and remove human error/bias from the equation?
Yes, and I said on page 2 (or 3) that Chicago economists are neoclassical.that's how everyone beyond the far left and the far right economists tend to evaluate policies, marginal analysis.
Friedman/U of Chicago haven't argued for zero regulations but have argued for fewer regulations because they believe particular regulations are not the optimal solution.
You can take Friedman's seminal paper on the causes of the Great Depression as an example, he criticized the Fed not for intervening in the market but for failing to properly intervene in the market and his solution was to propose a rule-based system that would take the place of the Fed and set the interest rate based on a variety of macroeconomic indicators.
Does that sound like deregulation to you or just a different sort of regulation, specifically a regulation Friedman (and others) believed would be more efficient and remove human error/bias from the equation?
I'm very much familiar with Friedman. In fact, Kizzak mentioned Friedman's piece on the Great Depression. That was good, though I prefer a few others:I assure you that he's not familiar with Friedman.
Yes, and I said on page 2 (or 3) that Chicago economists are neoclassical.
Wanna try again?
No, I am against it on moral principle, and I will gladly defend that position to the best of my ability against anyone who (incorrectly) thinks I'm wrong.I accept this argument. If you're making these claims on moral/ideological grounds then there really is no arguing with you since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't agree with your opinion, but hey that's diversity.
I thought you were making the oft-repeated argument that government regulation always leads to a less efficient economy which is completely retarded.
Correct. Like I also said on page 2 or 3, the mainstream itself is left-leaning.didn't read the second or third page, I saw something you said where you suggested that chicago economists always are for less regulations and I was correcting that.
the vast majority of economists are neoclassical, so what you are doing is taking a philosophical divide between the austrian school and just about everyone else and call that a left versus right leaning economic outlook, essentially creating your own arbitrary partisan divide at which point sure I guess you could call it a left-leaning publication. But then 95% of people and publications would be left leaning.
By the same token, the far left (socialist economists) could do the same thing and call 95% of people and publications right-leaning.
that's how everyone beyond the far left and the far right economists tend to evaluate policies, marginal analysis.
Friedman/U of Chicago haven't argued for zero regulations but have argued for fewer regulations because they believe particular regulations are not the optimal solution.
You can take Friedman's seminal paper on the causes of the Great Depression as an example, he criticized the Fed not for intervening in the market but for failing to properly intervene in the market and his solution was to propose a rule-based system that would take the place of the Fed and set the interest rate based on a variety of macroeconomic indicators.
Does that sound like deregulation to you or just a different sort of regulation, specifically a regulation Friedman (and others) believed would be more efficient and remove human error/bias from the equation?
I'm very much familiar with Friedman. In fact, Kizzak mentioned Friedman's piece on the Great Depression. That was good, though I prefer a few others:
America's Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard: America's great depression [WorldCat.org]
Causes of the Economic Crisis, by Ludwig Von Mises: The causes of the economic crisis : and other essays before and after the Great Depression [WorldCat.org]
Prices and Production, by Friedrich A von Hayek: Prices and production, [WorldCat.org]
The Great Depression, by Lord Robbins: The great depression [WorldCat.org]
The schools of thought espoused in there range from Chicago to Austrian, from Keynes to Mises, from neoclassical to rational. Like I said, I don't agree wholly with either schools, but I prefer Austria over Chicago.
I'm saying NBER seems to be more "applied" oriented and thus less theory.
developing new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, assessing the effects of public policies on the U.S. economy, and projecting the effects of alternative policy proposals.
so what you are doing is taking a philosophical divide between the austrian school and just about everyone else and call that a left