And here was me thinking that Friedman and the Chicago
by Ziks511 - 5/14/13 5:46 AM
School were simply honest men disagreeing with what had become economic orthodoxy. What an idiot I was.
``Libertarians will blanch at lumping their revered Vons—Mises and Hayek—in with the nutters and the shills. But between them, Von Hayek and Von Mises never seem to have held a single academic appointment that didn't involve a corporate sponsor. Even the renowned law and economics movement at the University of Chicago was, in its inception, heavily subsidized by business interests. ("Radical movements in capitalist societies," as Milton Friedman patiently explained, "have typically been supported by a few wealthy individuals.") Within academia, the philosophy of free markets in extremis was rarely embraced freely—i.e., by someone not on the dole of a wealthy benefactor. It cannot be stressed enough: In the decades after the war, a kind of levee separated polite discourse from free-market economics. The attitude is well-captured by John Maynard Keynes, who wrote in a review of Hayek's Prices and Production: "An extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in Bedlam."``
When the conclusions of a group of ``academics`` result in agreeement with their paymasters, you can be certain that The Fix was in from the beginning.
Nobody bought John Maynard Keynes, though, He was simply concerned with deciphering Economic activity, and offering his conclusions based upon unbiased data. The most influential event of his economic life was the Paris Peace Conference following World War 1, where he was the chief economist for the British, and the only man to say, ``Germany is broke. There are no reparations to be had. If you try to get them, you will force Germany to fight again.`` Eventually he resigned in protest. His magnum opus The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. was published in 1936.