The Moral Sciences
4 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Scott Harris from Austrian economics
Scoop.it!

More On The Disappearance Of Milton Friedman

More On The Disappearance Of Milton Friedman | The Moral Sciences | Scoop.it
It’s the things he got right that conservatives can’t accept.

Via Peter Boettke
Scott Harris's insight:

This reminds me of the one Progressive who told me that Friedman was okay because Friedman agreed with some government regulation.  Sure, ignore 90% of his work and cling to the one thing you believe in.  This is what Krugman does in this article, along with -- as in all his articles -- reminding you of how much smarter and righter he is than all those who disagree with him.

 

more...
Peter Boettke's curator insight, August 10, 2013 10:47 AM

Dear Paul --- Please read Sir John Hicks, or even the Robert Skidelsky's biography of Keynes (all 3 volumes) about the intellectual context.  Hayek was the main intellectual opposition in the English speaking world to Keynes. The fact that you don't recognize that is a serious blind spot.  Furthermore, Hayek and Friedman took 2 different strategies to engage Keynes.  Hayek rejected the Keynesian framework and offered a microfoundational approach to the monetary theory of the trade cycle; Friedman adopted the Keynesian framework and blew it up from within starting with the work on the consumption function and continuing with the work on money demand, and the ineffectiveness of fiscal policy.  It was a brilliant immanent critique.  But when Lucas came along, the point was to overthrow the entire Keyensian framework and return to a price theoretic foundation in the study of business cycles. That is why Lucase in reaching back to pre-Keynesian theories also found Hayek.  Seriously Paul haven't you ever read Lucas's Understanding Business Cycles and his equilibrium theory of the business cycle?!

 

The Wicksell connection is stronger in Hayek than in Keynes, and it is the Wicksell-Mises theory of industrial fluctuations that provides the microfoundations to macroeconomics.

 

On your other point, Milton Friedman was a brilliant expositor of economic ideas and master debater.  The immanent critique he pulled off is perhaps the single most impressive professional debate move of the 20th century. But he was so effective in the immanent critique that he blew up the entire system from within. That is why Lucas had to look outside of the Keynesian system rather than repair it.  To the extent the New  Classical revolution settled for "repair and reform" it failed.  Unfortunately, the entire apparatus of macro data was an artifact of the Keynesian revolution --- so rejecting the entire Keynesian apparatus proved practically more difficult, and politically Keynesianism is most appealing to politicians and policy wonks --- economics as engineers and doctors to the world, rather than as students and scholars (see Mankiw's JEP paper on this and think long and hard about the implications).

 

Back to Friedman.  At GMU this fall we will hold a special panel (organized by my colleague Dan Klein and based on the symposium he published in Econ Journal Watch) on the uniqueness of Milton Friedman as an economist and public intellectual.  Read Dan's editors intro to the symposium ... http://econjwatch.org/articles/why-is-there-no-milton-friedman-today-a-symposium-prologue

 

Even here, sadly, I don't think Professor Krugman "gets it".

Rescooped by Scott Harris from Austrian economics
Scoop.it!

F.A. Hayek vs. Milton Friedman on Macroeconomic Theory

F.A. Hayek vs. Milton Friedman on Macroeconomic Theory | The Moral Sciences | Scoop.it
I thought that I’d posted a while back this video of an interview with Hayek on Friedman.  Looking through the Cafe’s archives, however, I cannot find it.  So I post this video, finally, here.

Via Peter Boettke
more...
Peter Boettke's curator insight, August 6, 2013 10:57 AM

Milton Friedman was a master communicator of economics and a brilliant academic, but I too believe that Hayek was the more insightful technical economist.  I would argue that social sciences are still not caught up to him yet.

Rescooped by Scott Harris from Depth Psych
Scoop.it!

Depth Psychology and Giftedness: Bringing Soul to the Field of Talent Development and Giftedness

Depth Psychology and Giftedness: Bringing Soul to the Field of Talent Development and Giftedness | The Moral Sciences | Scoop.it

When we as educators seek to educate with soul in mind, a radical spark is struck. Hillman (1983) pointed out “by definition, education must lead out” (p. 179). He suggested that educators lead the child out by leading the child in, by focusing on the imagination in the child’s fantasies. He urges the education of the imagination.

 

Hillman (1975), in Re-visioning Psychology, was most pointed and succinct in his description of soul. He asks psychology to return to the deepest root of its own meaning, the psyche of psychology. As educators, the depths bring us to reconsider the deepest root of the meaning of teaching, our own educare, in the Platonic sense. As noted above, to lead out from makes the most sense when we speak of it with soul in mind.

 

From soul’s perspective, the individual comes with the task of perceiving and bringing into the world that which only he or she can bring, even unto what the Greeks called mediation, in the sense of embodying prophetic capacity. Joan of Arc, Ghandi, Krishnamurti, those who Simonton (1995) called the eminent, who Nietzsche (Heidegger, 1990) calls the great man, have a place in soul’s classroom. The cosmos can be known as the immensely creative, ongoing work of art that it is. With soul comes a realization that creating, directing, and maintaining programs of talent development... (Click title for more)


Via Bonnie Bright
Scott Harris's insight:

For all you Platonists out there.  Hillman is the best on Daimon [Gk. - demigod] translated to [L.] "genius."  Hillman:

 

All the names given to the quality of Genius over the years, indicate an “other,” who is the protector of our reason for being. It is this Thorn, this Mad Spot, which can be best understood when seen archetypally. The word gift also means poison. Where the poison is, you will also find the Genius. .... Where the Daimon/Genius/Thorn/Mad Spot intervenes is where education, being led out, is being requested. Those who worked best with her honored the pain of her question and worked with her to help her find her way through. Those who made light of her suffering, pointing to underachievement, were bent to remove the problem. They only found more trouble."

more...
Michael Goodman's comment, August 7, 2013 12:04 PM
Thank you Bonnie for the wonderful pieces you cultivate and share.
Susan Scott's comment, August 28, 2013 8:12 AM
Thank you Bonnie.