In a manner reminiscent of the Chicago School of economics, Dean Baker has no fundamental compunction about state force but has an affinity for laying a glossy veneer of market concepts over the cheap particleboard of brute interventionism. FULL ARTICLE by J. Mark Stanley
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12587/the-false-freedom-of-art-vouchers/
The False Freedom of Art Vouchers
Previous post: Don’t want to be like Greece? Try some VAT?
Next post: John Holt: Libertarian Outsider
{ 7 comments }
I like art. Nobody from the government wants to vouch for my art. I wonder why?
http://artedetomas.blogspot.com/
I agree with the conclusions of this article, and it is very well-written. I do, however, have a modest suggestion…
Given that Chicago School economics is more friend than foe to the libertarian community at large (notwithstanding some fundamental economic differences between it and the Austrian School), and given that Baker – with whom I am largely unfamiliar – seems to have made conclusions about IP that most people around here would find commendable…
…Wouldn’t it make a lot of sense to reach out to him, and others like him? Based on this article, he seems like the kind of person who could be won-over to the Austrian-favorable side of the equation.
I did get a good chuckle out of the way you described Chicago School economics, but it was kind of a self-undermining shot considering that many of us (especially those like myself, who come from an economic background) started our journey to the Austrian School from a Chicago School direction.
Building bridges is important and more probable among the Chicago-ites than others, is really the key point I’m making here.
That wouldn’t work too well. The only key difference between the Chicago School and Keynesian economics is the method in which government confiscates and distributes money. Both still buy into taxing on the basis of the means of production (Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax idea, for example), redistribution of goods, production of fiat money, and all other systems. Chicago and Keynes are like Republicans and Democrats. They only disagree on the small details.
Tomas- I’m glad I clicked on your links. Terrific stuff.
Ryan- not all Austrians are as down on Chicago as J.Mark Stanley. Its a shame they(Chicagoans) wont see the error of their ways. To every question they answer ‘ let the market decide’, but to the question of ‘what is money’ they do a one-eighty and become statists, monetarists, Keynesians.
Re: Chicago School
I don’t know if it’s really fair to paint the Chicago School in such broad strokes, since it’s a fairly diverse group. While they are generally terrible on the subject of money, some members of the Chicago school have made useful observations in other areas. The Coase Theorem, for example, is one of the best (in terms of brevity and completeness) rebuttals to the statist “externality” arguments ever conceived. Their unfortunate blind spot (money) sadly renders them unable to sufficiently explain many events that have been explained by the Austrians (such as how the monetary policy leading up to the crash of 1929 distorted the economy without causing overall price inflation), but to categorically reject all Chicagoans as not being real libertarians is a bit extreme, to say the least.
Hoppe: “Coase and his followers are the most dangerous enemies of property rights”
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1455
That said, the “art voucher” idea may be one of the worst bits of statist policy masquerading as free market economics I’ve ever heard.
Comments on this entry are closed.