Two schools of economic thought inform modern political split | Rich Elfers

Two major theories have been battling in America: Keynesian Economic Theory and the Chicago School Economic Theory propounded by the late economist Milton Friedman. Their conflicting positions have struggled for dominance in fixing the economy for decades. Understanding these two views helps to clarify the differences between liberal and conservative economic thinking in America today.

Two major theories have been battling in America: Keynesian Economic Theory and the Chicago School Economic Theory propounded by the late economist Milton Friedman. Their conflicting positions have struggled for dominance in fixing the economy for decades. Understanding these two views helps to clarify the differences between liberal and conservative economic thinking in America today.

In order to understand these two economic worldviews we Americans need to clearly understand the core philosophies.

Keynesian economic theory comes from John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). His economic theory refined the concept that the economy runs in cycles of boom periods of prosperity followed by economic downturns called busts where unemployment rises and businesses cut back productivity. Keynes’ solution to the problem was for the government to pump money into the economy during times of busts and recession, going into debt if necessary, to increase employment and productivity.  During times of prosperity Keynes’ advice was to reduce government participation by cutting back spending and raising taxes.

Under this perspective the Federal Reserve would regulate the money supply by increasing or decreasing interest rates (monetary policy). Congress, in turn, would regulate taxation and government spending (fiscal policy) to maintain high employment. Both Republican George W. Bush, and Democrat Barack Obama have followed Keynes’ ideas. Both have attempted to stimulate job creation by pumping government money into the economy.

Keynesians have trumpeted the stable economic growth the U.S. experienced from the end of World War II into the 1970s. According to Keynesians, government regulation of business is necessary for stable growth and high employment.

The second and opposing view of the economy comes from University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman (1912 -2006). Friedman believed and taught that the government interfered in the economy and should instead play a dramatically lesser role, preferring to abolish the Federal Reserve, but accepting its existence solely to slowly increase the money supply. He believed that the role of government should be reduced to 10 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Government’s job is to stay out of the affairs of business (laissez-faire–government keeps its hands off the economy, cutting back on regulations, and instead allows the market – supply and demand – to determine prices and wages).

Friedman also rejected the belief that full employment was desirable or possible.

The smaller the government the better it was for the economy. Ronald Reagan used his ideas during his presidency. Friedman considered one of his greatest contributions to be that of creating an all-volunteer military.  Friedman also strongly advocated school vouchers as early as 1955. He favored the end of the U.S. Postal Service, allowing private enterprise to take over the job. Friedman’s ideas are also credited with helping several countries transition from command economies (Chile and Poland to name two) to the prosperous capitalist and democratic societies they are today. Keynesian economists blame Friedman’s ideas for the brutal repression and torture of Chileans under Pinochet to attain a capitalist society, and for helping create the lax regulation and banking excesses that brought about the 2007-10 global economic crisis.

As you can see, these radically differing ideas of the role government should play in the economy are fiercely debated in the nation.  Two men, Keynes and Friedman, have helped to shape the arguments that are the basis for the conflicting economic Congressional views creating gridlock in Washington, D.C., today.

 

More in Opinion

A taste of Krain history, from its dive-bar days

I first went in the place one winter’s evening when I was 8 or 9 years old.

Supreme Court resets the playing field

The ruling on the Masterpiece Bakery v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case wasn’t a win for the right or a loss for the left; it’s a chance to do things right the second time around.

Supreme Court ruling shows sanity, moderation

The 14th Amendment equal protection clause does not negate the First Amendment religious freedom clause.

Initiative signatures are the new greenbacks

As of Wednesday, June 6, petitions for four statewide initiatives were getting circulated.

Public record battle brings in a mediator

A taskforce is also being put together, but it’s not clear who will be on it.

Trump supporters see the president doing ‘God’s will on Earth’

Why did Truman recognize Israel so quickly and why do we care about modern Israel, enough to bring the ire of the Muslim world down upon us?

Eyman risking retirement funds on car tab initiative

Will the $500,000 investment be enough to get the initiative on a ballot?

U.S. isn’t the only nation flirting with trade wars

There’s another brewing between Alberta and British Columbia.

I wish I could stay in Enumclaw | Guest Columnist

There is a kindness and decency and desire to be a community in Enumclaw.

We live in frightening times

Our country is being torn apart from limb to limb, coast to coast.

Voting habits tied to feelings of security

The dangers of authoritarianism are a far greater threat to the nation than seeing rising racial equality and religious diversity brought about by immigration.

Gun rights advocates won the battle, but may lose the war

NRA leaders will need to decide if it’s worth putting resources into a fight in a Left Coast state versus investing in efforts to keep Republicans in control of Congress to prevent ideas like this initiative from becoming federal law.