And you cannot blame only lazy ignorant journalists, well-known economists contribute as well: here is a paper from Edmund Phelps (Nobel Prize) on the WSJ opinion journal, a first discussion of it on ET and a diary about it by TGeraghty: American Economic Leadership and European Dynamism
And this is but one example... "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
Second, a little tongue in cheek, but why this attack on University of Chicago? Checking Edmund Phelp's CV,
Positions McVickar Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University, 1982-. Resident Consultant, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1992-93 Professor of Economics, Columbia University, 1971-82. Professor of Economics, New York University, 1978-79. Professor of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 1966-71. Associate Professor of Economics, Yale University and Staff Member, Cowles Foundation, 1963-66. Visiting Associate Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962-63. Assistant Professor of Economics, Yale University and Staff Member, Cowles Foundation, 1960-62. Economist, RAND Corporation, 1959-60. Assistant Instructor in Economics, Yale University, 1958-59.
McVickar Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University, 1982-. Resident Consultant, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1992-93 Professor of Economics, Columbia University, 1971-82. Professor of Economics, New York University, 1978-79. Professor of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 1966-71. Associate Professor of Economics, Yale University and Staff Member, Cowles Foundation, 1963-66. Visiting Associate Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962-63. Assistant Professor of Economics, Yale University and Staff Member, Cowles Foundation, 1960-62. Economist, RAND Corporation, 1959-60. Assistant Instructor in Economics, Yale University, 1958-59.
Third, I didn't really realize that this diary was going to morph into the Anglo/Saxon neocons versus the European Socialists dialogue that is so common here. I find it very interesting to look at the different economic models, always trying to keep in mind the differing social, historic, and cultural backgrounds in which they occur. Because I think there is opportunity to learn from the different approaches. But I find this argument that "my" system is better than yours because my unemployment is lower, or my income distribution is better,,,,,to be boring--the numbers aren't exactly equivalent, the societies are different, etc. etc. etc. If France and Germany want more socialized economic models,,,great! It gives Americans a chance to look at those experiements, and if certain elements look good and would work in the different American culture and society, it's worth a try--vice versa for the Europeans. So perhaps I don't see this cabal of neocons working to overturn European economic models.
Somewhat the same with healthcare--socialized medicine is well engrained in Europe, and it seems people basically like it. And there are some good ideas that could help America,,,,but socialized medicine won't work in the US, regardless of what Europeans and some well meaning Americans may think. Those models will prevent the rapid access to specialists and access to new technologies that Americans expect. So learning from what we see and incorporating aspects, great! Full conversion to the European model, never happen.
But I travel in a world of business and economics, and have a number of conservative friends,,,,and I don't know anyone that would support what I called the "straw man" positions in this diary. Nor did I see anything in the Phelp's article that would make me believe, for example, that he would support
Government in service to ordinary people (like administrators of student loans, like the police, like the army)is evil and incompetent. "Lower taxes", or lower wages, or possibly both can solve all economic problems.
