President Obama and Chairman Bernanke From Opposite Ends of Chicago School of Economics?

The Chicago School of Economics is a famous one and Ben Bernanke perhaps it's most famous contemporary representative. It is thus an enigma why the Obama administration supported his reappointment to the Fed. I regard the Chicago school as an outgrowth-artifact of the mid-west organic growth historical phenomena of centralization of beef and commodity processing--it is a circumstantial theoretical basis rather than a rational one.

The Chicago school is for non-intervention by Government in macroeconomics with the belief that the market is naturally stable if government stays out. I quite disagree with that premise, although I believe that monetary policy and government intervention to moderate the general economic equilibrium will have harmful effects. Government role in economic policy should be through specific support of particular business activity and a philosophical definition of the economic interests of the nation. It should have a meta-general equilibrium point of view.

General economic equilibrium today inclusive of the business cycle is founded upon a historical rate of change that is phenomenal, and the assumption that change is implicitly good for employment and economic through-put is out of touch with reality regarding resource limitations and demographic and social facts.

Wealth is created through concatenated private acquisition of sufficient material and material resources for a good life individually while a social rise in standard of living is incidental and follows from the sum of all individual well being. Chairman Bernanke's non-interventionist approach is counter to the basic economic philosophy of the Obama administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

Government since Adam Smith's era should have been moving toward support of basic political parameters that would enable the citizens to best develop particular given economic opportunities for resource development to increase their personal wealth and private property. Government must always be cognizant of the times and circumstances in which the people of the nation cohere and redirect the macro economic center of effort toward the given facts of the day. Such a policy is neither interventionist nor non-interventionist-it is a meta-economic management policy.

With the administration's interventionist and the Fed Head's non-interventionist approaches logically canceling out each other to a certain extent it would seem that nothing should be accomplished. The non-interventionist philosophy would allow in theory an absolute economic dictatorship of corporatists to arise if not offset by the theory that in an unregulated market the general economic equilibrium will naturally move toward utopian harmony with good things for all.

The interventionist approach might be equally as absurd with the government simply running everything through leverage upon corporatist liberty loosely enough to deny that a socialist dictatorship of elites is actualized. Blame room must be allowed so there is an opposite side to point fingers at while the comfortable remains comfortable and the poor are cheap labor.

The present economic engine of the United States is a very leaky vessel with significant holes in it such that it appears swamped or sunk. The holes must be patched to refloat it. A general equilibrium of just pumping out water filling the hull would not in itself be enough; foreign and global outsourcing of jobs, industry, capital and so forth make the center of American economic effort global. A non-interventionist policy will find the rich continuing to pursue their profits globally while doping the poor and middle class with broadcast propaganda politics explaining that the fault is in too much government or too little regulation.

Meta-general equilibrium directions should stop the inflow of cheap labor from abroad; it should restore the Glass-Steagle Act reversed in 1999 volatilizing mortgages. Private property and savings to a certain level should be supported--general equilibrium should be not sought with a constant high rate of non-renewable resource throughput with as many as possible employed in producing and consuming but instead through stability in home ownership and renewable resource use for all individuals. It is desirable that inventive change continues to occur; yet much change is intellectually and abstractly originated rather than just through field evolution such as occurs in developing new sailing components.

Government intelligent design of macro-economic policy advantages for the United States are requisite to pursue goals of full employment, prosperity and resource conservation that are in no way implicit in a non-regulated global economic paradigm. Because the natural economic boundaries of the United States are not coincident with the geographical area of the United States with modern technological capability, too avoid the treason of abnegating U.S.political interest or the equally onerous policy of exploiting nation's and peoples abroad the Federal Government must reinforce national interest boundaries through legislation and intervention of a non-monetarist kind.

Many have said that it isn't the quantity of government that is the problem, it is the quality. That is a fundamentally true though incomplete analysis. If the government simply spends money unintelligently no increase or decrease of that spending will result in an economic improvement in either the short or long run.