SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Esther-Mirjam Sent)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:39 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Dear Michael and others, 
 
        I'm sure Dan Hammond can give you a long list of references. I have only one
reference, as a result of the fact that I read this book with some of my students last
semester:
 
Friedman, Milton (1982) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, p. 50: 
 
"Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men 
that mistakes -- excusably or not -- can have such far-reaching effects is 
a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it 
gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic 
-- this is the key political argument against an 'independent' central 
bank. But it is a bad system even to those who set security higher than 
freedom. Mistakes, excusable or not, cannot be avoided in a system which 
disperses responsibility yet gives a few men great power, and which thereby 
makes important policy actions highly dependent on accidents of 
personality. This is the key technical argument against an 'independent' 
bank." 
 
I cringed every time I copied "men," but thought you might still find this 
reference helpful. It is followed by a dicussion of rules vs. discretion 
that discusses the law along the lines you suggested (pp. 51-55). 
 
--Esther-Mirjam Sent 
University of Notre Dame 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2