Responds to George Tavlas’ comments in “More on the Chicago tradition”, in this issue, and once again assesses the contribution of individuals to “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s.

The similarities among the writings of Ralph Hawtrey, Lauchlin Currie and Milton Friedman are re-affirmed, as is the influence of the former on what Friedman has called “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s. The underconsumptionist analysis of Paul Douglas is not integral to that tradition.

The similarities among the writings of Ralph Hawtrey, Lauchlin Currie and Milton Friedman are re‐affirmed, as is the influence of the former on what Friedman has called “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s. The underconsumptionist analysis of Paul Douglas is not integral to that tradition.

Economic, financial and social commentators from all directions and of various persuasions are obsessed with the prospect of recovery. The world remains mired in a deep, prolonged crisis, and the key question seems to be how to get out of it. The purpose of our paper is to ask a very different...

Economic, financial and social commentators from all directions and persuasion are obsessed with the prospect of recovery. The world remains mired in a deep, prolonged crisis, and the key question seems to be how to get out of it. The purpose of our paper is to ask a very different question that...

Offers a response to David Laidler’s article “More on Hawtrey, Harvard and Chicago”, in this issue. Asserts that the unique Chicagoan quantity-theory of the early 1930s embodied a policy framework which left it immune from the Keynesian revolution and contained important linkages with...

Offers a response to David Laidler’s article “More on Hawtrey, Harvard and Chicago”, in this issue. Asserts that the unique Chicagoan quantity‐theory of the early 1930s embodied a policy framework which left it immune from the Keynesian revolution and contained important linkages with...

Do capitalists really want a recovery? Can they afford it? On the face of it, the question sounds silly: of course capitalists want a recovery; how else can they prosper? According to the textbooks, both mainstream and heterodox, capital accumulation and economic growth are two sides of the same...

Do capitalists really want a recovery? Can they afford it? On the face of it, the question sounds silly: of course capitalists want a recovery; how else can they prosper? According to the textbooks, both mainstream and heterodox, capital accumulation and economic growth are two sides of the same...