This book examines the relationship that prevails between the state and freedom in the works of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, as well as those of some of their peers, including Gary Becker, James Buchanan, and George Stigler. The author explains that their concept of freedom was largely derived from the principles and values of neo-liberalism. However, she maintains that neo-liberals never cared about providing the masses with genuine freedom; rather, they value freedom for its instrumental value in terms of facilitating the global spread of free-market capitalism. The author explains that the neo-liberal concept of freedom has been a very useful tool in promoting the superiority of free-market capitalism over centrally planned economies aimed at achieving the common good. She argues that even though neo-liberals are strongly opposed to central planning, they are tolerant of state planning intended to help establish and sustain the conditions of a free-market system. She also contends that the extensive implementation of neo-liberal reforms and policies has led to states losing their sovereignty and moving away from their traditional role of achieving the common good. The author claims that the world has essentially become the sum of many neo-liberal societies, particularly during the last four decades. She also maintains that, throughout human history, no other ideology, school of thought, political, religious or military institution, kingdom, or empire has been as successful as neo-liberalism, when it comes to shaping people's beliefs, ideals, goals, and lifestyle on a global scale. Unfortunately, neo-liberalism has proven to be very detrimental for civilization and the future of the planet. The author concludes that the widespread adoption of the neo-liberal concept of freedom, in combination with the pretense that economics is a natural, ahistorical and value-free science, has triggered the emergence of methodological monism, which has resulted in unfreedom and the poverty of economics, while also delaying the progress of the entire discipline.

Since the latter half of the 20th century, the economics departments of American universities were internationally renowned for providing competitive and advanced levels of education. However, from the 1870s up until the beginning of WWI, German universities held international supremacy when it came to the quality of teaching, the enrollment of foreign students, and scholarly publications. This book examines the role of the German Historical School of Economics (GHSE) in the development of the discipline of economics in the US during this period. The chapters explain that, prior to the influence of the GHSE, political economy was in a dismal state in the US, both as a profession and an academic discipline. As a result, many Americans elected to go to Germany in pursuit of an advanced education in political economy, having been inspired by the unmatched international reputations of theorists of the GHSE. After they returned home, these German-trained Americans challenged the dominant status of classical orthodoxy and revolutionized the discipline of economics in the US by importing the ideas, methods, and approaches of the GHSE. In doing so, they established the first dedicated political economy departments, graduate programs, and chairs at American universities and colleges. Although the precise magnitude and value of the influence of the GHSE is impossible to quantify, there is no doubt that Americans are deeply indebted to this school of thought for its contributions to the early development of the discipline of economics in the US. The chapters also examine what has been lost since: the current mainstream in economics has eliminated many of the features that were once so important to the discipline that it has effectively limited contemporary economics to a small fraction of the complex organism defined by the German Historical School. This situation has facilitated the poverty of the leading economic school of thought, as well as the discipline of economics in general. This book represents a significant contribution to the literature on the history of economic thought and economic education in the US. It will be of particular interest to students and scholars of economics, political science, sociology, and the philosophy of economics.

This book examines the relationship that prevails between the state and freedom in the works of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, as well as those of some of their peers, including Gary Becker, James Buchanan, and George Stigler. The author explains that their concept of freedom was largely derived from the principles and values of neo-liberalism. However, she maintains that neo-liberals never cared about providing the masses with genuine freedom; rather, they value freedom for its instrumental value in terms of facilitating the global spread of free-market capitalism. The author explains that the neo-liberal concept of freedom has been a very useful tool in promoting the superiority of free-market capitalism over centrally planned economies aimed at achieving the common good. She argues that even though neo-liberals are strongly opposed to central planning, they are tolerant of state planning intended to help establish and sustain the conditions of a free-market system. She also contends that the extensive implementation of neo-liberal reforms and policies has led to states losing their sovereignty and moving away from their traditional role of achieving the common good. The author claims that the world has essentially become the sum of many neo-liberal societies, particularly during the last four decades. She also maintains that, throughout human history, no other ideology, school of thought, political, religious or military institution, kingdom, or empire has been as successful as neo-liberalism, when it comes to shaping people's beliefs, ideals, goals, and lifestyle on a global scale. Unfortunately, neo-liberalism has proven to be very detrimental for civilization and the future of the planet. The author concludes that the widespread adoption of the neo-liberal concept of freedom, in combination with the pretense that economics is a natural, ahistorical and value-free science, has triggered the emergence of methodological monism, which has resulted in unfreedom and the poverty of economics, while also delaying the progress of the entire discipline.