Which of these schools of economic thought most represent your own?

[Leftbehind]

Marxian/Keynesian synthesis.

[Frodo]

What is the difference between the Chicago and Austrian schools of economic thought?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What is the difference between the Chicago and Austrian schools of economic thought?

The Chicago school is a branch of conservative and libertarian economics.  They are a major defender of free markets and capitalism, with a heavy emphasis on mathematical analysis.  The Austrian school is a little more radical than the Chicago school in some of its policy proposals, and they view economics as filled with too many intangibles to calculate it mathematically.  One major difference between the two is that the Chicago school is more prominently taught in academia, whereas the Austrian school is not.

[Indy Texas]

What is the difference between the Chicago and Austrian schools of economic thought?

The Chicago school is a branch of conservative and libertarian economics.  They are a major defender of free markets and capitalism, with a heavy emphasis on mathematical analysis.  The Austrian school is a little more radical than the Chicago school in some of its policy proposals, and they view economics as filled with too many intangibles to calculate it mathematically.  One major difference between the two is that the Chicago school is more prominently taught in academia, whereas the Austrian school is not.

Nassim Taleb summed it up when he described Austrian economics as philosophy pretending to be economics. It's absent from academia because economic research is inherently empirical and Austrians basically reject empiricism in favor of making normative statements. The only economics department I can think of with a significant Austrian presence is George Mason University.

[Del Tachi]

Keynesian

[barfbag]

What is the difference between the Chicago and Austrian schools of economic thought?

The Chicago school is a branch of conservative and libertarian economics.  They are a major defender of free markets and capitalism, with a heavy emphasis on mathematical analysis.  The Austrian school is a little more radical than the Chicago school in some of its policy proposals, and they view economics as filled with too many intangibles to calculate it mathematically.  One major difference between the two is that the Chicago school is more prominently taught in academia, whereas the Austrian school is not.

This is a very good analysis. I don't find any particular economic philosophy to base my views on. It requires a little bit of them all.

[Kitteh]

To the difference between Chicago and Austrian schools, I'd add that as a more concrete issue the Chicago school is deeply monetarist while Austrians tend to favor the gold standard and such. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The degree of difference between the Chicago and Keynesian schools is grossly misrepresented by the media. In reality, most academic economists firmly believe in the necessity of fiscal counter-cyclical policy and understand that there is a difference between LRAS and the actual quantity supplied.

Also, Austrian economics isn't taken seriously. Re-take econ 101, loons.

[Franknburger]

Apparently, most of you are rather talking about the Neo-Austrian (von Mises) than the Austrian (Hayek) school. Pretty understandable, as Hayek has mostly published in German.

The Neo-Austrian stuff is crap.

Keynesianism / Chicago School start from the equilibrium approach. Markets tend to balance demand and supply. That balance may be distorted on the short-to-medium term by several kinds of shocks, but, if the shock is diagnosed and treated correctly, the markets will balance themselves again. They differ in their analysis of shocks and the treatment to be applied. Keynesianism is focusing more on demand-side shocks (under-consumption), while the Chicago school is primarily concerned with monetary imbalances, (removing) regulative barriers to competition, and distortions due to government interventionism.
 
In contrast, the Austrian school understands markets as inherently imperfect due to incomplete information, incalculable risks, and individually differing preferences and utility functions. Entrepreneurs profit from these imperfections, but may also take wrong decisions and ultimately fail. As there is no equilibrium, it is also not possible to mathematically model economic systems via equilibrium equations.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Austrian approach, and even more for its extension by equally Austrian (though not part of the classical Austrian school) Joseph Schumpeter, with his focus on entrepreneurship and innovation. To me, monetary imbalances and under-consumption are not the root causes of economic crisis, but symptoms of an underlying problem, namely lack of innovation. In other words: People consume less, and enterprises face decreasing return on investment, because markets for existing products are saturated, and there are not enough entrepreneurs with new ideas and products that address latent but not yet apparent demand.

I have nevertheless voted for the Chicago School, as it has developed important concepts such as institutional economics and the idea of "human capital", which tie into innovation economics. Chicago school monetary theory, and Keynesian consumption theory are useful for designing supportive policies, i.e., both approaches don't create the innovation push required to get out of an economic crisis, but help such a push to become effective. Marxist analysis of rent-seeking behaviour has carved out the antagonism between capitalists and entrepreneurs.

[tpfkaw]

How could Mises be "neo-Austrian?"  His work predated Hayek and was one of his [Hayek's] major influences.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Marxian/Keynesian synthesis.

Voted Marxian because Jesus Christ, Karl at least deserves more votes than goldbuggery.

[Pingvin]

Austrian.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I have an affinity for the Austrian school, particularly Hayek and Röpke. I'm no expert but what I've read of them I find tremendously interesting and insightful about the human relation to the economy.  If they aren't being taught in economics classes, it's a sad reflection of the drive to fragment knowledge in the academy.  At the same time the Chicago and Keynesian schools have a great deal to say on a practical level and are often worth following in their prescriptions, so long as we keep in mind their limits.

[Redalgo]

None of the above. The closest one to me I know of is the Freiburg School. Ordoliberalism more or less sums up the capitalist facets of economic policy I want to combine with socialism. I have some influences from Marx but definitely do not consider myself a Marxist in either economics or politics.