So I recognized
that from the U/C’s vantage point, a “free market” in ideas was one
where students were only free to choose the
ideology that the U/C supported. Their teaching was
like the Terminator. You can’t reason with it. It’s just there to
kill the opposition.
Chase decided to
merge the Economic Research department (where I worked) into
"Public Relations and Publications" under John Wilson. As it adopted Chicago School
economics, it was used only for rhetoric, not for actual internal
bank decisions. The same thing happened at
Citibank. Wall
Street came to use Chicago monetarism only as lobbying rhetoric,
not as real analysis.
One friend of
mine who became a sociology instructor at Chicago told me that he
began one class
trying to explain whether there was such a thing as an ideology of
the vested interests might be. "That's what we're here to learn," a
student replied.
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson
http://www.michael-hudson.com
isn't ideology a vested interest by itself? being an idea
that is about moving in a specific direction? whoever starts it is
actually trying to move others in a single direction?