Although the “Chicago School” of economics had defined and shaped mainstream and global public discourse during the course of the Cold War and in the early years of the 21st century, the “Keynesian School” of economics gained traction and began chipping away at the position of the “Chicago School” yet again as a result of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Perhaps the key line or scene of the 2015 Hollywood film “The Big Short” was when the character of Mark Baum came to the realization that the entire plan or scheme which led to the 2008-2009 global financial crisis was engineered “at the top.” Moreover, given that war is actually a veritable arm, instrument, or tool of Federal Reserve policy and strategy, it follows that one of the three major components or conditions of global peace – aside from acceptance and cognizance of a pluralistic international society along with “harmony of interests” – is curtailing the autonomy and freedom of America’s central bank on the part of the national government and the public.
Also, contemporary mouthpieces or proponents of the “Chicago School” in the United States – along with their parrots in the American mainstream media – are far from consistent when it comes to actually applying the basic principle underlying their supposed school of thought. On one hand, while autonomy and freedom are desired for the central bank – and while a hike in interest rates by the Federal Reserve is given the veneer of combating inflation by the American mainstream media when in reality the interest hike was a culmination of actions and decisions that caused inflation – free trade with Iran or Venezuela is either curtailed or outright banned on the other hand. Hence, while there is lip service in the American mainstream to the principle of free trade and the free movement of capital, goods, people, and services, the principle is far from established in terms of action, and the principle is applied in a biased and selective manner.
Moreover, the track record of the “Chicago School” consists inter alia of overthrowing democratically-elected governments and illegal regime change during the Cold War and in the early 21st century, along with the suppression of manufacturing and productive capabilities in medium or small economies. The weltanschauung of those who represent the “Chicago School” in the mainstream and public sphere is very much zero-sum in nature, and as mentioned before, it caters to a very exclusive, narrow, and specific interest group at the expense of everyone else.
In sum, the challenge of overcoming the obstacles and the strategies which are imposed by a very exclusive, narrow, and specific interest group in the way of establishing the aforementioned “conditions of peace” is immense. Given the enormity and gravity of the challenge, no one can guarantee the establishment of the basic “conditions of peace” that were mentioned before. For publics in various countries, the establishment of the basic “conditions of peace” is an uphill climb. However, there is also a confluence of natural and social forces which may in fact establish these basic “conditions of peace” in a matter of time. After all, certain goals and objectives are not necessarily achieved in a direct or linear manner.