What is the fundamental difference between classical (and neo-classical) economists and monetarists?

Question

I understand that Friedman and Hayek both put emphasis on the money supply and its affect on inflation, but what makes Friedman more of a monetarist and Hayek more of a neo-liberal?

Answer 1

In economics there is two kinds of approach: classical and marxist. This approach were build in 18th and 19th century but before those we can find another approaches that today are die or were transformed in the mentioned approaches, like Fisiocrats. Classical theory have been transformed and we did obtain the neoclassical theory. Classical, neoclassical and marxist approaches have many school of thought like manchesterian school, marginal school, austriac school, R.Luxembourg school, Chinese school, etc, etc. We can find too the monetarist school of thought (into neoclassical approach) which sustain that only with monetary measures the policy makers can stabilize the economy. In practice, policy makers choose monetary measures in certain moments and down specific situation...In this explanation the practice is too different to theory because in first dominate pragmatist, where it is used those theoretic approach of school adapted to the moment or to the goal we can reach...

Friedman was monetarist because he did propose the preponderance to monetarist sphere with more enphasis than Hayek, but both were neoclassical. Properly we can not say some person is more marxist or more moentarist than other, just is neoclassical, just is monetarist.