Milton Friedman
Quote: (01-15-2014 08:53 PM)j r Wrote:
Right... And let's not forget their poor work ethic.
Did I say that? No.
Is good work ethic all that it takes to become American? No.
Take the red pill.
A year from now you'll wish you started today
Another great point made by Milton Friedman:
Milton Friedman is wrong about printing money.
Under certain circumstances - it is a free-lunch.
Paul Krugman explains how.
http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/baby.html
As much as I can judge these things - I am convinced that there are occasions where printing money can be helpful.
Under certain circumstances - it is a free-lunch.
Paul Krugman explains how.
http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/baby.html
As much as I can judge these things - I am convinced that there are occasions where printing money can be helpful.
For clarification, Friedman wasn't really an Austrian tight money guy. He was a monetarist.
He came to noteriety with the view that the Fed made The Great Depression worse by tightening monetary policy, leading to a decrease in the money supply, at precisely the wrong time.
He came to noteriety with the view that the Fed made The Great Depression worse by tightening monetary policy, leading to a decrease in the money supply, at precisely the wrong time.
Quote: (01-16-2014 01:37 PM)cardguy Wrote:
Milton Friedman is wrong about printing money.
Under certain circumstances - it is a free-lunch.
Paul Krugman explains how.
http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/baby.html
As much as I can judge these things - I am convinced that there are occasions where printing money can be helpful.
Depending on the form it comes in it will always be helpful to some but it will never be helpful to all. There is also no way to know how much is enough.
Milton Friedman explains why unlimited illegal immigration is a good thing.
But only if it is illegal.
He explains the reasoning behind this paradox here:
He is a Kung Fu master when it comes to reasoning and debating.
But only if it is illegal.
He explains the reasoning behind this paradox here:
He is a Kung Fu master when it comes to reasoning and debating.
cardguy, I think it's almost an injustice to Friedman to describe him as a "kung fu master" of argumentation, because that (perhaps unwittingly) conjures up the image of some sort of trickery or mere sophistry.
But the reason Friedman was such a strikingly compelling speaker and debater is, above all, that he was such a clear and thorough thinker. The arguments do not just come out of thin air; they are grounded in the willingness to think things through in a patient manner, and to tack alongside reality in both its simplicity and complexity.
I wish I could make these videos required viewing for a lot of people, since they compress a great deal of thought and understanding of some very basic and important subjects into a mere few minutes of pleasant lucidity.
But the reason Friedman was such a strikingly compelling speaker and debater is, above all, that he was such a clear and thorough thinker. The arguments do not just come out of thin air; they are grounded in the willingness to think things through in a patient manner, and to tack alongside reality in both its simplicity and complexity.
I wish I could make these videos required viewing for a lot of people, since they compress a great deal of thought and understanding of some very basic and important subjects into a mere few minutes of pleasant lucidity.
same old shit, sixes and sevens Shaft...
Agreed.
Milton Friedman was a clear and fair speaker.
'Kung Fu master' was a bad choice of words.
Maybe 'Chess Grandmaster' would be a better phrase? Since - whenever you saw Friedman grin in the middle of an argument - you knew you were about 30 seconds away from a checkmate.
Milton Friedman was a clear and fair speaker.
'Kung Fu master' was a bad choice of words.
Maybe 'Chess Grandmaster' would be a better phrase? Since - whenever you saw Friedman grin in the middle of an argument - you knew you were about 30 seconds away from a checkmate.
Yeah, Milton Friedman. Watch this 10-minute counter-narrative.
The whole thing is very relevant (and interesting), but the real consequences of his "genius" and the Chicago Boys' policies start @6:25 (in Part I).
Part II:
The whole thing is very relevant (and interesting), but the real consequences of his "genius" and the Chicago Boys' policies start @6:25 (in Part I).
Part II:
Milton Friedman responds:
Thanks for the links - Tuth. I will post back once I have checked them out.
Thanks for the links - Tuth. I will post back once I have checked them out.
@Tuth - that was a really interesting video. It stopped a couple of seconds short of being able to show the whole protest that took place when Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize.
I am no 'bleeding heart liberal' but I do often wonder if Oliver Stone has a point when he talks about how incredibly evil America has been in the twentieth century. It is amazing the number of governments that the US has helped overthrow. This wikipedia page lists 14 countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Unit...ge_actions
It would make an interesting thread - but the reason I haven't gotten round to it is that I have not spent much time studying the history of US foreign affairs in the twentieth century. Plus - no doubt the thread would create more heat than light.
As for the video. It is interesting - that whilst I am a huge fan of Milton Friedman, I am not sure how much I believe in his policies. I am not backtracking - since I have written a lot on the forum about how interesting the work of Karl Marx and Henry George is. So - I have never come out and nailed my colours to the Chicago School doctrine of economics.
The reason I have always withheld judgment is that I feel the economic policies pursued by Margaret Thatcher in the UK in the 1980's showed that Friedman's ideas did not play out as well in reality as on paper.
This is the main reason I wish Friedman was alive and I could ask him a question. Because I would love to hear his opinions about what went wrong under Margaret Thatcher and how he feels about them.
Of course - it is a complex area - since Thatcher eventually dropped Monetarism (Friedman's main economic policy) during her reign as Prime Minister. As such - I wonder if Friedman would capitalise on that as a way of defending himself?
Again - I am not sure. I haven't done a thorough study of this area - although a book I am about to read (covering the economic policies of Nigel Lawson - the chancellor under Thatcher) should provide me with some more insight.
Anyway - thanks once again for the video. I will probably check out the Naomi Klein book which covers this area as well.
I am no 'bleeding heart liberal' but I do often wonder if Oliver Stone has a point when he talks about how incredibly evil America has been in the twentieth century. It is amazing the number of governments that the US has helped overthrow. This wikipedia page lists 14 countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Unit...ge_actions
It would make an interesting thread - but the reason I haven't gotten round to it is that I have not spent much time studying the history of US foreign affairs in the twentieth century. Plus - no doubt the thread would create more heat than light.
As for the video. It is interesting - that whilst I am a huge fan of Milton Friedman, I am not sure how much I believe in his policies. I am not backtracking - since I have written a lot on the forum about how interesting the work of Karl Marx and Henry George is. So - I have never come out and nailed my colours to the Chicago School doctrine of economics.
The reason I have always withheld judgment is that I feel the economic policies pursued by Margaret Thatcher in the UK in the 1980's showed that Friedman's ideas did not play out as well in reality as on paper.
This is the main reason I wish Friedman was alive and I could ask him a question. Because I would love to hear his opinions about what went wrong under Margaret Thatcher and how he feels about them.
Of course - it is a complex area - since Thatcher eventually dropped Monetarism (Friedman's main economic policy) during her reign as Prime Minister. As such - I wonder if Friedman would capitalise on that as a way of defending himself?
Again - I am not sure. I haven't done a thorough study of this area - although a book I am about to read (covering the economic policies of Nigel Lawson - the chancellor under Thatcher) should provide me with some more insight.
Anyway - thanks once again for the video. I will probably check out the Naomi Klein book which covers this area as well.
Friedman is the Chileans are able to afford to even consider socializing higher education and healthcare without crashing knee deep into debt.
Here is a great Milton Friedman video.
A superb and ingenious defense of free-trade. Probably my favourite Friedman video so far.
A superb and ingenious defense of free-trade. Probably my favourite Friedman video so far.
You know, its understandable that many guys here support the free market ideology, personal responsibility and other ideas that Friedman espoused, but youve gotta look at this guys record objectively. Its easy to sit back in the good ol' US, sippin on a mocha frapuccino, while sayin, "You dont make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" or "Well, economic growth isnt easy youre always gonna have pain and suffering along the way." Oh, sure, but some Chilean farmer who had his family wiped out as a result of Friedmans "intellectual rigor" doesnt know anything about "free markets" or "economic growth". Try telling him that you "cant make an omelette without breaking a few eggs". Fuck that. Redpill doesnt have to mean having a hard-on for everything this guy says.
Yeah - there is a balance to be struck.
For a start - free-market economics works on the basis that what is economically most efficient is all that matters.
But that right there is a giant assumption. The slave trade didn't end because it was no longer making money.
Personally - I support free markets - but feel that other values should be taken into account.
This is why we have politicians and not economists running the country. The politicians are supposed to weigh up all the competing issues before making a wise decision. But instead - they now feel their job is to help economists achieve whatever vision they have in mind.
It is fascinating seeing how the values of economics have taken over the political class. To the extent that it isn't even noticed anymore. It is just considered common sense that whatever is economically most efficient is all that matters.
So when I admire somebody like Milton Friedman - I am watching economic questions with other economists.
That still leaves unsaid how much I support the value of economics in the first place. Since that is a separate question.
Money is a tool created by humans to help them achieve their goals.
Yet over time it feels like humans are more and more becoming tools used by money to help achieve its goals. Whatever they are.
For a start - free-market economics works on the basis that what is economically most efficient is all that matters.
But that right there is a giant assumption. The slave trade didn't end because it was no longer making money.
Personally - I support free markets - but feel that other values should be taken into account.
This is why we have politicians and not economists running the country. The politicians are supposed to weigh up all the competing issues before making a wise decision. But instead - they now feel their job is to help economists achieve whatever vision they have in mind.
It is fascinating seeing how the values of economics have taken over the political class. To the extent that it isn't even noticed anymore. It is just considered common sense that whatever is economically most efficient is all that matters.
So when I admire somebody like Milton Friedman - I am watching economic questions with other economists.
That still leaves unsaid how much I support the value of economics in the first place. Since that is a separate question.
Money is a tool created by humans to help them achieve their goals.
Yet over time it feels like humans are more and more becoming tools used by money to help achieve its goals. Whatever they are.
Quote: (05-17-2014 11:11 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:
You know, its understandable that many guys here support the free market ideology, personal responsibility and other ideas that Friedman espoused, but youve gotta look at this guys record objectively. Its easy to sit back in the good ol' US, sippin on a mocha frapuccino, while sayin, "You dont make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" or "Well, economic growth isnt easy youre always gonna have pain and suffering along the way." Oh, sure, but some Chilean farmer who had his family wiped out as a result of Friedmans "intellectual rigor" doesnt know anything about "free markets" or "economic growth". Try telling him that you "cant make an omelette without breaking a few eggs". Fuck that. Redpill doesnt have to mean having a hard-on for everything this guy says.
The dreadful Stalinist slogan of "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" is not a phrase or a way of thinking Milton Friedman would have ever used.
You can put intellectual rigor in square quotes if you like, but that doesn't make the insights obtained from exercising that rigor any less true or any less relevant to the real world.
There is no prescription for a society that guarantees a happy and unclouded life to everyone. But it is an undeniable fact that societies that have adopted a free market economy have enjoyed vastly greater prosperity and have suffered vastly less misery than societies that have done otherwise. And few things have caused more misery, havoc and outright catastrophe than policies implemented by various kinds of central planners in the name of protecting this or that supposedly weak or oppressed class or population.
same old shit, sixes and sevens Shaft...
I like Milton Friedman, but I'd love to see him make comments on todays markets and economic situations.
The environment that he was discussing in the 70s and 80s is not what the environment is today. His principles don't take into account that inflation has outpaced the collective wages of labor which if I look at prices in those days were not that big of a deal.
The environment that he was discussing in the 70s and 80s is not what the environment is today. His principles don't take into account that inflation has outpaced the collective wages of labor which if I look at prices in those days were not that big of a deal.
Quote: (05-17-2014 12:16 PM)frenchie Wrote:
I like Milton Friedman, but I'd love to see him make comments on todays markets and economic situations.
The environment that he was discussing in the 70s and 80s is not what the environment is today. His principles don't take into account that inflation has outpaced the collective wages of labor which if I look at prices in those days were not that big of a deal.
frenchie, the basic principles in question have been understood since Adam Smith, that is for well over 300 years ("The Wealth of Nations" was published in 1776). They are not somehow a product of some very special environment that prevailed in the 1970s or 80s. They would not be very good "principles" if you had to change them every decade in response to the prevailing macroeconomic environment.
There are indeed particular questions related to monetary policy when the interest rates are already at zero that it would have been interesting to get Friedman's take on. But that has nothing to do with the quite general insights explained in videos such as the one above.
same old shit, sixes and sevens Shaft...
I consider myself a liberal and I certainly think Milton Friedman was a genius. I also like Thomas Sowell, and have read some Hayek, Menger, and Mises. Liberals aren't anti market, leftists are anti market.
Just resurrecting this thread as I've been discovering Thomas Sowell's work of late.
Not sure exactly where I saw his name mentioned first, but his thinking is influenced by Friedman to a large extent.
He's taken part in some interviews on a series called 'Uncommon Knowledge', all of which I find fascinating, I must say.
Quite refreshing to hear a prominent black voice speaking out on the hypocrisy and contradictions of the Multiculturalism and Diversity movements and the damage that has been wrought on the black community in particular, by the welfare state and increasing their dependance on the state rather than encouraging self sufficiency.
Here's one of those interviews:
Not sure exactly where I saw his name mentioned first, but his thinking is influenced by Friedman to a large extent.
He's taken part in some interviews on a series called 'Uncommon Knowledge', all of which I find fascinating, I must say.
Quite refreshing to hear a prominent black voice speaking out on the hypocrisy and contradictions of the Multiculturalism and Diversity movements and the damage that has been wrought on the black community in particular, by the welfare state and increasing their dependance on the state rather than encouraging self sufficiency.
Here's one of those interviews:
Thomas Sowell is a very smart and interesting man. He appears in some of the Q&A sessions in Milton Friedman's 1980 series "Free to Choose", sporting a badass 70's afro and handing out intellectual smackdowns to socialists.
![[Image: hqdefault_5.jpg]](http://s18.postimg.org/llwpfq8ll/hqdefault_5.jpg)
Pool's closed
Pool's closed
Quote: (05-10-2014 12:40 PM)cardguy Wrote:
Milton Friedman explains why unlimited illegal immigration is a good thing.
But only if it is illegal.
He explains the reasoning behind this paradox here:
He is a Kung Fu master when it comes to reasoning and debating.
Depends on the premise of people being fungible and interchangeable
My only problem with all the free market stuff is that it's idealistic. In reality the government will always step in and big corporations, unions, etc. will cozy up with officials who create laws to limit competition.
It becomes a pay to play situation.
Same thing happens in socialist countries, although their standard of living usually sucks a lot more because the incompetent/corrupt morons in government try to run shit.
It becomes a pay to play situation.
Same thing happens in socialist countries, although their standard of living usually sucks a lot more because the incompetent/corrupt morons in government try to run shit.
"Men willingly believe what they wish." - Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Book III, Ch. 18
This thread happened before I joined the forum so I missed it before. But I can add a few things.
Most of us here were probably born before the "stagflation" episode in the 1970's. That was the effect of decades of Keynesian policy. Friedman almost single handedly revolutionized economic thought to the point where Paul Krugman is really the only old school Keynesian remaining and he only has a job because he sells newspapers to economically illiterate people who want a pro-Democratic message. Even the modern Keynesians (the rest of them) are more Friedman than Keynes since the 80's.
The things that people criticize about actually existing economies are things that Friedman criticized too, seeing them as deviations from the ideal system e.g. regulatory capture, excessive lobbying influence, etc.
The parts of Friedman's influence in Chile that people still like are the parts suggested by Friedman's students. At no point did he ever say or would he ever have said you need to "disappear" political opponents to make room for reforms. Pinochet was not his puppet. He's not responsible for everything they did down there. This is a disingenuous debate tactic used by hacks like Klein.
He was also one of the biggest voices involved in ending the draft. Thanks Milton.
On the point about charity, he would have said that there would be less poverty in a freer economic system. There might be less given to charity but there would be a lot less needed. You better come up with a damn solid economic argument involving labor market dynamics, rational expectations, and price theory before you dispute this.
I don't agree with Friedman on everything, but he is hitting grand slams in the majors while almost all his critics are struggling in Double-A. It's not even close.
Most of us here were probably born before the "stagflation" episode in the 1970's. That was the effect of decades of Keynesian policy. Friedman almost single handedly revolutionized economic thought to the point where Paul Krugman is really the only old school Keynesian remaining and he only has a job because he sells newspapers to economically illiterate people who want a pro-Democratic message. Even the modern Keynesians (the rest of them) are more Friedman than Keynes since the 80's.
The things that people criticize about actually existing economies are things that Friedman criticized too, seeing them as deviations from the ideal system e.g. regulatory capture, excessive lobbying influence, etc.
The parts of Friedman's influence in Chile that people still like are the parts suggested by Friedman's students. At no point did he ever say or would he ever have said you need to "disappear" political opponents to make room for reforms. Pinochet was not his puppet. He's not responsible for everything they did down there. This is a disingenuous debate tactic used by hacks like Klein.
He was also one of the biggest voices involved in ending the draft. Thanks Milton.
On the point about charity, he would have said that there would be less poverty in a freer economic system. There might be less given to charity but there would be a lot less needed. You better come up with a damn solid economic argument involving labor market dynamics, rational expectations, and price theory before you dispute this.
I don't agree with Friedman on everything, but he is hitting grand slams in the majors while almost all his critics are struggling in Double-A. It's not even close.
If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts. - Camille Paglia
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)