More Milton Friedman, Less Rush Limbaugh

Radio Free NJ ^ | 5/4/13 | Tom

[Defiant]

LOL. I remember that Donahue. It’s the one where Milton won over Michael Moore, too.

[SuziQ]

Remember, for liberals their politics is more like a religious belief than a series of rational goals and first principles. So if we really want to persuade them we need to find a way to make our arguments seem consistent with their religion.

This is true, and the belief that human activity is causing Global Warming is one of the important tenets of that faith.

[Theophilus]

Proverbs 23:9
Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

[Lancey Howard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b24YF3DPiWM&feature=related

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Indeed, that should be interesting. Something to keep in mind is the difference between what John Maynard Keynes actually taught and what passes for Keynesian Economics as pushed by Krugman and company. The most controversial idea of the Keynesian school of thought is the idea of using government spending to boost the economy. In actual writings of Keynes you will find that he placed several qualifies on this to at least theoretically keep countries from spending themselves into oblivion. Krugman and their trillion dollar coin economics make no such qualifications.

However while both Friedman and Keynes agreed that a central bank is necessary. Reading Friedman one gets the impression that the central bank is a necessary evil, and not a true tool of economic policy as Keynes taught. In fact the implementing of the “Friedman Rule” would stop Bernanke from being able to attempt to use quantitative easing to affect the economy.

So while it can be argued that Friedman was a monetarists ( in that he believed that money supply should be controlled by a central bank); he was not a Keynesian in his philosophy of government intervention in the economy.

[Yardstick]

Provide a moral boost to your side, convince the middle and make your opponents look like idiots.

Exactly. Anyone who's spent any time around human beings knows that being persuasive involves a whole lot more than just being earnest.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I said that Keynesians adore the monetarists, not that all monetarists are Keynesians. However, the monetarists do believe in having a central agency decide the quantity and value of money. It is suspicious why they never wondered or cared (as far as I’ve read) what a government would do with the ability to create as much money as they want, so I suspect they may have Keynesian inclinations.

Keynesians adore the monetarists because monetarism is essentially money creation at the state level by the government through the proxy of the central bank. Monetarism provides the big-government spenders with an endless supply of cash to buy votes with. It is those who are Keynesians at heart (regardless of their stated support for Capitalism and free-markets and sound budgetary principles) that are addicted to this ‘free money’ belief of monetarism.

To be honest, I think you may need a bit more background before you understand what I’m saying and why. The following books are good reads and provide a good basic knowledge of economics:

“The Creature from Jekyll Island,” by G. Edward Griffin
“Meltdown,” by Thomas Woods
“Economics in One Lesson,” by Henry Hazlitt
“The Road to Serfdom,” by Friedrich von Hayek
“The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” by von Hayek
“The Breakdown of Money,” by Christopher Hollis
“The Case Against the Fed,” by Murray Rothbard
“How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes,” by Peter Schiff

[1rudeboy]

I am familiar with those authors. (Well, except for Schiff, who is a hack). So, instead of telling me I need background, just proceed with your argument. If you can.

Citations a plus, professor.

[Toddsterpatriot]

“The Creature from Jekyll Island,” by G. Edward Griffin

What a silly, error filled book.