101 Years Later, Milton Friedman is Still Wrong

Policymic.com ^ | 8/1/13 | Sean McElwee

[gogeo]

Headline and article are nonsense.

[from occupied ga]

This article gets the steaming stinking load of utter crap of the day award for packing the largest number of distortions and outright lies in the smallest space.

EG when our use of fossil fuels endangers the lives of poor people across the globe

Utter garbage

[Blood of Tyrants]

Libertarians believe the free market can solve most problems. But statists in both the Rat and Repub parties believe that government is the solution to everything.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yes, freedom is the opposite of liberalism and even many RINOs.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Technically, the headline does make sense. Assuming, of course, that Mr. F. came up with his theories moments out of the womb....

[hosepipe]

Capitalism is profitable..
Socialism drives bankruptcy..

[bigbob]

This article is a pantload.

Friedman was a genius. Not perfect, but an amazing intellect.

Tea Party? What tea party?

[Signalman]

“our use of fossil fuels endangers the lives of poor people across the globe, such an individualistic mode of thinking is not only wrong, but dangerous.”

Without fossil fuels, we’d be living in caves keeping warm sitting next to a wood fire, scrounging for roots and berries, and reading by candlelight.

[aquila48]

“In a day and age when the rich live a life separate from the rest of us and when our use of fossil fuels endangers the lives of poor people across the globe, such an individualistic mode of thinking is not only wrong, but dangerous.”

DannyTN you’re a freeper and you agree with this crap?

[gogeo]

He was a bright guy...not perfect.

[Travis McGee]

Look at the economies of Cuba, and of Chile.

Case closed.

[from occupied ga]

Chile isn’t doing all that bad - was just there a couple of months ago. Are you sure you don’t mean Argentina? Cuba is a total mess.

[nitzy]

How long can a liberal democratic society (which relies upon cooperation, mutual interdependence, and shared sacrifice) exist alongside a purely capitalistic system (which relies purely upon self-interest)?

How long can a liberal democratic society (which relies upon cooperation FOOD, mutual interdependence RESOURCES, and shared sacrifice ECONOMIC GROWTH) exist alongside a purely capitalistic SOCIALIST system (which relies purely upon self-interest SHARED MISERY)?

I fixed it for you....

[Common Sense 101]

The problem is that markets, being amoral, are necessarily immoral.

So, by extension libtards, being amoral, are necessarily immoral. Therefore, why should anyone spend even a second considering their assertions?

[Paladin2]

"He was a bright guy...not perfect."

Yeah, like many/most humans.

[ApplegateRanch]

The statement fails to take into account that parties can only perceive potential benefits and, in the case of poor workers, may be unable to find the optimal market exchange.

First big clue. Most people can also see deficits. Most of us can weigh perceived benefits against known risks and negative factors...otherwise, we'd all rob banks and decline to invest in government pay taxes.

And the "poor workers" are their own problem that they themselves can easily fix. If the little "get to work" switch between their belly button and backbone is allowed to be tripped by hunger, instead of being artificially blocked from operating by feeding them anyway, they'll start to develop a work ethic.

Some of us still envision a society where compassion and cooperation are valued, rather than callous competition hive — alas, that seems as far away as ever.

[hauerf]

Wow! Sean McElwee didn’t wait 101 years to be wrong. He was wrong the day he babbled out his tripe.

[arthurus]

Friedman was a Monetarists, almost invented Monetarism which is the flip side of Keynesianism and just as invidious. Like Keynesianism it calls for control of the economy by a group of "experts" in the government. Friedman's preferred tool is the money supply whereas Keynes went for government taxation and spending, monetary controls vs. fiscal controls. Both talked about free markets. Both systems are market hampering and both systems essentially warp markets and cause misallocation of resources.Friedman did advocate a generally "sound" dollar, one that did not apparently rise and fall excessively in value. However, as a government operation politics cannot be excluded and the dial gets turned only one way. There is no countersteering once things are off and running.

Neither Keynes nor Friedman understood markets. Both assumed a small group of benevolent experts could read the market signals in real time and both systems would end up making their adjustments too late and exacerbating the situation, whatever it is.

Free markets work when no outside experts have the power to fine tune them. The fine tuning of the Keynesians and the Monetarists is necessarily done with wet sandbags in place of the sensitive fingers envisioned.

[EternalVigilance]

I agree with you.

But I have a question: What are you going do to create a truly free market under a constitutional system in which our representatives have control of the monetary system, currency, taxation, and spending? Even if you can get them to get their grimy, greedy mitts off, which is hard enough, how will you possibly restrain them from deploying their “wet sandbags” when economic times get really tough? What do you recommend?

[pallis]

“The problem is, that STATIST POWER being amoral, is essentially immoral.” There, fixed it.

Not being an economist, that was my take. Replace the term liberal economics with the term leftist economics, then scrap that, and call it fascist socialism, which is the Obama experiment, and as corrupt and immoral as it gets. The world is now under the illusion that state control, sort of a quasi fascism, has rushed in on a white horse to save us from the evil Libertarian economics, but Libertarian economics ended the moment government mandates entered the game, so to did honesty and ethics.