marketwatch.com — Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has died at the age of 94, according to media reports Thursday. Friedman, one of the most influential economists of the past century, died last night, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site, citing an official at the Cato Institute in Washington.
Nov 16, 2006 View in Crawl 4
peppermintpigNov 17, 2006
"Oh plueeze, Friedman was one of those right wing zealots who actually believed in the superiority of the market."If Friedman can be construed as someone who espoused the superiority of the free market, how can he also be pegged with the neocons who restrict both economic as well as social freedoms?You make it sound as if Friedman was responsible for these right-wing freaks. To parallel, perhaps you can explain to me how the Democrats, in general, are any different from what the neo-conservatives have provided? Are they any more supportive of economic freedoms than the republicans are of social ones? If not, why? Is there something wrong with freedom of choice and responsibility on the whole?
buffalobisonNov 17, 2006Submitter
....................../´¯/)....................,/¯../.................../..../............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸........../'/.../..../......./¨¯........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')..........................'...../..........''............. _.·´..........................(..............................
fiver22Nov 17, 2006
This account has been closed by the user
gotamdNov 17, 2006
archiesteel, Keynesian economics live on, but that does not prove that they're correct. In fact, Keynes' most recognizable theory has been disproven. Just look at data for inflation versus unemployment over the course of a decade or more instead of just a couple of years. Keynes' ideas live on because his theories are sympathetic to government interests. It would be foolish to discount everything Keynes said. Correlation between unemployment and inflation in some short-run situations can certainly be observed, and Friedman himself admired Keynes (watch the Free to Choose mini-series from 1980). However, Keynes' theories are certainly not accepted in the way you seem to be implying here at the University of Chicago where we have five Nobel Laureates in the current faculty of the Economics department.And if Friedman's theories are so simple, why would Ben Bernanke, the former chairman of the Fed, say that they were complex and then admit that it was the Fed, and poor monetary policy, that caused the Depression to be as bad as it was?"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."<a class="user" href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm">http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm</a>
archiesteelNov 17, 2006
That's a bit strange, still.I read it as part of a political science class, actually.Ultimately, the man's theories are sound, but the disagreement I have with him are on a more philosophical level (being a socialist... :-)In any case, it's good we can have this discussion with only a minimal amount of flaming...
peppermintpigNov 17, 2006
"You forget that wealth is power, and the less government there is, the more power wealth represents. That's the problem with the right-libertarian approach, in my view: it's very theoritical, and is completely detached from the realities of economic power and concentration of wealth. The "level playing field" as a naturally-occuring phenomenon is pure utopia: the field is always skewed towards the richer players."Incorrect. Value judgments are individual based. Suggesting a level playing field assumes we require someone to judge what equality is, but the moment you enforce equality, you destroy it. Government enables corporations, rich players, and limits their liability when harming individuals. If two people agree to an exchange of goods or services, then they are the ones determining the value, the wealth that is being created. Those two people believe they are gaining, and therefore they both increase their wealth when they each get something they want. Wealth is not a limited commodity. "...a government of the bourgeoisie, by the bourgeoisie, for the bourgeoisie. Wage slavery isn't much better than outright slavery, and it was actively supported by capitalists."Screw the proletariat. It's never about the people, it's the idealist talking heads of socialism that dictate the 'greater good'. They endeavor not to endeavor: To reprimand the haves by pointing out the have-nots, whether or not they put themselves in that situation, and demand redistribution of property. It's economic suicide because you support the use of force just as readily as you would condemn slavery, making no progress other than to use demagoguery against 'capitalism' and the ills you perceive of it."Seriously, your anti-government bias seems to be seriously affecting your judgement. It was government that freed the slaves in the end. It was government that gave women the vote. It is government that protects the population from the abuses caused by excessive concentration of wealth."Seriously?Government only gave women the vote because women fought for it. Get it straight. People in government look for easy targets and exploit them. The few in power get rich by causing to suffer those who earned their wealth honestly, but didn't seek power to control others to preserve that wealth. Your interventionism against those who do no harm to others is like a disease. Stop minding the business of others if you expect freedom for yourself.
diggfishNov 17, 2006
crossing out taxes and union rules, selling state banks at huge discounts and an unemployment rate that increased almost 20% in ten years, these weren't some small changes and they are the direct result of implementing friedman's vision.
diggfishNov 17, 2006
being the economist that he was, I'd say he got his nobelprize very cheap
peppermintpigNov 18, 2006
No doubt. He's certainly not perfect. However, in his active roles, he was at best advising, not dictating policy; that was left to those in power with the will to make those changes. I agree with the viewpoint that Friedman was making the best of a bad situation in regards to Chile. When you have vigorous developed nations existing with struggling nations, those struggling economies tend to develop as 'wannabe' states, emulating the corporatism and social programs of the successful nations to a fault, creating bloated bureaucracy where it is not needed, and at the worst it breeds strong corruption among the power elite. Smaller geographic areas are also easier to enforce and control...Although it isn't perfect, I think removing income tax for the poorest individuals might be the best compromise I can make with socialists while still striving towards freedom. It's at least a starting point... Giving people gobs of money, however, is not a solution.
andrew1193Nov 19, 2006
"I'm from Chile (the Chicago Boys' playground in '80s) and I can tell that they were really not pretty in action. They applied libertarian economics supported by the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, and that was decisive in the success of Friedman's ideas here.""Libertarians? Yes, this Chicago Boys had complete "liberty" to make themselves richer than anyone in Chile."Pinochet made Chile about as capitalist as Western Europe. As a result, Chile went from third world to first world status in one generation.Compare the lifestyle of ordinary Chileans with the lifestyle of ordinary Venezuelans. Who is better off?