The Ghost of Milton Friedman V David Brooks

[Kathianne]

Very good read, very good.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/19/taxes-unions-social-security-opinions-columnists-friedman-brooks.html


Milton Friedman Vs. David Brooks
Peter Robinson, 03.20.09, 12:00 AM ET

This past week, New York Times columnist David Brooks climbed unwittingly into the ring to go a couple of rounds with Milton Friedman--or rather, since Friedman died just over two years ago, with the ghost of Milton Friedman. The ghost decked him.

Brooks pulled on his boxing gloves by publishing a column headlined "The Commercial Republic." Ever since the nation was founded, he argued, "the gospel of commercial success" had encouraged "people to strive, risk and make money." Yes, the Obama administration had tamped down the American commercial ethos, but it could only do so temporarily. "After periodic pauses," Brooks insisted, "the country inevitably returns to its elemental nature."

Inevitably? Inevitably. Bear that word in mind. It's Brooks' most powerful punch.

Which brings us to Milton Friedman.

Several years ago over dinner, as I once related in this space, the Nobel Prize-winning economist grew reflective. "The challenge for my generation," he said, "was to construct an intellectual defense for freedom." Then Friedman looked at me gravely. "The challenge for your generation will be to keep it."

Free markets in the United States, inevitable? Not according to the ghost of Milton Friedman. Our free markets instead lie under a persistent, irreducible threat....

[Silver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

He had so much to teach the Dims....

[Kathianne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

He had so much to teach the Dims....

Yes he did. I loved the boxing analogy. Here's something else you might like, I think he's more than onto what is going on:

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/03/embracing-the-coming-polarity-shift-in-american-politics.html

and one more:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090320/NEWS0108/903210317

I think change is coming and fast, which way it goes?

[bullypulpit]

The Reagan administration began the piecemeal introduction of Milton Friedman's vision of free markets. The wholesale imposition of that vision gave us Indonesia under Suharto, Chile under Augusto Pinochet, Argentina in the hands of its military junta and China's brand of despotism. From Friedman's perspective, political freedom was irrelevant in the face of unfettered freemarkets and commerce. But, as we have seen, this economic freedom which shifts capital, both monetary and political, from the middle and lower classes to the already rich and powerful can only be imposed at the cost of political freedom. This can be clearly seen in Chile's progress under Pinochet, in Argentina, the former Soviet Union and China.

Mr. Robinson was, however, correct in stating that "...freedom never triumphs inevitably. It triumphs when people fight for it..." . But the fight is not where he, or you, think it is. It is in guaranteeing freedom for all to succeed, or fail, by dint of their own labors. The only way Friedman's vision can become a reality is at the point of a gun, with its benefits accruing to a few. This was demonstrated more than once in the last half of the 20th century. The reality of Friedman's dream of unfettered free markets is a nightmare for everyone but those few at the top of the economic and political power structure who benefit directly from it.

Oh, and as for privatizing social security as Bush wanted...and Friedman insisted was absolutely essential...to do, that would have worked real well, now wouldn't it.

[bullypulpit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

He had so much to teach the Dims....

He had nothing but his own grandiose schemes which were more akin to fascism than to capitalism.

[PostmodernProphet]

I would say that what is 'inevitable' is for the average American to go to work, earn money and spend it without sparing a moment's thought to whether or not a market is "free"...instead jumping temporarily in whichever direction most successfully promises him more money......

[PostmodernProphet]

I would say there is one area in which a free market leaves us less free......during my lifetime we have seen a great loosening in the restrictions of monopoly....I have seen oil companies and telephone companies chopped up because they were too big......and I have seen smaller companies bought up by conglomerates......personally, I think it was better for businesses and for consumers when there were a thousand companies providing an economy, instead of an international corporation big enough to be an economy owning a thousand companies......

[Kathianne]

I would say there is one area in which a free market leaves us less free......during my lifetime we have seen a great loosening in the restrictions of monopoly....I have seen oil companies and telephone companies chopped up because they were too big......and I have seen smaller companies bought up by conglomerates......personally, I think it was better for businesses and for consumers when there were a thousand companies providing an economy, instead of an international corporation big enough to be an economy owning a thousand companies......

I think the mix should be maintained. Some services are better done large, with regulations. Most I agree, should be less than large.

[Jagger]

There is no such thing as a free market.

[Kathianne]

There is no such thing as a free market.

Yes there is.

[Jagger]

Yes there is. Give an example of just one free market in the United States or any other place?

[Kathianne]

Give an example of just one free market in the United States or any other place?

Again, you are not going to derail. Address a point, move on, start your own thread on free markets-pose it as a question if you like.

[bullypulpit]

Again, you are not going to derail. Address a point, move on, start your own thread on free markets-pose it as a question if you like.

He has a point, dear lady. There are no free markets. They are either regulated so as ensure that society as a whole benefits...or in such a manner as to ensure that only the rich and powerful benefit. Much as Freidman denied it, and his disciples continue to deny it, the latter is the fundamental premise of Chicago school economics.

[Kathianne]

He has a point, dear lady. There are no free markets. They are either regulated so as ensure that society as a whole benefits...or in such a manner as to ensure that only the rich and powerful benefit. Much as Freidman denied it, and his disciples continue to deny it, the latter is the fundamental premise of Chicago school economics.

As others might say, prove it. Many disagree with you, but as I said, a topic deserving of its own thread.

[Jagger]

Free markets in the United States, inevitable? Not according to the ghost of Milton Friedman. Our free markets instead lie under a persistent, irreducible threat. You're the one who claimed that free markets were threaten. However, you have yet to establish that even one free market actually exists.

In the U. S., we have a managed-market system where the level of guidance/regulation varies with the industry and whether there is a crisis at the time.

Markets are always socially constructed. We agree collectively on who owns what, who gets to participate and what constitutes a contract.

[Kathianne]

You raised the issue of whether free markets threaten. Now, all you need to do it prove that they actually exist.

No, I don't. It's there, if you wish to argue they don't, go ahead.

[Jagger]

No, I don't. It's there, if you wish to argue they don't, go ahead.

I'll take that to mean you can't point to even one free market that exists in the United States, or anywhere else. "Free-market economics" isn’t economics at all. It's an ideological predisposition for a particular set of social arrangements favoring markets over government.

[Kathianne]

I'll take that to mean you can't point to even one free market that exists in the United States, or anywhere else. "Free-market economics" isn’t economics at all. It's an ideological predisposition for a particular set of social arrangements favoring markets over government.

I assume the premise, if you don't, prove it.

[bullypulpit]

As others might say, prove it. Many disagree with you, but as I said, a topic deserving of its own thread.

'Twas you in starting the thread that raised the hoary, gibbering specter of Milton Freidman, dear lady. And, like it or not, the "trickle-down" economics espoused by Ronald Reagan and his ideological progeny is deeply rooted in the polluted soil of Milton Freidman's economic theories. And many of the bodies buried in attempts to prove his theories will never be found regardless of where one looks in Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, China, or anywhere else attempts have been made at full and unfettered implementation of Chicago School economic theory.

[Psychoblues]

Are you catching on yet?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

The GOP,,,the party of fear and loathing,,,sad,,,,

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Are you catching on yet?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

The GOP,,,the party of fear and loathing,,,sad,,,,

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

BS to both you and Bully, neither contributes jack, can't argue, just naysay without backup. To be pitied.

[Psychoblues]

Quite the contraire, kat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



BS to both you and Bully, neither contributes jack, can't argue, just naysay without backup. To be pitied.

The pitiness and pithiness is quite evident in the thread if one will only read it. Yours is the origin of ignorance and I am quite confident of that!!!!!!!!!!!

The GOP,,,the party of fear and loathing,,,sad,,,,

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Jagger]

Government provides stable currency which makes markets possible. It also provides a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. It is government that provides educated workforces through public education. Those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government.

Businesses that participate in the "markets" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government. They send their communications over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

[Psychoblues]

I can dig it!!!!!!!!!!



Government provide stable currency which makes markets possible. It also provides a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. It is government that provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that participate in the "markets" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government. They send their communications over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

These idiots have demonstrated repeatedly that a single paragraph and many times a single sentence confuses them to the point of exasperation!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carry on, jagger!!!!!!!!!!!!! I appreciate your thoughts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The GOP,,,the party of fear and loathing,,,sad,,,,

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[bullypulpit]

BS to both you and Bully, neither contributes jack, can't argue, just naysay without backup. To be pitied.

I'm saddened to see that you have drunk so deeply of the right wing kool-aid, dear lady. I have the history of Central and South America during the last half of the 20th century to support my contentions. It is you who have failed to deliver in this debate, much to my disappointment. I've always thought better of you.

[Jagger]

The rules of the business game are established by government. A football, baseball, or hockey game without rules and referees would be chaos. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

[bullypulpit]

The rules of the business game are established by government. A football, baseball, or hockey game without rules and referees would be chaos. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Nor, for that matter, will any healthy, sane society function in the absence of rules governing behavior. If corporations are to continue to be regarded as persons under the law, which IMHO they shouldn't, they are obligated to follow the same rules and shoulder the same responsibilities as the rest of us.

[bullypulpit]

Come now, dear lady. There is more to be had of this discussion.

[bullypulpit]

BUMP!

:coffee: