The End of Friedmanite Economics

[EPIC1934]

An Interview With Robert Pollin

The End of Friedmanite Economics

By MIKE WHITNEY

"We are in the midst of a major historic turning point, equivalent to the emergence of neoliberalism under Thatcher and Reagan"

– Robert Pollin

Robert Pollin is a Professor of Economics and founding Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Among his recent books are Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of the Global Austerity (Verso, 2003) and (with Stephanie Luce) The Living Wage: Building a Fair Economy (The New Press, 1998).

http://www.counterpunch.org/

[Ben2008]

The article says "This is certainly a huge crisis for Friedmanite economics and neoliberalism more generally—which all along was the ideology that touted free markets and deregulation to privatize profits, but to come begging for government bailouts when the inevitable crises emerged. This is certainly not the first financial crisis under the neoliberal regime."

More stupidity. Friedman did not support bailouts. Friedman also said ideally he preferred for the Federal Reserve not to exist, which we all know is a major cause of this. I know he would not support government backing of Fannie and Freddie, which is also another major cause.

[Alawn]

Well Friedman was a moron and was not Austrian at all. He may have been better than the Keynesians but that doesn't mean much.

[EPIC1934]

The article says "This is certainly a huge crisis for Friedmanite economics and neoliberalism more generally—which all along was the ideology that touted free markets and deregulation to privatize profits, but to come begging for government bailouts when the inevitable crises emerged. This is certainly not the first financial crisis under the neoliberal regime."

More stupidity. Friedman did not support bailouts. Friedman also said ideally he preferred for the Federal Reserve not to exist, which we all know is a major cause of this. I know he would not support government backing of Fannie and Freddie, which is also another major cause.

------

It was not the original Fannie and Freddie that caused the problem. It was the moves toward deregulation that occured under our bipartisan move right that left it half gov and half private that left the taxpayers bailing out the Billionaires once again.

[Malakai]

------

It was not the original Fannie and Freddie that caused the problem. It was the moves toward deregulation that occured under our bipartisan move right that left it half gov and half private that left the taxpayers bailing out the Billionaires once again.

They were still a part of it. The GSE's have special status which distorts the market. Even if it was only a little in the beginning, it was still there, and as we saw was a ticking timebomb waiting for the right legislation to explode.

[Ben2008]

Well Friedman was a moron and was not Austrian at all. He may have been better than the Keynesians but that doesn't mean much.

I disagree, as does Dr. Paul: "The death of economist Milton Friedman last week at the age of 94 marks a great loss for advocates of freedom everywhere. He was perhaps the most successful free-market economist of the 20th century, in terms of his real-world impact on politics and policy. Many modern politicians, including Ronald Reagan, considered him a major influence in their careers. Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. He believed not only in laissez-faire capitalism, but also the larger cause of individual liberty in the political sense..." -Ron Paul http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=487

[Ben2008]

------

It was not the original Fannie and Freddie that caused the problem. It was the moves toward deregulation that occured under our bipartisan move right that left it half gov and half private that left the taxpayers bailing out the Billionaires once again.

That's not deregulation.

[Alawn]

I disagree, as does Dr. Paul: "The death of economist Milton Friedman last week at the age of 94 marks a great loss for advocates of freedom everywhere. He was perhaps the most successful free-market economist of the 20th century, in terms of his real-world impact on politics and policy. Many modern politicians, including Ronald Reagan, considered him a major influence in their careers. Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. He believed not only in laissez-faire capitalism, but also the larger cause of individual liberty in the political sense..." -Ron Paul http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=487

He fundamentally didn't understand economics correctly. He got about half of things right. Yes it was good that he was correct in the half he got correct. The Keynesians got 100% of it wrong. But he still got about 50% wrong.

[Ben2008]

He fundamentally didn't understand economics correctly. He got about half of things right. Yes it was good that he was correct in the half he got correct. The Keynesians got 100% of it wrong. But he still got about 50% wrong.

Nothing could be further from the truth. He had a profound understanding of economics. What is the 50% you are saying he got wrong?

And so what if he's not an Austrian? That kind cultism is what holds movements back. You don't have the be an Austrian to be great economist and a force for economic freedom.

And, no, he was not a "moron."

[Alawn]

Nothing could be further from the truth. He had a profound understanding of economics. What is the 50% you are saying he got wrong?

And so what if he's not an Austrian? That kind cultism is what holds movements back. You don't have the be an Austrian to be great economist and a force for economic freedom.

And, no, he was not a "moron."

There is plenty he got wrong. The Chicago/Friedmanite school has many beliefs that are contrary to what Austrian economists believe. It is kind of a hybrid of Keynesian and Austrian economics. He believed that a fiat currency was a good thing for one. Like I said he had many things right but also had many things wrong. Maybe I shouldn't have called him a name but I don't think anyone should look up to him.

Here is an article by Rothbard about it. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html

[Ben2008]

There is plenty he got wrong. The Chicago/Friedmanite school has many beliefs that are contrary to what Austrian economists believe. It is kind of a hybrid of Keynesian and Austrian economics. He believed that a fiat currency was a good thing for one. Like I said he had many things right but also had many things wrong. Maybe I shouldn't have called him a name but I don't think anyone should look up to him.

Here is an article by Rothbard about it. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html

So what if Chicago and Austrian don't agree on everything? The Austrians have not been infallible. You speak as if they are.

And no Friedman didn't think quite think fiat currency was a good thing. What Friedman was against was a fake gold standard like we had under Bretton Woods. He supported the ideal of the market producing the money, without government having anything to do with producing money. And he pointed out, just as Dr. Paul has, that if the market produced money it would naturally be backed by gold or other hard assets. "A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." -Milton Friedman http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp

Friedman also supported elimination of the Federal Reserve.

[Alawn]

So what if Chicago and Austrian don't agree on everything? The Austrians have not been infallible. You speak as if they are.

And no Friedman didn't think quite think fiat currency was a good thing. What Friedman was against was a fake gold standard like we had under Bretton Woods. He supported the ideal of the market producing the money, without government having anything to do with producing money. And he pointed out, just as Dr. Paul has, that if the market produced money it would naturally be backed by gold or other hard assets. "A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." -Milton Friedman http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp

Friedman also supported elimination of the Federal Reserve.

The reason I compare him to the Austrians is because they just tend to be right about almost everything and I agree with them more. Compared to the Keynesians Friedman was great. But in reality he was only quasi free market/small government. If I had to pick between him and one of the Keynesian socialists I would pick him every time. But given the option of a real free market economist I would rather have one of them. You can worship him if you want. I am just saying he is not as good as everyone makes him out to be.

[Brassmouth]

He fundamentally didn't understand economics correctly. He got about half of things right. Yes it was good that he was correct in the half he got correct. The Keynesians got 100% of it wrong. But he still got about 50% wrong.

Where's the economic school you founded? Where's your Nobel Prize? Where's your glowing endorsement from Ron Paul?

.....

That's what I thought. Milton Friedman has accomplished more than you ever will. He was a brilliant libertarian and great advocate of free markets. So let's keep our ignorance to ourselves? I think we'd all appreciate it.

[Ben2008]

The reason I compare him to the Austrians is because they just tend to be right about almost everything and I agree with them more. Compared to the Keynesians Friedman was great. But in reality he was only quasi free market/small government. If I had to pick between him and one of the Keynesian socialists I would pick him every time. But given the option of a real free market economist I would rather have one of them. You can worship him if you want. I am just saying he is not as good as everyone makes him out to be.



I'm saying he's a lot better than you're making him out to be.

[nbhadja]

So what if Chicago and Austrian don't agree on everything? The Austrians have not been infallible. You speak as if they are.

And no Friedman didn't think quite think fiat currency was a good thing. What Friedman was against was a fake gold standard like we had under Bretton Woods. He supported the ideal of the market producing the money, without government having anything to do with producing money. And he pointed out, just as Dr. Paul has, that if the market produced money it would naturally be backed by gold or other hard assets. "A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." -Milton Friedman http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp

Friedman also supported elimination of the Federal Reserve.

Sound money is a HUGE part of free markets!!!!!!! Ask Ron Paul that. He thinks fiat currency is trash, and it is.

Fiat currency is a very socialist idea, where the government can rob the citizens of their wealth through inflation.

[Oyate]

And so what if he's not an Austrian?

Read Whitney's article and Pollson's words for yourself. The whole argument suggests that conservatives in general equate with neoliberalism and that salvation can only come from the left.

If you examine Whitney's articles over time, he gets plenty right too. And guess what? He lOVES centralized control of the economy and a central reservist bank. He just thinks if "nice socialists" run it, it will be fine.

I don't know how this dreck makes it up on RPF. I mean, Tinkerbell has my ringing endorsement as well, but more for her choice of clothes than any political/economic acumen.

[Andrew-Austin]

Well Friedman was a moron.

Check out the vid in my sig, and call him a moron.



I'm saying he's a lot better than you're making him out to be.

But but he wasn't right on everything, so hes a bumbling drunkard who has contributed nothing.

X_x

[OferNave]

There is plenty he got wrong. The Chicago/Friedmanite school has many beliefs that are contrary to what Austrian economists believe. It is kind of a hybrid of Keynesian and Austrian economics. He believed that a fiat currency was a good thing for one. Like I said he had many things right but also had many things wrong. Maybe I shouldn't have called him a name but I don't think anyone should look up to him.

Here is an article by Rothbard about it. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html

Ah, Milton Friedman. Liked free markets, but still advocated fiat currency. So basically, he was ok with slavery, he just wanted it to be more successful.

Isn't that kinda like China now? :)

[OferNave]

The reason I compare him to the Austrians is because they just tend to be right about almost everything and I agree with them more. Compared to the Keynesians Friedman was great. But in reality he was only quasi free market/small government. If I had to pick between him and one of the Keynesian socialists I would pick him every time. But given the option of a real free market economist I would rather have one of them. You can worship him if you want. I am just saying he is not as good as everyone makes him out to be.

Exactly.

I'm not saying the Austrian school is 100% right about everything and always will be. I am in agreement with labels, institutions, and individuals only proportionally to the degree they reflect the truth. Never a blind loyalist.

However, everything I've read from the Austrian school so far I have agreed with 100%. :) So they've got a decent track record for now.

Milton Friedman... there's a reason he has a nobel and is respected by the financial community. They let him preach his free market economics and sing his praises because he doesn't go after their baby - fiat money.

Tool.

[OferNave]

Where's the economic school you founded? Where's your Nobel Prize? Where's your glowing endorsement from Ron Paul?

WTF? What's that got to do with anything? If Ron Paul or Milton Friedman told you to eat rat poison, or they gave a Nobel Prize to someone advocating a rat poison-rich diet, would you believe them?

Fallacy of Appeal to Authority much?