Milton Friedman on Libertarianism!

[qwerty]

YouTube - Milton Friedman on Libertarianism! (Part 1/4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poFQYAztzV8&feature=PlayList&p=DA9BD142C061C405&index=0&playnext=1)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/avzxc/milton_friedman_on_libertarianism/

[qwerty]

Pure brilliance!

[Alawn]

Friedman was a douche. Why would I care what he says?

[__27__]

Friedman was a douche. Why would I care what he says?

A little too far. Friedman had some good ideas, and was generally on the right path, but he stopped far short of being correct. Bastiat and Mises have the answers you seek.

[heavenlyboy34]

Pure brilliance!

Why is it brilliant when Friedman advocates privatization of public land, but madness when libertarians do the same? :eek::confused:

[haaaylee]

Wait, is that a young Neil Cavuto?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

friedman is a jew last name

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

friedman is a jew last name

So is Rothbard and Mises and your point is?

[qwerty]

Friedman was a douche. Why would I care what he says?

Ron Paul agrees,


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.

I was proud to know Dr. Friedman for many decades, and considered him a friend. I can assure you that he was no ivory tower academic, but rather an engaging and active man who worked very hard to demonstrate the applicability of economics to everyday life.

His death only underscores the sad lack of economics knowledge in Washington, however. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.

The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.

Our schools teach children virtually nothing about economics and personal finance, which leaves them woefully unprepared for the working world. It also creates whole generations of young Americans who are incredibly vulnerable to the worst pandering politicians.

We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy. The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils.

November 21, 2006



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html


:D

[Stary Hickory]

People here calling him a douche are nuts Friedman was a real Libertarian. His real problems were his lack of understanding of central banking. He was against price fixing yet promoted price fixing interest rates.

If the world was composed of people like Friedman this world would be a lot better place to live.

[Stary Hickory]

friedman is a jew last name

Yeah let's hate everyone based on their last names. I mean we can't tolerate Jews now can we?

<

[Alawn]

Ron Paul agrees,





http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html


:D

There a countless articles where Austrian economists go on and on about how Friedman didn't know what he was talking about with economics. He may be slightly better than a Keynesian but Chicago School economists are still idiots.

[silverhandorder]

I liked what he had to say but there was a lot of disagreement. Specifically with how he thinks that pollution should be centrally controlled. So what if it effects 3rd parties. Punishing polluters will not work since they will simply redistribute the costs to consumers.

[Old Ducker]

friedman is a jew last name

I support your right to be an anti-semite. Having said that, it's a moronic worldview, especially for a libertarian since so many leading libertarians past and present are/were jewish.

[low preference guy]

Friedman was a disaster. He was on the right side on all minor issues, but on the Fed and money, which are the most important issues, he was a disaster. As long as you'll give the politicians a printing press they can fund wars on wars, on other countries, etc., all the issues Friedman worried about.

[erowe1]

Friedman was a disaster. He was on the right side on all minor issues, but on the Fed and money, which are the most important issues, he was a disaster. As long as you'll give the politicians a printing press they can fund wars on wars, on other countries, etc., all the issues Friedman worried about.

Friedman was not for giving politicians the printing press. He was for abolishing the Federal Reserve. A fallacy people often commit in their understanding of Friedman is to conclude from the fact that he openly favored one monetary policy over another when the existence of a central bank was accepted as a given, that he therefore preferred having a central bank to not having one, which he did not.

[erowe1]

There a countless articles where Austrian economists go on and on about how Friedman didn't know what he was talking about with economics. He may be slightly better than a Keynesian but Chicago School economists are still idiots.

And by "Austrian economists" I assume you mean Rothbard and his inner circle. I appreciate Rothbard. But one of the things about him (and many of those who put him on a certain pedestal) was a certain characteristic divisiveness, where he made a point to erect barriers between himself and those ideologically nearest to him. So Friedman, the Cato Institute, and Ayn Rand all received disproportionate amounts of criticism rather than acknowledgment of agreements. Fortunately Ron Paul doesn't have the same sectarian tendency.

[coyote_sprit]

friedman is a jew last name

lmao.

[low preference guy]

Friedman was not for giving politicians the printing press. He was for abolishing the Federal Reserve. A fallacy people often commit in their understanding of Friedman is to conclude from the fact that he openly favored one monetary policy over another when the existence of a central bank was accepted as a given, that he therefore preferred having a central bank to not having one, which he did not.

Friedman then didn't understand completely the reasons why one should not have a Central Bank. Apparently he didn't understood the it can't work, because if he did, he wouldn't be tinkering with policy or advise the Central Bankers how to manage the money supply. This is from a reason interview:


Reason: What is your assessment of Alan Greenspan's record as Fed chief?

Milton Friedman: I think Greenspan did remarkably well. However, I note the same is true for most of the major central banks of the world for the past 20 years. It has been a rather unusual period. It's had declining or relatively stable inflation throughout, very few recessions, and a highly stable economy. And in the U.S. and many other countries—New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain—relatively low unemployment.

This is because the central banks of the world have finally learned the lesson that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and that they are responsible for inflation when it occurs. That lesson was partly taught by Greenspan, and Volcker as well, by demonstrating that monetary policy could curb inflation in the United States. But also I give a great deal of credit to Donald Brash, the governor of the Bank of New Zealand when New Zealand reformed its monetary system. He was the first one to introduce inflation targeting, and he was very successful; he brought the inflation rate down from a very high level to a very stable level. He was imitated and followed by Australia, which adopted inflation targeting, by Britain, and by other countries, and all of them did well as well.

How is Britain doing by the way? Wouldn't it have been better that Friedman talked about the futility of central planning, rather than praising Central Bankers in his whole answer?

Central Banking is immoral. Inflating the money supply amounts to stealing. I have no words of praise for Friedman of anyone who advocates theft.

What would a true defender of liberty answer to the same questions? Some quotes from Ron Paul, in the same interview:


"If you evaluate Greenspan from a conventional perspective, you'd have to say that he was successful in that he kept the charade going."

"When you keep interest rates lower than the market rate by creating new money and credit, that is inflation. That's the source of much mischief, and he did this continuously."

Read more (http://reason.com/archives/2006/11/02/can-we-bank-on-the-federal-res).

Another good article: Is Milton Friedman a Keynesian? (http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/fm2friedman.htm)

[erowe1]

Friedman then didn't understand completely the reasons why one should not have a Central Bank. Apparently he didn't understood the it can't work, because if he did, he wouldn't be tinkering with policy or advise the Central Bankers how to manage the money supply.

Why not?

That reminds me of this one anarchist who insisted that CFL's demand to bring troops home from foreign countries was anti-libertarian because it did not include the claim that the military should never exist in the first place.

There's a place for speaking out against the status quo in major ways, and there's a place for advocating adjustments in policy within the framework of a status quo that you don't accept as ideal or even legitimate, but that you do accept as a given for the time being. Just because someone does the latter does not mean that they somehow forswear their right to do the former as well.

You'll notice that Ron Paul does the same thing. While he advocates abolishing the Fed, he also takes positions on particular Fed policies that he considers bad ones and that he presumably would have preferred to see go the other way.

[mtj458]

Whatever bad things you guys have to say about Friedman, he probably did more for free markets than anyone else in the past century. If we classify everyone who is not an extremist as an idiot then we will never make any progress.

[low preference guy]

Why not?


Look at the trouble we are in now thanks to Greenspan. According to Friedman "I think Greenspan did remarkably well". What the heck? Friedman is the guy saying don't worry, everything is fine, and then you have a crash. Friedman trusted politicians way too much, even when they did a terrible job, like Greenspan did. And it's not like no one saw it coming. See what Ron Paul said in the same interview:

"When you keep interest rates lower than the market rate by creating new money and credit, that is inflation. That's the source of much mischief, and he [Greenspan] did this continuously."

If Friedman has an understanding of monetary policy as good as Ron Paul's, he wouldn't be praising Greenspan. The last thing we need is look up to people who trust and praise politicians who are destroying the country. I'm not an anarchist, but Rothbard was right: Friedman was a statist.

[erowe1]

Look at the trouble we are in now thanks to Greenspan. According to Friedman "I think Greenspan did remarkably well". What the heck? Friedman is the guy saying don't worry, everything is fine, and then you have a crash. Friedman trusted politicians way too much, even when they did a terrible job, like Greenspan did. And it's not like no one saw it coming. See what Ron Paul said in the same interview:

"When you keep interest rates lower than the market rate by creating new money and credit, that is inflation. That's the source of much mischief, and he [Greenspan] did this continuously."

If Friedman has an understanding of monetary policy as good as Ron Paul's, he wouldn't be praising Greenspan. The last thing we need is look up to people who trust and praise politicians who are destroying the country. I'm not an anarchist, but Rothbard was right: Friedman was a statist.

I'm confused by your position.

Are you saying that Friedman's opinions about policies the Fed took were wrong because he should have taken different positions on what their policies should have been in those cases?

Or are you saying that those opinions were wrong because he should have prescinded from having any opinion about Fed policy at all and only advocated abolition of the Fed?

It can't be both.

Also, if you're not an anarchist, then aren't you also a statist by definition (or at least by Rothbard's definition)? And if so, then why use that label to criticize Friedman?

[low preference guy]

I'm saying mostly that he was fine placing too much power in the hands of politicians. One should be alarmed by the mere existence of the FED, and should constantly call to abolish it or take its power away. Remember, when you have a FED, the Government can take away any amount of your purchasing power to fund what it wants.

Also, he was a terrible economist in monetary policy. Saying "I think Greenspan did remarkably well" shows that. Has Schiff been in the same room with Friedman, we would have seen him on the Peter Schiff was right video.

So Friedman was wrong in two ways: He trusted politicians way too much, like in the Greenspan example, and didn't understand monetary policy.

Monetary policy is the most important issue. People who don't understand it are not an example for me.

EDIT: Forgot to answer about what I mean by statist. I won't try to give a formal definition of statist, but anyone who doesn't mind politicians having the power to counterfeit is a statist in my book.

[Kotin]

friedman is a jew last name

swing and a miss..

[__27__]

I'm confused by your position.

Are you saying that Friedman's opinions about policies the Fed took were wrong because he should have taken different positions on what their policies should have been in those cases?

Or are you saying that those opinions were wrong because he should have prescinded from having any opinion about Fed policy at all and only advocated abolition of the Fed?

It can't be both.

Also, if you're not an anarchist, then aren't you also a statist by definition (or at least by Rothbard's definition)? And if so, then why use that label to criticize Friedman?

Do you hate the state? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)


Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism" debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.

[qwerty]

Whatever bad things you guys have to say about Friedman, he probably did more for free markets than anyone else in the past century. If we classify everyone who is not an extremist as an idiot then we will never make any progress.

Yeah, just read what Ron Paul says,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html


There a countless articles where Austrian economists go on and on about how Friedman didn't know what he was talking about with economics. He may be slightly better than a Keynesian but Chicago School economists are still idiots.

I know that... :rolleyes:

Do you know that there are also other issues than monetary policy ? :rolleyes:

Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy

YouTube - Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg)


From what i understand it, he says " we don´t entirely agree which form of monetary system is the best"


Yeah, that´s really a reason to say that Friedman is a douche...Grow up, he had lot of good ideas!

[qwerty]

People here calling him a douche are nuts Friedman was a real Libertarian. His real problems were his lack of understanding of central banking. He was against price fixing yet promoted price fixing interest rates.

If the world was composed of people like Friedman this world would be a lot better place to live.

Exactly!

[low preference guy]

But the world isn't composed of people like Friedman, it is composed of tyrannical authoritarian assholes, and most of them dream to become politicians. Therefore we should do our best to take away from politicians the ability to counterfeit, not just advise them on how to steal doing the least amount of damage.

We have plenty of heroes in the Freedom movement: Mises and Ron Paul are two examples. We don't need to waste our times with losers like Friedman.

Friedman gives free markets a bad name. Because of him people think Ben Bernanke is a capitalist. Hey, he says he wants to follow Friedman advice and print the necessary money to avoid a recession!

"Monetary policy is just one issue" It's the most important issue! The Fed is used to finance wars on other countries, on drugs, welfare, and most of the government waste.

[qwerty]

But the world isn't composed of people like Friedman, it is composed of tyrannical authoritarian assholes, and most of them dream to become politicians. Therefore we should do our best to take away from politicians the ability to counterfeit, not just advise them on how to steal doing the least amount of damage.

We have plenty of heroes in the Freedom movement: Mises and Ron Paul are two examples. We don't need to waste our times with losers like Friedman.

Friedman gives free markets a bad name. Because of him people think Ben Bernanke is a capitalist. Hey, he says he wants to follow Friedman advice and print the necessary money to avoid a recession!

"Monetary policy is just one issue" It's the most important issue! The Fed is used to finance wars on other countries, on drugs, welfare, and most of the government waste.

I AGREE WITH RON 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.

I was proud to know Dr. Friedman for many decades, and considered him a friend. I can assure you that he was no ivory tower academic, but rather an engaging and active man who worked very hard to demonstrate the applicability of economics to everyday life.

His death only underscores the sad lack of economics knowledge in Washington, however. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.

The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.

Our schools teach children virtually nothing about economics and personal finance, which leaves them woefully unprepared for the working world. It also creates whole generations of young Americans who are incredibly vulnerable to the worst pandering politicians.

We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy. The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils.

November 21, 2006

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

[mtj458]

I think a lot of people overestimate the extent that Monetarism is used in current policy, anyway. Monetarists often encouraged targeting the nominal money supply for central banking policy where as most banks today target either the interest rate or the inflation rate, which seems to be gaining more acceptance. Bernanke and Greenspan may have been influence by some of Friedman's ideas but they certainly aren't targeting the money supply in their policies.

[qwerty]

http://reason.com/archives/2007/01/24/quotations-from-chairman-milto

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, just read what Ron Paul says,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html



I know that... :rolleyes:

Do you know that there are also other issues than monetary policy ? :rolleyes:

Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy

YouTube - Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg)


From what i understand it, he says " we don´t entirely agree which form of monetary system is the best"


Yeah, that´s really a reason to say that Friedman is a douche...Grow up, he had lot of good ideas!

Friedman was no libertarian. If he would have been alive during our Founding he would have been Alexander Hamilton-lite. Not only did he espouse his Central Banking, Econometric farces, he also pushed for Government-Vouchers for Schools (subsidies), has absolutely no understanding of "Macro" or Capital Economics (Have you ever read what he thinks happens with Boom-Busts? He thinks it's actually Busts-Booms, and his nice little theory to explain it is a rope glued to the underbelly of a plane and sometimes the rope droops...), and supports a hideous negative income tax.

No-one should listen to Milton. Hayek also praised Keynes and had shit words to say about Mises. That's all you need to know there.

[qwerty]

Friedman was no libertarian. If he would have been alive during our Founding he would have been Alexander Hamilton-lite. Not only did he espouse his Central Banking, Econometric farces, he also pushed for Government-Vouchers for Schools (subsidies), has absolutely no understanding of "Macro" or Capital Economics (Have you ever read what he thinks happens with Boom-Busts? He thinks it's actually Busts-Booms, and his nice little theory to explain it is a rope glued to the underbelly of a plane and sometimes the rope droops...), and supports a hideous negative income tax.

No-one should listen to Milton. Hayek also praised Keynes and had shit words to say about Mises. That's all you need to know there.

This is non-sense!

If you want to change the system, you must change it step by step. You can´t get rid of the welfare tomorrow cause too many people are depended on it. That would only hurt people and that´s not what we want to do!

You should have also reality. I think Milton and Ron Paul are great examples on how to change the system step by step. That´s why for example Ron Paul often says that "we should cut over-seas and spend it here at home"!

People who read often forget the reality. Yes, we agree that where we should go, but you must also face reality on how we will really get there.

It´s easy to say where we should be, tricky part is, how we get there without hurting the masses.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is non-sense!

If you want to change the system, you must change it step by step. You can´t get rid of the welfare tomorrow cause too many people are depended on it. That would only hurt people and that´s not what we want to do!

You should have also reality. I think Milton and Ron Paul are great examples on how to change the system step by step. That´s why for example Ron Paul often says that "we should cut over-seas and spend it here at home"!

People who read often forget the reality. Yes, we agree that where we should go, but you must also face reality on how we will really get there.

It´s easy to say where we should be, tricky part is, how we get there without hurting the masses.

Perhaps in the short-term it will hurt people, but keeping it in the long-run hurts everyone! Moreover, in the long-run getting rid of Welfare immensely helps everyone. If you want a bankrupt Nanny-State then support Welfare. If you want liberty and prosperity then you must be anti-Welfare. If you do believe that Welfare hurts people instead of helping, and you instead gradually try and get rid of it, what does that say about you? No, abolishment is the answer.

Besides, I didn't even bring Welfare up. For one, Milton has no idea what he is talking about with Capital, as he even lamented that he has no general theory on how to explain the Business Cycle. He doesn't understand the structure of production and capital, nor does he understand Capital whatsoever. He also was a heavy supporter of NAFTA and GATT and other Neo-Mercantilist policies. Sure he gave lip service to Free-Markets, but like we know, paying lip service and doing the exact opposite is not progress, and in fact hurts worse than our opponents.

As Stefen lucidly put before: You cannot have a Free-Market when there is Central Banking and a Monopoly Currency. PERIOD. When the foundation is built on Central Economic Planning only a fool would believe that you can have a Free-Market. Sorry, but Milton will lead us to ruin, as much as any Keynesian or Marxist. Only by listening and following the likes of Bastiat, Say, Rau, Menger, Bohm-Bewark, Mises, Rothbard, and Block will we achieve liberty and prosperity. If you listen to Milton and expect to get to Free-Markets and liberty (Remember only the Austrians are rabidly anti-war), it's like coming to a fork in the road where left is Heaven and right is Hell and taking the right turn expecting to end up on Heavens door-steps. That just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

I don't know if you know this, but Milton and Ron espouse two totally different ideas.

I'm not sure if you have heard of the Mount Pelerin Society, but Mises lambasted Milton and the others on many many occasions.

[Stary Hickory]

As far as Welfare and Welfare like programs I am all for abolishing them and then funding the remaining dependency. Let a private company take over the remaining dependents and at least in this way we can end the growth and eventually get people off altogether.

Sure it means we will have to fund a system in which we have no hope of getting a return. But we have that situation anyways. At the very least things will not get worse, and there would be a ending of the programs.

[qwerty]

Perhaps in the short-term it will hurt people, but keeping it in the long-run hurts everyone! Moreover, in the long-run getting rid of Welfare immensely helps everyone. If you want a bankrupt Nanny-State then support Welfare. If you want liberty and prosperity then you must be anti-Welfare. If you do believe that Welfare hurts people instead of helping, and you instead gradually try and get rid of it, what does that say about you? No, abolishment is the answer.

Besides, I didn't even bring Welfare up. For one, Milton has no idea what he is talking about with Capital, as he even lamented that he has no general theory on how to explain the Business Cycle. He doesn't understand the structure of production and capital, nor does he understand Capital whatsoever. He also was a heavy supporter of NAFTA and GATT and other Neo-Mercantilist policies. Sure he gave lip service to Free-Markets, but like we know, paying lip service and doing the exact opposite is not progress, and in fact hurts worse than our opponents.

As Stefen lucidly put before: You cannot have a Free-Market when there is Central Banking and a Monopoly Currency. PERIOD. When the foundation is built on Central Economic Planning only a fool would believe that you can have a Free-Market. Sorry, but Milton will lead us to ruin, as much as any Keynesian or Marxist. Only by listening and following the likes of Bastiat, Say, Rau, Menger, Bohm-Bewark, Mises, Rothbard, and Block will we achieve liberty and prosperity. If you listen to Milton and expect to get to Free-Markets and liberty (Remember only the Austrians are rabidly anti-war), it's like coming to a fork in the road where left is Heaven and right is Hell and taking the right turn expecting to end up on Heavens door-steps. That just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

I don't know if you know this, but Milton and Ron espouse two totally different ideas.

I'm not sure if you have heard of the Mount Pelerin Society, but Mises lambasted Milton and the others on many many occasions.

When you not seeing the point, i rest my case with this.

Who has had more positive influence to the society Ron Paul & Milton Friedman or Mises & Rothbard ?

Yes, Milton and Ron, simply cause they understand that you must go step by step towards your goal and you will reach it.

You never can deny that Milton has very good points.


And i really agree with Ron Paul in his statement about Milton and you should follow his example. Your way of speaking about things is not productive at all and makes only enemies. Try Ron Paul´s way for a while.


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.

I was proud to know Dr. Friedman for many decades, and considered him a friend. I can assure you that he was no ivory tower academic, but rather an engaging and active man who worked very hard to demonstrate the applicability of economics to everyday life.

His death only underscores the sad lack of economics knowledge in Washington, however. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.

The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.

Our schools teach children virtually nothing about economics and personal finance, which leaves them woefully unprepared for the working world. It also creates whole generations of young Americans who are incredibly vulnerable to the worst pandering politicians.

We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy. The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils.

November 21, 2006

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

You should really try to understand WHy Ron Paul says something like this while he disargees with Milton...:rolleyes:

If you don´t agree with someone 100% it doesn´t mean that you should talk like you are talking now about the person...

[qwerty]

As far as Welfare and Welfare like programs I am all for abolishing them and then funding the remaining dependency. Let a private company take over the remaining dependents and at least in this way we can end the growth and eventually get people off altogether.

Sure it means we will have to fund a system in which we have no hope of getting a return. But we have that situation anyways. At the very least things will not get worse, and there would be a ending of the programs.

I think that allmost every Ron Paul supporter would like to end the wellfare, but THAT`S NOT ENOUGH! Face the reality.

You got to go step by step, cause nothing else will pass the congress.

Ofcourse it will end when the foreign nation will stop lending America money, but politicians will go with that path rather than end all of the wellfare programs tomorrow.

Step by step is the best way and the most realistic way and won´t hurt so many.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

When you not seeing the point, i rest my case with this.

Who has had more positive influence to the society Ron Paul & Milton Friedman or Mises & Rothbard ?

Yes, Milton and Ron, simply cause they understand that you must go step by step towards your goal and you will reach it.

You never can deny that Milton has very good points.


And i really agree with Ron Paul in his statement about Milton and you should follow his example. Your way of speaking about things is not productive at all and makes only enemies. Try Ron Paul´s way for a while.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

You should really try to understand WHy Ron Paul says something like this while he disargees with Milton...:rolleyes:

I will try truth. If people don't want to listen so be it. Time will be my vindication.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://mises.org/daily/4067
http://mises.org/daily/940
http://mises.org/daily/1001

Milton Friedman was not a Free-Market Economist!

How can one be a Free-Market Economist, but yet espouse Central Economic Planning in the very foundation? You can't. Seriously, do you have any free thought and opinion or do you take what Ron Paul says as Gospel? Yes, Ron is right in a lot of cases, but not in this. We would all be better off without Milton, because his ideas just give another excuse for big Government and intervention. If the only two choices was Big-Government ideology and Limited to Zero State ideology, then once the Big-G fails, we would do the L-Z State, but no, there are numerous Big-Government ideologies wrapped around in the rhetoric of Free-Markets. So, now once Keynes finally fails, we'll have to go through Monetarism, then when that ultimately fails people will mistakenly think Free-Markets fail, when it wasn't a failure in the Markets it was the failure of STATISM, which Milton advocated!

If you call Statism positive influence then I have to worry about you.

Have fun with your Central Bank, Fiat money, and Income Tax which Milton advocated for.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_4/16_4_3.pdf


In fact, in this as in other such cases, suspicion is precisely the right response for the libertarian, for Professor Friedman’s particular
brand of “free-market economics” is hardly calculated to ruffle the feathers of the powers-that-be. Milton Friedman is the Establishment’s
Court Libertarian, and it is high time that libertarians awaken to this fact of life.

Murray Continues:

Friedman, a professor at the University of Chicago, is now the undisputed head of the modern, or secondgeneration, Chicago School, which has adherents throughout the profession, with major centers at Chicago, UCLA, and the University of Virginia. The members of the original, or first-generation, Chicago School were considered “leftish” in their day, as indeed they were by any sort of genuine free-market criterion. And while Friedman has modified some of their approaches, he remains a Chicago man of the thirties. The political program of the original Chicagoans is best revealed in the egregious work of a founder and major political mentor:

Henry C. Simons’s A Positive Program for Laissez Faire. Simons’s political program was laissez faireist only in an unconsciously satiric sense. It consisted of three key ideas:

(1) a drastic policy of trust-busting of all business firms and unions
down to small blacksmith-shop size, in order to arrive at
“perfect” competition and what Simons conceived to be the “free
market”;

(2) a vast scheme of compulsory egalitarianism, equalizing incomes
through the income-tax structure; and

(3) a proto-Keynesian policy of stabilizing the price-level through
expansionary fiscal and monetary programs during a recession.

Extreme trust-busting, egalitarianism, and Keynesianism: the Chicago School contained within itself much of the New Deal program, and, hence, its status within the economics profession of the early 1930s as a leftish fringe. And while Friedman has modified and softened Simons’s hard-nosed stance, he is still, in essence, Simons redivivus; he only appears to be a free-marketeer because the remainder of the profession has shifted radically leftward and stateward in the meanwhile. And, in some ways, Friedman has added unfortunate statists elements that were not even present in the older Chicago School.

[qwerty]

I will try truth. If people don't want to listen so be it. Time will be my vindication.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://mises.org/daily/4067
http://mises.org/daily/940
http://mises.org/daily/1001

Milton Friedman was not a Free-Market Economist!

How can one be a Free-Market Economist, but yet espouse Central Economic Planning in the very foundation? You can't. Seriously, do you have any free thought and opinion or do you take what Ron Paul says as Gospel? Yes, Ron is right in a lot of cases, but not in this. We would all be better off without Milton, because his ideas just give another excuse for big Government and intervention. If the only two choices was Big-Government ideology and Limited to Zero State ideology, then once the Big-G fails, we would do the L-Z State, but no, there are numerous Big-Government ideologies wrapped around in the rhetoric of Free-Markets. So, now once Keynes finally fails, we'll have to go through Monetarism, then when that ultimately fails people will mistakenly think Free-Markets fail, when it wasn't a failure in the Markets it was the failure of STATISM, which Milton advocated!

If you call Statism positive influence then I have to worry about you.

Have fun with your Central Bank, Fiat money, and Income Tax which Milton advocated for.

Ok, you can´t understand the point.

Why Ron Paul says something like this,


He was perhaps the most successful free-market economist of the 20th century, in terms of his real-world impact on politics and policy.


The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils.

How long are you going to ignore the fact that it takes something to get things done too. More than TALK!

It´s so fucking easy to talk and say how things should be. YES, WE ALL KNOW WHERE WE SHOULD BE AND WE ALL HAVE FAMILIAR WITH THE MATERIAL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ALLREADY. SO PLEASE DON`T TRY TO BE A SMART-ASS WITH QUOTING SOME MATERIAL FROM MISES OR SOME OTHER! :rolleyes:

Run for office and let´s see how much you can change things. Talk is cheap.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ok, you can´t understand the point.

Why Ron Paul says something like this,





How long are you going to ignore the fact that it takes something to get things done too. More than TALK!

It´s so fucking easy to talk and say how things should be. YES, WE ALL KNOW WHERE WE SHOULD BE AND WE ALL HAVE FAMILIAR WITH THE MATERIAL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ALLREADY. SO PLEASE DON`T TRY TO BE A SMART-ASS WITH QUOTING SOME MATERIAL FROM MISES OR SOME OTHER! :rolleyes:

Run for office and let´s see how much you can change things. Talk is cheap.


Every revolution starts as an intellectual revolution. I may run for office one day, but my underlying goal is to become a Professor. How many times do I have to point out Milton Friedman was not a Free-Market Economist. If you want a Free-Market you would do well to not listen to Milton. If most Congressman listened to Milton we would be getting the same deal we are getting today. More Econometrics, More Income Taxation (I don't know if you have read his Negative Income Tax, it is truely horrible), more Interest Rate manipulation hence Booms-Busts, and even more Anti-Trust busting of companies once they hit some mythical "too large" size that only Monetarists are smart enough to know when and in what way "perfect competition" will arise. Yeah, that is all limited-Government and Free-Market approaches. Jefferson would slap (figuratively) Friedman as much as he did Hamilton!

Besides, the truth is not a condition of my running for office, or whatever you deem to be of worthiness. Secondly, can you point out where exactly I have "ignored the fact that it takes something to get things done too"?

I bet you didn't know that Milton consulted Nixon and signed off on much of the Nixonite policy? Do you even know what that entails?

[qwerty]

Every revolution starts as an intellectual revolution. I may run for office one day, but my underlying goal is to become a Professor. How many times do I have to point out Milton Friedman was not a Free-Market Economist. If you want a Free-Market you would do well to not listen to Milton. If most Congressman listened to Milton we would be getting the same deal we are getting today. More Econometrics, More Income Taxation (I don't know if you have read his Negative Income Tax, it is truely horrible), more Interest Rate manipulation hence Booms-Busts, and even more Anti-Trust busting of companies once they hit some mythical "too large" size that only Monetarists are smart enough to know when and in what way "perfect competition" will arise. Yeah, that is all limited-Government and Free-Market approaches. Jefferson would slap (figuratively) Friedman as much as he did Hamilton!

Besides, the truth is not a condition of my running for office, or whatever you deem to be of worthiness. Secondly, can you point out where exactly I have "ignored the fact that it takes something to get things done too"?

I bet you didn't know that Milton consulted Nixon and signed off on much of the Nixonite policy? Do you even know what that entails?

Check the free to choose-series and honestly take a look how much you agree with Milton...

http://www.ideachannel.tv/

Still it´s nice to have an ideology, but that´s not enough. You also need to get there. That´s the hard part.

Try to run with total "Austrian platform" and you will face the reality... If you get elected, you will face reality in congress. You will not get anything done.

Things like negative income tax would be right direction atleast in my country (i´m not fully familiar with your system). That would be the right direction. Step by step we would move to end the income tax.

I like to way Milton and Ron faces the reality and try to improve things. You don´t get much done with the platform "end this and this"...Sad but true.



:rolleyes:

PS. I hope you are where we disagree. Not in ideology but on how to get there and how to treat people like Milton.

[__27__]

Check the free to choose-series and honestly take a look how much you agree with Milton...

http://www.ideachannel.tv/

Still it´s nice to have an ideology, but that´s not enough. You also need to get there. That´s the hard part.

Try to run with total "Austrian platform" and you will face the reality... If you get elected, you will face reality in congress. You will not get anything done.

Things like negative income tax would be right direction atleast in my country (i´m not fully familiar with your system). That would be the right direction. Step by step we would move to end the income tax.

I like to way Milton and Ron faces the reality and try to improve things. You don´t get much done with the platform "end this and this"...Sad but true.



:rolleyes:

PS. I hope you are where we disagree. Not in ideology but on how to get there and how to treat people like Milton.

If you'd like to understand where and why we disagree, please read the following:

Do you hate the state? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)

Pay special attention to the following paragraph:


Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism" debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.