Jimmy Carter, hypocrite

Byrnzie

miller8966 wrote:

A genius economist

That's probably why I've never heard of him. Never touched on Economics.

miller8966

Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist and public intellectual who made major contributions to the fields of macroeconomics, microeconomics, economic history and statistics while advocating laissez-faire capitalism. In 1976, he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1]

According to The Economist, Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…, possibly of all of it." [2] In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, he advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. In his television series Free to Choose, which aired on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in 1980, Friedman explained how the free market works, emphasizing that its principles have shown to solve social and political problems that other systems have failed to adequately address. It was later released as a book, co-authored with his wife, Rose Friedman. The book was widely read, as were his columns for Newsweek magazine. His writings were circulated underground behind the Iron Curtain before it fell in 1989. [3]

In statistics, he devised the Friedman test. His political philosophy, which Friedman himself considered more classically liberal, stressing the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention shaped the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians.

The 1980s were a watershed decade for the acceptance of Friedman's ideas. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. His ideas were studied throughout the world, and played a major role in the transformation of China's economy

Byrnzie

miller8966 wrote:

His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom.

So he was something of a darling of the right then?

qtegirl

miller8966 wrote:

Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist and public intellectual who made major contributions to the fields of macroeconomics, microeconomics, economic history and statistics while advocating laissez-faire capitalism. In 1976, he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1]

According to The Economist, Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…, possibly of all of it." [2] In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, he advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. In his television series Free to Choose, which aired on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in 1980, Friedman explained how the free market works, emphasizing that its principles have shown to solve social and political problems that other systems have failed to adequately address. It was later released as a book, co-authored with his wife, Rose Friedman. The book was widely read, as were his columns for Newsweek magazine. His writings were circulated underground behind the Iron Curtain before it fell in 1989. [3]

In statistics, he devised the Friedman test. His political philosophy, which Friedman himself considered more classically liberal, stressing the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention shaped the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians.

The 1980s were a watershed decade for the acceptance of Friedman's ideas. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. His ideas were studied throughout the world, and played a major role in the transformation of China's economy

And, let's not forget that he was also an economic advisor to Augusto Pinochet.

miller8966

Byrnzie wrote:

So he was something of a darling of the right then?

yep...does that mean hes not an intellectual?

miller8966

qtegirl wrote:

And, let's not forget that he was also an economic advisor to Augusto Pinochet.

So i guess hes not intelligent?

Pacomc79

qtegirl wrote:

And, let's not forget that he was also an economic advisor to Augusto Pinochet.

who consequently made Chile into a well performing economic nation with an extremely good retirement plan, mucn much better than the ones created in the US.

Now was Pinochet an asshole dictator who ruled with an iron fist? Sure, but you can't argue what he did economically with that nation.

I'm sure I disagree with some of Friedmans ideas too, but he got a lot of stuff right. I love his views on the free market but I'm sure most Communists or Socialists who advocate having government involved at every level probably hate his guts.

Byrnzie

miller8966 wrote:

yep...does that mean hes not an intellectual?

I have my own criteria for deciding on what makes someone an 'intellectual', although I doubt that my criteria is of the standard fare. I certainly don't know enough about this fella to answer your question.

Byrnzie

Pacomc79 wrote:

Now was Pinochet an asshole dictator who ruled with an iron fist? Sure, but you can't argue what he did economically with that nation.

And which segment of the populuation benifited from Pinochet? The poor and the working class? Or the middle class and rich minority who didn't mind whoring their country to the U.S?

qtegirl

Pacomc79 wrote:

who consequently made Chile into a well performing economic nation with an extremely good retirement plan, mucn much better than the ones created in the US.

Now was Pinochet an asshole dictator who ruled with an iron fist? Sure, but you can't argue what he did economically with that nation.

First of all, being an advisor to someone like Pinochet makes me question a person's moral compass. But this is about economics, right?

How was Pinochet able to institute Friedman's advice? Why did he have to rule with an iron fist if the reforms were so wonderful?

I don't think that you can disconnect one from the other.

miller8966

Milton Friedman makes Noam Chomsky look like he rides the little yellow bus to school.

miller8966

qtegirl wrote:

First of all, being an advisor to someone like Pinochet makes me question a person's moral compass. But this is about economics, right?

How was Pinochet able to institute Friedman's advice? Why did he have to rule with an iron fist if the reforms were so wonderful?

I don't think that you can disconnect one from the other.

So i guess by your standard karl marx is not an intellectual?

Byrnzie

miller8966 wrote:

Milton Friedman makes Noam Chomsky look like he rides the little yellow bus to school.

I sincerely doubt that.
Are you at all aware of Chomskys work in the field of linguistics, and that he was recently voted the worlds top intellectual?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html

miller8966

Byrnzie wrote:

I sincerely doubt that.
Are you at all aware of Chomskys work in the field of linguistics, and that he was recently voted the worlds top intellectual?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html

Milton makes chomsky look like a 2nd grade teacher.

MILTON FRIEDMAN won the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded to an outstanding American economist under the age of 40, in 1951. Many consider it harder to win than a Nobel Prize. One of the measures of his greatness is that when he got it, he still had not done any of the work for which he would become most famous. Still to come were the permanent-income hypothesis, his groundbreaking “A Monetary History of the United States” (co-written with Anna Schwartz) and the proposal of a natural rate of unemployment.

These works revolutionised the conduct of central banks around the world. But to non-economists Mr Friedman’s great achievement is not his challenge to Keynesian demand management but the popular writings that challenged a consensus favouring ever-greater state intervention in the economy. This work, too, came long after his peers had recognised him as a leading light. At the time of his death on Thursday November 16th, the 94-year-old economist was still working to spread his ideas about free markets, this time through a documentary for American public television.

It is another mark of his greatness that so many of the ideas that seemed crazy when he came up with them—from blaming the Depression on bad central-bank policy, to school vouchers and the volunteer army—have gained mainstream acceptance. But Mr Friedman always recognised that his success was fragile; free markets and stable money have lots of enemies, particularly among politicians. He has left us a staggering legacy of economic theory and public-policy prescriptions—but is that inheritance growing or shrinking?

Certainly, on the monetary side, Mr Friedman remains a giant. His critics point out that central bankers no longer try to target the money supply directly, but to those who remember the inflationary 1970s it is perhaps more important that futile attempt to push unemployment to zero no longer trigger inflationary spirals. In developed countries politicians may talk like Keynesians, but they behave like monetarists, looking to the central bank, rather than fiscal policy, to stave off inflation and recession.

And what of his other crusades? His proposal of a volunteer military force, once rejected as impractical, is now so deeply ingrained in American culture that politicians who proposed bringing back the draft for the war in Iraq were dismissed as crackpots or worse. His quest to replace anti-poverty programmes with a “negative income tax” that would give cash to the working poor has come to fruition in the form of the earned-income tax credit. This is now the favoured policy prescription on both left and right for boosting incomes at the bottom. School vouchers, too, are making progress, albeit slowly. And where they are not, the idea that students should be able to choose between public schools is nonetheless bringing competition to America’s educational system.

Even outside his homeland, his ideas continue to make inroads. He was pilloried for briefly advising the Pinochet regime in Chile, where his students, “the Chicago boys”, ran economic policy. Thirty years later that oppressive government is gone but his free-market reforms have made Chile the economic star of Latin America. The World Bank and IMF continue to push for stable financial systems and market-based reforms around the world. Proposals like the negative income tax were forerunners of the consensus growing in Europe (and elsewhere) that governments should provide safety nets through taxation and distribution of cash benefits rather than heavy regulation of markets.

But despite Mr Friedman’s work, thickets of regulation thrive in most countries, particularly his homeland. Nor has he succeeded in trimming back the state, which is still growing in many places, including America. Ironically, another legacy may be to blame: income-tax withholding, which he helped to invent during the second world war. The fact that the tax is deducted from most peoples’ pay before it reaches their pockets is perhaps the main reason why the state has been able to grow so large. Mr Friedman deeply regretted this contribution to economic science—but like his other inventions, it will long outlive him.

Collin

miller8966 wrote:

Milton makes chomsky look like a 2nd grade teacher.

They both work in completely different field, how can you compare the two? If you would have asked Milton about linguistics, he would have looked like a monkey, a dumb one.

miller8966

Collin wrote:

They both work in completely different field, how can you compare the two? If you would have asked Milton about linguistics, he would have looked like a monkey, a dumb one.

Same thing if you ask Chomsky about economics..the only problem is that he does answer and the left clings to his statements.

qtegirl

miller8966 wrote:

So i guess by your standard karl marx is not an intellectual?

Uhm.... I didn't say anything about Friedman not being an intellectual, I don't care either way.

I posted in response to your glorious mini-biography of Friedman, where they subtly forget to mention his relationship with one of the most despicable people in the planet.

cincybearcat

All this talk abotu 'intellectuals' is making me sick.

Who gives a crap about who's smarter? How do you prove that anyhow?

And guess what? Smart people are wrong too.

Let's just start measuring their johnsons...and if any women get named will use a fancy equation that translates their breast size into johnson length...then will have the winner.

Pacomc79

Byrnzie wrote:

And which segment of the populuation benifited from Pinochet? The poor and the working class? Or the middle class and rich minority who didn't mind whoring their country to the U.S?

As with capitalism. I'm not sure it's as simple as dividing benifit plainly on class lines. I'm sure there were the have's and have not's and Pinochet made sure the detractors had miserable lives but I don't know if it's as simple as classification. If you had a job and you worked in the system, you probably are having a relatively decent retirement.

The bottom line is investing money outside of government involvement will always always work better than any social program. It's just a fact. If a politician has that money, they will spend it not necessarily on what's best for the people but what's best for them. That's why the American Social Security program is in the toiliet. The money is non existant... it's an IOU it's basically another tax. The pension plan that Chile came up with is brilliant and it brought money and prosperity to the country.

Forced savings into a private account makes sense. With any kind of intelligent management that money is only going to grow and that's going to grow the economy on all levels. Of course there are always people with more than others, but generally it's still better at the bottom than it was and there are more opportunities to have some modicum of success in a truely free market. I am too ignorant of the situation with Pinochet to talk much about conditions, life is certainly better when the people have some choice about their government, but I really really like the pension plan they came up with, I wish the US had a similar system because all of us would be better off that's all.

miller8966

Pacomc79 wrote:

As with capitalism. I'm not sure it's as simple as dividing benifit plainly on class lines. I'm sure there were the have's and have not's and Pinochet made sure the detractors had miserable lives but I don't know if it's as simple as classification. If you had a job and you worked in the system, you probably are having a relatively decent retirement.

The bottom line is investing money outside of government involvement will always always work better than any social program. It's just a fact. If a politician has that money, they will spend it not necessarily on what's best for the people but what's best for them. That's why the American Social Security program is in the toiliet. The money is non existant... it's an IOU it's basically another tax. The pension plan that Chile came up with is brilliant and it brought money and prosperity to the country.

Forced savings into a private account makes sense. With any kind of intelligent management that money is only going to grow and that's going to grow the economy on all levels. Of course there are always people with more than others, but generally it's still better at the bottom than it was and there are more opportunities to have some modicum of success in a truely free market. I am too ignorant of the situation with Pinochet to talk much about conditions, life is certainly better when the people have some choice about their government, but I really really like the pension plan they came up with, I wish the US had a similar system because all of us would be better off that's all.

Very true. I cant give enough thanks to the genius that is Milton Friedman....hes almost liek a hero of mine.