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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
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.
The thought of Chomsky and Friedman in a cock size contest!
They shoould have done something similar with Bush and Sadaam! Put the two fuckers in a ring naked and made them fight to the death with their hands tied behind their backs using only their dicks as weapons. :eek:
Fuck Lewis vs Hollyfield! This would have been the money spinner of the century!
Id never even heard of that site. Thanks for posting the debate. It sounds alot like some of the debates we have over here, only with.....information. It was an interesting read. Both guys clearly had an ax to grind so I do not find either of their positions to be supported completely. There was truth in what both of them said. It was interesting to actually read the debate. Usually one listens to one. A couple of observations. Chomsky needs to stick to writing and stop speaking. Especially when the person you are debating happens to be one of the best lawyers on earth. From a debating standpoint Chomsky got skewered. His words sound like a textbook. Dershowitz is an ora wordsmith. He is a fucking assasin.
With respect to Chomsky I am just stunned that one of the worlds pre-eminent polical scientists was just flat wrong on some of the history. I read this guy in college and respected his writing, but what the hell happened here?
I think there is a reason that Chomsky has become a darling of the extreme political left. No one else will accpet him. He cites the fucking UN the EU and the World Court. All of these institutions are clearly skewered against the US. Why not cite someone that is not obviously biased against our policy if he is trying to persuade.
I really read this thing with an open mind and thank you for posting it. Good informative read. It also illustrates just how unsolveable that issue really is.
Fascinating guy. I now understand why he is so popular over here. The guy is a fucking self described anarachist socialist. And he's a mathmetician, not a political scientist. Who knew? Apparenty Hugo Chavez has taken a liking to him as well.....Learn something new every day.
Id never even heard of that site. Thanks for posting the debate....Chomsky needs to stick to writing and stop speaking. .
No problem.
Although as far as Chomsky needing to stick to writing and stop speaking, I'll have to disagree with you on this point. I've seen quite a lot of footage of him speaking and he is a superb speaker. The knowledge he has memorized pertaining to world affairs, with dates, names, places e.t.c, is quite astounding. I actually think he's most impressive when engaged in a one-on-one debate with someone. He has a tendency to verbally destroy his opponent by the sheer weight and clairty of his argument. Many of his opponents in these debates end up storming out emabarrased and humiliated. If you can get your hands on a copy of the documentary 'Manufacturing consent' then do so. It's brilliant, and a real eye-opener.
You can find a lot more of his writings, interviews, video and audio files on here: http://www.chomsky.info/index.htm
Comments
So i guess by your standard karl marx is not an intellectual?
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 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.
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.
naděje umírá poslední
Same thing if you ask Chomsky about economics..the only problem is that he does answer and the left clings to his statements.
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.
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.
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.
You made me laugh out loud.
The thought of Chomsky and Friedman in a cock size contest!
They shoould have done something similar with Bush and Sadaam! Put the two fuckers in a ring naked and made them fight to the death with their hands tied behind their backs using only their dicks as weapons. :eek:
Fuck Lewis vs Hollyfield! This would have been the money spinner of the century!
Id never even heard of that site. Thanks for posting the debate. It sounds alot like some of the debates we have over here, only with.....information. It was an interesting read. Both guys clearly had an ax to grind so I do not find either of their positions to be supported completely. There was truth in what both of them said. It was interesting to actually read the debate. Usually one listens to one. A couple of observations. Chomsky needs to stick to writing and stop speaking. Especially when the person you are debating happens to be one of the best lawyers on earth. From a debating standpoint Chomsky got skewered. His words sound like a textbook. Dershowitz is an ora wordsmith. He is a fucking assasin.
With respect to Chomsky I am just stunned that one of the worlds pre-eminent polical scientists was just flat wrong on some of the history. I read this guy in college and respected his writing, but what the hell happened here?
I think there is a reason that Chomsky has become a darling of the extreme political left. No one else will accpet him. He cites the fucking UN the EU and the World Court. All of these institutions are clearly skewered against the US. Why not cite someone that is not obviously biased against our policy if he is trying to persuade.
I really read this thing with an open mind and thank you for posting it. Good informative read. It also illustrates just how unsolveable that issue really is.
No problem.
Although as far as Chomsky needing to stick to writing and stop speaking, I'll have to disagree with you on this point. I've seen quite a lot of footage of him speaking and he is a superb speaker. The knowledge he has memorized pertaining to world affairs, with dates, names, places e.t.c, is quite astounding. I actually think he's most impressive when engaged in a one-on-one debate with someone. He has a tendency to verbally destroy his opponent by the sheer weight and clairty of his argument. Many of his opponents in these debates end up storming out emabarrased and humiliated. If you can get your hands on a copy of the documentary 'Manufacturing consent' then do so. It's brilliant, and a real eye-opener.
You can find a lot more of his writings, interviews, video and audio files on here: http://www.chomsky.info/index.htm