Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Craig234
That's like offering to listen to my recommendation of The Beatles Collection if I'll listen to
the rap albums made in the last year.
I've read enough about and from Friedman and there's no reason to read more. I encourage you to read my recommendation, but this trade makes no sense.
Then please don't call me close-minded if I refuse to read Klein.
That's your opinion. Naomi Klein has been as substantively rebuked by historians, if not more so, than Freidman.
It doesn't work that way. You aren't doing me a favor by reading Klein, I'm doing you a favor by suggesting her to you. I'm not obligated to 'pay you off' to read good info.
You can be closed minded and I can say you are, if I think it's the case. It's not comparable to not read good info, versus reading crap ideology. And it's also not comparable between the fact I've already looked at more than enough of Friedman, while you apparently are far from familiar with Klein's writing on him.
If you aren't interested in good info, thanks for letting me know I can not waste my time.
Actually, to be fair to Marx, who had *some* insightful points, I compared him to the harmful effects of those who used Marx's name - e.g., the USSR and China.
I still disagree with the association. The implementation of Freidman's theories, correctly or incorrectly, has not brought upon the death of millions. The ills that Freidman's brand of capitalism has wrought are offset by the massive benefits that free-markets provide. The same cannot be said of Marx's policy. [/quote]
Friedman's economics have led to a lot more harming of people than Marx's. Admittedly, the systems that said they had some relaiton to Marx have done more harm, but it is not really because of Marx's economics. Ironically, right-wing economics actually played an important role in the creation of the communist suffering and the cold war.
When the USSR was formed, the wealthy elites in Europe and the US saw it as a threat to their wealth if the poor in their countries got any crazy ideas about 'economic justice', and decided the only way to deal with the threat was to nip it in the bud (15 years before their policies crashed the economy and led to that happening with reforms). Few Americans even know that we sent thousands of Marines to invade Russia in th eearly days of the USSR, to try to overthrow the new government and restore 'capitalism'.
And that invasion led the new government in the USSR to decide it had to rule with an iron hand to protect itself from those threatening capitalist nations. And sure enough, they had a point about the threat - the 'red scare' continued for many decades in a cycle of sort of self-fulfilling prophecy making the already dictatorial government act even worse.
But that was not so much about Marx's economics, while Friedman's economics repeatedly took healthy liberal economies and turned them into gutted right-wing disasters.
People suffered, and their democracies were destroyed as the people had to be forced, had to be terrorized, into accepting the policies that benefitted only the rich.
If you wish to pair Freidman with Marx as counterparts, then I ask: What nations which have been inspired by Marxist ideals have improved at all, let alone outperformed nations inspired by Freidman's ideals?
What nations have followed Marx's ideas at all? It's a red herring, really, Marx was not the sort of economic system inventor that Friedman was. Friedman was someone who would closely work with a dictator to implement his theories, and constantly harangue the dictator to remain firm in their discipline no matter how much suffering, while Marx was basically more of a commentator who thought some things would happen, a theorist. And frankly, many nations including the US have incorporated some of Marx's ideas.
(As we constantly hear from idiot right-wingers who claim that pretty much every step the government takes in favor of workers turns the US into a Marxist nation.)
And I don't use your deductive approach - that recognition proves merit - rather I look directly at his theories and their results for my opinion. The recognition can be explained.
I tend to shy from that as well, except that leftists seem to have little hesitation in pointing out Nobel laureates who happen to lean left. But even that is not a poor argument. I believe recognition to be a merit unto itself, at least one which affords the individual our respect, and hesitation to demonize.
If Paul Krugman said things I thought were terrible, I wouldn't cite him. I cited him for years before he won the Nobel, because of the quality of his commentary.
I agree with you as you put it there, that such recognition is certainly a strong indicator of some outstanding qualities by the person, and deserving of consideration, especially in light of the fact that the inertia of the status quo often causes people to dismiss change that they should consider - one of the purposes of the Nobel is to give recognition to deserving view.
But it's not something that means everything the person says is right.
Take Henry Kissinger, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (I could more easily make the point with the right by citing Yasser Arafat, but let's not just use that). I can show you all kinds of horrific acts by Kissinger in humanitarian terms - one that comes to mind is when he and Ford visited Indonesia and approved their invading East Timor, that killed hundreds of thousands - secretly, because it was an illegal use of arms we'd provided and Congress had placed restrictions on. And they lied about it. Does his Nobel whitewash that?
Of course not, it was to recognize the importance of ending the Vietnam war (an award ironic for a Nixon aide, given Nixon's role in blocking 1968 peace talks to win the election).
The facts on Friedman are relevant, and you can get many of them in Klein's work.
You say her work has been discredited? Links (obviously to credible articles, not crap), please.
Yes, I did not attack the overall system you call capitalism (we can easily get bogged down in labels), which includes both 1890's American and the New Deal, which are so different.
I don't believe they were so different. The New Deal was a reaction to a disaster, and we learned alot from the depression. What do you mean by this?
I'm not sure how to say it more clearly - the 'laissez-faire' domination of the government by 'free market ideology', in which among many other examples, unions were illegal, was radically different than the New Deal policies - I strongly oppose the former and support the latter - and yet both fall under the label 'capitalism'.
You were appearing to imply that I was broadly attacking 'capitalism', wrongly, and I said it was wrong, in my next comments.
I attacked Friedman's economics, as implemented in Indonesia, Chile, the USSR and elsewhere, and you did not respond to what I said, but rather defended 'capitalism'.
Yes, and I see socialism as something that can be - and in fact is - implementable in degrees. We obviously have many things in the US that can be called socialist that work great, from our military to our public libraries and schools to the post office to the Tennessee Valley Authority among many. (And yes, I know we could bicker over 'work great').
We might not disagree as much as you realize, although I don't agree about the military being socialist, and don't understand how it can be socialist. I never thought about the military in economic terms, except perhaps that it is directed largely by dictatorial means (which any student of military history would contend, is wholly necessary for an effective military force). I agree that it works in degrees. I absolutely believe that it is disastrous when implemented in too great a degree, and that for this reason, we should never take any steps towards it without the utmost caution. We should strive for as little socialism as can be possibly allowed, except in the few cases it does more benefit than harm. To me, it's the quintessential slippery slope.
I suspect we don't 'really' disagree on as much as you were implying previously when you were implying I was somehow criticizing any capitalism.
We've now really gotten to the point of disagreement on 'tone'. Take your comment about 'caution' on socialism to do as little as possible, only where more good than harm.
The same could be said of medicine couldn't it? Approach it with caution and take as little as can be allowed, where the good outweighs the harm?
Your statements imply that my position is 'implement socialism to the point where it does more harm than good', reflecting your biases, not anything about my actual position.
You really think my position is 'implement where it does more harm that good, just because it's fun to do so'? (That's a rhetorical question).
You don't understand how the military is socialist and you have not thought of it in economic terms - well, that's why I said that. When you do, you notice that it's a completely government monopolized and government funded industry, as much and more than any other socialist industry - even socialist industry let the people go home at night, usually, to their own homes and beds and don't put their lives at risk.
The point isn't to criticize it for being socialist; as you note, it 'has to be' (Blackwater, which is a form of socialism with its government funding and direction, notwithstanding). Rather it's to help you see that your terror of 'socialism' might be a bit excessive whe you notice that an institution you presumably think pretty well of, is as socialist as it gets, basically - not only the direct military, but all the related benefits. They provde you with your government housing, your government medical care. your government food - but also veterans' benefits. The VA housing assistance, VA Medical Care, VA educational assistance are all 'socialist dreams', but somehow 'ok' when done for vets. And oh by the way, our post-WWII economic productivity is largely linked to those 'socialist' programs for vets.
I'm for as I said the 'progressive' version, which really isn't all that scary - or different - it's largely just their paying some more taxes, higher wages, with *some* more regulation in some areas (and less in others) - in short, basically just letting Democracy work more effectively at ensuring that the economy serve the needs of the people, while fully preserving the outstanding productivity of the capialist system, in which entrepeneurs thrive and people become rich with a very strong private sector.
No disagreement.
Progress! We agree on my actual economic views.
You might have seen some of my posts explain concepts such as how the excess concentration of wealth isn't the height of capialism, it's harmful to it, as it removes the grease of money that the capitalist system needs for the wheels to turn by incenting and rewarding productivity for many people, instead locking up that wealth for the benefit of a few, stifling productivity similarly to how communism does.
I believe this to be a side-effect of capitalism, in that it rewards people commensurate to their ability (which includes their ability to manipulate the system). The problem, then, is that it lays bare some very uncomfortable facts about humanity, notably that some people are far smarter and craftier than others, which flies in the face of the notion of equality.
I disagree with this. I don't think anyone denies what you say they deny - not only are Democrats strongly in favor of *reasonable* differentiatoin in reward, but even communists recognize what you mention in the phrase 'from each according to their ability'. Since when are CEOs corrupting the system by abusing power to skyrocket their compensation when compared to historic norms or their European counterparts 'rewarding them commensurate to their ability'? It's not. It's corruption, it's wasteful.
I believe this is also a misnomer. I find that when democrats talk about the concentration of wealth, they really mean the concentration of extreme wealth. And that's a critical difference. There are the super rich. But there are also the middle class, the people who by 3rd world standards are wealthy. The wealth of this nation is reasonably concentrated by any objective measure. Most of us drive cars, live reasonably comfortably, and pursue our interests. 3rd world citizens have only one interest: survival.
I agree - when liberals talk about the concentration of wealth, we are talking about the excessive conventration of wealth, a point I've made many times.
Sorry to add to your list, but read or watch "The Corporation", and note some of its points such as how the corporatocracy loves to 'privatize gains and externalize costs, for example by having the taxpayer pay for their pollution costs - that's a distortion that's profitable for them but bad for society, and I think it's pro-capitalism and good for the nation to say so and fix it. I think 'the good of socisty' has a place in the marketplace driven by the elected govermnet when it's actually representing the people.
I personally put more faith in businessmen to meet the demands of their constituency than our politicians. Money is a more powerful motivator than political responsibility.
You didn't respond to my recommendation on 'The Corporation', but on the point you made, I see some naivete about the importance of the role of government.
There didn't used to be much differentiation between politics and business; the same people largely held political and financial power, called 'nobles'. You were a serf, a farm animal for their interests, either in providing food or serving as a soldier. Our political leaders aren't support to provide the same thing businesspeople do; they're supposed to keep businesspeople making widgets for the good of society rather than impoverishing the nation with stock manipulation and monopoly.
Obviously, if the wealthy get too much influence over government, it can return to the old days, where it's not helping the public, but our system is founded on the rights of the people to get the power at least to try to elect better leaders who will represent their interests and keep the financial system serving society - which includes its profits.
It includes things like public healthcare - 'socialism!' - that offload businesses from an expense having nothing to do with their business. Good for capitalism.
I believe that a state-run monopoly is no different from a market-created monopoly. They do as much damage as any other monopoly through their incompetence. If anything they're worse. A market-created monopoly, however difficult it may be to break it, does not have the full power of the government to insure its hegemony.
For this reason, we should avoid them whenever possible.
I think you have fallen into 'spewing ideology' in that last. You don't show much familiarity with the facts on what works and what doesn't, or much concern for those facts.
You did not even say a word on the point I made about the benefits of freeing widget makers from having to be in the business of providing (via insurance) healthcare.
Ideology can convince you of wrong things (ask the communists who find that ideology quite attractive). You are not basing your objection to government healthcare on rational issues, where you have evaluated the massive waste and inefficiency in the current private systems (versus the benefits, especially to the richer people).
There's a certain amount of self-fulfilling prophecy in your animosity to the government; people who hate government are not very capable of running it well.
At least we've seemed to back off some of the more wild-eyed comments that I'm 'opposing capitalism', though, and zeroed in more accurately on the topic.
We have started to muddy things too, though, where it's less than clear at times what we're agreeing or disagreeing about, I was largely just clarifying my points.
If you choose to read or watch Shock Doctrine or The Corporation, you can let me know your reactions.
Facebook
Twitter