Happy 100th Birthday to Milton Friedman.

[Atreus21]

My best source of economic common sense was born 100 years ago today. Happy birthday to a great man.

Some excerpts from pieces commemorating him:

Thomas Sowell:

Milton Friedman is best known for his opposition to Keynesian economics, which had largely swept the economics profession on both sides of the Atlantic, with the notable exception of the University of Chicago, where Friedman was trained as a student and later taught.

In the heyday of Keynesian economics, many economists believed that inflationary government policies could reduce unemployment, and early empirical data seemed to support that view. The inference was that the government could make careful trade-offs between inflation and unemployment, and thus “fine tune” the economy.

Milton Friedman challenged this view with both facts and analysis. He showed that the relationship between inflation and unemployment held only in the short run, when the inflation was unexpected. But, after everyone got used to inflation, unemployment could be just as high with high inflation as it had been with low.

When both unemployment and inflation rose at the same time in the 1970s — “stagflation,” as it was called — the idea of the government “fine tuning” the economy faded away. There are still some die-hard Keynesians today who keep insisting that the government’s “stimulus” spending would have worked if only it had been bigger and lasted longer.

From the editors of NRO:

Friedman’s story is so deeply American that it practically smells of apple pie: His parents were Jewish immigrants from what is now Ukraine, who settled in Brooklyn and set up a dry-goods business. Their son was a gifted mathematician and enrolled at Rutgers with the aim of becoming an actuary; under the influence of two economics professors, he decided to pursue another course in life, and the insurance industry’s loss was the world’s gain. He began his graduate studies in economics in 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression, and those bleak years forever weighed heavy upon his memory. It probably was the experience of the Great Depression that gave Friedman’s economics its distinctive flavor: His work in the end was not about numbers, data, or equations, but about the alleviation of unnecessary human suffering and the removal of barriers to human flourishing. As he put it: “The only cases in recorded history in which the masses have escaped grinding poverty is where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.”

And Kevin Williamson, who contrasts Ayn Rand with Friedman:

The libertarianism of Rand (and she hated the word “libertarian”) was based on an economics of resentment of the “moochers” and “loafers,” the sort of thing that leads one to call a book The Virtue of Selfishness. Friedman’s libertarianism was based on an economics of love: for real human beings leading real human lives with real human needs and real human challenges. He loved freedom not only because it allowed IBM to pursue maximum profit but because it allowed for human flourishing at all levels. Economic growth is important to everybody, but it is most important to the poor. While Friedman’s contributions to academic economics are well appreciated and his opposition to government shenanigans is celebrated, what is seldom remarked upon is that the constant and eternal theme of his popular work was helping the poor and the marginalized. Friedman cared about the minimum wage not only because it distorted labor markets but because of the effect it has on low-skill workers: permanent unemployment. He called the black unemployment rate a “disgrace and a scandal,” and the unemployment statute the “most anti-black law” on the books with good reason. He talked about two “machines”: “There has never been a more effective machine for the elimination of poverty than the free-enterprise system and a free market.” “We have constructed a governmental welfare scheme which has been a machine for producing poor people. . . . I’m not blaming the people. It’s our fault for constructing so perverse and so ill-shaped a monster.”

For the few remaining impressionable people on this board, I implore you to go to youtube and watch just the first segment of Friedman's Free to Choose series. It's a 30 minute presentation followed by a fairly-moderated 30 minute debate between Friedman and his opponents.

Happy Birthday to a great man!

 

[Phokus]

Funny, whenever i mention that Friedman advocated a negative tax rate for the poor to give them money (something i agree with), conservatives recoil in horror.

 

[Atreus21]

Funny, whenever i mention that Friedman advocated a negative tax rate for the poor to give them money (something i agree with), conservatives recoil in horror.

I don't. Negative income tax was a good idea.

 

[Phokus]

I don't. Negative income tax was a good idea.

Conservatives typically don't advocate giving poor people money for nothing.

 

[Incorruptible]

Funny, whenever i mention that Friedman advocated a negative tax rate for the poor to give them money (something i agree with), conservatives recoil in horror.

If people dont want to give money to the poor then they shouldn't have to.

 

[Anarchist420]

He was a Keynesian earlier in life and his views on monetary policy were statist.

Although he was not really a hardcore libertarian like Dr. Rothbard and Dr. Paul were, he got people thinking that liberty was best and that was a good accomplishment.

Happy Bday to Milton Friedman from me as well.

 

[QuantumPion]

Conservatives typically don't advocate giving poor people money for nothing.

Friedman's negative income tax was in stead of social security, medicaid, medicare, welfare, food stamps, HUD, Obamacare, etc. Pretty much any fiscal conservative would be in favor of this. No liberals are.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

If people dont want to give money to the poor then they shouldn't have to.

They dont, but they do have to give money to the Government.

 

[woolfe9999]

Friedman's negative income tax was in stead of social security, medicaid, medicare, welfare, food stamps, HUD, Obamacare, etc. Pretty much any fiscal conservative would be in favor of this. No liberals are.

They'd be in favor of making the tradeoff, sure, but wouldn't consider it ideal. Friedman viewed the negative income tax as good policy.

 

[ichy]

To his credit his belief in small government was consistent and across the board, unlike 90% of today's Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman#Public_policy_positions

Friedman also supported libertarian policies such as legalization of drugs and prostitution. During 2005, Friedman and more than 500 other economists advocated discussions regarding the economic benefits of the legalization of marijuana.

 

[techs]

I bet it's a sad day in Iceland.

Who am I kidding? They are probably dancing in the streets.

 

[spacejamz]

Conservatives typically don't advocate giving poor people money for nothing.

Friedman also advocated that a company's main goal is to generate profit for the shareholders (through legal means) and they should not be concerned with any corporate social responsibility efforts.

The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
Milton Friedman - September 13, 1970

 

[EagleKeeper]

Conservatives typically don't advocate giving poor people money for nothing.

Then the poor come to expect it and will continue to do nothing

 

[Anarchist420]

To his credit his belief in small government was consistent and across the board, unlike 90% of today's Republicans.

Not really as he advocated the payroll tax rather than cutting spending (if IRC) and he got the cause of the GD wrong. He didn't endorse free banking until he was in his 90s.

I think he did a lot of good but Dr. Block and Rothbard were both quite critical of his ideas for sound reasons. Dr. Block said Friedman wasn't a libertarian, but rather a classical liberal at most (although I'm not going to conclude the same because it's not anyone but Friedman's place to say what he, himself was).

 

[Atreus21]

Conservatives typically don't advocate giving poor people money for nothing.

I think typically we want some strings attached, yes.

 

[Atreus21]

To his credit his belief in small government was consistent and across the board, unlike 90% of today's Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman#Public_policy_positions

I was against legalization until I listened to Friedman explain his position. Made nothing but sense.

 

[Atreus21]

Not really as he advocated the payroll tax rather than cutting spending (if IRC) and he got the cause of the GD wrong. He didn't endorse free banking until he was in his 90s.

I think he did a lot of good but Dr. Block and Rothbard were both quite critical of his ideas for sound reasons. Dr. Block said Friedman wasn't a libertarian, but rather a classical liberal at most (although I'm not going to conclude the same because it's not anyone but Friedman's place to say what he, himself was).

By your definition of the word libertarian, what's the difference between libertarianism and anarchy? Was Rothbard utterly opposed to government?

 

[Anarchist420]

By your definition of the word libertarian, what's the difference between libertarianism and anarchy? Was Rothbard utterly opposed to government?

Anarchy is the fullest expression of libertarianism. Rothbard opposed all govt (like I do), because he realized and pointed out that anarchy is the fullest expression of capitalism and capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy. The reasons the most libertarian of libertarians oppose all govt is because govt, by being itself, does the same things that some private individuals do... and large republics and unitary states commit aggression on a much larger scale than any group of private criminals could ever do. Govt provides the same amount of order or less order than a stateless society would, but there is no point is trying pinpoint the advantages and disadvantages of govt-imposed order because of the fact that govt aggresses so much.

When the U.S. gov collapses under its own weight, there will be chaos not because of the lack of govt, but because the govt took everything away from most people and destroyed it or wasted it.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I may disagree with some of his monetary views but I consider Milton Friedman a champion of personal liberty and the free market system.

His genius was his sharp acuity toward well thought logical and well reasoned economic conclusions and stances. His ability to defend what some naively or disingenuous call "The Undefendable" in economics has not yet been equaled as of late.

Example: The use of the word "Greed" dismantled and broken down by Milton Friedman.

In this interview Milton Friedman illustrates how erroneous it can be to throw around such a word along with its connotations without first understanding the context and implications of all other motivating actions or incentives that appear before its use is leveled at someone or some entity in regards to economics or society in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&

Happy Birthday Milton Friedman

 

[Atreus21]

Anarchy is the fullest expression of libertarianism. Rothbard opposed all govt (like I do), because he realized and pointed out that anarchy is the fullest expression of capitalism and capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy. The reasons the most libertarian of libertarians oppose all govt is because govt, by being itself, does the same things that some private individuals do... and large republics and unitary states commit aggression on a much larger scale than any group of private criminals could ever do. Govt provides the same amount of order or less order than a stateless society would, but there is no point is trying pinpoint the advantages and disadvantages of govt-imposed order because of the fact that govt aggresses so much.

When the U.S. gov collapses under its own weight, there will be chaos not because of the lack of govt, but because the govt took everything away from most people and destroyed it or wasted it.

I can't understand that. At it's most basic level, people want the trade-off of absolute liberty for some government. That's the whole idea of the social contract. If people in a state of anarchy created government to protect themselves against anarchy, then that's a strong indictment against anarchy. The responsibility for that government going out of control falls upon those who created the entity in the first place.

To the extent that governments protect and secure equal claims to justice, I am in their favor. With anarchy, I don't see how any justice exists apart from might makes right.

 

[Atreus21]

I may disagree with some of his monetary views but I consider Milton Friedman a champion of personal liberty and the free market system.

His genius was his sharp acuity toward well thought logical and well reasoned economic conclusions and stances. His ability to defend what some naively or disingenuous call "The Undefendable" in economics has not yet been equaled as of late.

Example: The use of the word "Greed" dismantled and broken down by Milton Friedman.

In this interview Milton Friedman illustrates how erroneous it can be to throw around such a word along with its connotations without first understanding the context and implications of all other motivating actions or incentives that appear before its use is leveled at someone or some entity in regards to economics or society in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&

Happy Birthday Milton Friedman

You oughta watch the whole interview. You gotta give props to Donahue. Modern talk-show hosts would interrupt their guest if they thought they were being contradicted. Donahue actually listens to him. Although I think they were friends, which might explain the respect.

 

[Dude111]

I hope he has a good birthday

 

[Phokus]

I think typically we want some strings attached, yes.

That's not what Milton Friedman was advocating, a negative income tax to the poor = money for them with no strings attached.

 

[techs]

Milton Freidman
Destroyer of Iceland

 

[QuantumPion]

That's not what Milton Friedman was advocating, a negative income tax to the poor = money for them with no strings attached.

Yes. The idea is that if you give people cash they are more likely to spend it wisely on things they need and not waste it on things they don't. The catch is this only works when it is the sole source of support. If you give people food stamps, medicare, social security AND cash, then of course they might spend the cash on h&b. Of course some people will still spend the money on h&b and become bums on the street. But there's not much you can do about people determined to destroy their own lives regardless of social safety net.