The great Milton Friedman on 'spread the wealth mentality'

[Sallow]

Gotta love Milton Friedman. Advocated for all the protections provided by government with no provision as to how to pay for them.

Amazing guy. Voodoo economics works..by gumption.

What are you talking about?

What do you mean by that? Friedman was not advocating for getting rid of government bailouts, government protections for banks, the judiciary, infrastructure or anything like that.

What he advocated for was a low tax low regulation environment. That's what Greenspan pushed for as well. And that's what we got.

I find it interesting that Greenspan was actually shocked and surprised by corporate greed.

 

[DSGE]

Gotta love Milton Friedman. Advocated for all the protections provided by government with no provision as to how to pay for them.

Amazing guy. Voodoo economics works..by gumption.

What are you talking about?

What do you mean by that? Friedman was not advocating for getting rid of government bailouts, government protections for banks, the judiciary, infrastructure or anything like that.

What he advocated for was a low tax low regulation environment. That's what Greenspan pushed for as well. And that's what we got.

I find it interesting that Greenspan was actually shocked and surprised by corporate greed.

Yeah, low tax. Not no tax. He made room for the government, he wasn't an anarchist, and as such he made room for enough taxation as to fund the operation of the government. So I'm confused by the "no provision as to how to pay for them" bit.

And what exactly are you describing as "voodoo economics"?

 

[Sallow]

What are you talking about?

What do you mean by that? Friedman was not advocating for getting rid of government bailouts, government protections for banks, the judiciary, infrastructure or anything like that.

What he advocated for was a low tax low regulation environment. That's what Greenspan pushed for as well. And that's what we got.

I find it interesting that Greenspan was actually shocked and surprised by corporate greed.

Yeah, low tax. Not no tax. He made room for the government, he wasn't an anarchist, and as such he made room for enough taxation as to fund the operation of the government. So I'm confused by the "no provision as to how to pay for them" bit.

And what exactly are you describing as "voodoo economics"?

Read my post. Says "low tax". And no..he absolutely was not an anarchist. He believed that the government should be a big enabler of big business.

And what confuses you about the "no provision part"? You think providing ample security, being able to bail out banks and financials, and a solid judiciary is cheap?

Or that business will adequately police themselves?

Or that somehow..people running these businesses..which the government provides all sorts of services for..are someone altruistic enough to pay employees enough to live on?

And you're asking about voodoo economics?



That's voodoo economics. Magical thinking.

 

[DSGE]

What do you mean by that? Friedman was not advocating for getting rid of government bailouts, government protections for banks, the judiciary, infrastructure or anything like that.

What he advocated for was a low tax low regulation environment. That's what Greenspan pushed for as well. And that's what we got.

I find it interesting that Greenspan was actually shocked and surprised by corporate greed.

Yeah, low tax. Not no tax. He made room for the government, he wasn't an anarchist, and as such he made room for enough taxation as to fund the operation of the government. So I'm confused by the "no provision as to how to pay for them" bit.

And what exactly are you describing as "voodoo economics"?

Read my post. Says "low tax". And no..he absolutely was not an anarchist. He believed that the government should be a big enabler of big business.

Not quite. He was extremely concerned about regulatory capture. He didn't want the government to "enable" business except by providing courts of law and enforcing property rights.

And what confuses you about the "no provision part"? You think providing ample security, being able to bail out banks and financials, and a solid judiciary is cheap?

He wouldn't agree that bailing out banks and financials is a role for government. But for the other things, yes. It's reasonably cheap. And by that I mean it doesn't take over 20% of GDP to fund them.

Or that business will adequately police themselves?

Friedman wanted the consumer to be free to choose. Businesses don't need to police themselves, the consumer can. His view was a bit more extreme than mine. I acknowledge that obtaining relevant information is extremely costly to individual consumers, so I'm perfectly fine with government watchdogs who compile information and make it readily available to the consumer.

Or that somehow..people running these businesses..which the government provides all sorts of services for..are someone altruistic enough to pay employees enough to live on?

What services does the government provide?

And you're asking about voodoo economics?



That's voodoo economics. Magical thinking.

Have you ever actually listened to what Friedman has to say? There are a myriad of videos all over youtube of him addressing these kinds of concerns/criticisms.

 

[expat_panama]

...I don't subscribe to the "spread the wealth" mentality by any means. I just don't think blaming all this shit on it makes any sense at all.

We agree that there's all this shit. I don't like the shit. I don't want more shit. Most people don't want this shit either and we're asking what we're going to do different. If you don't like the "dump the spread the wealth mentality" choice, are you saying you like the shit or do you have a better choice to avoid more shit?

Come to think of it, we might have more clarity by referring to this economic situation a 'slump'.

 

[DSGE]

...I don't subscribe to the "spread the wealth" mentality by any means. I just don't think blaming all this shit on it makes any sense at all.

We agree that there's all this shit. I don't like the shit. I don't want more shit. Most people don't want this shit either and we're asking what we're going to do different. If you don't like the "dump the spread the wealth mentality" choice, are you saying you like the shit or do you have a better choice to avoid more shit?

Come to think of it, we might have more clarity by referring to this economic situation a 'slump'.

I'm saying there's a better choice. I think most of the slump is demand side, since the Fed allowed nominal spending to fall about 10%. So have the Fed level target NGDP. Take nominal spending back up to its 2007 trend. Then once the demand side stuff is mitigated (and I think it's mostly demand side), whatever is left over we know is structural. Then we can talk about taxes and political uncertainty and whatever else.

 

[Sallow]

Not quite. He was extremely concerned about regulatory capture. He didn't want the government to "enable" business except by providing courts of law and enforcing property rights.



He wouldn't agree that bailing out banks and financials is a role for government. But for the other things, yes. It's reasonably cheap. And by that I mean it doesn't take over 20% of GDP to fund them.



Friedman wanted the consumer to be free to choose. Businesses don't need to police themselves, the consumer can. His view was a bit more extreme than mine. I acknowledge that obtaining relevant information is extremely costly to individual consumers, so I'm perfectly fine with government watchdogs who compile information and make it readily available to the consumer.


What services does the government provide?



Have you ever actually listened to what Friedman has to say? There are a myriad of videos all over youtube of him addressing these kinds of concerns/criticisms.

To your point on "regulatory capture"..Friedman wasn't overly concerned with that. In any case..that's exactly what happened as a result of getting rid of Glass-Steagall. And..yes..he absolutely was for bailing out banks and financials. And if you think that the sole purpose of government is to serve business...you could argue it's "cheap". But then again, if it only did that..we'd be rolled in a very short time.

As for consumer's being "free to chose"? It's awfully hard to do that when they are getting lied to so much. And much more difficult when you factor in the part about most consumers actually having to be concerned with a livelihood.

What services does government provide? Is that a serious question? Really?

 

[DSGE]

Not quite. He was extremely concerned about regulatory capture. He didn't want the government to "enable" business except by providing courts of law and enforcing property rights.



He wouldn't agree that bailing out banks and financials is a role for government. But for the other things, yes. It's reasonably cheap. And by that I mean it doesn't take over 20% of GDP to fund them.



Friedman wanted the consumer to be free to choose. Businesses don't need to police themselves, the consumer can. His view was a bit more extreme than mine. I acknowledge that obtaining relevant information is extremely costly to individual consumers, so I'm perfectly fine with government watchdogs who compile information and make it readily available to the consumer.


What services does the government provide?



Have you ever actually listened to what Friedman has to say? There are a myriad of videos all over youtube of him addressing these kinds of concerns/criticisms.

To your point on "regulatory capture"..Friedman wasn't overly concerned with that. In any case..that's exactly what happened as a result of getting rid of Glass-Steagall. And..yes..he absolutely was for bailing out banks and financials. And if you think that the sole purpose of government is to serve business...you could argue it's "cheap". But then again, if it only did that..we'd be rolled in a very short time.

Yeah so when I asked "have you ever actually listened to what Friedman has to say?", the answer would be no. I'm gonna skip the first two points since they stem from unfamiliarity with Friedman. All I could do to address them is direct you to some videos. Now what's this "sole purpose of government is to serve business" business? How do you consider providing courts of law "serving business"?

As for consumer's being "free to chose"? It's awfully hard to do that when they are getting lied to so much.

That's what the courts are for. For severely punishing firms which lie.

And much more difficult when you factor in the part about most consumers actually having to be concerned with a livelihood.

Already addressed that. I'm okay with agencies that compile and provide information to the consumer.

What services does government provide? Is that a serious question? Really?

Yes. Other than courts of law, what services do the government provide to businesses?

 

[Sallow]

Not quite. He was extremely concerned about regulatory capture. He didn't want the government to "enable" business except by providing courts of law and enforcing property rights.



He wouldn't agree that bailing out banks and financials is a role for government. But for the other things, yes. It's reasonably cheap. And by that I mean it doesn't take over 20% of GDP to fund them.



Friedman wanted the consumer to be free to choose. Businesses don't need to police themselves, the consumer can. His view was a bit more extreme than mine. I acknowledge that obtaining relevant information is extremely costly to individual consumers, so I'm perfectly fine with government watchdogs who compile information and make it readily available to the consumer.


What services does the government provide?



Have you ever actually listened to what Friedman has to say? There are a myriad of videos all over youtube of him addressing these kinds of concerns/criticisms.

To your point on "regulatory capture"..Friedman wasn't overly concerned with that. In any case..that's exactly what happened as a result of getting rid of Glass-Steagall. And..yes..he absolutely was for bailing out banks and financials. And if you think that the sole purpose of government is to serve business...you could argue it's "cheap". But then again, if it only did that..we'd be rolled in a very short time.

Yeah so when I asked "have you ever actually listened to what Friedman has to say?", the answer would be no. I'm gonna skip the first two points since they stem from unfamiliarity with Friedman. All I could do to address them is direct you to some videos. Now what's this "sole purpose of government is to serve business" business? How do you consider providing courts of law "serving business"?



That's what the courts are for. For severely punishing firms which lie.

And much more difficult when you factor in the part about most consumers actually having to be concerned with a livelihood.

Already addressed that. I'm okay with agencies that compile and provide information to the consumer.

What services does government provide? Is that a serious question? Really?

Yes. Other than courts of law, what services do the government provide to businesses?

Oh gosh..you're really all over the place and contradicting yourself here. "I" don't understand Friedman? Gosh..Greenspan was a Friedman acolyte. Several financial calamities this country experienced are as a direct result of Friedman doctrine.

Your biggest contradiction here is "That's what the courts are for.."

In terms of what? If there are no regulations prohibiting a practice..then there is no need to take it to court.

Simple as that.

In any case..the courts shouldn't be the sole remedies to an issue. Once an issue is discovered there should be a mechanism to prevent it from taking place again.

You guys would be terrible at root cause analysis and problem prevention.

 

[DSGE]

To your point on "regulatory capture"..Friedman wasn't overly concerned with that. In any case..that's exactly what happened as a result of getting rid of Glass-Steagall. And..yes..he absolutely was for bailing out banks and financials. And if you think that the sole purpose of government is to serve business...you could argue it's "cheap". But then again, if it only did that..we'd be rolled in a very short time.

Yeah so when I asked "have you ever actually listened to what Friedman has to say?", the answer would be no. I'm gonna skip the first two points since they stem from unfamiliarity with Friedman. All I could do to address them is direct you to some videos. Now what's this "sole purpose of government is to serve business" business? How do you consider providing courts of law "serving business"?



That's what the courts are for. For severely punishing firms which lie.



Already addressed that. I'm okay with agencies that compile and provide information to the consumer.

What services does government provide? Is that a serious question? Really?

Yes. Other than courts of law, what services do the government provide to businesses?

Oh gosh..you're really all over the place and contradicting yourself here. "I" don't understand Friedman? Gosh..Greenspan was a Friedman acolyte. Several financial calamities this country experienced are as a direct result of Friedman doctrine.

Okay so you're just going off Greenspan and inferring some "Friedman doctrine", whatever that's supposed to be. You actually need to understand Friedman's views; it's not enough to use Greenspan as a proxy (otherwise you end up with the kind of strawman arguments we're seeing here).

Your biggest contradiction here is "That's what the courts are for.."

In terms of what? If there are no regulations prohibiting a practice..then there is no need to take it to court.

Oh so contract laws have stopped existing all of a sudden? If a firm engages in fraud and you try to take them to court, then what... no dice? Once again, he's not an anarchist. If you want to engage in semantics and label contract laws and whatnot as regulations, then his position can just easily be represented as "minimal regulations".

In any case..the courts shouldn't be the sole remedies to an issue. Once an issue is discovered there should be a mechanism to prevent it from taking place again.

You guys would be terrible at root cause analysis and problem prevention.

Not familiar with punitive damages? Also, how are regulations enforce? By taking the offending firm to court!

 

[edthecynic]

Did Friedman define raising taxes 4% on the wealthy as "soaking"?

You do realize that when those videos were made that the taxes on the wealthy were significantly higher? How about we agree on a tax rate at what it was when Friedman made that video on Phil Donohue?

No.... do you remember how much we were in the crapper then too?

I do... the 80's SUCKED!

Finally a wingnut admits the Reagan years "SUCKED."
Thank you.

 

[Sallow]

Okay so you're just going off Greenspan and inferring some "Friedman doctrine", whatever that's supposed to be. You actually need to understand Friedman's views; it's not enough to use Greenspan as a proxy (otherwise you end up with the kind of strawman arguments we're seeing here).

Oh so contract laws have stopped existing all of a sudden? If a firm engages in fraud and you try to take them to court, then what... no dice? Once again, he's not an anarchist. If you want to engage in semantics and label contract laws and whatnot as regulations, then his position can just easily be represented as "minimal regulations".


Not familiar with punitive damages? Also, how are regulations enforce? By taking the offending firm to court!

Why? Reagan, Bush I and II, and Greenspan, put into practice much of what Friedman was advocating. If you like the results..then understandably..you want that sort of stuff to continue.

They haven't stopped working..it's that people are pretty darned clever and figure out ways around them. What regulation covered derivatives before Dodd/Frank? What regulation now covers "Dark Pools" (Something I see as the next big problem). There should be mechanisms to prevent certain things from happening...like..I dunno..death by cave ins to miners. Which is why you have officials inspecting places of work.

No "punative damages" are going to make up for the loss of life.

 

[Sallow]

Did Friedman define raising taxes 4% on the wealthy as "soaking"?

You do realize that when those videos were made that the taxes on the wealthy were significantly higher? How about we agree on a tax rate at what it was when Friedman made that video on Phil Donohue?

No.... do you remember how much we were in the crapper then too?

I do... the 80's SUCKED!

Finally a wingnut admits the Reagan years "SUCKED."
Thank you.

Oh gosh yeah..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBG2G_stmM4]80s hair bands - YouTube[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

It's the thread's topic, class warfare and the "spread the wealth mentality". War on Microsoft was followed by the '00 crash and Obama's 'spread the wealth' statement to Joe the Plumber was followed by the '08 crash.

Besides the fact that the '00 crash was '01 and the '08 crash was '07, how could a crash happen in "'08" if the Bush tax cuts hadn't expired yet??? Are you saying that tax cuts are so fragile an economic boom that the mere words of a candidate can derail them?

 

[Sallow]

It's the thread's topic, class warfare and the "spread the wealth mentality". War on Microsoft was followed by the '00 crash and Obama's 'spread the wealth' statement to Joe the Plumber was followed by the '08 crash.

Besides the fact that the '00 crash was '01 and the '08 crash was '07, how could a crash happen in "'08" if the Bush tax cuts hadn't expired yet??? Are you saying that tax cuts are so fragile an economic boom that the mere words of a candidate can derail them?

Naw..it's what those in the propaganda biz call false logicals.

He probably knows better.

 

[DSGE]

Okay so you're just going off Greenspan and inferring some "Friedman doctrine", whatever that's supposed to be. You actually need to understand Friedman's views; it's not enough to use Greenspan as a proxy (otherwise you end up with the kind of strawman arguments we're seeing here).

Oh so contract laws have stopped existing all of a sudden? If a firm engages in fraud and you try to take them to court, then what... no dice? Once again, he's not an anarchist. If you want to engage in semantics and label contract laws and whatnot as regulations, then his position can just easily be represented as "minimal regulations".


Not familiar with punitive damages? Also, how are regulations enforce? By taking the offending firm to court!

Why? Reagan, Bush I and II, and Greenspan, put into practice much of what Friedman was advocating. If you like the results..then understandably..you want that sort of stuff to continue.

Yeah see my problem is that I don't think you actually understand what Friedman was advocating.

They haven't stopped working..it's that people are pretty darned clever and figure out ways around them.

So these corporations are so clever that they can figure ways around being prosecuted for fraud, but the regulations you throw at them are ironclad?

What regulation covered derivatives before Dodd/Frank?

What regulation do you want covering them?

What regulation now covers "Dark Pools" (Something I see as the next big problem).

What regulation do you want? What reason do you have to suspect that they'll be a problem?

I don't know about Friedman, but I'm okay with requiring transactions like that to be made publicly known.

There should be mechanisms to prevent certain things from happening...like..I dunno..death by cave ins to miners. Which is why you have officials inspecting places of work.

If there's risk of serious accident or bodily harm, your employer is obliged to tell you. It's then up to you to decide, knowing the risks, whether you want to work there or not. Competition among employers will incentivise making safer work environments, not regulation.

Source: Cato Handbook for Congress: Occupational Safety and Health Administration

No "punative damages" are going to make up for the loss of life.

Except what happens if a firm infringes on a safety regulation and causes somebody to die? Do firms just respect regulations because they're regulations? Your incentive to follow a regulation is that there are consequences to breaking it. Specifically, you get taken to court and must pay out punitive damages!

 

[expat_panama]

...I'm saying there's a better choice. I think most of the slump is demand side, since the Fed allowed nominal spending to fall about 10%. So have the Fed level target NGDP. Take nominal spending back...

[thanking for your forbearance and apologizing for my irritability caused by swallowing something disagreeable; feeling better now...]

My understanding of the Fed's mission is that it boils down to monetary policy for stable prices with employment increases whenever possible. Are we both talking about the US Federal Reserve?

 

[DSGE]

...I'm saying there's a better choice. I think most of the slump is demand side, since the Fed allowed nominal spending to fall about 10%. So have the Fed level target NGDP. Take nominal spending back...

[thanking for your forbearance and apologizing for my irritability caused by swallowing something disagreeable; feeling better now...]

My understanding of the Fed's mission is that it boils down to monetary policy for stable prices with employment increases whenever possible. Are we both talking about the US Federal Reserve?

No worries. Yeah we're both talking about the Fed. Their dual mandate is stable prices and maximum employment, as you mentioned. I'll point out that a lot of people currently think the Fed is not fulfilling either of its mandates; unemployment is extraordinarily high and inflation is too low. So any rise in the price level from aggressive easing could be thought of as making up for the Fed undershooting inflation in the past. But that doesn't entirely matter anyway since most of the growth in NGDP will likely come from real growth, not inflation, since the economy has considerable slack.

 

[American Horse]

What a brilliant man!

Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won't work. - YouTube

Milton Friedman - Redistribution of Wealth - YouTube

The kid questioning Friedman in the 2nd video is (the young) Michael Moore
(Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheidt 9/11, etc)

 

[expat_panama]

...War on Microsoft was followed by the '00 crash and Obama's 'spread the wealth' statement to Joe the Plumber was followed by the '08 crash.

...the '00 crash was '01 and the '08 crash was '07...

Naw...

This confusion comes up when people forget that this thread is in the "Economy" forum and people think they're in the "Politics Forum". We're talking about a 'crash' in the financial sense and the definitions are--

Crash
Dramatic loss in market value. The last great crash was in 1929. Some refer to October 1987 as a crash but the market return for the entire year of 1987 was positive.

Copyright © 2011, Campbell R. Harvey. All Rights Reserved.

Crash
A sudden, dramatic, and usually sustained drop in securities market prices. It may be followed by a steep economic downturn, like the 1929 Crash that precipitated the Great Depression. In order to prevent crashes from hurting investors too much at once, most exchanges mandate a cutoff point below which trading stops. For example, the by-laws of a stock market may say that if it loses 10% of its value in intraday trading, the exchange officials automatically stop trading. See also: Panic selling.

Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2011 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved​

--and the history we're working with is--

--and while political hacks can say the '03 low point was Bush's fault and the '09 low point was Obama's fault that's politics which doesn't go as far when actual grown-up money's on the table...