The great Milton Friedman on 'spread the wealth mentality'

[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.

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



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 do you want covering them?



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!

When you start question whether I understand Friedman or not..and start throwing up charts from the obviously biased CATO institute..it gives me pause to think that you really don't understand economic principles yourself.

Then you go on about "employees" taking on the risks after they've been explained.

That's laughable.

And suggesting the only remedy to infringement on safety regulations is a court case is equally absurd.

The government can close down a business which does not follow the law. And that's how it should be.

 

[The Infidel]

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)

Nahh... just same mentality as MM

 

[The Infidel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&feature=related]Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube[/ame]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

Thats really really absurd. Friedman was for limited governemnt. Bush introduced the first $2 trillion dollar budget and the first $3 trillion budget. Its back to class one for you- class one, day one. Sorry.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Thats really really absurd. Friedman was for limited governemnt. Bush introduced the first $2 trillion dollar budget and the first $3 trillion budget. Its back to class one for you- class one, day one. Sorry.

You can call it absurd all you want..

The whole "limited" government crapola you guys spout is ridiculous. When ever one of your "limited" government types gets into power..the only thing that gets limited..is the part of the government that actually performs services that are beneficial to people. Like regulators and social workers. Everything else..explodes.

Which is why we have an economic calamity almost each and every time a limited government type gets the presidency.

 

[expat_panama]

...people currently think the Fed is not fulfilling either of its mandates; unemployment is extraordinarily high and inflation is too low...

--and Ron Paul types say the Fed's already sold us out to hyperinflation. The Fed's vague unofficial target is 1-2% PCE, and--

--they do about as well as is possible with 'wild cards' doing fiscal policy and making up regs as they go along. That 'unemployment mandate' is a hopeless task, the kind the boss gives out and the hardest part is keeping a straight face...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The whole "limited" government crapola you guys spout is ridiculous.

actually our Founders were not ridiculous at all. They gave us the most limited government in human history and thereby created the greatest country in human history by far. Did you think we got great because of the Girl Scouts??

When ever one of your "limited" government types gets into power..the only thing that gets limited..is the part of the government that actually performs services that are beneficial to people.

of course if this was true you would not be so afraid to present an example. What does your fear tell you?

Which is why we have an economic calamity almost each and every time a limited government type gets the presidency.

again, if true you would not be so afraid to present an example for the whole world to see. Your fear must tell you something?

 

[edthecynic]

Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube

What a cold heartless POS!

To that POS the only question is what price each life is worth. If he wasn't CON$ervative he would think that if the life being sacrificed to save a $13 part was his child that life would be priceless!!!! CON$ only consider aborted fetuses priceless, for political purposes only, otherwise by Freidman's "reasoning" abortion is only a matter of price per fetus.

 

[ShackledNation]

Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube

What a cold heartless POS!

To that POS the only question is what price each life is worth. If he wasn't CON$ervative he would think that if the life being sacrificed to save a $13 part was his child that life would be priceless!!!! CON$ only consider aborted fetuses priceless, for political purposes only, otherwise by Freidman's "reasoning" abortion is only a matter of price per fetus.

And you just demonstrated his point went completely over your head. Once again you resort to the typical "you want to kill people!" argument. I really start to lose my faith in humanity when I see responses like yours.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

Thats really really absurd. Friedman was for limited governemnt. Bush introduced the first $2 trillion dollar budget and the first $3 trillion budget. Its back to class one for you- class one, day one. Sorry.

You can call it absurd all you want..

The whole "limited" government crapola you guys spout is ridiculous. When ever one of your "limited" government types gets into power..the only thing that gets limited..is the part of the government that actually performs services that are beneficial to people. Like regulators and social workers. Everything else..explodes.

Which is why we have an economic calamity almost each and every time a limited government type gets the presidency.

Is that why the greatest economic growth in the history of the world for the average working man occurred in the US during the period in time with the least amount of government interference in the economy?

You say every time a limited government president takes control everything goes downhill. First of all, there have been very few of said presidents in the 20th century. The Great Depression started under Herbert Hoover, who was the most interventionist big government president in the history of the country. Even FDR called him a socialist on the campaign trail.

 

[edthecynic]

Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube

What a cold heartless POS!

To that POS the only question is what price each life is worth. If he wasn't CON$ervative he would think that if the life being sacrificed to save a $13 part was his child that life would be priceless!!!! CON$ only consider aborted fetuses priceless, for political purposes only, otherwise by Freidman's "reasoning" abortion is only a matter of price per fetus.

And you just demonstrated his point went completely over your head. Once again you resort to the typical "you want to kill people!" argument. I really start to lose my faith in humanity when I see responses like yours.

You need to pay attention to what was said. The POS Friedman said no life is worth an infinite amount of money. So it only a matter of price per car or abortion.

 

[ShackledNation]

What a cold heartless POS!

To that POS the only question is what price each life is worth. If he wasn't CON$ervative he would think that if the life being sacrificed to save a $13 part was his child that life would be priceless!!!! CON$ only consider aborted fetuses priceless, for political purposes only, otherwise by Freidman's "reasoning" abortion is only a matter of price per fetus.

And you just demonstrated his point went completely over your head. Once again you resort to the typical "you want to kill people!" argument. I really start to lose my faith in humanity when I see responses like yours.

You need to pay attention to what was said. The POS Friedman said no life is worth an infinite amount of money. So it only a matter of price per car or abortion.

Let's look at exactly what he said, in context.

"Nobody can accept the principle that an infinite value should be put on an individual life, because in order to get the resources involved they have to come from somewhere, and you want the policy that maximizes the situation overall. You cannot accept the situation that a million people should starve in order to provide 1 person with a car that is completely safe."

He is simply saying that one single life cannot have an infinite value, because other lives would have to be sacrificed to maintain that single life because resources are not infinite. Hence the starvation example. You are confusing value in a moral sense with value in an economic sense, which has to do with prices.

So yes, with all due respect, it went over your head.

 

[edthecynic]

And you just demonstrated his point went completely over your head. Once again you resort to the typical "you want to kill people!" argument. I really start to lose my faith in humanity when I see responses like yours.

You need to pay attention to what was said. The POS Friedman said no life is worth an infinite amount of money. So it only a matter of price per car or abortion.

Let's look at exactly what he said, in context.

"Nobody can accept the principle that an infinite value should be put on an individual life, because in order to get the resources involved they have to come from somewhere, and you want the policy that maximizes the situation overall. You cannot accept the situation that a million people should starve in order to provide 1 person with a car that is completely safe."

He is simply saying that one single life cannot have an infinite value, because other lives would have to be sacrificed to maintain that single life because resources are not infinite. Hence the starvation example. You are confusing value in a moral sense with value in an economic sense, which has to do with prices.

So yes, with all due respect, it went over your head.

It's pure bullshit to say that to save one life with a $13 part that a million other lives have to be sacrificed. Nobody is going to starve over a $13 part, least of all the execs at Ford, who the POS Friedman is really looking out for.

But using Friedman's moronic "logic" then if resources are not infinite, then every millionaire's yacht is starving billions of people.

 

[DSGE]

...people currently think the Fed is not fulfilling either of its mandates; unemployment is extraordinarily high and inflation is too low...

--and Ron Paul types say the Fed's already sold us out to hyperinflation. The Fed's vague unofficial target is 1-2% PCE, and--

--they do about as well as is possible with 'wild cards' doing fiscal policy and making up regs as they go along. That 'unemployment mandate' is a hopeless task, the kind the boss gives out and the hardest part is keeping a straight face...

Yeah they allowed PCE to collapse between mid 2008 and 2010 and didn't make up for it. People want an NGDP level target precisely because rate targeting allows the Fed to ignore its past mistakes. And NGDP does actually address the dual mandate. NGDP is P*Y, the price level times real output. By taking the product you're addressing both at the same time. So if there are demand shocks, the Fed has to adjust policy. But if there are supply shocks, where output falls and the price level rises, the Fed won't do anything.

 

[DSGE]

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.



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 do you want covering them?



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.



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!

When you start question whether I understand Friedman or not..and start throwing up charts from the obviously biased CATO institute..it gives me pause to think that you really don't understand economic principles yourself.

We're talking about being familiar with Friedman's personal views, not understanding economic principles (though I'd gladly have that discussion with you). If I were trying to pose an opinion from the CATO institute as evidence, I'd agree completely (I don't like them very much myself). However, this is just data they've graphed from the National Safety Council. It's pretty hard to give raw data a bias.

Then you go on about "employees" taking on the risks after they've been explained.

That's laughable.

Which part? What's laughable about requiring information material to a decision being made available and having an adult make an informed decision based on that information? Is your problem in regard to the information being revealed or is it in regard to adults making their own personal decisions freely?

And suggesting the only remedy to infringement on safety regulations is a court case is equally absurd.

The government can close down a business which does not follow the law. And that's how it should be.

How is it decided that a law has not been followed? The business is taken to court! Who decides the punishment the business receives based on the legal framework provided by the legislature? The judge!

 

[Sallow]

The whole "limited" government crapola you guys spout is ridiculous.

actually our Founders were not ridiculous at all. They gave us the most limited government in human history and thereby created the greatest country in human history by far. Did you think we got great because of the Girl Scouts??

When ever one of your "limited" government types gets into power..the only thing that gets limited..is the part of the government that actually performs services that are beneficial to people.

of course if this was true you would not be so afraid to present an example. What does your fear tell you?

Which is why we have an economic calamity almost each and every time a limited government type gets the presidency.

again, if true you would not be so afraid to present an example for the whole world to see. Your fear must tell you something?

Oh really. Which founder was the "limited" government one? Washington? Whiskey Rebellion ring a bell? Hamilton? The Federal Bank? Jefferson? Ordering a fleet to be purchased to battle Barbary Pirates? Adams? Largely responsible for building a ground force under Federal control?

Seriously.

Once the revolution was over..the US began the most expansionist movement ever seen in history. You don't do that with a "limited" government.

 

[expat_panama]

...they do about as well as is possible with 'wild cards' doing fiscal policy and making up regs as they go along. That 'unemployment mandate' is a hopeless task, the kind the boss gives out and the hardest part is keeping a straight face...

Yeah they allowed PCE to collapse between mid 2008 and 2010 and didn't make up for it. People want an NGDP level target precisely because...

Whoa, we're saying the Fed has to give us an NGDP? That's about like saying the Fed's job is to make everyone happy! Let's get back to the fact that America's economy is not state run and the Fed can not determine "nominal spending" and "NGDP" any more than it can regulate everyone's happiness.

 

[DSGE]

...they do about as well as is possible with 'wild cards' doing fiscal policy and making up regs as they go along. That 'unemployment mandate' is a hopeless task, the kind the boss gives out and the hardest part is keeping a straight face...

Yeah they allowed PCE to collapse between mid 2008 and 2010 and didn't make up for it. People want an NGDP level target precisely because...

Whoa, we're saying the Fed has to give us an NGDP? That's about like saying the Fed's job is to make everyone happy! Let's get back to the fact that America's economy is not state run and the Fed can not determine "nominal spending" and "NGDP" any more than it can regulate everyone's happiness.

... except it can. Is this satire or something, because that doesn't communicate well here. The Fed has control of the money supply, it can hit any nominal target it wants. Check out the equation of exchange, MV = PY. The right hand side is nominal GDP. The Fed can control M, so it can decide any path for NGDP that it likes. It can't control real GDP...

 

[expat_panama]

...The Fed has control of the money supply, it can hit any nominal target it wants...

LOL!!

OK, back to Planet Earth. The Fed doesn't control happiness and it doesn't control the money supply. Its mission is "influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy" by the way it controls the Federal Funds Rate, reserve requirements, and a few other things mentioned here.

It can't "hit any nominal target it want's" and Ameirca doesn't have a state run economy.

 

[DSGE]

...The Fed has control of the money supply, it can hit any nominal target it wants...

LOL!!

OK, back to Planet Earth. The Fed doesn't control happiness and it doesn't control the money supply. Its mission is "influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy" by the way it controls the Federal Funds Rate, reserve requirements, and a few other things mentioned here.

It can't "hit any nominal target it want's" and Ameirca doesn't have a state run economy.

What the hell are you talking about, control happiness? Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Nominal GDP and happiness have nothing to do with each other. This has nothing to do with central planning. Of course it controls the money supply. You just quoted right there "monetary conditions". How do you think it sets the fed funds rate? It buys T-bills with created base money. And, by the way, it's not legally obliged to set an interest rate as an intermediate target. They used to target monetary aggregates back in the 80s. What the fuck do you think QE was? They injected over $2 trillion of base money.

Anyway, now that we've cleared up that the Fed has control over the money supply, we can talk about how it can set any nominal target it wants. "Nominal" means "in current dollar terms", as opposed to "real" which means "in terms of real goods and services" or "adjusted for inflation". So you know inflation happens when the supply of money increases faster than the demand for money. There is too much money chasing too few goods, so prices and wages rise. So a nominal quantity is the current dollar value. Say my income is $10. The Fed can print up some money, give it to me, and now my income is $100. Now prices rise in proportion, so my buying power is exactly the same. I can't buy any more goods or services than I used to. It's just that the numbers have all gone up. So by printing the right amount of money, the Fed can make the nominal value of something be as much as they like.