Post: #51

(01-13-2014 05:26 PM)billy Wrote:  I do have a life I will,put up a post explaining why I think he is full if shit when I have time. His policies have failed and his theories do not stand up to.genuine scrutiny.

What are you talking about? To call someone full of shit implies that they either don't know what they are talking about or they are being disingenuous. You may disagree with Friedman, but the idea that he is either one of those things is absurd.

And exactly which of his policy ideas have failed and/or don't stand up to scrutiny? His opposition to the draft? His support of the EITC? His opposition to the drug war? His monetary insights that revolutionized the way economists look at The Great Depression and effectively brought down the incredibly high inflation of the '70s?

Post: #52

(01-12-2014 11:20 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  "The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty" Thomas Jefferson

Point of Clarification - That was Ben Franklin, not Jefferson. It's important to keep history straight.

Post: #53

(01-13-2014 11:54 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Milton Friedman was a supporter of free-market capitalism. He was a vocal critic of the capture of government by big business.

Alot of people confuse being pro-enterprise with pro-business. Ironically - big businesses tend to be those least in favour of free and fair competition.

It is worth bearing this in mind when considering Friedman's views. Friedman would have been just as appalled as the rest of us by the abuses that have taken place by the banksters over the past decade. As well as the excesses of big business which have taken place over the past century.

This is a great video. It makes so much sense to me. Government should be the great arbitrator and upholder of laws, and it shouldn't takes sides with industries and big business.

Lobbying should be made illegal. How is it different from third-world bribery on a massive scale? We shouldn't have corporations (or individuals) buying influence over regulations that change the economic playing field. I know Canada has some laws limiting lobbying and influence (and of course straight up bribery) but it seems out of control in the U.S.


To sum it up, my views on the role of government in the economy are:

- Free-markets and economic freedoms, albeit regulated for the common good by the government.

- Regulation is necessary, but it should make sense, be based on science and be free of business influence. It should focus on externalities (not polluting the environment for example), safety, health and public goods and interests (aviation safety, the FAA for example)

- No lobbying of any kind, no tariffs, no special tax breaks for industries, no government support for businesses of any kind.

- Simple tax rules without any loop-holes. Maybe even a flat tax and a simple VAT consumption tax.

- Government should focus on: education (higher-education should be subsidized or made available to all that are willing to study), infrastructure (public works that better everyone's life and increase efficiency), scientific research, and other special projects as voted for in elections and referendums. (And of course public safety, national security and upholding the law.)

- Speaking of which, we ought to have more direct democracy. There is no reason why with current technology (internet, e-voting) and the dissemination of information we cannot have binding referendums on a variety of important issues.

...

Post: #54

(01-12-2014 11:20 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  I truly believe this. I know too many people living off the government who are incredibly intelligent and creative people. The problem is that they are comfortable and there are more people being made comfortable every day. I see them as the victims to the welfare system. Most people living in that system ARE capable of being productive citizens.

I became comfortable on unemployment years ago and I maxed it out... Within the first 3 weeks of it ending I had TWO six figure job offers.

Also, we would be amazed at how people would step up to help others when there isn't a 3rd party(government) already doing it, whatever the situation might be, not only handing out money. I feel like this is partly why we have no community anymore. Not to mention that by letting people become comfortable in poverty we are creating incentives for it. Handing out money to people doesn't do any good in the long term.

An example of 3rd party help is once I saw a house on fire, it was not bad yet and there were at least 10 men watching this fire grow from basically nothing... They just watched it like it was a fuckin football game while making sure 9/11 had been called of course and waited 10 minutes while the Fire Dept. arrived and 1/4 the house was in flames. Go back a few decades and every man there would have been doing all he could to put the fire out. Things have changed and having the 3rd party take care of everything let's us feel comfortable ignoring our responsibilities in the community.(just an example, not saying I don't support government paid for Fire Dept..... thats another debate)

People should not feel comfortable living off others. It is as simple as that.

This is so true. Incentives and motivation are so important, especially to us men.
Some people have a lot of natural motivation, but others get complacent and if there is an incentive NOT to work, e.g. getting a welfare check, or having a trust fund, or rich family/friends, then many get comfortable. And then it's hard to escape from the comfortable zone. I've been there myself.

This relates to game and relationships as well. Incentives. Or lack there of. If you don't need to get married to get steady easy pussy, why would you? The incentive is gone.
If a nice car and platinum card that pays for expensive dinners is not going to get you any more pussy, then why bother?

I'd love to see a thread that discusses motivations and incentives of men in general and of the player lifestyle specifically.

Post: #55

I'll be honest - as much as I love Milton Friedman, I don't agree with him on a few points. But I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise. I am not dogmatic in my disagreement.

For instance - Milton Friedman didn't believe in medical qualifications. As such - he felt anyone should be able to be a doctor - and it should be up to the marketplace to see whether there was a demand for your services.

That leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable.

Secondly - he didn't support legal minimum requirements for health and safety in the workplace. He felt people should be allowed to trade some health and/or safety for higher wages.

Again - I have a number of problems with that point of view.

Friedman also didn't support equal pay laws (for women and minorities). Again - whilst I understand his arguments - I prefer to have such laws in place.

Lastly - Friedman didn't support a legal minimum wage. Again - I am comfortable with a minimum wage. Indeed - we have had one for the past 15 years or so in the UK - and the evidence shows (despite what economists warned at the time) that it has had no adverse impact on unemployment. But even if it did have a slight impact (the evidence can be challenged either way) - I am still comfortable with a national minimum wage. And feel it is a useful barometer to have for anybody with a job. Figuring out how much more you earn han the minimum wage is a useful piece of information for anyone in work.

The above is my understanding of Milton Friedman's views. So apologies if I am mistaken.

If I had a chance to meet Milton Friedman - I am sure his brilliance would convince me otherwise. But for now - my instincts on these issues is to disagree with him. But like I say - I am perfectly willing to change my mind. Also - I think the free-market only measures rational decisions when compared with each other. But - I feel human nature is not completely rational and as such I don't mind some interference with the free-market from time to time.

To give one example. I am not sure the internet would exist today if it were not for the early research and investment of the US government.

Post: #56

Good points, Cardguy. Let me elaborate on a few:

1. Friedman doesn't believe in medical qualifications. The underlying assumption is that in order to generate repeat business, agents (medical providers) have an incentive to do their job well at low cost in a competitive market. The purpose of medical education is to teach you to be a better doctor, ie. to serve customers even better than would otherwise be possible - this is true with or without government regulation. Therefore, in a free market, the return to education (becoming a doctor) will equal the marginal benefit being a doctor as opposed to a quack has for your business. I think in a truly free market, this is a likely proposition. In Western society, we have many excellent institutions outside of government that offer good quality control. It becomes a problem in my view when we're talking about a life-threatening disease where repeat business is not an issue. Still, we have ways of getting information about poor medical providers out to people. Read this article by Chicago Professor Cochran:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...2490593594

2. This is again a question of regulation. Minimum requirements for health and safety on the workplace can rightly be understood as a kind of "wage". They are costs imposed on employers designed to benefit workers - the idea being that with such regulation horrible accidents can be avoided.

Now think about it: When do businesses benefit from having sloppy rules about safety? When they don't care about their workers. When do they not care about workers? When workers are easily replaceable and cheap.

This relates to the point about minimum wage. The minimum wage is an artificial wage-level imposed by government. This is separate from the market wage, determined by supply and demand. The productivity of workers determines what business activity is viable.

So let's say we have a market wage that is below the minimum wage. The productivity of workers is high, so business makes bank, paying the market wage that is low. Now government comes along and mandates higher wages, and businesses must hand over some of their profits.

This is nice in a situation where businesses are making bank, but what about all those businesses on the margins, and what about the guy with only three fingers and one leg whose productivity is really low. The minimum wage mandates that the handicapped fellow cannot work, because any business that paid him minimum wage would lose money from hiring him. Therefore there will be no hiring of the unproductive. For businesses whose livelihood depends on selling cheap services dependent on cheap labor, they must either raise prices or likewise perish.

The problem is not that businesses are paying too little when they should be paying more. The problem is either 1) low productivity or 2) oversupply of labor. In Western societies, we are very productive. This is reflected in high GDP per capita. However, the income accrues to very few, in particular owners of capital. There is also plenty of labor, thanks to an explosion in female labor participation and mass immigration.

In the 17th-19th century, America attracted millions of people because we had an abundance of resources, but few workers. This meant wages many times higher than in Europe. Estimates for American GDP per capita in colonial times puts it at FOUR times the level of England, the richest country in Europe at the time. The returns to labor are high because of expanding returns to capital, which in turn can be explained by the vast amount of land available (this, unfortunately, to the detriment of Native Americans).

The idea is therefore to have societies ABUNDANT in capital relative to labor. To generate higher wages automatically, therefore, restrict labor while augmenting capital.

Conslusion: You know Michael Sandel. The market is merely a tool, not an end. A tool for what? Well, that's for philosophers and theologians to decide.

I think Friedman took the morality and virtue of Americans for granted. He grew up and lived in a time and spent his life among industrious, hard-working and diligent Americans with a European heritage complemented by a very American attitude towards life. With a a strong culture to guide it, basically an English culture augmented with the best the Age of Enlightenment had to offer the free market worked wonders in America.

However, the collapse in morality has led to decay in many areas, each decay reinforcing the next. The collapse in families that leads to more debilitating problems in the lower-classes and more sociopaths who have no compunction about smashing peoples life-savings in financial scams. The collapse has led to what Roger Scruton calls oikophobia, a hatred of one's home, where hard-core liberals are so disgusted with what they perceive to be the legacy of America and the West that they are doing what they can to actively destroy it - with socialism, mass immigration, feminism, progressiveness, and so on. Regardless of whether you're off the GOP or Dems, Whigs or Tories, most of our leaders subscribe to a lot of views that fails to understand Western heritage and has damning implications for the future of Western civilization.

Post: #57

I'll respectfully disagree with Friedman on medical qualifications and regulation.

The idea that "a free market" can prevent fly-by-night doctors from moving from city to city or state to state to continue their shoddy work is laughable.

How is word-of-mouth going to stop a doctor from moving from NYC to LA to perform more half-assed surgeries?

You could spend 30 years setting up shop in different parts of NYC and no one would be the wiser.

This doesn't even include the terminal therapies and surgeries where the patient may not even be around to testify that the doctor is a fraud.

I guess I feel strongly about this because I've seen so many "highly regarded" doctors in the last five years that weren't worth a damn that it's depressing.

Feel free to disagree with me or argue Friedman's side but I look forward to the day when the medical establishment in the USA collapses. Things will not change until people start dying. That means people dying from lack of care in the streets as well as doctors, lawyers, banksters dying via vigilantes in the streets.

How do the people on this forum think Obamacare was pushed through? It started with a national TV campaign highlighting cases in which people with preexisting conditions were denied medical coverage and either died or lived some sort of half-life as a consequence. Most of the cases were minorities and the outrage at this inequality spread to SWPLs who, although they themselves were covered, were willing to see a cataclysmic change occur. A gamble, if you will. All revolutions are gambles. This became Obamacare.

The paradox of Obamacare is that it will make the doctors, lawyers and bankster richer but will deliver a watered-down quality of healthcare to most people.

The greed of these three cartels: doctors, lawyers and banksters is their own impending doom.

Post: #58

Eh...I wouldn't even put Friedman in the top 10 people of the 20th century.

I mean there were so many people much more fundamental to our society as we know now than him, e.g. Von Neumann.

Post: #59

(01-15-2014 03:05 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  What svenski sad

The pitfalls you mention are pitfalls everyone can and should be concerned with. In a truly free market, there would be a demand for a service that mitigates these risks.

See, for instance, TrustPilot.

As for cartels: how do you think they maintain cartel status? What's to stop an outsider from entering the market, offering a competitive price, and capturing market share?

Cartels are only possible where barriers to entry are very, very high. Take shipping. In order to be competitive you need about a billion dollars worth of container ships to capture business. Let's say all current players form a lucrative cartel. They make a bundle.

In a free market, what's to stop the CFO from resigning, going to a few large capital owners, and proposing their own shipping line at more competitive prices?

The only way to effectively maintain a cartel is with government regulation.

Government, therefore, is the problem. At least more often than not.

Post: #60

@TheKantian - yeah I hear you. I kinda' touched on that in my second post. But - I just wanted to pick an intellectual who I would have most enjoyed hanging out with. As opposed to some genius scientist/mathematician who might be a bit boring in person. That - for me - is the difference between picking a personal hero versus picking the most influential or most important person of the century.

I really enjoy the wit and ingenuity that Milton Friedman had. It is similar to the qualities you see in a great comedian.

As for medical care. It is one of those industries where those customers who get treat shoddily are not around to complain. Since they get killed off during their shoddy care.

With medicine - it literally is Suvivorship Bias that frames the debate when it comes to discussing the pros and cons of medical treatment.

Cardguy

PS A system where unlicensed doctors practice could work. As long as displaying whatever qualifications you have was done up front. That way people could choose to visit a licensed doctor - or (due to favourable word of mouth - or past experience) they could risk it with an unlicensed doctor. I guess this is what happens everytime you visit a Chinese medicine (or alternative medicine) outlet.

Post: #61

(01-12-2014 11:40 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Not quite. Friedman actually addressed a question similar to Speakeasy's. His answer was actually somewhere in the middle of both of your points. The fella posing the question brought up places in the developing world that have capitalism predicated on repression and exploitation.

nice mystery method hat by the dude asking the question

Post: #62

(01-15-2014 04:38 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 11:40 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

nice mystery method hat by the dude asking the question

Haha that wardrobe is pretty fly considering that was in 1978. I'm sure he did alright for himself wherever he was then.

Post: #63

Those questions from the liberals in the audience are really interesting.

I never realised that hipster liberals were so common and annoying back then. It must have been a very irritating time.

Post: #64

Here's Friedman on immigration.

As much as I agree with him above, I must disagree with him here. He completely fails to perceive the potential drawbacks of open borders. All sorts of assumptions that do not match reality.

Post: #65

I have a lot of respect for Milton Friedman. He's arguably the father of the modern Chilean economy. Him and some of his top students from UChicago ("Chicago Boys") helped engineer Chile's free market reforms during the rule of Pinochet. Chile today is often considered as having the finest economy in Latin America. I've been there myself and it's evident from the infrastructure alone how much more advanced it is compared to its neighbors. Wasn't always like that.

As for immigration, he's right again. Wish someone posted that clip in that illegal immigration thread before it got shut down. That was my precise argument. This is another video that talks about its pros and cons.





The anger from those who oppose illegal immigration is often misplaced. Illegal immigration wouldn't exist if there wasn't demand for it from the wealthiest class of Americans (which the video I just posted discusses). This has nothing to do with political parties; it's about the richest Americans period. Those are the people with the actual power and money to make those calls, so those are the people the anger (which I don't have personally) should be directed towards. Good luck with that though.

Post: #66

1) Open borders even under the assumption of no welfare state (total free markets) is a bad idea in this day and age. This has to do with the time it takes to socialize and assimilate immigrants successfully. It took decades to assimilate Italians and Irishmen properly, and it gave the US severe problems (rampant corruption cultures in our biggest cities, the mob, etc.). It will take longer to assimilate Hispanics, given their more alien backgrounds, poorer educational attainment, etc. etc.

2) Labor costs as a portion of total costs in agriculture are minuscule. Hourly wages would have to be something like USD100 an hour before they became prohibitive. Just to give an example: I worked at a vineyard last year. We harvested a ton of grapes per man in four hours, for which we were paid 100 dollars per ton. A ton of grapes makes 750 bottles of wine. That's 7.5 cents per bottle of wine.

You could pay three times that, and the consumer would not notice.

If we deported all illegals - and we more or less have to - the labor market for unskilled workers would shrivel. Business would have to get workers from other industries. What would it take to get an American college kid to work in San Fernando Valley field for eight hours? A lot. And it should. Back-breaking work in a field needs to pay enough to let you retire early, for obvious reasons. Why is this feasible? Agricultural productivity has skyrocketed the past decades. Yet none of that productivity gain has manifested itself as higher wages for manual laborers. If you could make USD40 an hour without a high-school education, we might even be able to find something for the people of Detroit to do.

A key to reviving the American economy is thus dealing with this issue.

Other important steps should be tax-simplification (abolish all credits and deductions, cut marginal rates, raise taxes on capital income, normalize payroll tax, abolishing the corporate tax, scaling back federal regulation, shut down agencies, and converting Federal welfare programs to direct cash transfers.

Post: #67

(01-15-2014 08:06 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  It will take longer to assimilate Hispanics, given their more alien backgrounds, poorer educational attainment, etc. etc.

Right... And let's not forget their poor work ethic.

Post: #68

(01-15-2014 06:34 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I have a lot of respect for Milton Friedman. He's arguably the father of the modern Chilean economy. Him and some of his top students from UChicago ("Chicago Boys") helped engineer Chile's free market reforms during the rule of Pinochet. Chile today is often considered as having the finest economy in Latin America. I've been there myself and it's evident from the infrastructure alone how much more advanced it is compared to its neighbors. Wasn't always like that.

Regarding the Chicago boys and their policies, Naomi Klein pretty much destroys this argument in her book "Shock Doctrine" (yea I realize she's a leftie). Privatization and deregulation led to widespread chaos and misery in Chile and especially Argentina. Similar Friedman-inspired policies practically killed off thousands (millions?) of Russians in the 90s. This has been well-documented.

Post: #69

(01-15-2014 09:22 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 06:34 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I have a lot of respect for Milton Friedman. He's arguably the father of the modern Chilean economy. Him and some of his top students from UChicago ("Chicago Boys") helped engineer Chile's free market reforms during the rule of Pinochet. Chile today is often considered as having the finest economy in Latin America. I've been there myself and it's evident from the infrastructure alone how much more advanced it is compared to its neighbors. Wasn't always like that.

Regarding the Chicago boys and their policies, Naomi Klein pretty much destroys this argument in her book "Shock Doctrine" (yea I realize she's a leftie). Privatization and deregulation led to widespread chaos and misery in Chile and especially Argentina. Similar Friedman-inspired policies practically killed off thousands (millions?) of Russians in the 90s. This has been well-documented.

There is no way that Naomi Klein destroys any Milton Friedman argument; they are not even close to being in the same intellectual league. And it's not because she's a leftie. It's because she's an economic illiterate. Even Jonathan Chait who is a complete left-wing partisan, who wrote a book criticizing supply-side economics, called out Klein for being a hack. Same with Joseph Stiglitz, another progressive.

Post: #70

(01-15-2014 09:22 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Regarding the Chicago boys and their policies, Naomi Klein pretty much destroys this argument in her book "Shock Doctrine" (yea I realize she's a leftie). Privatization and deregulation led to widespread chaos and misery in Chile and especially Argentina. Similar Friedman-inspired policies practically killed off thousands (millions?) of Russians in the 90s. This has been well-documented.

Didn't read the Naomi Klein criticism, but I am aware of general criticism of Miltonian economics in Chile. I recall one documentary I saw with John Pilger called "War on Democracy" that studied US economic imperialism (their term) in three Latin American countries, with Chile being one of them. That's why in my post I said Friedman was "arguably" the father of Chile's modern economy. Here's the part of the doc I saw that focuses on Chile and highlights the criticisms you mentioned.

Post: #71

(01-15-2014 10:44 PM)j r Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 09:22 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 06:34 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I have a lot of respect for Milton Friedman. He's arguably the father of the modern Chilean economy. Him and some of his top students from UChicago ("Chicago Boys") helped engineer Chile's free market reforms during the rule of Pinochet. Chile today is often considered as having the finest economy in Latin America. I've been there myself and it's evident from the infrastructure alone how much more advanced it is compared to its neighbors. Wasn't always like that.

Regarding the Chicago boys and their policies, Naomi Klein pretty much destroys this argument in her book "Shock Doctrine" (yea I realize she's a leftie). Privatization and deregulation led to widespread chaos and misery in Chile and especially Argentina. Similar Friedman-inspired policies practically killed off thousands (millions?) of Russians in the 90s. This has been well-documented.

There is no way that Naomi Klein destroys any Milton Friedman argument; they are not even close to being in the same intellectual league. And it's not because she's a leftie. It's because she's an economic illiterate. Even Jonathan Chait who is a complete left-wing partisan, who wrote a book criticizing supply-side economics, called out Klein for being a hack. Same with Joseph Stiglitz, another progressive.

Well, economic hack or not, there have been several negative consequences as a result of neoliberal policies. So for instance, by 1990, the richest 10 percent of Argentines earned
15 times the income of the poorest 10 percent. Not to mention the fact that by '99 36% of Argentines lived under the poverty line. I'm not trying to get into an ideological battle. I don't know enough about economics to do that. But being objective here is important, I think. I thought this study did a pretty good job of explaining Friedmanesque policies in Argentina. How biased it is is open to interpretation.

http://dieoff.org/page229.pdf

Post: #72

(01-15-2014 11:33 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  But being objective here is important, I think. I thought this study did a pretty good job of explaining Friedmanesque policies in Argentina. How biased it is is open to interpretation.

http://dieoff.org/page229.pdf

That's the thing though. A lot of Friedman critics aren't fair in their criticism of his policies. Look around South America and point out a country that has a better standard than the Southern Cone nations of Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. There simply isn't one. There's inequality, sure, but that's the case in Brazil (which has the worst gap) and every other LatAm country.

In fact, one could argue Argentina's economic crisis in the modern Kirchener era is a result of its government straying from Friedman's economic policies.

Post: #73

Economics is really no different than philosophy...anything can be made to "appear" right on paper. It's theoretical.

There's simply too many possibilities to apply them all, and see which truly works the best.

Post: #74

(01-16-2014 12:20 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 11:33 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  But being objective here is important, I think. I thought this study did a pretty good job of explaining Friedmanesque policies in Argentina. How biased it is is open to interpretation.

http://dieoff.org/page229.pdf

In fact, one could argue Argentina's economic crisis in the modern Kirchener era is a result of its government straying from Friedman's economic policies.

Not sure about that. But what would Friedman have to say about Scandinavian countries, which have high standards of living amongst other things? Surely, those countries have not espoused his ideas and policies. I think it's one of those things which looks good on paper, but disastrous in practice. These guys like Lawrence Summers, Alan Greenspan etc. basically jerk off to Friedman and Rand and look at how much damage they've done to the US economy (well, damage to the American middle class, the elite remains untouched obviously).

Post: #75

(01-16-2014 12:55 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  But what would Friedman have to say about Scandinavian countries, which have high standards of living amongst other things? Surely, those countries have not espoused his ideas and policies.

Not sure what he would say about Scandinavian countries, though I doubt that model could be successfully replicated in other places, particularly the developing world.

Friedman cited Hong Kong as a place that reflects his free market ideals though.





I'd like to hear his thoughts on contemporary South Africa. He gave lectures there during the 70s but none post-Apartheid that I can recall.