Is Friedman Right?

[Sefarst]

In an email debate I'm having right now, I was sent the following youtube clips as evidence AGAINST Friedman and my own side (I've been asked to defend certain aspects of libertarian philosophy). To me, these videos SUPPORT Friedman's arguments, but for some reason my opponent refuses to agree with me and views these videos as the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.

This particular strain of our debate coincided with a couple other debates I've been having around here, such as the one with Francesca in the "Obama wants to end the Bear/Bull Cycle" thread, so I decided to run it past the rest of you and see what your opinions are.

Do you agree with the guy in the audience asking the question or do you agree with Friedman? Why?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ev_Uph_TLLo&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iPqdRqacpFk&feature=related

Thanks.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Can you provide some background about Friedman for the foreigners please?

 

[Sefarst]

Can you provide some background about Friedman for the foreigners please?

He was considered the leading "right-wing" economist in the US until his death in 2006. He won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on market elasticities and was a staunch advocate of free trade and free markets. He described himself as "Republican with a capital 'R' and libertarian with a lower case 'l'." He also wrote several books about Capitalism and his belief that the more government is involved the less freedom we have.

 

[Ziggurat]

If they think that about Friedman, there's no point talking to them. It's one thing to disagree about the consequences of various policies, or even about priorities (freedom versus equality, for example). But when you cast your opponents as motivated by evil, well, there's just no conversation to be had.

 

[JoeEllison]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

 

[fuelair]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

At least that seems to invalidate what the poster above you said!!

 

[Ziggurat]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

 

[Puppycow]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions?

 

[mrbaracuda]

He was considered the leading "right-wing" economist in the US until his death in 2006. He won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on market elasticities and was a staunch advocate of free trade and free markets. He described himself as "Republican with a capital 'R' and libertarian with a lower case 'l'." He also wrote several books about Capitalism and his belief that the more government is involved the less freedom we have.

Thanks! Ever heard of a guy who's last name is "von Miese"? The description sounds like him, although I don't know much about von Miese either.

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions?

I think his.. let's just call it disapproval of certain things on the right are influencing his answers greatly.

 

[brodski]

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Marx himself did not associate himself with dictators, Friedman OTOH...

 

[brodski]

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions?

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

 

[Cain]

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

This is a terrible argument.

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

And Friedman compared himself to a doctor advising someone on how to cure a sick patient. Monetarists and rational expectationists nearly drove Keynesians out with their mat and models in the 70s and 80s. When their policies were actually implemented (and did succeed as planned) reality came crashing down again. The problem with Milton Friedman is that people tread on his academic credentials in order to support capitalism in general when his popular writings and lectures are much more basic. "I'm not a conservative; I'm a believer in freedom!"

Friedman's academic work/predictions are captured in the old joke about the seven economists lost in the mountains. One of them takes out a map, checks the compass, looks at the sun, and finally declares "I know where we are!" They others excitedly ask him to explain. He points and says, "You see that mountain over there? According to my calculations, we're on top of it."

Most of his fans (and the first clip-- I did not bother to check out the second one) do not care about what he has to say about M1, M2 blah blah blah. Instead they're more interested in the interaction between his moral arguments (absence of interference) and his view of human nature (rational self-interest), and how these come together to support a regime of strong private property rights with a lot of talk about incentives thrown in.

I do think personality wise libertarians naturally tend to side with the overdog, but there are a few hard-core, populist free-market types who actually care about the poor, lower-middle class, will take the initiative to criticize corporations, dropping bombs, and so on. Most of these, in my experience, tend to be Georgists (or geo-libertarians), however.

And its' Von Mises.

 

[egslim]

But when you cast your opponents as motivated by evil, well, there's just no conversation to be had.

What are the motivations attributed to Friedman that you consider evil?

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position.

 

[RandFan]

What are the motivations attributed to Friedman that you consider evil?

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position.

I don't see how self-interest translates into keeping down the lower classes and corrupting society. Help me with that one please?

From my POV, one can have self interest and not care if the lower classes advance or whether or not society is corrupt.

 

[RandFan]

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

Why? Are dictators not to be talked to under any circumstance? If it could improve the lives of the Chilean people would it not be immoral not to talk to Pinochet?

 

[RandFan]

Marx himself did not associate himself with dictators, Friedman OTOH...

You are literally making a guilty by association fallacy. Is there any evidence that Friedman was indifferent to the suffering caused by the dictators? Was he personal friends with the dictators or was his association more professional?

BTW, this is also ad hominem poisoning the well. Freidman may very well have been an evil friend of dictators but that does not invalidate his contributions to economics that one him the Nobel Prize.

 

[egslim]

I don't see how self-interest translates into keeping down the lower classes and corrupting society. Help me with that one please?

Corruption benefits a few, at the expense of the rest of society. For those who benefit it is obviously in their self-interest to maintain or expand such corruption.

Similarly, it is in the self-interest of the upper class to maintain or improve their position. And many of the ways to do so are by keeping down the lower classes. Examples include taxation that burdens the lower incomes (income tax, as opposed to capital gains tax), stopping government expenditure that benefits the poor (like free education), and often maintaining government corruption - because the upper class has the financial means to practice and hence benefit from it.

Basically I expect the upper classes to use their superior financial means and economic position to advance their position as much as possible within the legal limits, regardless of any detrimental effects on society as a whole. Which is why I support an elaborate regulatory system to prevent such detriments, with measures in place to punish those who cross it. And that's the opposite of the libertarian position.

 

[balrog666]

Corruption benefits a few, at the expense of the rest of society. For those who benefit it is obviously in their self-interest to maintain or expand such corruption.

Similarly, it is in the self-interest of the upper class to maintain or improve their position. And many of the ways to do so are by keeping down the lower classes. Examples include taxation that burdens the lower incomes (income tax, as opposed to capital gains tax), stopping government expenditure that benefits the poor (like free education), and often maintaining government corruption - because the upper class has the financial means to practice and hence benefit from it.

Basically I expect the upper classes to use their superior financial means and economic position to advance their position as much as possible within the legal limits, regardless of any detrimental effects on society as a whole. Which is why I support an elaborate regulatory system to prevent such detriments, with measures in place to punish those who cross it. And that's the opposite of the libertarian position.

By definition, it is in the self-interest of *EVERYONE* to maintain or improve their position. Unless you think economics is a zero-sum-game, none of the rest of that nonsense follows.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position.

That is no more just rational self-interest than murdering old ladies and stealing their wallets is.

 

[Sefarst]

For those who want to criticize Friedman, please be specific. If there's something in the video your don't agree with or something in Friedman's theories and writings you don't like, point it out. Otherwise I'll assume you're just full of a bunch of hot air.

On the subject of Pinochet, Friedman said, "Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system." He was invited by a private foundation to visit Chile and lecture on the principles of economics. At no point was he an advisor to Pinochet.

American economists have also been invited to countries like Zimbabwe, Russia, China, etc. to lecture and to advise on improving the economy.