05 Dec 13
"Those of us who have been so fortunate as to have been born in a free society tend to take freedom for granted and regard it as a natural state of mankind. It is not. It is a rare and precious thing; most people throughout history -- most people today -- have lived in conditions of tyranny and misery; not of freedom and prosperity."
Do you agree with Milton?
05 Dec 13
Damnit Whodey you're going to send the state worshippers into fits mentioning Friedman.
We might need to resurrect the"'Quote Wars" thread, although the control freaks got their ass so thoroughly whupped they refused to play.
And yes I do agree, the sheep have been caught sleeping, it's really going to take something just to put the brakes on, let alone get things turned around.
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by WajomaIn this day and age of rampant never ending collectivism, these ideas are important to bring up. I sense we are slipping back into the Dark Ages.
Damnit Whodey you're going to send the state worshippers into fits mentioning Friedman.
We might need to resurrect the"'Quote Wars" thread, although the control freaks got their ass so thoroughly whupped they refused to play.
And yes I do agree, the sheep have been caught sleeping, it's really going to take something just to put the brakes on, let alone get things turned around.
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodey"Those of us who have been so fortunate as to have been born in an equal society tend to take equality for granted and regard it as a natural state of mankind. It is not. It is a rare and precious thing; most people throughout history -- most people today -- have lived in conditions of inequality and misery; not of fairness and prosperity."
"Those of us who have been so fortunate as to have been born in a free society tend to take freedom for granted and regard it as a natural state of mankind. It is not. It is a rare and precious thing; most people throughout history -- most people today -- have lived in conditions of tyranny and misery; not of freedom and prosperity."
Do you agree with Milton?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyI disagree. I think we underestimate the ability of humans to find happiness in circumstances we would find intolerable (and we would find them intolerable due to our having adjusted to our own circumstances).
"Those of us who have been so fortunate as to have been born in a free society tend to take freedom for granted and regard it as a natural state of mankind. It is not. It is a rare and precious thing; most people throughout history -- most people today -- have lived in conditions of tyranny and misery; not of freedom and prosperity."
Do you agree with Milton?
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyI agree entirely and for that reason I oppose the application in practice of his economic theories by idiots like the Thatcher government, of whom there are all to many incapable of learning from their own mistakes.
"Those of us who have been so fortunate as to have been born in a free society tend to take freedom for granted and regard it as a natural state of mankind. It is not. It is a rare and precious thing; most people throughout history -- most people today -- have lived in conditions of tyranny and misery; not of freedom and prosperity."
Do you agree with Milton?
07 Dec 13
Originally posted by finneganFire away, what makes his economic theories so bad?
I agree entirely and for that reason I oppose the application in practice of his economic theories by idiots like the Thatcher government, of whom there are all to many incapable of learning from their own mistakes.
07 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyYeah, you would think that, because people "on the left" are "fans" of Keynes, while true patriots and conservatives are "fans" of Friedman. Unfortunately, the world is a little more complex than just picking between Keynes and Friedman. I'm not a "fan" of any economist and economics as a science can hardly be taken seriously even today, let alone in the time of Keynes or Friedman.
Let me guess, you are a fan of Keynes but not Friedman.
07 Dec 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI remember democrats calling Reagans trickle down economics voodoo, but for the life of me I have no idea how they can embrace the fiscal insanity going on now. They won't even pass a budget.
Yeah, you would think that, because people "on the left" are "fans" of Keynes, while true patriots and conservatives are "fans" of Friedman. Unfortunately, the world is a little more complex than just picking between Keynes and Friedman. I'm not a "fan" of any economist and economics as a science can hardly be taken seriously even today, let alone in the time of Keynes or Friedman.
Why is spending and printing money a cure for all our ills? Is this not voodoo economics? Through artificial means they prop up failing segments of the economy and delay inflation. At what point do these gymnastics become refractory?
07 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyI don't quite see how this post is a response to what I said.
I remember democrats calling Reagans trickle down economics voodoo, but for the life of me I have no idea how they can embrace the fiscal insanity going on now. They won't even pass a budget.
Why is spending and printing money a cure for all our ills? Is this not voodoo economics? Through artificial means they prop up failing segments of the economy and delay inflation. At what point do these gymnastics become refractory?
The term "voodoo economics" was coined by George H. W. Bush in 1980.
08 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyHe was economic adviser to Pinochet in Chile, no friend to democratic freedoms. Whatever economic gains were achieved there were achieved at the expense of huge rises in unemployment and poverty. Both the US and the UK attempted to adopt monetary targets as a basis for policies to defeat inflation, with similarly disastrous consequences in the real economies. I well recall listening with dumb bemusement to the Thatcher government's repeated adjustments and redefinitions of what they thought they were measuring let alone targeting before montery targets were simply jettisoned and not mentioned any more, a period in which at least a third of British industry was needlessly wiped out, insultingly described by Thatcher as "lame ducks." By the mid Eighties NOBODY was left who thought monetary targets had any credibility, Friedman relied on the excellent excuse that his theories had not been implemented correctly - the sort of excuse used to explain why magic fails.
Fire away, what makes his economic theories so bad?
This seems to be a friendly account: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110882