And I agree with what you say about Friedman's beliefs, with the exception of your comment about money supply. I think he believed it was the key factor in determining price levels, and was a (but not the) key factor in determining a society's wealth. I think he believed the key factor was how free people are to pursue their self interests.
At the risk of beating this to death, there are two main risks to free markets. First is the risk of excessive government intervention and second is the risk of special interests (including but not limited to businesses) warping markets in their favor. It's difficult to maintain the right balance because politics plays such a large role. Of the two risks, the former is often relatively popular - as is the case today - while the latter is always unpopular but difficult to guard against.
"I have to give credit to the Chinese. Their fiscal stimulus will contain the degree of economic contraction. But China is radically dependent on U.S. growth. Forcing state-owned enterprises and banks to spend more when you have overcapacity, or to lend more when there are already large [amounts of bad debt], is going to postpone a problem, maybe by a few months. But it will lead to a harder fall down the line. A hard landing is unavoidable, given what has happened to the rest of the world."
I once attended an undergrad econ class at Stanford with Dr. Friedman making a guest appearance. He spoke briefly and answered questions. He believed that markets were more rational than any single individual and he believed they had an intrinsic natural discipline that served to operationally rationalize markets. That's why he was such a strong advocate of free markets and minimal government. He was a fan of Adam Smith. However, he felt that money supply was the key factor in determining a society's wealth. Again, always examine the underlying assumptions--this was Greenspan's self-admitted flaw.
Consider the assumptions of total free trade/laissez faire.
The tide flows out, investors err...let the markets naturally discipline them. We lose our auto industry, our financing capacity, most of our other industrial capacity, and with automation ultimately erode our service sector to India. Hey, in the long-term...we're better off, just like a piker camping next to a lean-to. That's what we've become, right? At least we still have an abundance of coal, natural gas, and oil shale as natural resources to monetize.
But like dropping a large ball into a puddle, when the water gets displaced, it may take a long while for another rain to bring back new water. Again, consider the assumption of total laissez-faire theories in today's global real politic.
Protectionist is not a bad word. You have a family with a couple of kids running around--you protect your family. You love the kids on the street and you think the world of the other families and you think they're great people. But I'm not going to sacrifice my own children because it benefits somebody else on the street. I protect my family. We protect our neighborhood. Our neighborhoods protect our cities. On and on, stretch that out: we should protect our country.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
I wonder if any of these people who blast Western Europe have ever lived there? Even in the 1980's, it was nice...
they act like they are talking about the Sudan or Guatemala and it's just weird....
The problem I have with the Stimulus is ....it is a sieve, the government expenditures are going to run out of the domestic economy through offshore outsourcing, offshore subsidiaries, tax havens and plain not tying the jobs to be U.S. citizens, perm residents. Seriously and this is especially true in the I.T. type jobs, as well as the Academic funds. Medical records, while a great goal to modernize them and get them all in a large database...that job, those contracts, well, let's watch but I'll bet money they are offshore outsourced. In the research areas as well, even Academia is offshore outsourcing these days.
I did not, thanks for pointing that out. This is unreal and the projected 10% for 2009, 2010 looks like it's going to be low...
We need a super aggressive jobs program and one thing I notice not mentioned is keeping jobs in the U.S.
The minute anything about putting one's domestic labor force first the pundit zombies scream "protectionism".
Well, since when does increasing a middle class group, stable income, mean bad news for a national economy or even hurt a global economy. one just grew the consumer base in that process, so I suspect these screaming walking dead
are completely opposite in their assumptions of what does what.
December was revised from -577,000 to -681,000.
January was revised from -598,000 to -655,000.
Plus, when December was first reported it was -525,000. That's a huge miss.
Which begs the question of how far off the February numbers are?
if this is what you are saying, that is what his post is saying as well. One must have a regulatory framework, a check and balance system with capitalism.
In terms of politeness well, now you are all offended when you attacked NDD's post originally, with out any justification.
Like Prof. Friedman had a "late in life" conversion. Or maybe not so late, he claimed it was just after WWII, in contradiction with this paper he wrote in 1989.
But at any rate, Prof. Friedman never believed in government intervention in the free markets- of any sort. As we now know in this post September 2008 world, that view had really bad consequences for the world's financial markets.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
In large part, these stories of struggle have escaped the nation's collective memory. They need to be kept alive, because they tell a simple truth. That, despite the protestations of the neo-liberal Right to the country (too much I say)that it is those that those who fight bank against the market are the radicals, those who oppose the course of nature itself with violence. That in fact, the "free"market was made by the state, by violence, and over the beaten and bloodied bodies of men like these. That May Day, is an American holiday, to commemorate the massacre of American workers in the city of Chicago.
By denying us our past, the condemn to a dim future. By shining light on how this world they made came into being, we can change it. There is an alternative.
1. What is the timeframe? Absent technological innovation (vaccines, lights, autos) did people live better? The US prosperity in the 1800s was based on the opening up of an entire continent to development, and higher wages than existed in Europe. In the 1920s living standards increased - very temporarily - based on debt, and that vanished in the depression.
2. Is moot, it isn't the issue. If the poor live marginally better now than 100 years ago in a laissez-faire society, but the poor and middle class could live much better in a mixed economy, Friedman is wrong.
In fact there is ample evidence from income and wealth in quintiles that since deregulatory zeal and globalization began in about 1980, almost all of the gains have gone to the top 20% (in fact the top 1%), the bottom half has stagnated, and the bottom quintile has reversed.
If you somehow infer that I 'do not understand how the industrial revolution and other technological innovations raised all standards of living' than I can only conclude you did not read my post, where I made that exact point.
I provided examples of how the poor are better off and you have ignored them. You say ‘no one is arguing against free enterprise,’ but earlier you said that the ‘middle class only came into being when government stepped in.’ I believe that ignores history. In fact, I believe the middle class would be much better off with less government. (But I not saying there should be no government.)
It looks like we both agree that a framework of government stability and regulation is necessary. You seem to think, however, that it is the framework itself that leads to prosperity while I believe it simply enables free enterprise to create prosperity. A subtle difference, perhaps, but it makes all the difference.
Finally, you warn against trolls but then you accuse me of knowing only what I hear from talk radio. Considering you don’t know anything at all about me, other than the few dozen words I have posted here, that is an unwarranted ad hominem attack. I hope you’re not so rude to your other guests.
I wonder if you could provide an actual quote where Friedman claims that 'markets always will naturally discipline themselves.' This is a fashionable claim of those who do not agree with him, but it is completely false.
to me is when one claims because man is greed ridden that is a motivator to have unregulated pure capitalism is missing the point of what greed alone will wrought. Where as Madison also acknowledged the power hungry, greed ridden man but by creating a series of checks and balances, opposing powers it keeps it all in check and government, regulation is that balance, that check to the greed and power of capitalism. In other words regulated capitalism works much better.
The same is true with societies, why we have laws and systems to deal with "out of bounds" behaviors...it's a set of rules with consequences if one breaks those rules to have trust in society so it can operate smoothly.
Friedman's flaw, like that of Greenspan, is he believed markets always will naturally discipline themselves. And, he blamed most of history's many imbalances (i.e. the Panic of 1873) on human foibles, not systemic failure. No doubt, he was a brilliant guy, but some of his ideas contributed to this, albeit indirectly.
I believe this is just another way to bring down the U.S.A. I believe this is all in the great CHANGE.
The banks should have failed, the dumb mortgage companies should fail and the dumb people who took out these loans. Here I sit and look at my retirement go down and down and down. So where is my share? Where are the jobs? We are just a service nation. I think I will file exempt on my W-4 so no taxes are withheld and then not file a tax return. Let them figure out how to pay for all the bailouts. If everyone would do this, I don't think we have enough prisons to hold all of us...even if they do, we could apply for a bailout.
James Madison, upon which this post is based is talking about mixed economies and frankly at this point I have no idea what you are bothering to say except maybe to spew something you heard on some radio talk show or maybe Glenn Beck.
James Madison is a capitalist and we are talking about checks and balances as unfettered capitalism has brought us where we are today. No one is arguing against free enterprise.
and if you do not understand how the industrial revolution and other technological innovations raised all standards of living, well, crack a few textbooks at your local library and get back to us after you have learned a thing or two about innovation throughout the ages.
... that's more than 1 in 7 American willing to work who is unemployed or underemployed.
And I agree with what you say about Friedman's beliefs, with the exception of your comment about money supply. I think he believed it was the key factor in determining price levels, and was a (but not the) key factor in determining a society's wealth. I think he believed the key factor was how free people are to pursue their self interests.
At the risk of beating this to death, there are two main risks to free markets. First is the risk of excessive government intervention and second is the risk of special interests (including but not limited to businesses) warping markets in their favor. It's difficult to maintain the right balance because politics plays such a large role. Of the two risks, the former is often relatively popular - as is the case today - while the latter is always unpopular but difficult to guard against.
"I have to give credit to the Chinese. Their fiscal stimulus will contain the degree of economic contraction. But China is radically dependent on U.S. growth. Forcing state-owned enterprises and banks to spend more when you have overcapacity, or to lend more when there are already large [amounts of bad debt], is going to postpone a problem, maybe by a few months. But it will lead to a harder fall down the line. A hard landing is unavoidable, given what has happened to the rest of the world."
--Nouriel Roubini
I once attended an undergrad econ class at Stanford with Dr. Friedman making a guest appearance. He spoke briefly and answered questions. He believed that markets were more rational than any single individual and he believed they had an intrinsic natural discipline that served to operationally rationalize markets. That's why he was such a strong advocate of free markets and minimal government. He was a fan of Adam Smith. However, he felt that money supply was the key factor in determining a society's wealth. Again, always examine the underlying assumptions--this was Greenspan's self-admitted flaw.
Consider the assumptions of total free trade/laissez faire.
The tide flows out, investors err...let the markets naturally discipline them. We lose our auto industry, our financing capacity, most of our other industrial capacity, and with automation ultimately erode our service sector to India. Hey, in the long-term...we're better off, just like a piker camping next to a lean-to. That's what we've become, right? At least we still have an abundance of coal, natural gas, and oil shale as natural resources to monetize.
But like dropping a large ball into a puddle, when the water gets displaced, it may take a long while for another rain to bring back new water. Again, consider the assumption of total laissez-faire theories in today's global real politic.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
I wonder if any of these people who blast Western Europe have ever lived there? Even in the 1980's, it was nice...
they act like they are talking about the Sudan or Guatemala and it's just weird....
The problem I have with the Stimulus is ....it is a sieve, the government expenditures are going to run out of the domestic economy through offshore outsourcing, offshore subsidiaries, tax havens and plain not tying the jobs to be U.S. citizens, perm residents. Seriously and this is especially true in the I.T. type jobs, as well as the Academic funds. Medical records, while a great goal to modernize them and get them all in a large database...that job, those contracts, well, let's watch but I'll bet money they are offshore outsourced. In the research areas as well, even Academia is offshore outsourcing these days.
I did not, thanks for pointing that out. This is unreal and the projected 10% for 2009, 2010 looks like it's going to be low...
We need a super aggressive jobs program and one thing I notice not mentioned is keeping jobs in the U.S.
The minute anything about putting one's domestic labor force first the pundit zombies scream "protectionism".
Well, since when does increasing a middle class group, stable income, mean bad news for a national economy or even hurt a global economy. one just grew the consumer base in that process, so I suspect these screaming walking dead
are completely opposite in their assumptions of what does what.
December was revised from -577,000 to -681,000.
January was revised from -598,000 to -655,000.
Plus, when December was first reported it was -525,000. That's a huge miss.
Which begs the question of how far off the February numbers are?
if this is what you are saying, that is what his post is saying as well. One must have a regulatory framework, a check and balance system with capitalism.
In terms of politeness well, now you are all offended when you attacked NDD's post originally, with out any justification.
Like Prof. Friedman had a "late in life" conversion. Or maybe not so late, he claimed it was just after WWII, in contradiction with this paper he wrote in 1989.
But at any rate, Prof. Friedman never believed in government intervention in the free markets- of any sort. As we now know in this post September 2008 world, that view had really bad consequences for the world's financial markets.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
In large part, these stories of struggle have escaped the nation's collective memory. They need to be kept alive, because they tell a simple truth. That, despite the protestations of the neo-liberal Right to the country (too much I say)that it is those that those who fight bank against the market are the radicals, those who oppose the course of nature itself with violence. That in fact, the "free"market was made by the state, by violence, and over the beaten and bloodied bodies of men like these. That May Day, is an American holiday, to commemorate the massacre of American workers in the city of Chicago.
By denying us our past, the condemn to a dim future. By shining light on how this world they made came into being, we can change it. There is an alternative.
Keep it up.
1. What is the timeframe? Absent technological innovation (vaccines, lights, autos) did people live better? The US prosperity in the 1800s was based on the opening up of an entire continent to development, and higher wages than existed in Europe. In the 1920s living standards increased - very temporarily - based on debt, and that vanished in the depression.
2. Is moot, it isn't the issue. If the poor live marginally better now than 100 years ago in a laissez-faire society, but the poor and middle class could live much better in a mixed economy, Friedman is wrong.
In fact there is ample evidence from income and wealth in quintiles that since deregulatory zeal and globalization began in about 1980, almost all of the gains have gone to the top 20% (in fact the top 1%), the bottom half has stagnated, and the bottom quintile has reversed.
If you somehow infer that I 'do not understand how the industrial revolution and other technological innovations raised all standards of living' than I can only conclude you did not read my post, where I made that exact point.
I provided examples of how the poor are better off and you have ignored them. You say ‘no one is arguing against free enterprise,’ but earlier you said that the ‘middle class only came into being when government stepped in.’ I believe that ignores history. In fact, I believe the middle class would be much better off with less government. (But I not saying there should be no government.)
It looks like we both agree that a framework of government stability and regulation is necessary. You seem to think, however, that it is the framework itself that leads to prosperity while I believe it simply enables free enterprise to create prosperity. A subtle difference, perhaps, but it makes all the difference.
Finally, you warn against trolls but then you accuse me of knowing only what I hear from talk radio. Considering you don’t know anything at all about me, other than the few dozen words I have posted here, that is an unwarranted ad hominem attack. I hope you’re not so rude to your other guests.
I wonder if you could provide an actual quote where Friedman claims that 'markets always will naturally discipline themselves.' This is a fashionable claim of those who do not agree with him, but it is completely false.
to me is when one claims because man is greed ridden that is a motivator to have unregulated pure capitalism is missing the point of what greed alone will wrought. Where as Madison also acknowledged the power hungry, greed ridden man but by creating a series of checks and balances, opposing powers it keeps it all in check and government, regulation is that balance, that check to the greed and power of capitalism. In other words regulated capitalism works much better.
The same is true with societies, why we have laws and systems to deal with "out of bounds" behaviors...it's a set of rules with consequences if one breaks those rules to have trust in society so it can operate smoothly.
Friedman's flaw, like that of Greenspan, is he believed markets always will naturally discipline themselves. And, he blamed most of history's many imbalances (i.e. the Panic of 1873) on human foibles, not systemic failure. No doubt, he was a brilliant guy, but some of his ideas contributed to this, albeit indirectly.
See "The Rise & Fall" exerpt: http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/publications.taf?function=de...
I believe this is just another way to bring down the U.S.A. I believe this is all in the great CHANGE.
The banks should have failed, the dumb mortgage companies should fail and the dumb people who took out these loans. Here I sit and look at my retirement go down and down and down. So where is my share? Where are the jobs? We are just a service nation. I think I will file exempt on my W-4 so no taxes are withheld and then not file a tax return. Let them figure out how to pay for all the bailouts. If everyone would do this, I don't think we have enough prisons to hold all of us...even if they do, we could apply for a bailout.
trolls will get eventually autobanned.
James Madison, upon which this post is based is talking about mixed economies and frankly at this point I have no idea what you are bothering to say except maybe to spew something you heard on some radio talk show or maybe Glenn Beck.
James Madison is a capitalist and we are talking about checks and balances as unfettered capitalism has brought us where we are today. No one is arguing against free enterprise.
and if you do not understand how the industrial revolution and other technological innovations raised all standards of living, well, crack a few textbooks at your local library and get back to us after you have learned a thing or two about innovation throughout the ages.
Pages