4 ms·

>> but could it not simply be that his work was motivated by trying to improve human lives? It is pretty natural to consider in the face of disaster what might

by NSX2 19y ago

>> but could it not simply be that his work was motivated by trying to improve human lives? It is pretty natural to consider in the face of disaster what might have caused it and what might have prevented it. But that's the thing. He SAYS he believes in the free market, which means, in my mind, put up an idea and see who takes to it, but in PRACTICE he basically means, "People are too stupid to know what's good for them - so we'll shove changes down their throats when they least suspect it and are the most distracted." The thing that may distrub you (I'm a bit more familiar with friedman) is that his "solutions" have nothing to do with the crisis itself, or, as you say, preventing it. He has said numerous times that "free market solutions" are the best way to lift people out of poverty en masse. Yet, his particular suggestions are not aimed at "solutions" for most people but rather opportunities for a select few. The fact that they have to be slipped in sneakily while nobody's paying attention because they're too scared and trying to survive makes me suspicious - if all the things that he advocates should be quietly sneaked in while we're too traumatized from disaster to pay attention were as good for us as he claims, why then do they have to be snuck in quietly while we're all reduced to fear an panic and can't think straight? In other words, why not let his suggestion actually be put to the test of a real democratic free market - why does he insist that "free market solutions" are best introduced during times of fear and panic and by using stealth and secrecy and decption? Could it be that none of his "free market solutions" would ever actually be successful in a properly functioning free market? If so, could it be that the people at the top of the food chain don't really want a properly functioning free market where people make rational decisions based on self-interest? >> It happens all the time, in fact, it is standard practice when starting wars to fake some attack of the enemy to be first. That is not what we are discussing, though. But in a way it is. Once you accept the possibility that people are willing to exploit tragedy to push their agendas on a weakened populace, then the next step in the economic model is to make "progress" of that sort more efficient and business like by being able to predict and prepare for such scenarios in advance - and the only way to have the sufficient knowledge necessary to do this is to somehow have asymetric distrubtion of knowledge of such events a priori, which suggests that people who have such knowledge would be colluding with the people who cause the disasters. > Also, let's think the other way round. Naomi seems to > claim that people don't want free markets because the > evil power people have to force it on them. But could it > not be the other way round, people would actually want > them, and the evil power people are actually trying to > prevent it? The "evidence" could be interpreted in both > ways. I actually agree with you 100% on this.

Tichy 19y ago
Could you give an example of something Friedman wanted to "slip in" after a crisis? And how would you propose to "let his suggestion actually be put to the test of a real democratic free market" - where would you find such a real democratic free market?
- NSX2 19y ago
  Sure. Just off the top of my mind, right after Katrina he wrote on op-ed in I think the WSJ where he does the usual "This is horrible ... but" and then suggests that rather than rebuilding public schools, now would be a good time to let the public schools rot and instead use the money that would have been build on schools as grants to be used as vouchers for private schools. By coincidence, a ton of companies were just formed to do just that - build and setup private schools. The residents got the vouchers, they gave them to the companies that would have built the schools. Only problem is that the residents are mostly still displaced or living in trailer-parks surrounded by "privatized security forces" which make them seem more like they're quarantined, and the companies that said they wanted to build the private schools took the money but no building was ever started. It seems you can't build fancy private schools and just have poor displaced people whose kids haven't gone to school in a year or so. No sir - you need some affluent people in the mix as well. And affluent people don't like to live in New-Orleans type of shambles - they want luxury coops and private, gated communities of newly constructed townhouses, and malls and shopping centers and business districts, etc. Wouldn't you know it, by some coincidence tons of new partnerships and LPs and LLCs were setup JUST RECENTLY to develop all these ritzy things so that the upscale private schools would feel more comforatable in their surroundings. So the government transferred rebuilding money to private companies which either rebuilt nothing yet or are planning to build things that the people the rebuilding money was designated for could never afford. So milton suggested change after tragedy, but his change benefited the rich and politically well connected, not the people affected by the tragedy - even though that's what it was initially passed off as. >> And how would you propose to "let his suggestion actually be put to the test of a real democratic free market" - where would you find such a real democratic free market? Well, easy. Take the people affected by Katrina - let the shock wear off so they can think clearly, then simply ask them: instead of building you guys public schools and hospitals and such, the government wants to take tax money and give private contracts to companies that want to build upscale private schools and malls and gated communities and such - you know, stuff you could never afford to live in yourselves. How bout it? Also, would you like to sell your land off really cheap to these new luxury developers? Oh, wait - you don't have a choice because the government declared it a federal disaster zone. So - for rebuilding purposes, the government declares the area a disaster zone, no rebuilding will take place. But if you and I started a LLC and declared an intention to build upscale gated communities, maybe a corporate headquarters complex or two, etc., all of a sudden, the government not only lets us but even GRANTS us tax money to do just that. What resident of New Orleans do you think would have thought this arrangement to be a good idea in their self interest? I'm guessing none.

by NSX2 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

Could you give an example of something Friedman wanted to "slip in" after a crisis? And how would you propose to "let his suggestion actually be put to the test of a real democratic free market" - where would you find such a real democratic free market?

NSX2 19y ago
Sure. Just off the top of my mind, right after Katrina he wrote on op-ed in I think the WSJ where he does the usual "This is horrible ... but" and then suggests that rather than rebuilding public schools, now would be a good time to let the public schools rot and instead use the money that would have been build on schools as grants to be used as vouchers for private schools. By coincidence, a ton of companies were just formed to do just that - build and setup private schools. The residents got the vouchers, they gave them to the companies that would have built the schools. Only problem is that the residents are mostly still displaced or living in trailer-parks surrounded by "privatized security forces" which make them seem more like they're quarantined, and the companies that said they wanted to build the private schools took the money but no building was ever started. It seems you can't build fancy private schools and just have poor displaced people whose kids haven't gone to school in a year or so. No sir - you need some affluent people in the mix as well. And affluent people don't like to live in New-Orleans type of shambles - they want luxury coops and private, gated communities of newly constructed townhouses, and malls and shopping centers and business districts, etc. Wouldn't you know it, by some coincidence tons of new partnerships and LPs and LLCs were setup JUST RECENTLY to develop all these ritzy things so that the upscale private schools would feel more comforatable in their surroundings. So the government transferred rebuilding money to private companies which either rebuilt nothing yet or are planning to build things that the people the rebuilding money was designated for could never afford. So milton suggested change after tragedy, but his change benefited the rich and politically well connected, not the people affected by the tragedy - even though that's what it was initially passed off as. >> And how would you propose to "let his suggestion actually be put to the test of a real democratic free market" - where would you find such a real democratic free market? Well, easy. Take the people affected by Katrina - let the shock wear off so they can think clearly, then simply ask them: instead of building you guys public schools and hospitals and such, the government wants to take tax money and give private contracts to companies that want to build upscale private schools and malls and gated communities and such - you know, stuff you could never afford to live in yourselves. How bout it? Also, would you like to sell your land off really cheap to these new luxury developers? Oh, wait - you don't have a choice because the government declared it a federal disaster zone. So - for rebuilding purposes, the government declares the area a disaster zone, no rebuilding will take place. But if you and I started a LLC and declared an intention to build upscale gated communities, maybe a corporate headquarters complex or two, etc., all of a sudden, the government not only lets us but even GRANTS us tax money to do just that. What resident of New Orleans do you think would have thought this arrangement to be a good idea in their self interest? I'm guessing none.