9 ms·

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.

by pitaj 8y ago

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both." - Milton Friedman

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
Milton Friedman would find a lot to criticize about our current economic system.
- ionised 8y ago
  He's partly responsible for our current system.
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    To some extent, though I'd argue that many of the failures of the current system are either orthogonal to or directly in conflict with Friedman's own policies.
    - pitaj 8y ago
      One thing Friedman was incorrect about was monetary policy. Most other things, he was correct about.
jmcqk6 8y ago
He would have a hard time justifying that in the face of historical fact. Historically speaking, people who have gained power have used that power to limit the freedom of others. I think history is pretty clear that optimizing for "most freedom" means "allow people lucky enough to gain power the freedom to exercise it over others." Maximizing for freedom is great if you're part of a group that tends to hold power. It's not so great if you're part of a group that tends to not.
- pitaj 8y ago
  Historically speaking, the more freedom, the more equality and the better off everyone is. - Countries which add restrictions the the economy see slower wealth growth and more inequality - Countries which free up their economy see acceleration in growth and more equality - Countries with free economies outperform neighboring, similar countries which are more restrictive - Industries which are more free are more innovative, and become cheaper, faster than heavily regulated industries
  - jmcqk6 8y ago
    I can appreciate what you're saying, but please don't ignore the countless counter-examples. Compare health outcomes of countries with socialized medicine to those without, for example. How many regulations exist because private companies couldn't be trusted to do the right thing on their own? The Civil Rights act. Sure, you can point out that soviet russia failed economically, especially compared to the US, but there is nothing about that fact that contradicts the point that "freer" economic structures have also led to serious power imbalances between employers and employees, and that many of the rights employees have today in the US are only due to regulation imposed by governments.
    - pitaj 8y ago
      > Compare health outcomes of countries with socialized medicine to those without, for example. Socialized medicine is likely better than the current state of US healthcare, but US healthcare is by no means a free market. In fact, it's probably the most regulated and otherwise distorted by government policy. It all started with the introduction of medicare and the wage caps of the WWII era leading to employer-linked insurance. Before that, it was much more affordable. > How many regulations exist because private companies couldn't be trusted to do the right thing on their own? The Civil Rights act. The civil rights act was created as a response to other state distortions, like Jim Crow laws and segregation. It isn't necessary to prevent discrimination: incentives against that already exist in the marketplace. Give me an example of a regulation, and I'll tell you why it is either unnecessary or actively harmful. > the point that "freer" economic structures have also led to serious power imbalances between employers and employees To the contrary, freer economies led to the reduction of child labor and improvements to worker's lives before any policy actions were implemented. > many of the rights employees have today in the US are only due to regulation imposed by governments If by rights, you mean privileges.
ionised 8y ago
Milton Friedman was one of a few economists responsible for what would become the neoliberal economic policies that free markets are infallible that we have today. Policies that have benefitted primarily the already wealthy amassers of capital and which are in large part responsible for the massive income inequality and erosion of labour rights that is present for the first time since the Gilded Age. His idea of human beings as rational, self-interested economic actors that is a ludicrously narrow model of the human being and has been disastrous for the working and middle classes all over the developed world. Quotes from Friedman are worth nothing to me, personally.
- fbonetti 8y ago
  > His idea of human beings as rational, self-interested economic actors that is a ludicrously narrow model of the human being Sure, but in order to understand human behavior on the scale of millions of people making billions of transactions, you need to start with a simple axiom and move on from there. I think people hear the word "self-interest" and think "greed", and assume that mainstream economics must be predicted on a very cynical view of human beings. That's not the case at all. We all want to survive. We can't possibly understand the individual needs of other people outside of a small circle of people that we love and care about. None of us are omniscient. The beautiful thing about markets is that none of us need to have perfect information in order to participate. By simply buying the things we need and selling things the things we don't, prices emerge in a totally decentralized way. If you can think of a more accurate way to describe human economic motives, I'd like to hear it. > has been disastrous for the working and middle classes all over the developed world. Capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty. Sure, there's a large gap between the richest and poorest, but the poorest people of the world are also materially better off than at any other point in human history. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    That doesn't mean Capitalism can't do better. I'm extremely tired of this "Capitalism did good things once! Why are you criticizing Capitalism?" trope when talking about the very obvious flaws of it.
jimbokun 8y ago
Was he right?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Most would probably say no.
marcosdumay 8y ago
Yeah, on some magical world where there being a couple of powerful people on your area that decide if you'll have enough to eat or will starve isn't an obstacle for personal freedom. I wouldn't get lifetips from Friedman. Has was an important economist, and certainly pushed our knowledge forward... but I don't think there is any of his personal opinions on the theory that wasn't proven false already.

by pitaj 8y ago

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both." - Milton Friedman

jeffreyrogers 8y ago

Milton Friedman would find a lot to criticize about our current economic system.

ionised 8y ago
He's partly responsible for our current system.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  To some extent, though I'd argue that many of the failures of the current system are either orthogonal to or directly in conflict with Friedman's own policies.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    One thing Friedman was incorrect about was monetary policy. Most other things, he was correct about.

jmcqk6 8y ago

He would have a hard time justifying that in the face of historical fact. Historically speaking, people who have gained power have used that power to limit the freedom of others. I think history is pretty clear that optimizing for "most freedom" means "allow people lucky enough to gain power the freedom to exercise it over others." Maximizing for freedom is great if you're part of a group that tends to hold power. It's not so great if you're part of a group that tends to not.

pitaj 8y ago
Historically speaking, the more freedom, the more equality and the better off everyone is. - Countries which add restrictions the the economy see slower wealth growth and more inequality - Countries which free up their economy see acceleration in growth and more equality - Countries with free economies outperform neighboring, similar countries which are more restrictive - Industries which are more free are more innovative, and become cheaper, faster than heavily regulated industries
- jmcqk6 8y ago
  I can appreciate what you're saying, but please don't ignore the countless counter-examples. Compare health outcomes of countries with socialized medicine to those without, for example. How many regulations exist because private companies couldn't be trusted to do the right thing on their own? The Civil Rights act. Sure, you can point out that soviet russia failed economically, especially compared to the US, but there is nothing about that fact that contradicts the point that "freer" economic structures have also led to serious power imbalances between employers and employees, and that many of the rights employees have today in the US are only due to regulation imposed by governments.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    > Compare health outcomes of countries with socialized medicine to those without, for example. Socialized medicine is likely better than the current state of US healthcare, but US healthcare is by no means a free market. In fact, it's probably the most regulated and otherwise distorted by government policy. It all started with the introduction of medicare and the wage caps of the WWII era leading to employer-linked insurance. Before that, it was much more affordable. > How many regulations exist because private companies couldn't be trusted to do the right thing on their own? The Civil Rights act. The civil rights act was created as a response to other state distortions, like Jim Crow laws and segregation. It isn't necessary to prevent discrimination: incentives against that already exist in the marketplace. Give me an example of a regulation, and I'll tell you why it is either unnecessary or actively harmful. > the point that "freer" economic structures have also led to serious power imbalances between employers and employees To the contrary, freer economies led to the reduction of child labor and improvements to worker's lives before any policy actions were implemented. > many of the rights employees have today in the US are only due to regulation imposed by governments If by rights, you mean privileges.

ionised 8y ago

Milton Friedman was one of a few economists responsible for what would become the neoliberal economic policies that free markets are infallible that we have today. Policies that have benefitted primarily the already wealthy amassers of capital and which are in large part responsible for the massive income inequality and erosion of labour rights that is present for the first time since the Gilded Age. His idea of human beings as rational, self-interested economic actors that is a ludicrously narrow model of the human being and has been disastrous for the working and middle classes all over the developed world. Quotes from Friedman are worth nothing to me, personally.

fbonetti 8y ago
> His idea of human beings as rational, self-interested economic actors that is a ludicrously narrow model of the human being Sure, but in order to understand human behavior on the scale of millions of people making billions of transactions, you need to start with a simple axiom and move on from there. I think people hear the word "self-interest" and think "greed", and assume that mainstream economics must be predicted on a very cynical view of human beings. That's not the case at all. We all want to survive. We can't possibly understand the individual needs of other people outside of a small circle of people that we love and care about. None of us are omniscient. The beautiful thing about markets is that none of us need to have perfect information in order to participate. By simply buying the things we need and selling things the things we don't, prices emerge in a totally decentralized way. If you can think of a more accurate way to describe human economic motives, I'd like to hear it. > has been disastrous for the working and middle classes all over the developed world. Capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty. Sure, there's a large gap between the richest and poorest, but the poorest people of the world are also materially better off than at any other point in human history. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That doesn't mean Capitalism can't do better. I'm extremely tired of this "Capitalism did good things once! Why are you criticizing Capitalism?" trope when talking about the very obvious flaws of it.

jimbokun 8y ago

Was he right?

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Most would probably say no.

marcosdumay 8y ago

Yeah, on some magical world where there being a couple of powerful people on your area that decide if you'll have enough to eat or will starve isn't an obstacle for personal freedom. I wouldn't get lifetips from Friedman. Has was an important economist, and certainly pushed our knowledge forward... but I don't think there is any of his personal opinions on the theory that wasn't proven false already.