4 ms·

> Friedman has been called many things but inconsistent or unprincipled we’re not among them. Yes they were, for example Friedman said that free market policie

> Friedman has been called many things but inconsistent or unprincipled we’re not among them. Yes they were, for example Friedman said that free market policies enable 'freedom' and socialist ones do lend themselves to authoritarianism, while conveniently ignoring the fact that in almost all places where his vision was put as fully into motion as possible, (70/80s Latin America), it had to be accompanied by severe state oppression. His policies could not be enacted via truly democratic means and in that sense they were no different than the 'socialist' ones he was so critical of. He even admitted this later, essentially saying that you need a huge crisis of some sort, so that an economic 'shock therapy' could be enacted in order to bring about his vision of free markets.

barry-cotter 7y ago
You’re saying you dislike or hate his principles. I get it. I hate Dick Cheney and Hilary Clinton’s principles but I don’t claim they don’t have them. If someone says “war” they don’t need to hear more, they support it. Noam Chomsky is deeply principled. If someone opposes the US he’ll support them, whether they’re the Khmer Rouge or the Serbs in the Yugoslav Civil War. Lenin was principled. He believed in Communism and he wasn’t going to let any opposition, real or imagined, get in its way. He was a true believer, just like Milo is a true believer that he should be rich and famous. Consider another great economist, Joan Robinson. She supported Mao and the Cultural Revolution to her dying day[1]. That’s principle. When you look on morality and abandon it because your politics are more important you’re showing your principles. That’s consistency. Regarding the “shock doctrine”, a phrase that appears nowhere in Friedman’s voluminous writings others have covered this ground at length. > The Klein Doctrine The Rise of Disaster Polemics > Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine purports to be an exposé of the ruthless nature of free-market capitalism and its chief recent exponent, Milton Friedman. Klein argues that capitalism goes hand in hand with dictatorship and brutality and that dictators and other unscrupulous political fig- ures take advantage of “shocks”—catastrophes real or manufactured—to consolidate their power and implement unpopular market reforms. Klein cites Chile under General Augusto Pinochet, Britain under Margaret Thatcher, China during the Tiananmen Square crisis, and the ongoing war in Iraq as examples of this process. Klein’s analysis is hopelessly flawed at virtually every level. Friedman’s own words reveal him to be an advocate of peace, democracy, and individual rights. He argued that gradual economic reforms were often preferable to swift ones and that the public should be fully informed about them, the better to prepare themselves in advance. Further, Friedman condemned the Pinochet regime and opposed the war in Iraq. Klein’s historical examples also fall apart under scrutiny. For example, Klein alleges that the Tiananmen Square crackdown was intended to crush opposition to pro-market reforms, when in fact it caused liberalization to stall for years. She also argues that Thatcher used the Falklands War as cover for her unpopular economic policies, when actually those economic policies and their results enjoyed strong public support. Klein’s broader empirical claims fare no better. Surveys of political and economic freedom reveal that the less politically free regimes tend to resist market liberalization, while those states with greater political freedom tend to pursue economic freedom as well. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.pdf https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.... [1]https://chinachannel.org/2017/12/13/fellow-travellers-tale/ https://chinachannel.org/2017/12/13/fellow-travellers-tale/
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > You’re saying you dislike or hate his principles. I get it. Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment. > Noam Chomsky is deeply principled. If someone opposes the US he’ll support them, whether they’re the Khmer Rouge or the Serbs in the Yugoslav Civil War. Think of Chomsky what you want, but this is a tragically misguided interpretation of his stance. He doesn't want the U.S. meddling in other countries, as the U.S. does not really do it for humanitarian reasons, but for geopolitical and resource exploitative reasons, (I mean just the existence of the term 'colliteral damage', or 'double tap' and the fact that drone strikes kill over 90% civilians should tell you enough). The notion that the U.S. cares about human rights, while being allied with Egypt, KSA etc. shows this clearly. The U.S. has melted down over stupid Russian Facebook memes, calling it 'meddling', while actively supporting an illegal coup in Venezuela in the same breath. His point is also that he criticizes the U.S because he's a CITIZEN, while he's not a citizen of all of the other places. So he puts an emphasis on where he lives, because there he has the biggest chance of innacting some change, as opposed to somewhere where he has no say whatsoever. I mean that'll be easy to do, because you don't really threaten anyone in power, but it also means you're doing little more than posturing. As for my personal belief, I am actually not against markets or whatever. They serve a useful purpose for games, books, smartphones etc. But I do believe that they also serve a catastrophically unethical purpose when applied to healthcare for example, so that put's me squarely in a social democratic camp, but that doesn't really change the fact that MF has seen one extreme, so he went the exact opposite extreme. And extremes, including free market ones, cannot be innacted peacefully, as has been demonstrated every time his vision was innacted, most notably by the Chicago Boys.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    >> You’re saying you dislike or hate his principles. I get it. > Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment. If your interpretation of someone’s writing makes no sense try rereading it to see if there’s a sensible interpretation. No one who supports Milton Friedman is going to be unaware he’s widely hated. I said he was principled and consistent and acknowledged to be so. That was wrong. He was principled and consistent and plenty of people disagreed with that truth. I never said or implied he didn’t receive criticism, anywhere.

barry-cotter 7y ago

You’re saying you dislike or hate his principles. I get it. I hate Dick Cheney and Hilary Clinton’s principles but I don’t claim they don’t have them. If someone says “war” they don’t need to hear more, they support it. Noam Chomsky is deeply principled. If someone opposes the US he’ll support them, whether they’re the Khmer Rouge or the Serbs in the Yugoslav Civil War. Lenin was principled. He believed in Communism and he wasn’t going to let any opposition, real or imagined, get in its way. He was a true believer, just like Milo is a true believer that he should be rich and famous. Consider another great economist, Joan Robinson. She supported Mao and the Cultural Revolution to her dying day[1]. That’s principle. When you look on morality and abandon it because your politics are more important you’re showing your principles. That’s consistency. Regarding the “shock doctrine”, a phrase that appears nowhere in Friedman’s voluminous writings others have covered this ground at length. > The Klein Doctrine The Rise of Disaster Polemics > Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine purports to be an exposé of the ruthless nature of free-market capitalism and its chief recent exponent, Milton Friedman. Klein argues that capitalism goes hand in hand with dictatorship and brutality and that dictators and other unscrupulous political fig- ures take advantage of “shocks”—catastrophes real or manufactured—to consolidate their power and implement unpopular market reforms. Klein cites Chile under General Augusto Pinochet, Britain under Margaret Thatcher, China during the Tiananmen Square crisis, and the ongoing war in Iraq as examples of this process. Klein’s analysis is hopelessly flawed at virtually every level. Friedman’s own words reveal him to be an advocate of peace, democracy, and individual rights. He argued that gradual economic reforms were often preferable to swift ones and that the public should be fully informed about them, the better to prepare themselves in advance. Further, Friedman condemned the Pinochet regime and opposed the war in Iraq. Klein’s historical examples also fall apart under scrutiny. For example, Klein alleges that the Tiananmen Square crackdown was intended to crush opposition to pro-market reforms, when in fact it caused liberalization to stall for years. She also argues that Thatcher used the Falklands War as cover for her unpopular economic policies, when actually those economic policies and their results enjoyed strong public support. Klein’s broader empirical claims fare no better. Surveys of political and economic freedom reveal that the less politically free regimes tend to resist market liberalization, while those states with greater political freedom tend to pursue economic freedom as well. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.pdf https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.... [1]https://chinachannel.org/2017/12/13/fellow-travellers-tale/ https://chinachannel.org/2017/12/13/fellow-travellers-tale/

AsyncAwait 7y ago
> You’re saying you dislike or hate his principles. I get it. Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment. > Noam Chomsky is deeply principled. If someone opposes the US he’ll support them, whether they’re the Khmer Rouge or the Serbs in the Yugoslav Civil War. Think of Chomsky what you want, but this is a tragically misguided interpretation of his stance. He doesn't want the U.S. meddling in other countries, as the U.S. does not really do it for humanitarian reasons, but for geopolitical and resource exploitative reasons, (I mean just the existence of the term 'colliteral damage', or 'double tap' and the fact that drone strikes kill over 90% civilians should tell you enough). The notion that the U.S. cares about human rights, while being allied with Egypt, KSA etc. shows this clearly. The U.S. has melted down over stupid Russian Facebook memes, calling it 'meddling', while actively supporting an illegal coup in Venezuela in the same breath. His point is also that he criticizes the U.S because he's a CITIZEN, while he's not a citizen of all of the other places. So he puts an emphasis on where he lives, because there he has the biggest chance of innacting some change, as opposed to somewhere where he has no say whatsoever. I mean that'll be easy to do, because you don't really threaten anyone in power, but it also means you're doing little more than posturing. As for my personal belief, I am actually not against markets or whatever. They serve a useful purpose for games, books, smartphones etc. But I do believe that they also serve a catastrophically unethical purpose when applied to healthcare for example, so that put's me squarely in a social democratic camp, but that doesn't really change the fact that MF has seen one extreme, so he went the exact opposite extreme. And extremes, including free market ones, cannot be innacted peacefully, as has been demonstrated every time his vision was innacted, most notably by the Chicago Boys.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  >> You’re saying you dislike or hate his principles. I get it. > Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment. If your interpretation of someone’s writing makes no sense try rereading it to see if there’s a sensible interpretation. No one who supports Milton Friedman is going to be unaware he’s widely hated. I said he was principled and consistent and acknowledged to be so. That was wrong. He was principled and consistent and plenty of people disagreed with that truth. I never said or implied he didn’t receive criticism, anywhere.