3 ms·

I agree that Friedman was ideologically opposed to government intervention, to some extent. That said, if you read him or watch his show he demonstrates an inte

by klabb3 5y ago

I agree that Friedman was ideologically opposed to government intervention, to some extent. That said, if you read him or watch his show he demonstrates an intellectual honesty and willingness to debate with anyone. The great tragedy with Friedman was that politicians, especially right wing, used his rhetoric selectively — which was very effective but dishonest. The world absolutely did NOT move in the direction of fiscal conservatism and small market-regulating governments, but quite the opposite. Yet people still act as if he was the puppet master of the corporatist kleptocracy we find ourselves in. It's a shame he died before the 2008 crisis, he probably turned in his grave when the bailouts happened.

lisper 5y ago
> he probably turned in his grave when the bailouts happened. Maybe, but that is actually kind of the point. The bailouts were inevitable. It is simply not possible to structure an economy in such a way that the consequences of bad decisions fall solely on those who made the bad decisions. There are always externalities, moral hazards, and politics. If Friedman was intellectually honest then he was also hopelessly naive.
- skzv 5y ago
  Milton understood externalities and market failure very well. His central message was do not think that market failure means the government has the solution: https://youtu.be/Moc7gwMJabM https://youtu.be/Moc7gwMJabM
  - lisper 5y ago
    Yes, I understand that. But that is clearly an ideological position unsupported by any data. And in fact, if you think about it, this is necessarily the case because this position is necessarily based on assumptions about what constitutes a good outcome, and that is necessarily a matter of opinion, not objective fact. And BTW, with regards to that video link, it's pretty easy to cherry-pick an encounter between Friedman and a woefully underprepared student that makes the student look like an idiot. But in fact the student is correct. Government is much better at providing infrastructure than the private sector, with the internet being exhibit A.
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      In that video link, the student isnt even challenging Friedman, just trying to ask a nuanced question. I actually agree with what he carefully says at the end (as its mostly vague and handwavy "dont do too much government intervention of the wrong kind") and Friedman still comes off as a complete asshole. And yet people seem to view this as a success for him. Strange.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    > do not think that market failure means the government has the solution so whats the alternative?
pjc50 5y ago
Not doing the bailouts would have been a catastrophe that made Greece 2008 look relatively mild, across the entire Western world. Ordinary retail banking, cheque clearing etc would have been locked out for months while the bankruptcy was untangled. Should the UK have said "sorry, if your bank account was with RBS, you don't have a bank account any more and you'll have to see what is left after the recievers have sold off the office furniture to see if you get any money back at all"? Including all businesses which bank with RBS? Many of whom themselves would be bankrupt as a result? That said, there was a lot of choice in how the bailout was done, and in many cases it was done badly. Things like the robosigning fraud in the US should have been prosecuted more aggressively.

by klabb3 5y ago

lisper 5y ago

> he probably turned in his grave when the bailouts happened. Maybe, but that is actually kind of the point. The bailouts were inevitable. It is simply not possible to structure an economy in such a way that the consequences of bad decisions fall solely on those who made the bad decisions. There are always externalities, moral hazards, and politics. If Friedman was intellectually honest then he was also hopelessly naive.

skzv 5y ago
Milton understood externalities and market failure very well. His central message was do not think that market failure means the government has the solution: https://youtu.be/Moc7gwMJabM https://youtu.be/Moc7gwMJabM
- lisper 5y ago
  Yes, I understand that. But that is clearly an ideological position unsupported by any data. And in fact, if you think about it, this is necessarily the case because this position is necessarily based on assumptions about what constitutes a good outcome, and that is necessarily a matter of opinion, not objective fact. And BTW, with regards to that video link, it's pretty easy to cherry-pick an encounter between Friedman and a woefully underprepared student that makes the student look like an idiot. But in fact the student is correct. Government is much better at providing infrastructure than the private sector, with the internet being exhibit A.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    In that video link, the student isnt even challenging Friedman, just trying to ask a nuanced question. I actually agree with what he carefully says at the end (as its mostly vague and handwavy "dont do too much government intervention of the wrong kind") and Friedman still comes off as a complete asshole. And yet people seem to view this as a success for him. Strange.
- andrekandre 5y ago
  > do not think that market failure means the government has the solution so whats the alternative?

pjc50 5y ago

Not doing the bailouts would have been a catastrophe that made Greece 2008 look relatively mild, across the entire Western world. Ordinary retail banking, cheque clearing etc would have been locked out for months while the bankruptcy was untangled. Should the UK have said "sorry, if your bank account was with RBS, you don't have a bank account any more and you'll have to see what is left after the recievers have sold off the office furniture to see if you get any money back at all"? Including all businesses which bank with RBS? Many of whom themselves would be bankrupt as a result? That said, there was a lot of choice in how the bailout was done, and in many cases it was done badly. Things like the robosigning fraud in the US should have been prosecuted more aggressively.