3 ms·

As a long-time entrepreneur, I'm concerned most about a market: are there people able and willing to buy what I'm selling? Social Security helps with the "able

As a long-time entrepreneur, I'm concerned most about a market: are there people able and willing to buy what I'm selling? Social Security helps with the "able" part, by making sure that no American lives in abject poverty if they're old or crippled. Before Social Security, this was a big problem. About a quarter of Americans lived in poverty, and about half of old people. More people with more money to spend means a bigger market for whatever I'm selling. That's why Social Security is good. That's why markets are bigger in places with lots of Social Security-type programs (Europe, the U.S.) than in places without them (South America, Africa). Social Security also helps make it possible for me to be an entrepreneur. I know that I can take risks and not plunge my family into abject poverty if I'm crippled and can't work. Why did I write about Conservatism in relation to this article? Because when someone is attacking Social Security, it's almost always as part of a larger political agenda they're promoting: Conservatism. This article was from the Hoover Institution, a politically Conservative organization that pushes to eliminate New Deal programs like Social Security (not just SS). They also push for unregulated markets, and flat or regressive taxes. So does the American Enterprise Institute. So does the Heritage Foundation. These groups call themselves "think tanks," which implies objective research. Unfortunately, they aren't averse to pushing false information or abandoning their principles to promote their interests. For example, For example, the Heritage Foundation sharply criticized Malaysia's government for years. After a consulting firm owned by Heritage's president began representing Malaysian business interests, Heritage assessments of Malaysia turned positive. (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/04/17/money-talks-at-heritage/ http://thinkprogress.org/2005/04/17/money-talks-at-heritage/)

antiismist 18y ago
I'm not sure why you are writing about the Heritage Foundation or "Conservatism": Milton Friedman is a classic liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), so it's a strange vicarious ad hominem attack. His laissez-faire ideas have been extremely influential and have a stunning track record of success where they have been used.
- nihilocrat 18y ago
  You shouldn't act like terms exist in a vaccuum. Remember that the Republicans and Democrats were on completely different sides of the political spectrum less than a century ago. Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government In a modern political climate these would sound somewhat conservative (mainly 'free markets' and 'limited government'). I think the best modern-day fit would be Libertarianism, which is considered by many to be far-right. This is why we as a society should really adopt the two-axis means (political compass) of understanding "ism"s. I really hope the public is smart enough to factor just one more dimension into their political analysis, but mass stupidity is always full of surprises.
  - antiismist 18y ago
    I'm just saying that his idea here should not be evaluated by a comparison to a group of people that he isn't even a member of. I do like the two axis chart though.
    - nihilocrat 18y ago
      That's a fair assessment, and I also agree that we shouldn't be assigning people to either side of the aisle in discussions where it's not important. Alas, social security is a very political issue that has many people with strong feelings in either direction, so it is very hard to avoid seeming partisan.
- tptacek 18y ago
  I don't think you can, with any intellectual honesty, call Milton Friedman a "liberal" economist without pointing out that you're using a different definition of the term than the mainstream. If he's a "classic liberal", he's also an "anti-progressive".
  - 18y ago
mynameishere 18y ago
More people with more money to spend means a bigger market for whatever I'm selling. That's why Social Security is good. That's why markets are bigger in places with lots of Social Security-type programs (Europe, the U.S.) than in places without them (South America, Africa). Where to start? Sheesh. Markets are "bigger" in the US than South America because of social security? How on earth did you come up with that notion? Besides being completely upside down (viz, social security draws money from the free market) South America most certainly has its share of SS equivilents: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007/americas/ http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007/amer...

antiismist 18y ago

I'm not sure why you are writing about the Heritage Foundation or "Conservatism": Milton Friedman is a classic liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), so it's a strange vicarious ad hominem attack. His laissez-faire ideas have been extremely influential and have a stunning track record of success where they have been used.

nihilocrat 18y ago
You shouldn't act like terms exist in a vaccuum. Remember that the Republicans and Democrats were on completely different sides of the political spectrum less than a century ago. Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government In a modern political climate these would sound somewhat conservative (mainly 'free markets' and 'limited government'). I think the best modern-day fit would be Libertarianism, which is considered by many to be far-right. This is why we as a society should really adopt the two-axis means (political compass) of understanding "ism"s. I really hope the public is smart enough to factor just one more dimension into their political analysis, but mass stupidity is always full of surprises.
- antiismist 18y ago
  I'm just saying that his idea here should not be evaluated by a comparison to a group of people that he isn't even a member of. I do like the two axis chart though.
  - nihilocrat 18y ago
    That's a fair assessment, and I also agree that we shouldn't be assigning people to either side of the aisle in discussions where it's not important. Alas, social security is a very political issue that has many people with strong feelings in either direction, so it is very hard to avoid seeming partisan.
tptacek 18y ago
I don't think you can, with any intellectual honesty, call Milton Friedman a "liberal" economist without pointing out that you're using a different definition of the term than the mainstream. If he's a "classic liberal", he's also an "anti-progressive".
- 18y ago

mynameishere 18y ago

More people with more money to spend means a bigger market for whatever I'm selling. That's why Social Security is good. That's why markets are bigger in places with lots of Social Security-type programs (Europe, the U.S.) than in places without them (South America, Africa). Where to start? Sheesh. Markets are "bigger" in the US than South America because of social security? How on earth did you come up with that notion? Besides being completely upside down (viz, social security draws money from the free market) South America most certainly has its share of SS equivilents: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007/americas/ http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007/amer...