4 ms·

TFA is a lengthy slog, but it seemed to be mostly worth it. If nothing else, TFA ties together a lot of the business folk wisdom with its origins, repeatedly po

TFA is a lengthy slog, but it seemed to be mostly worth it. If nothing else, TFA ties together a lot of the business folk wisdom with its origins, repeatedly pointing out that this one is based on the thoughts of a blatant racist, this other one used as the basis for RTO came from someone talking about factory workers, not office workers, etc.

ddejohn 1y ago
Ed writes a lot of good stuff, but yeah, they're usually a slog. His diatribes seem to be getting longer lately too.
- ch4s3 1y ago
  This is the first thing I've read by him and it is full of errors and out of context quotes.
dvt 1y ago
> pointing out that this one is based on the thoughts of a blatant racist Actually this is a pretty weak point. We have plenty of historical examples where a terrible person came up with a brilliant idea. So Friedman being racist or not (he was categorically not, Zitron is being unfair here) is kind of a non-issue. The philosophical problem is that favoring shareholder value above moral value or social value (or whatever you want to call it: the betterment of society; or Socrates' "flourishing" [εὐδαιμονία]) just doesn't seem to have any positive externalities. "Line go up," sure, but what does that actually do? "Line go up" teleology is trivially a dead end moral philosophy. In fact, if history is much of a teacher, any economic teleology seems to be pretty morally bankrupt—from concrete jungle capitalism to Bolshevik communism to bartering. I'm extrapolating, but here, I do agree with Ed.
- lazide 1y ago
  If you were trying to plan for retirement; and had a specific number you were trying to hit, who are you going to give your money to? The person who is good at consistently making the value/number go up and to the right on your money; or the one that gives vague ‘social good’ reasons why they aren’t? Especially if the ‘social good’ stuff is often vague and non-concrete? The world is a much different place from when Socrates was around.
  - dvt 1y ago
    > If you were trying to plan for retirement; and had a specific number you were trying to hit, who are you going to give your money to? This has nothing to do with the broader point of drafting policies that further social flourishing (there's disagreements as to what this means, of course) as opposed to drafting policies that further "line go up." In fact, I'd argue that the latter is meaningless without a foundational underpinning (we see this in imploding hyper-inflated economies). In other words, who cares if I have a zillion Funbucks if the country is falling apart?
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      Friedman is arguing that it isn't the job of professional manager to use other peoples' money to set social goals. He argues that society broadly should establish social norms and that government should regulate negative externalizes like pollution. He was never saying just do what the fuck ever you can to flip a buck. The article quoted by Edward Zitron is Friedman responding to Nixon trying to shame companies into not raising prices during an inflationary period.
    - lazide 1y ago
      The issue here is that as an individual, you’re not actually going to decide fundamental policy matters. At a certain scale, regardless of what you personally choose (unless most others in the country do exactly the same thing you do), the country is going to either ‘fall apart’ or not regardless. Think of it from an election perspective - no matter how hard you voted for anyone but Trump last election in the US, Trump still got elected. But, you can choose if you’ll have more money or not at the end, depending on which company you choose to invest in. So for instance, regardless of how you voted, practically, it would have still been a good idea to invest in some of the companies which benefit from Trump being in office, eh? Yes, this does lead to larger scale problems when everyone does the same math. But at the same time, the actual math is the same for everyone, eh? Money may be the root of all evil, but how much you have also decides if you’re going to be eating cat food in retirement, or have gourmet home cooked meals eh? Monks may sleep better at night, but that is a trade off few others are able to make.
  - 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- drcongo 1y ago
  He may not be racist racist, but he's most definitely an absolute piece of shit - Ed should maybe have focussed more on all his other shitty attributes.
ch4s3 1y ago
Except Friedman wasn't a racist, and the quote is cut specifically to make it appear that way. In the very same chapter Friedman argues that discrimination based on skin color is irrational and wrong. Edward Zitron is lying in his framing. In the same chapter Friedman literally says: > On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
  > https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ch4s3 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ch4s3 > Except Friedman wasn't a racist, and the quote is cut specifically to make it appear that way. He doesn't say that Friedman was racist, you made that up. He says that Friedman was a fundamentalist and that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, and the quote illustrates that well and the context doesn't change anything to that point.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    I'm saying he clipped the quote to give that impression. > He says that Friedman was a fundamentalist and that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, and the quote illustrates that well and the context doesn't change anything to that point. No, Firedman says that government force isn't the best way to address discrimination. Again the quote is clipped to mislead.
    - alabastervlog 1y ago
      https://ia803400.us.archive.org/18/items/murdoch-murdoch-book-playlist/Capitalism%20and%20Freedom%20-%20Milton%20Freidman.pdf https://ia803400.us.archive.org/18/items/murdoch-murdoch-boo... Page 93 (as numbered on the pages, IDK which PDF "page" [edit: nb the table of contents gets it wrong, one supposes the pages were re-numbered in the digitization process, or something]) or just search "Capitalism and Discrimination" and it'll get you there fast, for anyone who's interested. The chapter is... well, I found a real howler, but then I have odd taste in entertainment, sometimes, and my enjoyment was almost certainly not by a route the author intended. I'd recommend it just on that basis, regardless of its role in this thread but, uh, only for my fellow weirdos.

ddejohn 1y ago

Ed writes a lot of good stuff, but yeah, they're usually a slog. His diatribes seem to be getting longer lately too.

ch4s3 1y ago
This is the first thing I've read by him and it is full of errors and out of context quotes.

dvt 1y ago

> pointing out that this one is based on the thoughts of a blatant racist Actually this is a pretty weak point. We have plenty of historical examples where a terrible person came up with a brilliant idea. So Friedman being racist or not (he was categorically not, Zitron is being unfair here) is kind of a non-issue. The philosophical problem is that favoring shareholder value above moral value or social value (or whatever you want to call it: the betterment of society; or Socrates' "flourishing" [εὐδαιμονία]) just doesn't seem to have any positive externalities. "Line go up," sure, but what does that actually do? "Line go up" teleology is trivially a dead end moral philosophy. In fact, if history is much of a teacher, any economic teleology seems to be pretty morally bankrupt—from concrete jungle capitalism to Bolshevik communism to bartering. I'm extrapolating, but here, I do agree with Ed.

lazide 1y ago
If you were trying to plan for retirement; and had a specific number you were trying to hit, who are you going to give your money to? The person who is good at consistently making the value/number go up and to the right on your money; or the one that gives vague ‘social good’ reasons why they aren’t? Especially if the ‘social good’ stuff is often vague and non-concrete? The world is a much different place from when Socrates was around.
- dvt 1y ago
  > If you were trying to plan for retirement; and had a specific number you were trying to hit, who are you going to give your money to? This has nothing to do with the broader point of drafting policies that further social flourishing (there's disagreements as to what this means, of course) as opposed to drafting policies that further "line go up." In fact, I'd argue that the latter is meaningless without a foundational underpinning (we see this in imploding hyper-inflated economies). In other words, who cares if I have a zillion Funbucks if the country is falling apart?
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    Friedman is arguing that it isn't the job of professional manager to use other peoples' money to set social goals. He argues that society broadly should establish social norms and that government should regulate negative externalizes like pollution. He was never saying just do what the fuck ever you can to flip a buck. The article quoted by Edward Zitron is Friedman responding to Nixon trying to shame companies into not raising prices during an inflationary period.
  - lazide 1y ago
    The issue here is that as an individual, you’re not actually going to decide fundamental policy matters. At a certain scale, regardless of what you personally choose (unless most others in the country do exactly the same thing you do), the country is going to either ‘fall apart’ or not regardless. Think of it from an election perspective - no matter how hard you voted for anyone but Trump last election in the US, Trump still got elected. But, you can choose if you’ll have more money or not at the end, depending on which company you choose to invest in. So for instance, regardless of how you voted, practically, it would have still been a good idea to invest in some of the companies which benefit from Trump being in office, eh? Yes, this does lead to larger scale problems when everyone does the same math. But at the same time, the actual math is the same for everyone, eh? Money may be the root of all evil, but how much you have also decides if you’re going to be eating cat food in retirement, or have gourmet home cooked meals eh? Monks may sleep better at night, but that is a trade off few others are able to make.
- 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
drcongo 1y ago
He may not be racist racist, but he's most definitely an absolute piece of shit - Ed should maybe have focussed more on all his other shitty attributes.

ch4s3 1y ago

Except Friedman wasn't a racist, and the quote is cut specifically to make it appear that way. In the very same chapter Friedman argues that discrimination based on skin color is irrational and wrong. Edward Zitron is lying in his framing. In the same chapter Friedman literally says: > On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it.

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
> https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ch4s3 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ch4s3 > Except Friedman wasn't a racist, and the quote is cut specifically to make it appear that way. He doesn't say that Friedman was racist, you made that up. He says that Friedman was a fundamentalist and that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, and the quote illustrates that well and the context doesn't change anything to that point.
- ch4s3 1y ago
  I'm saying he clipped the quote to give that impression. > He says that Friedman was a fundamentalist and that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, and the quote illustrates that well and the context doesn't change anything to that point. No, Firedman says that government force isn't the best way to address discrimination. Again the quote is clipped to mislead.
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    https://ia803400.us.archive.org/18/items/murdoch-murdoch-book-playlist/Capitalism%20and%20Freedom%20-%20Milton%20Freidman.pdf https://ia803400.us.archive.org/18/items/murdoch-murdoch-boo... Page 93 (as numbered on the pages, IDK which PDF "page" [edit: nb the table of contents gets it wrong, one supposes the pages were re-numbered in the digitization process, or something]) or just search "Capitalism and Discrimination" and it'll get you there fast, for anyone who's interested. The chapter is... well, I found a real howler, but then I have odd taste in entertainment, sometimes, and my enjoyment was almost certainly not by a route the author intended. I'd recommend it just on that basis, regardless of its role in this thread but, uh, only for my fellow weirdos.