3 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by dvt 1y ago

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.