ch4s3

33 ms·

781.
by ch4s3 1y ago
I think you’re plainly wrong. Segregation was an invention of the state. In northern states where it was not the law of the land people freely mixed or didn’t in some cases. People in New York in 1950 were no less racist, they just didn’t h
782.
by ch4s3 1y ago
Anyone claiming that Friedman supported segregation or racism necessarily did not read the chapter. He's quite clear on those points. > Except that believing in fairies causes no harm to society. His beliefs did. I don't agree,
783.
by ch4s3 1y ago
> Which also means there was enough broad popular support to pass such abhorrent laws. Not necessarily. Plenty of bad laws stay in force because people are ambivalent or politicians are cowards. The most radical people on a given issue a
784.
by ch4s3 1y ago
Plenty of people happily did business with black Americans in 1965 in the American South. Segregation was enforced by law by the state. Regular people often had a broad range of views. My own grandfather regularly did business with black ne
785.
by ch4s3 1y ago
No he doesn't make that argument at all. He argues that volunteerism over time is a better basis for mutual acceptance than government fiat. He also wasn't against all regulations, and specifically supports regulating positive har
786.
by ch4s3 1y ago
Discrimination was the actually historical basis for the US introducing a minimum wage. There’s available testimony from congress that show that the intention was to push women, blacks, and immigrants out of the workforce. I think it is tot
787.
by ch4s3 1y ago
If you read the whole chapter it’s clear that he’s not saying that. He’s arguing the government shouldn’t legislate against negative harm. He’s using this for framing. I absolutely think it’s ridiculous to call him an evil person, it’s a to
788.
by ch4s3 1y ago
Makes sense, and that’s a better quality pdf than the one I had.
789.
by ch4s3 1y ago
I’m saying the author frames it that way, and other people here clearly drew that conclusion. The author also took out some of context the clip from the 1970 article.
790.
by ch4s3 1y ago
Yeah, I've read it and I suspect most people commenting here have not and that Edward Zitron did not either.
791.
by ch4s3 1y ago
Friedman doesn't argue against all kinds of government regulation, specifically he approves of regulating positive harms.
792.
by ch4s3 1y ago
It really isn't that at all, he argues that it's wrong to discriminate but that government interference in the freedom to make contracts isn't the best solution. He goes on to elaborate an make a case for how else it might be
793.
by 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&
794.
by ch4s3 1y ago
I think that's a fair summary.
795.
by ch4s3 1y ago
> He also ignores that prices for minority consumers go up because there are fewer businesses that cater to them. That's not what was observed in real life. There were form many decades black owned businesses serving clients at comp
796.
by ch4s3 1y ago
Well redlining was government policy, and he actually addresses the perverse effects of government policy that enforce discrimination in the chapter. He also specifically addresses violence as positive harm that the government has a duty to
797.
by ch4s3 1y ago
This is a rather thin and 1 dimensional take on economic preferences, particularly something as complicate as housing. What we actually know from history is that poorer neighborhoods integrated rather freely at the turn of the last centruy
798.
by ch4s3 1y ago
Yeah, Friedman would clearly agree that you can't have perfect knowledge but he argues that bad business decisions are punished with losses and firms' owners will fire bad managers or they'll lose their investments. You'
799.
by ch4s3 1y ago
He's arguing that an integrated hotel absent government force will be cheaper to stay in than the non-integrated one and price conscious potential guests will choose it. > But then in the passage I originally quoted he says it also
800.
by 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 externali
801.
by ch4s3 1y ago
This is the first thing I've read by him and it is full of errors and out of context quotes.
802.
by 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 fram
803.
by ch4s3 1y ago
He makes the argument that if your freedom depends on the largess of the majority then it is loosely held and precarious. > is some dumb shit. If letting minorities shop or work in your store drives away the majority there's no &quo
804.
by ch4s3 1y ago
> every business should optimize as much as utterly possible even if this results in exploitation, because the market will accept exploitation until it can't and correct. I don't thing that's a correct assessment. He talks
805.
by ch4s3 1y ago
This quote is taken totally out of context from the chapter of the book it's from and is clipped to make it appear in the worst light. Earlier in the chapter he says: > On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man&#x2
806.
by ch4s3 1y ago
On the contrary. Friedman argued that if as an executive you try to steer a business towards your particular personal aims that you are presuming to know more than you do about what is best for your shareholders who actually own the company
807.
by ch4s3 1y ago
They've distilled the purest essence of Jony Ive.
808.
by ch4s3 1y ago
That sounds exactly what you would say if you had staked hundreds of millions of dollars and your personal reputation on something you increasingly know isn't possible.
809.
by ch4s3 1y ago
He said it in other contexts as well. Why defend him on this?
810.
by ch4s3 1y ago
You should clearly see from context that what I meant were non-constructed natural languages.

More ›