I'm reading a bit of wikipedia on this man after seeing some of his quotes.
I've only got a few college intro courses-worth of education on ethics and economics, so I don't feel like I'm getting enough out of the article.
But god damn do these pic-related-types of statements resonate with me. I'd love to know more.
Does anyone have a favorite book of his they can direct me to as a starting point? Or any similar gospel?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
bidstrup.com
democracyjournal.org
youtube.com
psmag.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Holy shit that quote .. really makes you think.. I want more!!
(OP)
>I'd love to know more.
The implementation of his fiscal policies tanked the economies of the US and UK in 1980s. The modified version of said policies subsequently tanked the US and UK economies in the 1990s and 2000s, and will likely tank them again this decade.
What are you? Some kind of numale?
Far be it from me to question the desirability of mass unemployment and one severe recession per decade.
>posted from my iPhone
Leftist logic, everyone
>I don't know shit about anything: the post
North Korea, Soviet Union, maps China, Cuba etc
An estimated 700 million dead from socialism
PC.
Bait aside, are mass unemployment and recessions the necessary preconditions for the production of PCs and iPhones?
>Pro-capitalist pamphlets, printed under conditions of feudalism.
>An estimated 700 million dead from state capitalism.
>falling for the Ameritard 'socialism = communism' meme
Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn't go bankrupt when they go to the hospital
>Leftist logic, everyone
Those stupid russians, protesting communism while eating bread that was made in a communist society.
>Supported the idea of a Basic Income
>This would most likely require massive income redistribution and government intervention.
>Free-Marketers love him
I don't understand this and I am an economist.
They also rely on America's military. The sole reason they can exist, cuck
Nice deflection.
>cuck
If the us became like those cuck countries none of them would exist for very long, cuck
>>/pol/
>muh /pol/ boogeyman
His masterpiece is Free to Choose. It's really good.
There's also a 10 episode show based on the book (itself based on a series of talks given by him in several universities), that has a section dedicated to Friedman explaining a point for half an hour in documentary form, and then the following half hour is him discussing the first section with 4 or 5 people, some who share his opinion and some who strongly disagree,
He's fantastic.
>the US and UK economies have tanked in any way in the last 35 years
Idiot.
If anything, the application of a limited set of his theories (which pretty much can be summed up as "let's try not to make more government jobs, because the private sector is the one that sustains it and nobody wants more taxes") to counter the 2008 market crash saved the world's economy.
Kill yourself, pinko.
>cuck
>muh
>tfw chilean
>tfw his "failed economic system" made Chile one of the most relevant countries in latinamerica, with one of the highest HDI, only topped by argentina and uruguay (and only by a little)
his system is great for taking countries out of the shithole, but it fails to take you to the developed side. Chile is pretty much stagnant in a stage were it needs to take a turn to the left or it will remain in the "almost developed" side of the spectrum.
It's a good thing neoclassical economics is incompatible with dictatorships.
Because his concept was the best solution to the welfare state system.
What he advocated, more than a "basic income" just like that, was a negative income tax. A system in which, if you're bellow the poverty line, you'd be given the welfare they're already giving out, but without all the bureaucracy - and without incentivinzing the welfare state. Only as a last resort, in essence.
Here:
youtube.com
The concept goes great with the free market.
>the application of a limited set of his theories (which pretty much can be summed up as "let's not have government intervention in the economy, and let's do that by having the government intervene in the money supply") ushered in three recessions, the most recent of which was only halted by bailing out too-big-to-fail banks and corporations.
His system isn't fully implemented in Chile.
Some aspects of it are, but not all. You don't need to turn a bit to the left. You need to turn harder to the right.
More trade means a stronger economy. A stronger economy means a trickling down of resources and a rise in the living standards of the people at large.
>What he advocated was a one-size-fits-all solution in a world of different shoe sizes
Wait, no, let me rephrase that. I formulated it quite wrong.
What he advocated was for the government not to have anything to do in your choice of shoes. Unless you didn't have any shoes nor the means to get your own, in which case you may request money from the government to get your shoes, and as you'd be given money instead of shoes, you're free to buy any shoes you want that fit under that budget, or if you can get better ones by haggling, good on you.
...
>Has no lived experience of welfare.
>"But my book says this is how it should go."
Read Sowell, nigger.
Also, fucking watch the video I posted here . In full.
>Kill yourself
>nigger
Have you considered a job in sales?
>it's either this generality or that generality
if humanity thought pragmatically and logically it would have gotten the actual best that is possible from both of the mentioned concepts.
I'm going to let Friedman reply to that.
youtube.com
its an argument for concentrating wealth
detering democracy
empowering the elites
It's pretty obvious that neither side is going to convince the other. How about we not have this conversation, and say that we did?
OP asked for Friedman recommendations.
I'm the only one who actually replied to it
This is Veeky Forums, where /pol/tards ask dumb questions with an incendiary picture to watch the shit show
...
The Servile State by Belloc
Small is Beautiful by Schumacher
What's Wrong with the World by Chesterton
Democracy: the God that Failed by Hoppe
..
Friedman is an interesting case because he is as much a salesman as he is a writer. His writings show that he is fully aware that his policies are firmly Liberal yet he spoken quotes paint his position as some sort of anti-Liberal position. This leads to a *lot* of confusion, like Libertarians and Objectivists thinking they are Conservatives and Progressives calling Capitalism "right wing".
Is it possible that his writings were done from a solely-economic point of view?
>a solely-economic point of view
No such animal.
You have no idea what you are talking about,
He argued that a basic income called " The negative income tax " was the best way for the government to provide any kind of welfare. Less bureaucracy . Less government . People making choices on their own.
Chicago Boys saved Chile. Chile is now the most prosperous country in Latin America. Santiago is probably the best city in Latin America.
You don't need leftist policy. If Chile continues to follow the road of Bachellet you will be doomed.
Pretending you need some experience in welfare to have an opnion. Are you a nigger?
>Red pill me on race realism
>You have no idea what you are talking about
Freedom is awesome.
Why do so many right-libertarian economists look like evil gnomes?
That's how jews look when they shave the beard.
I always see them as slug people. Saving this picture gave me the shudders.
Is this bait? Socialism does not equal wellfare state. Socialism is the economic system that ends the exploitation of labor by capital. That basically means that in socialism, the divide between worker and owner is erased. The miners own their mine, the farmer owns his farm, the factor workers own their factory, and so on. I expect this sort of unfamiliarity with economics from the other boards but I'm always a it surprised when I find it on Veeky Forums. I don't know why.
There are more notable left libertarian Jews than right wing ones. Jews played a significant role in basically every major modern political ideology except for national socialism, unless you look at natsoc as a reaction against Jews. Also, before anyone accuses this of being conspiracy theory nonsense or some shit, I'm not claiming that they're plotting to take over the world. I'm just stating facts. Antisemitism is degenerate as fuck.
user is clearly referring to social democracy, which is what most political moderates and undecideds mean when they refer to socialism.
>Anarchist
>looks like someone who has contemplated the emptiness of life in capitalism
>very Veeky Forums vibe
>AnCap
>looks like an actual math teacher in a 80s teen movie
>has that "i have felt up my great granddaughters and played senile" vibe
but fascism at least claims to be influenced by syndicalism, which is left-libertarian (although left-libertarian is a redundancy since so called right-libertarians are just classical liberals) and nazism is either a kind of fascism or influenced by it
This nigga looks like some backgrund portrait of a dev poorly treated to have a old time vibe stuck in Bioshock
Jesus dude, is there something that can't be memed by Spongebob? Is he one of the Great Memelords?
Don't know about Mussolini, but Franco and Hitler banned trade unions outright.
that's why I said claims, you see people linking fascism with syndicalism through georges sorel and mussolini's ideological history as well as the conscious use by the falange and subsequently the franco regime of the kind of populist rhetoric and propaganda that the cnt used to increase support for that government among the working class
Hey, economists, what the hell happened in the 70s? The obviously-totally-biased-and-wrong impression I've got of the western world post-WW2 is
>pre-1970s: Keynesianism, more investment, increasing wealth, decreasing inequality, good times
>post-1970s: less investment, increasing inequality, slower increase in wealth overall with the occasional market crash
I'm vaguely aware of oil crises in the 70s, but what went so wrong? Why did Keynesianism get so discredited?
>although left-libertarian is a redundancy since so called right-libertarians are just classical liberals
It serves to distinguish US libertarianism from libertarian socialism, a term that was in use as early as 1938 when Secker & Warburg published Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker. I won't swear to it, but Rocker's mentor Kropotkin might have used the term as well.
In Europe, the association between libertarianism and anti-statist socialism persists to this day. When Albert Camus broke with Sartre and declared himself a libertarian in opposition to totalitarianism, he clearly did not did not have the US conception of libertarianism in mind, as his continued advocacy on behalf of syndicalism in particular and the labour movement more generally makes clear.
1) not according to those writings
2) Capitalism, Socialism, Communism - all explicitly Liberal
>libertarian socialism
Libertarianism as a general term for anarchism was used much earlier by Joseph Dejacque, libertarian socialism seems like a redundant term to me because Dejacque was a communist. The American liberals who call themselves libertarians are really just continuing the tradition in American politics of destroying terminology and making everything confusing and stupid.
A reminder that the Capitalist-Socialist dichotomy is one of the biggest red herrings in history. Both rely on mass employment and the worship of money. If it weren't for different names you'd have a hard time telling them apart. Both are pillars of the Globalist Mercatocracy.
More like keynesianism got out of hand.
Keynes' theories were supposed to be applied in time of crisis. Not to run afoul for decades - they can take a shit economy long collapsed almost (but not entirely) to normality, but when scaled up over the years, they completely destroy the system. Because government is not supposed to be big. Because the private sector is the one that generates wealth.
Am reading Broué and Témime on the Spanish Civil War. It's engrossing, though I have to make frequent recourse to the index that so I can keep clear in my mind who is killing who at any given time.
>Socialism and Communism
>Liberal
After decades of almost uninterrupted growth under Keynesianism, people forgot what a real economic crisis looks like—so when one finally hit, Baby Boomers declared Keynesianism broken, and opted for a system that gives us at least one years-long economic crisis per decade.
Well, "libertarian socialism" incorporates not only anarchism, but also left communism, council communism, and autonomist Marxism, so it's useful as an umbrella term. And communism is a sub-category of socialism, with both libertarian and authoritarian forms, so it's not at all redundant.
>education, postal services, health services, and transportation do not provide me with gadgets and gizmos, thus the public sector does not have any role in the creation of wealth
But you could refer to all those tendencies as libertarian to some extent without needing to clarify that they are socialist. Jurassian or libertarian kinds of communism also just fit under libertarian.
The argument is the opposite, actually.
They should not be in the public sector. Because they're in the public sector, they're gimped and are bound to provide a shit service, and the effects trickle down. Just look at public education, what it represents, and its effects.
yuuuuuup
>Because they're in the public sector, they're gimped and are bound to provide a shit service
Pic related.
>the government is efficient
>make sure things don't work
Noam needs to take off the tin foil hat. Private industries, almost without exception (I freely admit the 'almost') just do things better.
Nope, not unless you divorce the term from its actual meaning and repurpose it to signify anything that conservatives find disagreeable.
>Greentext, amirite?
Fantastic argument, senpai.
Fantastic argument, user-kun:
Let me rephrase it then:
Are you saying the government is efficient? That public education will ever be as good as private education?
It supplies services to those who wouldn't otherwise have access to those services. How efficient the services are depends in part on the party in government.
His ideas were so shitty even Pinochet disregarded them once he saw how retarded Friedman was (privatizing the fire department for example, was a disaster). His economic policies have also devastated every third world country in which they've been implemented, Chile was on its way to meeting the same fate before a sensible public sector was established.
We are of course, kidding ourselves, if we think old Friedman was truly retarded. He just wanted to make him and his superrich pals even richer, they never cared about the 99.9% or the stability of nations.
Talks shit about Freedom and Equality, Used by Oligarchies to justify take overs and crash programs to redistribute wealth to the already rich and well-provided for. youtube.com
And then we go back to the clearly better approach of Milton's negative income tax.
...
>being this retarded
His economic policies were what saved Chile from being a complete shithole like the rest of Latin America. Besides that, you almost have no example of nations where his policies were used. I've only heard of Estonia and Chile and, even those, used only a part of his recomendations.
Your ad hominen is pretty pathetic. Just like yourself.
>His economic policies were what saved Chile from being a complete shithole like the rest of Latin America. They were so popular that the Chilean people ousted the man who implemented them at the first opportunity.
>large groups of retards can't be wrong!
Hitler gained power democratically, faglord
They were also partially implemented in the US and the UK in the '80s. During their strongest periods of economic growth, under Raegan and Thatcher.
see the link here
And what drove that growth? Not work, that's for sure:
...
A smart fiscal policy that minimized the role of government and thus cut on senseless expenditures, making the system much more efficient and much less prone to corruption.
How dumb can you be?
this . Argumentum ad populum.
Besides that, your argument is a complete non sequitur. Just because Chileans voted for him to leave doesn't mean that the reason was his economic policies.
Finally, Pinochet left with 56% of the vote in a plebiscite. Not that big of consesus. He probrably left because of his surpression of civil rights.
Kill yourself.
Mass unemployment is "smart" and "efficient"? A system rife with asset-stripping and cronyism is "less prone to corruption"?
