Milton Friedman on Plagarizing Ideas

[diogotomediogo]

hahaha great view on plagiarism indeed! i didnt know he played tennis xD and Mr. Melamed is almost right. Milton would never lose a debate. Unless the man he was debating was Peter Jay HAHA

[LogicalFlawDetector]

Friedman was greater than Mises. 

[SocialistCatgirl]

Friedman and I have many, many points of disagreement. However, his view on plagiarism seems to be in line with my own. If someone uses your ideas, and even refuses to credit you or extrapolate on them further, at the very least your ideas are gaining additional exposure and consideration.

Besides, if you get right down to it people can check the publishing date on various articles in their databases. Plagiarism is damn easy to spot these days. So you'll get your credit, if it means that much.

[bweazel]

Milton Friedman would have supported internet piracy ;)

[gorrellp]

I love Milty... I wish I could have met the man.

[adhocrat1]

actually, TANSTAAFL is from several decades before Friedman's book. Robert Heinlein popularized it in 1966 in his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" but it was in use before that.

[Nyar88]

Because people might take your ideas from your website and not reference you when they republish them, effectively stealing your ideas whilst also taking your credit at the same time. That's why putting your ideas on your website might be a bad idea. No?

[jscottupton]

Friedman was almost as great at Mises.

[bweazel]

So glad Friedman didn't waste his skill being a lawyer. Would have been such a waste.

[Volomonoh]

no homo, i love that man. milton friedman lives on!

[KhmerD0g]

@Volomonoh

no homie. i hate that man. milton friedman's idea caused the economic collapse we are in right now. he is his chicago economic proven to be a failure. for example, the fiat currency. he argue let the market determine it rate. guess what? it didn't happen. currencies manipulation is happening all over the world by the central banks around the world. inflation is causing revolution in the middle east.

[Slayer8957]

@KhmerD0g you cannot blame Friedman for the mess today. a central bank is only supposed to decide deposit rates, discount rates, and reserve requirements. how was he supposed to know that Bank of Japan, People's Bank of China, and other central banks would buy US Treasuries to manipulate the exchange rate? or that central banks would decide to print money in a worldwide devaluation that is looking more and more like a currency war? the market hasnt failed, its governments around the globe.

[KhmerD0g]

@Slayer8957

the central banks shouldn't decide deposit rates, discount rates nor reserve requirement. those should be left to the market to decide. the FED decides those rates and it caused today's economic mess. they released too much liquidity in the 1990's that it caused Nasdaq bubble. they released another liquidity in 2001 right after 9-11 attacks to show Bin Ladin that America economy is strong and it caused housing bubble. cheap money causes havoc by speculations and high leverage. #LOL

[Slayer8957]

@KhmerD0g those have to be decided by the central bank unless a country denationalizes money and lets private banks issue their own private currency like they did during the free banking era. seeing as no country in the world has done this, we are stuck with central banks controlling the rates and requirements of the national fiat currency.

[KhmerD0g]

@Slayer8957

end the FED. 

[shinkengatsxa]

THIS IS WHY I LOVE PUNK ROCK! punk bands dont care if you burn and rip CDs and music to share because then you promote the band more and they get bigger and their ideas get out more. (if you dont know many punk rock bands lyrics are similar to essays on social topics)

[Libertarianist]

It's spelled PLAGIARIZING.

[dashiznit1001]

@Libertarianist yea he didnt want to plagiarize the word...didnt like the video i guess

[jedieco23]

"There is no such thing as a free lunch" is NOT "an original Friedman". That phrase was already common during the 1920s

[alilapointe1]

95 years of wealth gathering then you die and leave it all behind his ideas were as bankrupt as the banks are today

the enemy of morality is not he the guy who wanted to legalize drugs now that is what i call good idea

[anthonypesce]

I am a corporation. I want to make money. In order to do so I have to offer you something that you perceive valuable. If you don't want it, you don't have to buy it. I am the state. I want to make money. In order to do so I send my people to come to take it from you. The End. It is the marriage of corporations and government that causes the exploitation, not the businesses themselves. What person would truly act against their own interests. Not you, not me, not the Pope.

[JuanVoyce]

So he's for plagarism?  Sounds like a free lunch to me.

[tallmunchkin]

Friedman's fans as well as detractors often misrepresent his work.  He was not the author of the saying "There's no such thing as a free lunch," which comes from unknown beginnings in the 1940s or earlier. He neither plagiarized nor was plagiarized. It is in the public domain, has no known or consensus author.

It's an almost tautological statement, often misunderstood, about opportunity cost, very often misunderstood. It has been used independently by engineers for a long time.

[yourfavoritebadactor]

No he's the one who coined "Greed is Good"

[tallmunchkin]

"No he's the one who coined "Greed is Good"

He? Who are you writing about? You've narrowed it down to 2.5 billion.

Friedman? If so, what is the citation, the quote?

Sorry if I sound nasty, but with dishonest people like egapnala65 making false claims they can't back them up, one has to be careful.

[egapnala65]

Actually it was Gordon Gecko who came out with that. Friedman ,however, did hold that greed and self interest were positive attributes as it is what keeps the more vacuous among us the incentive to line their pockets.

So, in that sense, you are right.

[Questfortruth86]

But Milton Friedmans point was that greed was a loaded term, that people merely seek money as a means to their various desired ends. Valued ends are desired by all people, in an insatiable manner; these ends may vary, but according to the pleasure principle, people always choose what gives them the greatest level of pleasure. Some people obtain pleasure through philanthropy, others through owning many foreign cars, but essentially, they all want the same thing, namely pleasure.

[egapnala65]

And John Stuart Mill argued that there were higher and lower pleasures. The lower focussed on mere material concerns whilst the higher focussed on intellectual and aesthetic concerns.

He opposed operating on the purely Benthamite pleasure principle on the grounds that it merely catered for "the swinish majority".

Simply because a certsain number of people make hedonism their sole aim in life doesn't mean it has to become the main ethical feature of the world in general.

[Questfortruth86]

Yes, but John Stuart Mill did not believe that the government should regulate higher or lower pleasures. Some people naturally enjoy things, or desire ends, which are not contingent upon monetary gains. Unfortunately for us, this is not the vast majority; also, JSM did not include the jealousy factor. Schumpeter correctly assessed the situation, he said that in capitalism there will be the intellectual elite and the entrepreneurial elite; and that the former will become jealous of the latter.

[egapnala65]

Perhaps Mill did not advocate that, but he certainly made it clear which he believed society should aim toward.

A question of either looking to the stars or down in the gutter.

And your pal Struelpeter was clearly massaging your fragile little ego. I find the so called entrepreneurial elite extremely amusing. Self delusional to the point of insanity, but amusing none the less.

[tallmunchkin]

I am told, by egapnala65 that Friedman "plagiarized" from Malthus! (If you've studied History of Econ Thought, you will chuckle.) He or she won't say exactly what and where. It turns out they have't read MF and refuse to do so! Friedman certainly chose intellectual rubbish for his adversaries. Any serious person out there tell me where MF may have copied from Malthus? Adam Smith yes, but he was contra-Malthus.

[egapnala65]

Well lets face anybody who wants to legalise drugs is an illinformed prat anyway.

So why bother with him?

[tallmunchkin]

HIS FRIENDS IN SUITS BEING WHOM? SO YOU WILL TELL ME TO READ MALTHUS, BUT YOU WON'T READ FRIEDMAN AFTER YOU SAID HE "PLAGARIZED." YOU HAVE NEVER READ ANY FRIEDMAN HAVE YOU. yOU CAN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION BECAUSE HE DIDN'T AND BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. NOT ALL LEFTISTS I KNOW ARE AS DISHONEST AS YOU ARE. YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY LAZY AND DISHONEST. A WASTE OF TIME.

[egapnala65]

Well, let me see. Who is it who tend to wear suits? Who is it who want to see the minimum wage abolished and taxation lowered? Who is it that wants profits before people so badly that they would make heroin a multinational concern?

Ah yes, Friedman's pals. The men in suits.

[08MVPyouKnowWho]

Suits? What about all your "saviors" in washington.

In case you didn't notice, minimum wage always leads to an increase in unemployment for people at the lowest level (You can see it more drastically in the teenager figures).

Why are you arguing that lowering taxes is bad?

He never says profit before people, rather the other way around. He wanted people to have the opportunity to make a profit, rather than a government body choose where the profit goes.

[egapnala65]

Er... minimum wage does not lead to unemployment, greedy corporate assholes who won't employ anybody for more than a bowl a rice a week as it eats into their billion dollar bonuses are what causes unemployment.

Yep, people would be free to make shedloads, even drug dealers.

Who benefits? Corporate assholes not the man in the street.

[TheRealFallenDemon]

So what's stopping you from setting up shop and starting a business? Oh yeah, minimum wage and government regulation. Think for a minute before you post crap like that. Yes, there is disparity, but greed is not profitable in a real free market

[egapnala65]

Such things would only bother me if making shedloads at the expense of the basic rights and living conditions of my potential employees. Or I had a penchant for tax avoidance schemes.

Greed has proven to be highly profitable actually. Ask Bernie Madoffwithalotofotherpeoplesmo­ney, Libertarian supreme.

"Real Free Market" is like "Real Christianity" "Real Islam" etc. A pure fantasy which will never work in practice because it would ultimatly mean pissing on other peoples rights.

[TheRealFallenDemon]

Who said it has to be a corporate style company? You could start a co-op if you wanted :/ The point is, the only thing standing in the way of YOU owning your labour (as opposed to a collectivist system where either the state or the community at large owns it. Yeah, I preempted that) is the government. Not the corporations. Not religions. Not that black guy down the street.

[egapnala65]

There are two opposing forces at war with each other, Politcal organisation (ie. the state/public sector), and Corporate Organisation (ie. the private sector), what falls through the net on one ends up in the net of another.

They both want to dictate and control the ordinary person in the street, how he thinks, what he eats etc. and both use propagandist techniques to do so.

Abolish the state and the corporate sector will fill the vacuum left behind.

Both are equally your enemy.

[TheRealFallenDemon]

Oh, I agree completely ;) The only difference is that the government can change the rules as it sees fit. People in the US have got to start taking politicians to court if they want to start scraping the shit from the walls

[egapnala65]

And corporate dictators (largely ruthless tax fiddling chancers) will change the rules according to what they find most profitable.

So that is not a democratic solution either.

[pthompson2010]

when a market is free and the consumers are educated and logical beings, then the corporation is only profitable when it gives value to the consumer. You speak like a company can be profitable without providing service to the consumer. If the consumer is a moron, then yes, that can be true, but my argument would be that you can't control the consumer based of his stupidity. Educate him and he will stop making the ShamWOW company profitable even though they are ripping him off.

[egapnala65]

And this is of course where the whole enterprise falls to dust.

Because it begins with assumption that everybody has an IQ of 350 and an income to match.

And I think there are more intellectually worthwhile things to education than the cultivation of consumer geniuses.

[Questfortruth86]

Yes, but the corporate sector is regulated by competition, namely that there are other firms in which you must compete with. Every dollar spent on one firms product is in essence a vote of preference, the firm with the most votes is the most powerful, but not all powerful. Unlike the state, which has no competition, which is not regulated by anyone. Can we truly trust the masses to regulate the state? They have been indoctrinated, confused, and mislead.

[egapnala65]

Thecorporate sector is regulated by nothing but bullshit, lies and double dealing. It is not survival of the fittest, it is survival of the craftiest.

The state is regulated through the voting system, untramelled corporate power would have no such regulation.

To suggest that only a handful of corporate sharks should have any political power or say is taking us right back to feudalism and protectionism.

Indoctrination is a matter of opinion, I find Friedman worshippers zombiefied myself.

[Questfortruth86]

"The state is regulated through the voting system,"

Uh-huh, yeah, the people did a lot to stop Bush's needless wars, they did a lot to stop the criminal enterprise known as TARP, both under Bush and Obama. And they're doing a lot now to stop the government take over of private enterprise. I trust the people about as much as I trust Rockefeller.

[egapnala65]

Well that's big business and the mighty dollar for you. Maintaining Oil reserves, ensuring reconstrution work contracts for American business.

A chance to sell the latest weapons technology to overseas dictators.

The agenda and the economy must come first.

Lots of people protested against the wars, corporate news medias skewed the facts. Not so much state as private enterprise/ corporate expansionism to blame.

[Questfortruth86]

No.... that's government, when government gets involved the markets are no longer free; they are captured by greedy politicians.

[egapnala65]

No...that's corporate dictatorship threatening to withdraw state funds unless their particular brands/ideas are promoted.

Booze industry wanted 24 hour drinking to maximise profits and got its way. Now pharmaceutical companies want narcotics legalised so they can expand their share of the market.

Then behind them is the kiddie porn legalisation brigade.

It is corporate dictatorship, the state is the only mitigating factor. .

[Questfortruth86]

Your little socialist revolution in Britain has destroyed your economy, weakened you greatly, and largely discredited one of the most respected nations the world has ever seen. Unlike you British socialists, we're trying to stop that from happening here. Bush was bad enough, but Obama is even more like Stalin then we thought he would be.

[egapnala65]

What socialist revolution? We've been following the posturings of Friedman over here for at least 30 years, labour and tory.

"Thd markets can regulate themselves, laissez faire etc." Net result greedy degenerate libertarian scum played party games with other peoples money, took their winnings to their favorite tax havens and left the rest of the community to pay off the debt they created.

Little wonder Obama is cracking down on you degenerate bastards. About bloody time.

[Questfortruth86]

Hahaha yea, the Labour party is following the teachings of Milton Friedman! Milton Friedman is not a free market economist, the mainstream has portrayed him that way to the ignorant masses, because he's a convenient idiot. The real free market economists consider Friedman a socialist; like Ludwig von Mises, FA von Hayek, Haberler, Rothbard, ect. Your country has lost its way, and is now in utter ruins, both socially and economically.

[egapnala65]

You are clearly ignorant of what has been going on in England. "New Labour" basically took up where Thatcher left off. Laissez faire market theory, must always kiss the arse of coporates and do nothing to upset them etc. Net result the vultures descended screwed our economy and buggered off to libertarian land.

Actually most Free marketeers I have spoken to have no real idea as to what it originally meant. Very few seem to have actually read anything but a precis of "The Wealth of Nations".

[Questfortruth86]

You can ask me any questions you have about real capitalism, about truly free markets. Or you can research it for yourself. See: Bohm-Bawerk, Karl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, FA von Hayek, Schumpeter, Rothbard, Haberler, and others.

[egapnala65]

I have no interest in "Real Capitalism" any more than "Real Christianity", "Real Islam". To me such terms are simply used to endlessly defer onself from responsibilities. "Oh, that's not real Christianity, real Christians would blah blah blah."

[Questfortruth86]

"I have no interest in "Real Capitalism" any more than "Real Christianity"

Well, that's your problem right there, there's a reason why Marx was defeated and is only accepted by the most radical ideologues. He was simply wrong, and his theories just cannot work. Economies are not machines to be tampered with, adjusted and "upgraded" over time. Economies are the collective decision process made by EVERY individual, EVERY moment of EVERY day.

[egapnala65]

Er.. it's no problem to me. I just get rather bored with ideologues trying to pull the wool over my eyes with such responsibility dodging claptrap.

And what you are saying sounds no different to the conformist philosophies of Mao etc. Well supposing I choose not to be a cog in your little wheel because it strikes me as infantile and superficial? Take me out and shoot me?

[Questfortruth86]

I'm not an ideologue, I considered myself a Marxist not too long ago, but after investigating the matter I changed sides, as so many have. If you can show me real economic differences between Orwen and Marx, I would certainly listen.

[egapnala65]

Why the hell should I? What am I your high school tutor? Why don't you go to the library and find out for yourself?

God, your education system may be economically viable et al but it certainly seems to have taught you fuck all.

"I considered myself a Marxist not too long ago" well whoopie doo. What do you want? A medal?

Shows just how serious you really are. And Struelpeter reckons your a figure to be envied? Sorry, laughed at more like.

[Questfortruth86]

Hmmm, you're very emotional aren't you?

[egapnala65]

Well, we can't all be heartless, ill-read self deluded capitalists can we:)

Actually, I'm just very easily bored and just realise that there are far more interesting pursuits I could be following up rather than trying to bulk up some "Master of the Universe"'s lack of education.

I do suggest you get a copy of "The Bonfire of The Vanities", it sums up your world rather well.

[Questfortruth86]

and what would sum up your world? That would be a far more interesting read.

[egapnala65]

Nothing that could be reduced to nice, neat quantifiable theorems.

Dissapointing to you, I know. But that's what makes it interesting.

[Questfortruth86]

Uh-oh Passeneti inc....

[Questfortruth86]

It's hard to believe that socialism still rears its ugly head in a world which has not only intellectually obliterated their arguments, but historically has shown that socialism fails every time its implemented. The socialists in America got what they wanted; the result? California, Michigan, New York in utter ruins. You socialist Brits got what you wanted, look at your situation. I was once a young socialist radical myself, but eventually I got a real education and moved on...

[egapnala65]

One extreme to the other. So which philosophers did you actually read? Carpenter? Fourier? What about the social observations of William Cobbett or Samuel Bamford?

My guess is that you did a lot of drug taking, a lot of placard waving and made a lot of empty rhetorical gestures. Like most bourgeois "rads" tend to do. Which is why they are (and never have been taken seriously) by the more serious minded.

[Questfortruth86]

I am morally apposed to drugs, refuse to take them. I won't even take legal forms of medication unless I truly have to. But enough of the ad hominems, you're criticizing a system you know absolutely nothing about. You're playing right into the governments hand, they confuse you, and you incorrectly assess the information.

[egapnala65]

The same could be said of your knowledge of "Socialism" if Marx is all you can throw back at me.

[Questfortruth86]

The sociologists never make the economic connections required. They simply take the social IMPLICATIONS of theory and compare it to the other. But they pay little attention to the actual ramifications of such ideas. Communism, as presented by Marx in his manifesto is great. Who would deny that a world like that would truly be utopian? But unfortunately, without accurate price mechanisms and regulators the economy cannot function. + the fact that the politicians are the worst of society.

[egapnala65]

Oh Christ!! Karl Fucking Marx!! Haven't you bastards any imagination?

To me Marx is discredited by his over reliance on Hegelianism (hence the totalitarianism of both it and Fascism, which also came from there). He is of little relevance to any serious thinker, but seems to be the only one extreme right wingers have ever heard of.

So tell me what about Fourier or Carlyle? What about Robert Owen? Ever heard of them? Somehow I doubt it very much.

[Questfortruth86]

Robert Owen was a deterministic philosopher who was also a founder and supporter of socialism; but how do his beliefs differ from Marx? If you can be more specific, maybe show me how Owen deviates from Marxian theory economically.

[egapnala65]

Actually he discovered that by treating his workforce ok and with respect he benefitted from a far greater output and made his money back.

In many respects he represents the side of Adam Smith you people tend to ignore, the side that favoured high wages and low prices.

He was a realist not a utopian pie in the sky merchant like the Hegelian Marx.

[Questfortruth86]

"Actually he discovered that by treating his workforce ok and with respect he benefitted from a far greater output and made his money back.

In many respects he represents the side of Adam Smith you people tend to ignore,"

No, this is known as efficiency wage theory and it was used by Henry Ford: He payed his workers above the equilibrium wage rate and treated them very well, translating to huge worker productivity and high moral.

[bettertobealive]

"Unlike you British socialists"

Don't worry, they haven't got us all.... yet.

[OMikrosIroas]

Britain is the 10th most economically free country on the planet according to the index of economic freedom of the Heritage foundation.

[bettertobealive]

As the birthplace of modern capitalism, 10th isn't good enough.

[OMikrosIroas]

OK, ok. How about the fact tthat the 5th most free economies WERE former BRITISH colonies?

[OMikrosIroas]

correction: the 7 most free economies in the world were former British colonies. Hong Kong, Australia, Ireland, Singapore, Canada, USA, New Zealand.

[egapnala65]

Well Friedman should know about plagiarism. The vast majority of his social plans were stolen from Robert Malthus.

Tried and failed and cost thousands of innocent lives in the process.

But hey when your aim is to "starve off the surplus" (ie. unemployed) what more do you need?

[tallmunchkin]

"Well Friedman should know about plagiarism. The vast majority of his social plans were stolen from Robert Malthus." You either do not know what you are saying or you are just plainly dishonest. Where in Malthus did F steal. EXACTLY where?

[egapnala65]

Suggest you actualluy bone up on Malthus? He influenced Darwin and so Libertarianism stems directly from him.

Simply put, Malthus opposed any form of charitable relief or welfare state for the unemployed as he regarded them as unproductive surplus.

Paying them anything was encouraging them to multiply etc.

His followers succeeded in getting welfare payments abolished at exactly the same time as old trades were being replaced by factories. Thousands starved to death as a result.

[egapnala65]

Of course the bourgeois were too busy making shedloads out of cultivating drug addiction in poor areas to notice this.

It was only in the 1940's that the welfare state was re-established.

Now you reactionary degenerate scum want to repeat history.

[tallmunchkin]

Can you answer the question, please>

Where in Malthus did F steal. EXACTLY where?

Exactly where? YOU tell me.

[egapnala65]

Why don't you actually go and read Malthus for yourself and find out?

[tallmunchkin]

OK, now what was plaigarized? The very end of the "Essay"?

"It is not only the interest but the duty of every

individual to use his utmost efforts to remove evil from himself and from as large a circle as he can influence, and the more he exercises himself in this duty, the more wisely he directs his efforts, and the more successful these efforts are, the more he will probably improve and exalt his own mind and the more completely does he appear to fulfil the will of his Creator."

Read it?

[egapnala65]

No, more the passage where he refers to those who do not work not having the right to sit at the table and expect to be fed.

[tallmunchkin]

Where is this "table" part in the 87 pages? I am at least willing to learn something. Show me.

The beginning?

"If the rich were to ... give five shillings a day to 500,000 men without retrenching their own tables, ..., that as these men would naturally live more at their ease and consume a greater quantity of provisions, there would be less food remaining to divide among the rest, and consequently each man's patent would be diminished in value ...."

Can't be. This has nothing to do with MF.

[egapnala65]

87 pages? That's a highly edited version your reading there.

My version has at least 200 pages. Perhaps your version was edited by Friedman to make it approachable and nice?

Malthus was opposed to Smith's high wages and low prices intentions. He believed low wages kept population levels down and that welfare payments were a burden on tax payers. Pretty much the same kind of mentality that favours minimum wage abolition.

[egapnala65]

Indeed, even the online edition has the last chapter commencing on page 118, so what are you waving at me exactly?

[tallmunchkin]

"Malthus opposed any form of charitable relief or welfare state "

Freidman was not opposed to welfare. He said there is a moral obligation to help those in real distress and are advocated a negative income tax scheme. You should read him. Start with Capitalism and Freedom, p. 192..

[egapnala65]

I am afraid that a book with such a self-contradictory title "Capitalism and Freedom" is barely going to make onto my reading list.

Especially when written by somebody pretending to help out the poorer communities, but in effect disenfranchising them further by putting them at the mercy of his friends in suits.

[SirWinstonChurchill]

There is only one universal rule in economics:

"So long as there is someone willing to pay, there will always be someone willing to collect." (This is mine.)

Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized by the restraint of violence against him for trangressions upon his neighbor.

[nicobolso]

False

[SirWinstonChurchill]

True.

[nicobolso]

The so called "deterring effect" is proven false.

[SirWinstonChurchill]

So long as there is someone willingto pay, there will always be someone willing to collect...

[nicobolso]

What's that got to do with anything?

[zdeczke]

when they asked Milton Friedman who was bigger economist ... Mises or Keynes ..

Milton answer Keynes :)

it shows Milton is soc-liberal guy :+) but of course i prefer him than socialists :+)

[mrtvi46]

They were not friends. They met once for an hour. Oh, and the economic reform Friedman suggested made Chile richer eventually leading to democracy and Pinochet losing the election.

Compare that to Cuba.

[zdeczke]

dont be silly and dont read left wing propaganda :)

at Chile between 1973 and 1990 died 3700 people !!! bad comunists with AK 47

and Salvador Allende was KGB agent !!

and comunism is not dead its still here at Europe .. in every country govern left wing party means socialists and what is important socialism = comunism

[nicobolso]

the technical definition of communism is a branch of socialism, although I wouldn't know the difference between the two.

[tallmunchkin]

In olden theory, communism was socialism so advanced, the state withered away totally. (Sort of libertarian!) In post WWII terms, communism was a socialist state operating under autocratic, non-democratic state rule like the USSR, Cuba, China and ... maybe Allende's Chile.

[dbar332]

I hope you know that Allende was democratically elected. Its right wing bull shit that spins the truth.

[tallmunchkin]

He was elected by the Congress of Chile.

[tallmunchkin]

I hope you know Hitler was elected. Twice!

[SniperMaske]

tallmunchkin :

Actually, Adolf Hitler never got elected, formally speaking; it seems to me few people know that, though.

[waterpie]

So, can we get over with "intellectual property" (IP) and patents already, so that we can have ideas flowing and working?

34

[MrDeppness]

A beautiful mind, principled character, wise discretion, and amiable personality. Milton Friedman was a great man and legend of the human spirit. I'm honored to be indirectly related to him.

[atrickpay11]

Murray Rothbard could have schooled Friedman.

Rothbard was for complete free-markets, while Friedman only adovated them to a large degree.

[TimeWarp66]

care to elaborate? I am quite interested where Friedman diverges himself from the other Austrian economists.

[atrickpay11]

TimeWarp66: Oh boy...

- Friedman used empiricism whereas "Austrian" economists use deductive reasoning

- Friedman's thinking imo was muddled on the issue of money. Though he did sort of come around to free-market money (the "Austrian" position) in the late 80's.

There's other differences, but I don't know enough to comment on them!

[TimeWarp66]

Well I was more asking along the lines of monetary policy. Friedman believed in a heavily regulated and monitered central bank, where as von mises, Hayak, and Rothbard, as well as Ron Paul believe in the elimination of the Fed in replace of a gold standard.

[atrickpay11]

TimeWarp: There's an very important distinction that needs to be made re: their recommendation of a gold standard...

Hayek, Rothbard, and Paul, favor free-market money over a gold-standard.

They only support(ed) a gold-standard as a transitional step to free-market money.

Also, that's not entirely true about MF. In 1986 he wrote a paper "Does Government Have any Role in Money?"

His answer was basically no.

[TimeWarp66]

What is "free market money" exactly? Just anything people want to trade?

[atrickpay11]

Yeah.

A free-market in money (speaking in the 'political' sense) means that is it free from 'politcal' intervention.

Therefore, it means that individuals are free to use whatever they choose as money.

Whereas, the (government-run) gold standard is still forced upon the citizens (e.g. thru legal tender laws).

[TimeWarp66]

That seems kind of primitive. People would be exchanging computers for televisions or what not, and how would trading over sees be possible?

[franz9z]

Rothbard wrote: "In common with their Keynesian colleagues, the Friedmanites wish to give to the central government absolute control over these macro areas, in order to manipulate the economy for social ends, while maintaining that the micro world can still remain free. In short, Friedmanites as well as Keynesians concede the vital macro sphere to statism as the supposedly necessary framework for the micro-freedom of the free market."

[SirWinstonChurchill]

RE: Your Rothbard quote...

Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized by the restraint of violence against him for trangressions upon his neighbor.

This is how the economy is artificially manipulated.

[ItsFazsha]

Murray Rothbard could eat Friedman's lunch 7 days a week.

[hiimallen]

von Mises maybe, but no way Rothbard. But I bet Friedman could explain thier ideas better than they could!

[bfb8688]

Never debate Milton Friedman...unless your Murray Rothbard. :)

[Parthamasiris]

Milton Friedman, RIP. Great thinker, great man.

[evoneal]

the host keeps going "i bet."

[pingskill]

thanks leo

[faithfreedom]

What a beautiful mind!