Milton Friedman Talks About Enemies of Markets

[MindlessGlitch]

@DaviidHiIl I could easily use that same logic to argue the opposite side. That is, government intervened markets are not 'LEGITIMATE' markets. Also, how is government being "subsumed" into the role of corporate asset when it is government making the policy that allows them to buy them off?

The lesson is: governments like money just as much as corporations.

[FRSFreeStateNow]

The "Enemies of the Markets" are monopoly's private and public and socialists who don't believe in Free Markets. As well as Corporate Welfare and their beneficiary's.

[publicanimal]

The biggest misunderstanding of free-market economists is that they advocate putting power in the hands of businesses. I would emphatically agree that one of the few acceptable functions of government is to keep business from subverting the market mechanism and accumulating excessive power and influence over the marketplace. The best way to to this is to ensure that barriers to entry in markets are kept reasonably low. We should be wary of allowing mergers and buy-outs of smaller firms.

[DaviidHill]

The essence of Milton Friedman's perceived genius is his artful mastery of chicanery. It's pretty easy to argue from a position of a free-market theoretical model because that model has never actually been realized.

Of course big business is the "enemy" of the free market system! However, if you follow Friedman's self-interest motivated "greed" principle, it only makes sense that corporations will seek regulations that favor their own survival.

[Nintendomanwill]

The point is that when we think of government regulation, we forget that it makes the average person poorer by screwing up the free market. Friedman is recognising that businesses may fail to operate in strictly capitalist ways if tempted by the ability to use government regulation to their own ends, they can use mercantilist, corporatist states to turn programmes intended to help the electorate ruin prosperity. Friedman isn't hypocritical as you imply; his point is government is not the answer.

[jaffijoe]

You cannot point to Friedman as a TRUE purveyor of the free market. While he has roots in General Economics, his methodology is that of the Keynesian. This is most prominently noted in the idea that the total quantity of money must meet the price levels of all markets. That is essentially what makes Friedman a monetarist (AKA Chicago School). It has very little relevance to free market principles at all. But, he is a portion of the reason why we can still blame our problems on the free market.

[SenileRonaldReagan]

Actually, the free-market is just a theoretical construct, nothing more. In fact, the ideology is basically used as a weapon to pursuade the masses into always thinking, just as you've articulated, that "government is not the answer," no matter how bad things get.

It's pretty damn easy to go ahead and say the free market isn't to blame because we have the government interfering in some respect. If you're a free-market fundamentalist, the free market is never to blame,.

[Nintendomanwill]

Why the free-market isn't to blame: it is an evident fact of modern economic history that inflation, Fiat money, the Fed, intervention to drive down the cost of housing and of credit (Mae and Mac) and big spending/demagogic inflationary government create bubbles. When equilibrium comes, the bubble bursts. And inherent in the bubble is the consumer boom and lack of saving/production caused by the sense that prosperity comes from the bubble, that mountains of debt pay for themselves by price rises

[DaviidHill]

@Nintendomanwill, it's not necessarily true that government regulation "makes the average person poorer by screwing up the free market." In fact, this turns out patently false in many circumstances. I didn't say Friedman was hypocritical. I merely pointed out the impractical nature of his ideology using its theoretical foundations. Milton Friedman argues against government intervention is this instance because it suits his ideology.

[Nintendomanwill]

Except that it is necessarily true. Given your username I gather that you're British. I suggest you listen to the two recent prospective PM debates. Their content, especially on immigration (Clegg, Brown, Cameron=CommieNazis) and the banking crisis caused by the central bank, inflation thereof and over-regulation from Father Christmas government in Washington, should convince you of the validity of my dictum; that government's attempts to solve problems aim at problems created by the government.

[DaviidHill]

@Nintendomanwill, I love how you just totally changed the subject of contention after making an unsubstantiated claim! The Liberal Democrats are poised to win election. People are sick of Labour, but Thatcherism is rather repulsive.

Though to get back on topic, we need only to look at other European countries, namely the Scandinavian countries, to see instances where government regulation has greatly improved the overall wealth & freedom of the average person.

[Nintendomanwill]

@DaviidHill

"It's as if SOME market fundamentalists run out of facts & the capacity to deal with arguments against their ideology in a logical fashion"

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking crap so I wasn't refuting anything because you haven't posited any actual arguments to refute. Clearly I'm not seeing the subtle, profound and informed arguments in between your lines of vague criticism! Of my 'ideology' which you NO DOUBT know like the back of your hand. Sorry mate, you're an arrogant fuck.

[Nintendomanwill]

And no offence, but that comment is just crappy. Take it down! WHY must you talk of these things that you do not understand? It's as if the whole world believes not just in inherently fallacious Social Contract theory but also in that ALL provision for human need should be regulated by economically disinterested, coerced hierarchies selected by ballot not wallet. Economically disinterested means waste, increase of price of goods subject to waste and opportunity cost. Hence 'public'=coerced waste

[DaviidHill]

Ad hominem attacks against me don't make your points any more valid. It's as if SOME market fundamentalists run out of facts & the capacity to deal with arguments against their ideology in a logical fashion that they feel they must demean anybody who disagrees with their radical viewpoints as ignorant. Just because you've discovered a philosophical narrative & economic theory that you personally appreciate does not make that ideology the only valid one in the spectrum of human ideas.

[Nintendomanwill]

@DaviidHill

See my above comment

'WHY must you talk of these things that you do not understand?'

You have the one true faith no doubt and can, MUST comment at length on the 'perceived genius' of Milton Friedman. Aren't we libertarians such silly heads! We should just ask DaviidHill* what we think, whether people think Friedman is a genius (I do not, for one, no offence to him) and why we think that. He KNOWS!

*(for some reason I read that as Damon Hill, that's why I thought you were British)

[Malthus0]

Excellent this point is not made or understood enough.

[4Ugrunt]

Friedman pulled no punches.

[TimeWarp66]

Fabulous!

Thanks for posting!