John kenneth Galbraith-The Age of Uncertainty ((Fatal Competition )) 1-6

[mastershake100]

If you are still pushing the failed theories of Friedman after 2008, there is no hope for you. He ruined Chile, yea compare them to the other nations around them that have suffered decades of revolution, corruption, terrorists supported by the US gov and the drug trade, etc while we coddled Chile. If you protested against Chilean policy, they kidnapped and buried your whole family so they could keep pushing their twisted economic system.

[cmrees2]

@mastershake100 Friedman never argued for or wrote in favor of political tyranny. You could argue that Chile suffered in spite of Friedman's advice, or adopted only the Chicago school's economic policies while ignoring the political implications of that school of thought, but you cannot claim that it was the "theories of Friedman" that led to political kidnapping. That's simply not an accurate or honest representation of Friedman.

[gerryhiles1]

If you have never read, or have not even heard of Galbraith, then you know nothing.

[frencheneesz]

@zapkvr Friedman's theories have largely been upheld by historical review and empirical outcomes in the world currently. Saying they were "discredited" is a simple lie. JKG was clearly an influential and smart man - but he was a classist that was blinded by musty academic theory that focused on reducing the gap between the rich and the poor, rather than improving the lives of everyone as much as possible. His speaking sounds like lazy high rambling

[AeoliusNRG]

@frencheneesz oh, I see you haven't been following economics very closely in recent years (or decades, in the case of Chile). here's what you missed: it turns out that all of the elegant graphs showing markets equilibrating themselves in the world are worthless if they don't describe reality, and in 2003 Friedman himself admitted that monetarism did not work, and that if he could do it over, he wouldn't advocate it so strongly. Greenspan had a similar epiphany, later on. Hope that helps!

[frencheneesz]

@AeoliusNRG I'm not going to defend monetarism, and I think people call Friedman a monetarist far too often - he's fundamentally against the fed, but believed that as long as it exists, it better be doing its job right.

I'm not sure what you mean about chile - looks like its been doing pretty damn well from privatization. What economic events are you referring to that I missed?

[RobertHartlepool]

@frencheneesz --- If you know nothing of the disasters that befell Chile as a result of Milton Friedman, it is difficult to see how you are in a position to debate Friedman's ideas at all? Where would people have a common frame of reference with someone who knows doesn't know the result of the total implimentation of Friedman's policies, and the horror they caused?

[frencheneesz]

@RobertHartlepool You guys can't even say one thing about what happened in Chile. I have to assume to know what the crap you're talking about. If the disaster that "befell" Chile was the recession in 1982, then you clearly aren't aware that the cause of that was the fixed exchange rate they enacted. After that was removed, the economy continued on a very positive economic trend that continues to this day.

[RobertHartlepool]

@frencheneesz People like you are the reason everyone thinks Americans are morons. Look up Pinochet and what happened when Friedman's principles were given a free run.

[frencheneesz]

@RobertHartlepool Morons like you are the reason our country is bankrupting itself. You seem to confuse the atrocities of a dictator with failure of the economy. The simple fact is that the policies Friedman advocated in chile brought the country's economy from the devastated state it was in.

Is there a reason, you think, that mexico's economy stagnated after the 1982 recession, while chile recovered relatively quickly?

Have a specific point or GTFO.

[Cosbibi]

@frencheneesz The percentage of Chileans without adequate housing increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, real prices increased dramatically, the richest quintile increased their share of income from 44.5% in 1970 to 54.6% in 1989 whilst the poorest decreased from 7.6% to 4.4%. Quite a succes right?

[frencheneesz]

@Cosbibi Point me to your numbers on "adequate" housing and maybe it'll change my mind a bit. However, a "real price" increase is indicative of an improving economy (via increases in real income), and share of income is not a valid way to measure the success of an economy - income share may increase or decrease, what matters is that the people as a whole are better off than they otherwise would be.

The simple fact is Chile is doing much better than their neighbors. "You can't explain that"

[bonfirejovi]

This man takes forever to make a point. He just rambles with random stock photos in the background. Lol economics gains of the war? That is a broken window fallacy my friend. Why do you think Sweden was so much more prosperous than everyone else during the 50s?

[Heymanisth]

Very good series, he also wrote many good books my favorite which was titled money which told many amusing story of monetary abuse. The collapse of 2009 would have made another predictably amusing chapter in the book. He was ignored by the "establishment' due to his views in which he encouraged the comforting of the inflicted and the inflicting the comfortable. He saw the world as it really was, spoke openly of corruption, greed and spoke his mind irregardless of who he pissed off.

[zapkvr]

I saw the show when it was first broadcast in Australia in 1977. JKG was a true intellectual he was not a polemiicist like Friedman. Like that other great intellectual Carl Sagan, he had an unflinching respect for the facts. He never shied from telling the U.S. where it was going wrong.

[bonfirejovi]

@zapkvr And he was wrong, go figure. Friedman used facts, logic and models to get his point across. His theories weren't perfect but they were a hell of a lot better than what preceded him.

[zapkvr]

@bonfirejovi Friedman used facts you say? He was signally inept at recognising facts when they didn't square with his view of the world. His theories have been fundamentally and utterly discredited in the ensuing decades. This is no mere conjecture but a matter of incontrovertible fact.