Milton Friedman Discusses John Maynard Keynes

[TheInfernal36]

fundamentally, keynsians believes that during a recession, government spending can stimulate aggregate consumer demand and that in itself, causes a multiplier effect that can lead us out of a recession. Neoclassicalists view that the best thing to do is to use the fed's powers to create optimal conditions for the free market to recover on its own. BAsed on the latest econometric data(which at best can only make inferences at this point)...the keynsians have been wrong in this regard.

[SrijitSanyal]

So generous. In reality, even Keynes' own original teachings were horribly unclear on the point that "stimulative" activities only applied during the persistence of an output gap - that stimulus pressing against potential output would yield inflation not growth. The root problem was his overemphasis on the "outmodedness" of the Classical doctrines which preceded him. Keynes did have a valuable contribution - he taught us to care about aggregate demand. But Friedman knew he got a lot else wrong.

[Greylin91]

321 banks in the USA have been allowed to fail since 2008. Just sayin' brah.

[zacharycat]

Friedman's points about taking any idea to an extreme are valid. That includes Keynesianism, socialism, or laissez-faire capitalism.

[tugger]

@zacharycat: That's where you are mistaken. Capitalism is not an idea. It was not conceptualized into being. It is the name we have given free exchange between free individuals. Sort of like how Evolution is not an invention, it is a discovery.

[nerfmyaccount]

Lol there is a not-so-small amount of transference going on with Friedman in this video.  He is unconsciously describing his own role in the hegemony as a propagandist to influence people to the "correct" path using their position of prominence, not necessarily anything related to reasoned arguments. He even inadvertently predicts his own resolution at 0:20

Milton, tell me about your mother.

[VonManavis]

Of course you are so critical of Keynes' disciples. What about the disciples of your kind that have been running this hoax for 30 something years? What about the useless cronies at Wall Street, still hoarding money of citizen's money? What about the budget cuts on space programs and education? I am not against you Dr, but against cunts that call themselves as your followers while they don't get "it", and have brought the world's finest economy on its knees.

[BelieversinThings]

@VonManavis The citizens freely gave their money to those cronies because they wanted to get rich simply by giving someone money. A con man can't con someone who doesn't want something for nothing.When individuals take responsibility for their own actions, and sharpen their skills instead of relying on the government to take care of everything, which is all Keynsian policy, then we'll see the economy improve just as Friedman and austrian economists have predicted.

[VonManavis]

@BelieversinThings

You are fooling yourself to think that these cronies wouldn't take a beating if Friedman was alive. If I see a bastard I want him out of the system ASAP. Especially when risking so much money. This is not even mongering we are talking about, but sheer criminals. A-moral. Capitalist is NOT neo-liberal. At least can we both agree that we are still a long way before Friedman's utopia?

[BelieversinThings]

@VonManavis Everybody would be ignoring Friedman just like they did up to 2006 when he died. We all want the bastards out. The thing is when a bastard says, give me your money and I'll double it for you, he doesn't seem like such a bastard and morons still believe him. Until he rips them off. Then everybody wants a law to protect them from their own stupidity. The actual criminals who take money without voluntary consent are in a very small minority.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@BelieversinThings The Federal Government takes our money with guarantees of an excellent return.. But no one seems to mind the rip off artists in Washington.. Not one dime of the money collected from income tax is appropriated. 100% of it goes to the Federal Reserve to pay the INTEREST on the debt (Grace Commission research). Yet we still debate about fairness and redistribution of income? I swear the American people are the dumbest idiots on the planet..

[BelieversinThings]

@SuperGuitarman69 Americans are getting smarter. Ron Paul was a long shat in "08 but this year he's a top contender while all the other candidates are milking the movement he started. Like Friedman said, "You don't have to have the right men in office, you just have to make it politically profitable to do the right thing."

[SuperGuitarman69]

@BelieversinThings Boy you said it... That is exactly correct.. Friedman is without any doubt one of the most brilliant American's to ever live.. A real American.. I put Milton Friedman up there with Washington, Jefferson and Adams.. It sure would be nice to have him around now amongst all of the Marxists in control of this country now wouldn't it?

[Picard578]

And Obama notwithstanding, but since 80's, US government has been Friedmanite.

[bigge525]

Reality just keeps proving how full of shit Friedman was and Schiff is, but their sheep just keep following them off the cliff.. How many millions did investors listening to Peter Schiff in 08 lose again? LOL Notice Paul Krugman has been proven right by reality and predicted the exact same economic problems Schiff did (except one is an actual teacher) but he's just dismissed as a "leftist" Isn't it great educated people actually think having a bias magically makes everything you say un-true!

[kriskats19]

@bigge525 If your liberal buddies have all the answers, then why were they unable to fix the economy with all their trillions of dollars worth of stimulus?

[bigge525]

@kriskats19 actually, if u pull your head out of your ass and look at what even FOX news has reported, Obama's stimulus was not even remotely close to a trillion $.. but I guess your not accounting for the 9 TRILLION IN NATIONAL DEBT that Regan, GHWB, and GWB, ran up according to the congressional budget office huh buttfuck?

[UngratefulLiving420]

@bigge525 The stimulus was $829 Billion. I disagree w/ many of his policies, but Reagan lowered the inflation rate by 6%, while Obama has been printing more money, lowering the value of the dollar. Here's a quick comparison: From Jan. 20 1981-Sept. 7 1983, gold’s price fell 33%— from $1,396.79 per ounce to $937.37. By converting the Bureau of Engraving and Printing into a veritable currency copy shop, Obama helped gold climb 201.4% from Jan. 20 2009-Sept. 7 2011, from $898.53 to $1,810.00.

[bigge525]

@UngratefulLiving420 Alan Greenspan has already admitted he was COMPLETELY wrong, and he is the most famous student of the Fraud Friedman economics ever. Sorry, reality has caught up with your side and you have lost this argument. Everything your spinning about Obama doing is because he's cleaning up what is left of our economy after 30 yrs of Fraud Friedman economics and cowboy conservatism.

[UngratefulLiving420]

@bigge525 Yes its funny how people blame the "failure of the free market" for things like the housing crisis. But in a free market, the banks/lenders set the interest rates and decide who qualifies for a loan, not the government. Thats why the banks got insurance on the risky mortgages from, say, AIG. Looking at the risk/reward, AIG really shouldnt have insured all those bad mortgages, but they mustve felt less risk knowing that if shit really hit the fan, the govt could NEVER let them fail...

[Paraconsistant]

@UngratefulLiving420 Re: ' But in a free market, the banks/lenders set the interest rates and decide who qualifies for a loan, not the government.' Not quite. The expected rate of inflation, the rate at which individuals and firms save, and the demand for capital investment set interest rates in a market economy.

[mjmayerjr]

what is the name of the last article referenced?

[kitschetc]

This is dangerous nonsense. Anyone with two eyes can see where deregulation espoused by opportunists like Friedman has taken us - to the FCUKING ABYSS!

[kraskata2012]

@kitschetc what deregulation in a market where the price of capital is set by the Fed. It's the easy monetary policy and the bailouts (LTCM anyone) that got us here and this has nothing to do with deregulation.

[AccountLinked]

Isn't the way Americans say listening really annoying ! Americans in general now that I think.

[5amuu]

@TheCrookedTimber I'm not taking anyone's sides here, but yeah Schiff did get it right, but then again so did Roubini, Stiglitz and other people from the other side of the spectrum as well. I think the problem with economics in general is that it is so trapped with dogmatic thinking that Keynesians, Austrians and Neo-Classicists tend to ignore each others ideas too easily, causing economics to stagnate completely as a science.

[somercet1]

@5amuu Sitglitz?? The jerk socialist "economist" who, with Jonathan and Peter Orszag, declared Fannie and Freddie "peachy keen"??? Excuse me while I vomit, loser, your evil words stuck in my throat.

[5amuu]

@somercet1 This is exactly what I mean. Paradigms blind your view from ever being able to see empirical evidence posted by either sides. Friedman is undoubtedly my favorite economist, but it would be very naive to only follow his ideas.

[lessiv]

I like that fact that Friedman does support his person and respects him, even though his ideas were almost the complete opposite of Keynes. Both are great.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

Ironically, I wish Friedman would have lived another 6 years. I wonder what he would say today.

[migkillertwo]

@itcanbecheezcaketime He would probably express strong support for, among other policies, the TARP bailouts and a much larger stimulus package than the one passed by Congress in Feb. 2009.

Pay attention at the beginning of the video. Friedman said clearly that the measures were needed *during the 1930s*, but that the continuation of the policies beyond the depression and the war caused massive inflation, which greatly hurt the British Economy. This is the standard Keynesian model.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@migkillertwo

Wait wait wait... so you're saying that Milton is advocating corporate welfare and Keynesian economics? INCONCEIVABLE!

[migkillertwo]

@itcanbecheezcaketime IDK if that was sarcasm, but he certainly would advocate Keynesian economics. While Friedman proved that monetary phenomenon explained depressions and recessions extremely well, the 2008 recession was more than a monetary phenomenon.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@migkillertwo

It was sarcasm... sorta. I disagree with you, though. When Milton was talking about chrysler (not sure if it was in another video or not), he wanted them to fail. He did not want the government to prop up chrysler automotive just so that we could have 1 more car company.

It is a reasonable assumption that Milton would not have bailed out the banks, the car companies, etc.

[migkillertwo]

@itcanbecheezcaketime

Maybe not the car companies, but he definitely would have bailed out the banks. Friedman understood the disastrous effects of deflation, and he would have understood perfectly well the deflationary effects of letting most of the biggest financial firms go under.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@migkillertwo

I disagree. I think he would have let those banks fall too. All of his rhetoric alludes to the fact that he would avoid government intrusion into any aspect of the market, including the banks. The banks are monopolies propped up by the federal government and I'm certain he would have wanted them to fail.

Those financial arms shouldn't exist in the first place and they wouldn't without the government.

[migkillertwo]

@itcanbecheezcaketime

"All of his rhetoric alludes..."

No, no, no, a million times no. Friedman said, unequivocally, that the Federal reserve should have had a more aggressive inflationary monetary policy in 1929 to prevent the Great Depression in the book he coauthored with Anna Schwarts "A Monetary History of the United States." He understood perfectly well that deflation destroyed our economy then, and it would have destroyed our economy in 2008.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@migkillertwo

That's ridiculous. Anyone would agree that deflation is a bad thing.. and so is inflation. But the banks and the monopolies falsely prop up the value of the money in the first place. They should not be there to begin with. You're missing the bigger picture here. He would not agree that taking taxes from people to prop up huge, multi-national, mega-banks is what we should do. Absolutely not! He would say LET THEM FALL. Let the economy return to its natural state.

[tugger]

@itcanbecheezcaketime Neither deflation/inflation are bad things in themselves. There are overall fluctuations in currency value due to 'natural' phenomena.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@migkillertwo In regards to what Milton Friedman would of thought of the bank bailouts? For you even to suggest that Milton was such a monetarist and would have favored bank bailouts is insane.. I served in 1996 on a think tank team under his direction in the mid west.. We knew that this was going to happen.. We seen policy factors that were trending in the direction of Nationalization of the banks.. Friedman was completely against this.. Banks needed to fail.. We all said it!

[WillhelmKaiser]

What's the name of this article?

[bml0624]

Take that annoying intro off and I will subscribe.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@bml0624

I agree, those intros are annoying and they'll be even more annoying when Obama isn't president anymore.

[hamzyboy]

I think that it's a tragedy that milton friedman didn't leaved another decade to see the results of his polcy and ideology in 2008 and dissuade his disciples. Ironic isn't it ??

[fbonnefoy91]

wtf! what is wrong with his neck? 

[robzrob]

He was very inconsiderate in dying when he did.

[csmguitar1]

What I find amazing is that we can say the same thing about Friedman. (not on his monetarist beliefs but libertarian political leanings)

[AmandaFeetJeansFan]

he says "president obama are you liss-en-een?"

[tonyg0123]

@AmandaFeetJeansFan haha, yes, that is Rick Santelli

[MrSocialDemocrat]

The post-war economic model of strong government intervention in the economy was the most successful period in the history of capitalism - often referred to as 'the golden age of capitalism'.

The Welfare State was created, lifting millions out of poverty, and the huge middle class was created by these policies.

Today, we are seeing an erosion of the middle class, and worse economic growth rates than then, precisely because governments listened to the likes of Friedman.

[100CommonCents]

@MrSocialDemocrat have you ever read a pro free-market book in your life. if so, what?

If you haven't, and want to challenge your belief system, you should read "economics in one lesson" . (read the reviews on Amazon)

[AntiSchiff]

@MrSocialDemocrat

I don't think that's quite fair. Friedman favored a negative income tax for the poor. I've even heard some idiot American conservatives today call him both a socialist and a Keynesian.

[EnglandIndependence]

i thought friedman was more of a thatcherite than a keynesian?

[AntiSchiff]

@EnglandIndependence

Friedman and Keynes both believed in government interventions to counter economic downturns. The former favored monetary policy. The latter favored fiscal policy, when interest rates were at or near 0, as they were in the Depression in the US.

Friedman actually favored government helping the poor, and his idea for doing so he called the negative income tax. That is, give the poor money. This idea took the form of the earned income tax credit in the US.

[Visfen]

@AntiSchiff You're confusing Neo-Keynesianism with Keynesianism. Keynes favored fiscal stimulus in all recessions. Neo-Keynesians agree that it is less effective and that fiscal stimulus should only be implemented at zero-bound interest rates.

"Helping the poor". You don't even understand the discussion.

Besides, the negative income tax is an incremental stage as Friedman proposes it, he doesn't want taxes on income.

Further, history is week for the monetarist argument. Depression 1946 f.i.

[AntiSchiff]

@Visfen

Well, your post is so ignorant and stupid, it's not worthy responding to, and to avoid ever finding your comments in my box again, you're blocked.

[Visfen]

@AntiSchiff Coming form someone who has a channel dedicated to being a troll and a person who doesn't know the difference between Keyneisanism and Neo-Keynesianism, I don't really care. Though I do think it's great that channels such as yours and dgslop exists, since that is the intellectual opposition, what do we on the side of freedom have to fear? You could just as well be working for our side, that's how unlikeable and stupid you come across as.

[Visfen]

@AntiSchiff You're confusing Neo-Keynesianism with Keynesianism. Keynes favored fiscal stimulus in all recessions. Neo-Keynesians agree that it is less effective and that fiscal stimulus should only be implemented at zero-bound interest rates.

"Helping the poor". You don't even understand the discussion.

Besides, the negative income tax is an incremental stage as Friedman proposes it, he doesn't want taxes on income.

Further, history is week for the monetarist argument. Depression 1946 f.i.

[AntiSchiff]

The difference between Friedman and Keynes was mostly technical.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@AntiSchiff the difference is fundamental-- keynes is all about government intervention; all about "man" being able to manipulate something that is totally beyond "man's" ability to comprehend

friedman/ hayek's stance is all about the individual making decisions for himself and in his self-interest while the forces of competition, the ability to succeed or fail freely, and man's ability to spend his own money better than someone else provide the "checks and balances"

[AntiSchiff]

@2dum2getsocialism

What the Hell are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with the points I made?

[johnsurs22]

@AntiSchiff I think the difference is that Friedman's monetarist belief lends itself toward favoring a Fed that keeps a stable money supply so that people can make their own choices without chaos. He didn't actually believe in the Federal Reserve manipulating the money supply except after a crisis had already happened. But he believed that if the Fed kept money supply stable before that, the crisis would never happen to begin with.

[AntiSchiff]

@johnsurs22

Essentially, Friedman favored keeping NGDP constant, which means increasing money supply when demand increases in response to a nominal shock.

[johnsurs22]

@AntiSchiff Right exactly- this is different from Keynesian which promoted using monetary policy itself to boost GDP rather than using monetary policy to respond to an increase in GDP

[AntiSchiff]

@johnsurs22

No stupid. You don't even understand your own statements. Keeping NGDP constant means increasing the money supply when inflation falls below target, and decreasing it when above target. In this economy, Friedman would want more monetary stimulus, since we're well below the baseline 2% implicit pre-crisis target trajectory.

[johnsurs22]

@AntiSchiff No then you are misunderstanding Friedman's work. Monetarists believe in stable prices, meaning that a proper control of money supply will result in no inflation. Friedman would not want more monetary stimulus- if you listen to Friedman later in life, he changed his belief on the Fed keeping artificially low interest rates. He said they were only justified after the crisis hit, but they shouldn't be kept that low all the time. You are completely misunderstanding monetarism

[SuperGuitarman69]

@AntiSchiff Anyone that has a screen name AntiSchiff might be the single biggest threat to this country as Peter Schiff is the most brilliant economists currently in this country... He has been correct 100% of the time..

[5amuu]

@SuperGuitarman69 Schiff has a degree in accounting, he is not an economist.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@5amuu He spoke at my Alma mater recently to a group of the worlds leading economists.. They sat intently as he stole the show.. He IS an economist. He has earned it.. If you look at his debate with a Keynesian professor at Columbia U (it is on youtube) you will see his brilliance.. Here was the top professor and adviser to many governors and presidents, and Schiff buried him in 10 minutes..

[BUCollegeDems]

@SuperGuitarman69 except for his claims of hyperinflation. (I'm sure there are others too）

[SuperGuitarman69]

@BUCollegeDems Schiff has stated hyperinflation is to come.. I have a degree in economics as well from Washington University, I also agree hyperinflation is to come.. Schiff NEVER said that we were in hyperinflation.. Saying that he said that is a distortion of his views.. What he did say (and is correct about) is that if we continue the cycle of stimulus packages, we will drive the economy to hyperinflation.. Which is a mathematical certainty..

[zoikles1]

@SuperGuitarman69 Peter Schiff isn't an economist.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@zoikles1 Yes he is.. Check his education

[zoikles1]

@SuperGuitarman69 According to wikipedia he's got a bachelors in accounting and finance from UC Berkeley, is that correct? He doesn't have a research degree in economics, he hasn't published any academic material or worked in an economic institution like the central bank or treasury. I'm not disputing his views, but he's just not an economist.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@zoikles1 Ya know, I am not sure.. All I know is that all of the top economists think that he is brilliant.. Even the Keynesian ones.. I have a degree in economics from Washington University in St.Louis.. I have been published.. And I can tell you that I personally think he is one of the most thought out debaters of economics I have ever seen... I am a professional musician now.. And guitar players from Berkley take lessons from me.. I'm just saying.. A degree means shit.. In reality.

[zoikles1]

@SuperGuitarman69 I'm an econ undergrad and I have to say I agree haha. If you want to learn you should visit the library instead of paying thousands of dollars for a bachelors degree and I think you need a lot more than that to call yourself an expert in economics anyway. When you referred to Schiff as one of the most brilliant economists in the country, I thought, who? I don't really keep up with American economic commentators, but if he was a big economist I thought I would have heard of him.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@zoikles1 Schiff is one of the most if not the most brilliant economists in the United States... And I think you may want to lay off with the sock accounts.. It is pretty easy to see through that.

[zoikles1]

@SuperGuitarman69 haha I think we're going in circles now, but if you say so... You're mistaken if you think this is a sock account though mate. This is my only youtube account, not sure what made you think it's a puppet but whatever.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@zoikles1 Uh oh.. You're an Aussie.. Lol.. Not a problem with that.. But why in the world are you commenting on an American economists video? You really do not have a dog in the hunt here.. Your government has ingrained socialism is the answer in your head for years... I suggest you watch some youtube videos from Stossel.. It will clear a lot of misconceptions up for you about the truth in government economics. It's universal

[zoikles1]

@SuperGuitarman69 Friedman is one of the most influential economic thinkers in the world, not just the US and the video is about Keynes anyway. In fact most of the economists I've studied are American: Fisher, Krugman, Greenspan, Bernanke, Taylor, Solow, Stiglitz... It's funny how your thought process was "not an american... must be a socialist." Australian governments don't have much of a socialist agenda, I'm guessing by your standards any amount of redistribution = socialism, but ok.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@zoikles1 You are listening to the wrong economists.. They have gotten this country (America) into a ton of trouble.. I was a bi product of the Keynesian system.. Remember I went to an American university.. In America, when you go to any "public" school system and/or a college where professors went from being in school to teaching school, they never leave the text books.. So everything they see is through the auspices of government.. It is all they know.. Plus, they need Part 1

[SuperGuitarman69]

@zoikles1 government.. Tenure is a huge problem in our school systems.. The teachers unions have it to where government has their backs, while the rest of the country suffers due to government overreach in the free markets through regulation and taxation.. So naturally Stiglitz, Krugman etc are all bi products of that system.. Through my years in school something never quite set right with me.. I was being pushed into Keynes and when I was studying the facts and numbers, Keynes Part 2

[SuperGuitarman69]

@zoikles1 had a philosophy that was brilliant, but upon a deeper study of it, appeared to threaten the fabric of freedom.. In the Keynesian view, government can stimulate weakness in markets.. (that is what it is in a nutshell) See, here is the problem with that.. That is how crony capitalism is created, and monopolies, and cartels.. Plus the Federal Reserve system is flawed from the ground up due to the fiat currency concept.. I bet you didn't know this Part 3

[SuperGuitarman69]

@zoikles1 (in fact few Americans even do), but we are taxed currently between 28 and 35% on our income.. Not one dime goes to appropriations.. Meaning what? That every last dime goes to the Federal Reserve to pay the INTEREST on the debt.. Meaning that the ones who own the Federal Reserve are making gazillions off the backs of the American people.. We have our own issues here my Aussie friend.

[migkillertwo]

@SuperGuitarman69

I know you wrote that 6 months ago, but even when you wrote that your comment was BULLSHIT. Peter Schiff has consistently predicted massive inflation from the stimulus and the massive Fed Bailouts and the expansion of the monetary base. The monetary base was expanded by 10-fold, but since 2009 we've had net deflation.

Keynesians, like Krugman, who actually understand the IS/LM model, predicted this to a "T", Schiff couldn't because he doesn't understand Macro Econ 101.

[SuperGuitarman69]

@migkillertwo Doesn't matter what you wrote.. Krugman is a moron.. He was pushing that Fannie and Freddie were solvent.. When Peter was screaming at the top of his lungs (including me) that it was going to crash housing.. Secondly, we are expected to hit 8.2% inflation this year.. So Schiff was correct once again.. The trend will not end if Obama remains in office.. And as far as Krugman goes? He isn't worth discussing. He is paid off by the Democratic party.. A Princeton reject

[Visfen]

@AntiSchiff Well below? By what possible measure. It was below 2% for like 4 seconds in 2008. That's about it.

[Visfen]

@AntiSchiff Well below? By what possible measure. It was below 2% for like 4 seconds in 2008. That's about it.

The deflationary argument is absurd. You have constant inflation forever and then you have a month of deflation, then problems that accumulate over decades is the fault of this month.

[botchalism]

@2dum2getsocialism In other words, deregulation, which is all that was done during the Bush years. Eliminate the Glass Steagall act and allow depository banks to gamble on Wallstreet with the publics money and then demand the public bail them out or risk another Great Depression. I'm curious to hear how socialism precipitated our dire financial position.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@botchalism we have hardly "de-regulated;" we are currently drowning under an regulatory tsunami that is estimated to cost a trillion dollars a year and rising--- a few halts/cuts in this environment is not "de-regulation"

now, as far as bailouts are concerned--- ALL BAILOUTS FAIL!-- one of the greatest, yet misunderstood, virtues of capitalism is creative destruction- being allowed to fail and going through an already established process (bankruptcy) in order to reach a "market equilibrium"

[botchalism]

@2dum2getsocialism That trillion dollar figure you quoted is from the Crain and crain study which has been discredited due to them withholding underlying data supporting their allocation of costs. The office of management and budget data puts the figure at 78 Billion in costs. The study also completely neglected to include the benefits of the regulation in which benefits ranged between 180 to 800 Billion. You can read the article in Huffington post, it tears it apart.

[macroman52]

@2dum2getsocialism I think you didn't hear Friedman say that Keynes's ideas were right (yes he said RIGHT or correct) for the 1930s. So Friedman emphatically does not agree that man cannot manipulate "something" (I think by something you mean the economy) and make things better. In fact, Friedman thinks control/manipulation of the money supply by the central bank can and should be done to make things better.

[Picard578]

@2dum2getsocialism and both are wrong - too much state intervention is bad, but very little or absolutely no state intervention is *far* worse. But when we look at results - Canada, Scandinavia, and Australia, all of which practice Keynesianism to certain degree are prospering, while heavily Friedmanite United States are falling apart as we (speak) type.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@Picard578 why is it always assumed that moving the needle in the direction of free markets is equivalent to "no intervention?"-- in case everyone has forgotten, the united states has this document called the constitution where the parameters/limits of the federal government is clearly stated and we have drifted far from a limited government in this country-- to suggest that our current economy is "heavily friedmanite" is absurd-- it is a crony capitalist cabal with socialist seasoning

[sfjeff1089]

@2dum2getsocialism "it is a crony capitalist cabal with socialist seasoning" In other words, exactly what he calls for. He states over and over things like "You don't need to prevent monopolies. They collapse by themselves", "The proper response to banks taking on 100:1 leverage and going under is not to set leverage requirements, or preventing ownership of massive speculation houses and the loans our economy can't do without under the same roof, but rather to just let them go out of busines"

[sfjeff1089]

@2dum2getsocialism (continued) He was right when he said that "Whatever you encourage you get more of", but it is a ridiculous stretch to say that the Bankers who killed their banks and got Generational wealth payouts stand as warnings and discouragement to others considering boosting returns in the short term while increasing risk of total loss in the long term. And it is silly to claim that a free market prevents people from putting incompetents in power. Balance of power is what does that.

[Picard578]

@2dum2getsocialism beacouse free market ideal is no state intervention. And corporations in US are running rampant, or were until Obama came. F22 is now overpriced and has problems beacouse Lockheed Martin has drawn out development in order to squeeze money from Federal Government (from Defense Review). Also, US debt exploded in 1983, when market was deregulated.

[zoikles1]

@2dum2getsocialism Economists don't base their theories on ideology, despite the fact that many laypeople tend to only believe the theories that appeal to their own ideology instead of inspecting the quality of the modelling and how closely it pertains to reality. Hayek and Friedman were also commentators of philosophy and it's convenient to think that their philosophical beliefs informed their economic arguments, but I think that's wrong because it's not at all scientific.

[AntiSchiff]

@EnglandIndependence

Friedman came before Thatcher, was far more influential, and is far better remembered, obviously. If anything, Thatcher was a Friedmanite.

Friedman was a monetarist, not a Keynesian.