|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2009 : 10:59:49 [Permalink]
|
| Which economist of the Chicago school had a goal of keeping people poor? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 04/09/2009 : 12:01:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Which economist of the Chicago school had a goal of keeping people poor?
|
Friedman, et al. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2009 : 17:16:58 [Permalink]
|
| A short film by Naomi Klein about Milton Friedman and the Shock Doctrine. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 13:07:48 [Permalink]
|
Of course politicians push their agenda when they are at the height of their popularity. It seems there is incentive to manufacture disasters, wars, etc, but do we have any evidence that any have been manufactured or that Friedman would support manufacturing one? His advice to a politician to push his/her agenda when they are popular, and pointing out the fact that they are generally popular after a disaster, does not imply he would support such a thing.
Reading Friedman certainly shows he did not approve of Chileans or anyone else torturing and killing dissidents. He wrote multiple times he thought the free market reforms would force Pinochet to relinquish power, which he did (this is Friedman's argument, I don't necessarily agree). China's free-market reforms began well before the Tiannamen Square protests, which were sparked in part by the death of a pro-democracy capitalist (Hu Yaobang). Chinese factory workers earn $1 a day, but the poverty level decreased from 53% to 8% from 1981 to 2001. The market reforms were coupled with continued socialist policies, but I have not seen an analysis that can isolate the cause to the socialist policies. Both probably contributed somewhat. Further, taking private property from fishing people in Indonesia would not at all be compatible with Friedman's protection for property and opposition to eminent domain for any purpose (he opposed it even for utilities, and especially for "economic development").
Now if we consider Western representative democracies (the US and UK are used as examples), the film claims free-market reforms were largely passed after a crisis, and suggests that means it was not democratic. The leaders of these countries did not decree these changes, Congress voted on and passed them. How is this not democratic? If political action after crises are not democratic, should we freeze congressional action in the wake of all crises?
In general, we should not use the fact that someone advised a repressive regime to assume they support the repression. Are Americans who advise China on environmental policy complicit in their human rights abuses? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 16:29:39 [Permalink]
|
| Did someone say that Friedman approved of killing and torture? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2009 : 23:00:49 [Permalink]
|
| The film shows some of the countries he advised, followed by all the bad things that happened in them as a condemnation of Friedman's policies, when, in reality, they had nothing to do with the policies or capitalism for that matter. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 11:42:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
The film shows some of the countries he advised, followed by all the bad things that happened in them as a condemnation of Friedman's policies, when, in reality, they had nothing to do with the policies or capitalism for that matter.
|
He did not condone nor did he encourage torture. That was the U.S. government. But his policies did lead to that, and I think he probably knew what they were doing with his policies.
That is capitalism. These are not exceptions, these are the rule. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 12:32:37 [Permalink]
|
| He did know, and he condemned those who did it. Those things are not any more capitalist than Stalin's purges and repression were communist. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 15:40:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
He did know, and he condemned those who did it. Those things are not any more capitalist than Stalin's purges and repression were communist.
|
Not a lot of difference between the two. Any time you have a system that works only for an elite, that's what happens. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2009 : 17:31:46 [Permalink]
|
Which economic system exists that has never coexisted with injustice of this sort? The existence of injustice within an economic system cannot be uncritically attributed to the system. I am struggling to find any economic system that has never coincided with a repressive regime. Capitalism in Chile, socialism by "Ba'athists" (Aflaq actually supported democracy and free speech) in Iraq and Syria, communism under Stalin. These are not all inherently prone to repression (and the video did not by any means prove anything of the sort for capitalism), and all can be, and have been, implemented to some extent by repressive regimes.
In any case, the U.S. is an exception of a nation that has a largely capitalist economy and is not generally repressive to its citizens. Yes, there are isolated incidents of renditions, internment of Japanese-Americans, etc, but these are exceptions to the rule, the repression is to a much smaller extent than the other examples. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 02:36:51 [Permalink]
|
In any case, the U.S. is an exception of a nation that has a largely capitalist economy and is not generally repressive to its citizens. Yes, there are isolated incidents of renditions, internment of Japanese-Americans, etc, but these are exceptions to the rule, the repression is to a much smaller extent than the other examples.
|
U.S. history has been pretty bloody in that regard, but yes, mostly the U.S. and Great Britain don't presently slaughter large numbers of their own citizens. The U.S. imprisons large numbers and impoverishes large numbers, but they no longer need to slaughter large numbers. As long as they have Iraqis or someone else to slaughter, and impoverish worse than their own citizens, I suppose we'll be okay. Are there other (modern) places that capitalism has left alone long enough to keep things from getting too bloody? Probably not many.
And I didn't respond to your last remark about Friedman. No one said Friedman wanted torture and slaughter. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/12/2009 03:22:35 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2009 : 23:07:20 [Permalink]
|
I suppose my problem is the assertion that capitalism leads to torture and slaughter. I agree that torture and slaughter may happen in a place with a capitalist economy, as it may occur in any other economy. I am not sure anything in the film proves anything all that sinister about Friedman or the Chicago school -- including the source of our disagreement, that the Chicago school seeks to keep poor people poor.
Friedman made a number of arguments that were actually in defense of the poor (Hayek even more, but he is technically of the Austrian school). Friedmen's argument against some unions was that they protect the jobs of the middle class at the expense of the poor. His opposition to a minimum wage was based on the idea that it would increase unemployment, particularly among those who are already poor. If I remember correctly, I think he also supported government work programs a la TVA. (Don't quote me on the last one, but the first two are definitely true.) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 03:08:12 [Permalink]
|
| Friedmen's argument against some unions was that they protect the jobs of the middle class at the expense of the poor. |
I wonder if he would have said ending slavery would increase unemployment.
It was his students and his ideas that wreaked havoc, along with people like Richard Nixon and his successors.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 20:27:25 [Permalink]
|
The very basis of Friedman's economic theory is that the world should be entirely based on voluntary contracts, except for minimal required taxes to empower a government to primarily defend the system and resolve disputes within. Slavery, repression, etc, would assuredly not happen if everything required mutually voluntary choices by involved parties.
I can see that there are situations where this sort of theory can allow monopolization, collusion, manipulation of markets, and I do not completely agree with Friedman in these areas in particular. His arguments for allowing these things were certainly not for the goal of keeping poor people poor, but he argued they were necessary evils, that the only ways of preventing them (without negating civil rights) led to even worse consequences for everyone. There is no goal of keeping poor people poor by Friedman. I agree his grudging acceptance of monopolies may contribute to unfairness which may or may not disproportionately fall on the poor, but his argument is that government intervention makes a bad situation worse for everyone.
Of course the larger question of capitalism does not stop at Friedman and the Chicago school. We have sort of slipped into a debate about capitalism itself based solely on arguments from Friedman. Even Smith would disagree pretty strongly with Friedman on monopolies, he was significantly harder on any type of market manipulation. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2009 : 21:29:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
The very basis of Friedman's economic theory is that the world should be entirely based on voluntary contracts, except for minimal required taxes to empower a government to primarily defend the system and resolve disputes within. |
Laissez-faire capitalism, as opposed to the anarchy of strictly free markets.| Slavery, repression, etc, would assuredly not happen if everything required mutually voluntary choices by involved parties. |
No, but the idea still depends (like free-marketeering) upon everyone in the market acting rationally, and people don't.
The now-classic example is that people (generally speaking) will drive across town to save $25 on a $100 microwave oven, but won't go out of their way to save $25 on a $1,000 plasma TV, despite the fact that the $25 represents precisely the same buying or investing power in both situations. It isn't rational to think of savings as a percentage of purchase price and base decisions ("mutually voluntary choices") on those percentages instead of the absolute amount of cash the savings represent, but most people do so anyway. They will even turn their noses up at %10 savings on $100 while knocking down old ladies to get 50% off a $10 purchase.
Any economic system which depends upon its actors being reasonable and rational will be undermined by the fact that humans aren't reasonable and rational, and then will succumb to the ultra-rational and greedy capitalists who will prey on the average person's lack of rationality.
In other words, just because I make a mutual and voluntary exchange with someone else doesn't mean that the transaction was a smart choice for me to make, and there is no shortage of people smarter than me who will take advantage of that fact.
Hell, if everyone acted rationally, using actual dollar bills for day-to-day purchases should have died out long ago. With interest-earning checking accounts and money-back credit cards, cash should be a quaint anachronism. But most people still think that 0.5% interest or 1% rebates are a waste of time. But if you buy $1,000 per month of groceries and gasoline and whatnot, 1% cash-back equals $120 a year, which represents basic Netflix service for the whole year plus one medium-sized LEGO set (which is no end of fun!).
Of course, lots of people are now afraid of credit cards, too. But that's just an acknowledgement that they won't act rationally with them, and overspend without intending to, quite voluntarily. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reminds me of Bush 41
