|
zsylvana (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The world has not been kind to Friedmans Neo-liberalism, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently, and serve the public interest well. It was this market fundamentalism that underlay Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and the so-called Washington Consensus in favor of privatization, liberalization, and independent central banks focusing single-mindedly on inflation.
zsylvana (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The great irony for Friedman's fans is that the one piece of public policy he was responsible for that was widely and internationally adopted was one that greatly increased the ability of central governments to collect taxes.Called PAYE,Pay As You Earn.
Obituaries of Friedman sing of his successes. But close examination will show them to be few,and none unalloyed.
zsylvana (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
All his high public profile - thanks to his regular column in Newsweek and series on US television, Free To Choose, which made him into something of a star - today no mainstream academic economist is a monetarist and Friedman left no lasting school of academic heirs. Even the "Chicago school" at the University of Chicago has waned in influence, eclipsed by the mighty MIT army of economists that followed Paul Samuelson.
zsylvana (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
For a quarter-century, there has been a contest among developing countries, and the losers are clear: countries that pursued neo-liberal policies lost the growth sweepstakes.Though neo-liberals do not want to admit it, their ideology also failed another test. No one can claim that financial markets did a stellar job in allocating resources in the late 1990s, with 97% of investments in fiber optics taking years to see any light,and the more recent massive misallocation of resources to housing.
JoshLucas5 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This kid needs an ass-beating!!
jdrizd2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I disagree on your point that people can control their government. First of all, the private sector has much more money and influence than the government actually does. The government merely manages the populace for the special interests which actually determine the real agenda or policy. Lastly, the government doesn't necessarily respond to the overwhelming majority if it is in conflict with the interests of the private sector, for ex. the first 700 billion approved by congress, the war, etc
dogcow666 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The car discussion is pure brilliance, Friedman exposes this kid as a douchebag
dogcow666 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
search "Friedman I don't believe in democracy" on here to find out whats wrong with this statement.
dogcow666 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
He pretty much does. He always points out big government begets big business and vice versa. But the government is something the people can control. Special interest can be eliminated by simply eliminating most of the power government has to give stuff to the special interests. Its not that hard.
soulshaker123 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I really hope that kid didn't grow up to have any children, and I really hope he's not in a position to teach anybody's children. |