The Problem With Libertarianism In One Dumb Milton Friedman Quote
Recently a Libertarian friend of mine posted on Facebook this gem of a quote:
Ive come across this Milton Friedman quote several times before and it always brings a smile to my face because it sums up Libertarianism as a whole.
Milton Friedman was a prominent economist and Nobel laureate who made important contributions to monetary theory. But he was also doggedly committed to unfettered capitalism to the extent that he advocated allowing racial discrimination, which is the final logical conclusion of free market idealism. Hes basically the male Ayn Rand but better at writing fiction.
So whats wrong with this particular Milton Friedman quote. First of all, sand is actually kind of awful. Indeed, human civilization was founded in the Arabian and Saharan deserts for the sole purpose of removing sand from peoples lives. If anything government is about creating a shortage of sand and accomplished it with aplomb. So thanks government! (Not to mention that desertification is one of the greatest environmental threats facing the globe so maybe we could use some government sand removal)
Read more: http://recessappointment.com/2012/08/07/the-problem-with-libertarianism-in-one-dumb-milton-friedman-quote/
longship
(40,416 posts)A stupendously great read.
The Shock Doctrine (Wiki)
I read it twice in a row. Once wasn't enough.
You'll know all about Milton Friedman before you're done.
SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)Naomi Klein and the 'Shock Doctrine' cannot be recommended enough.
On the other end of the spectrum -- from Chicago to Chile -- Milton Friedman will never be ostracized enough.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Sometimes I think that's where the breakdown occurs in these discussions. I would almost bet that the Snowden/Greenwald detractors have never read 'The Shock Doctrine' and are just uniformed about how the world operates.
MinM
(2,650 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)It was called "Free to Choose."
An example of his "thinking":
He compared UCLA (a state school) and USC (an expensive private school) and noted that a higher percentage of USC students than UCLA students graduated in four years. His conclusion: USC students valued their education more because they (yeah, right, they, not their parents?) had to pay for it, while the UCLA students were a bunch of slackers who didn't value their education because it was too inexpensive.
As a professor at the (private and expensive) University of Chicago, Friedman never seems to considered that maybe UCLA students were taking longer to graduate because they were less affluent and had to take jobs to pay their tuition.