Friedman Excerpts
Below are some simple, yet profound excerpts from Milton & Rose Friedman’s book, Free to Choose. I like these concepts. Their ideas help whilst contemplating voting decisions and possible outcomes of policy from the 2 master debaters. Enjoy Moose Knuckles!
A very different meaning of equality has emerged in the United States in recent decades—equality of outcome. Everyone should have the same level of living or of income, should finish the race at the same time. Equality of outcome is in clear conflict with liberty. The attempt to promote it has been a major source of bigger and bigger government, and of government imposed restrictions on our liberty. Pg.128-9
Are we not in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where “all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others”? Pg. 135
There is all the difference in the world between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar: first, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose a taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent—William Graham Summer’s famous example of B and C deciding what D shall do for A. The first may be wise or unwise; an effective or ineffective way to help the disadvantaged, but it is consistent with the belief in both equality of opportunity and liberty. The second seeks equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty. Pg. 140
Wherever the free market has been permitted to operate, wherever anything approaching equality of opportunity has existed, the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living never dreamed of before. Nowhere is the gap between the rich and poor wider, nowhere are the rich richer and the poor poorer, than in those societies that do not permit the free market to operate. Pg. 146
A society that puts equality, in the sense of equality of outcome, ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.
On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality. Though a by-product of freedom, greater equality is not an accident. A free society releases the energies and abilities of people to pursue their own objectives. It prevents some people from arbitrarily suppressing others. It does not prevent some people from achieving positions of privilege, but so long as freedom is maintained, it prevents those positions of privilege from becoming institutionalized; they are subject to continued attack by other, ambitious people. Freedom means diversity but also mobility. It preserves the opportunity for today’s disadvantaged to become tomorrow’s privileged and, in the process, enables almost everyone, from top to bottom, to enjoy a fuller and richer life. Pg 149
The general cannot conceivably have the information necessary to direct every movement of the lowest private. At every step in the chain of command, the soldier, whether an officer or private, must have discretion to take into account information about specific circumstances that his commanding officer could not have. Pg. 9
Children are responsible individuals in embryo. They have ultimate rights of their own and are not simply the playthings of their parents. Pg. 33
Most of the welfare programs should never have been enacted. If they had not been, many of the people now dependent on them would have become self reliant individuals instead of wards of the state. In the short run that might have appeared cruel for some, leaving them no option to low paying, unattractive work. But in the long run it would have been far more humane. Pg. 119
The bureaucrats spend someone else’s money on someone else. Only human kindness, not the much stronger and more dependable spur of self interest, assures that they will spend the money in the way most beneficial to the recipients. Hence the wastefulness and ineffectiveness of the spending.
But that is not all. The lure of getting someone else’s money is strong. Many, including the bureaucrats administering the programs, will try to get it for themselves rather than have it go to someone else. The temptation to engage in corruption, to cheat, is strong and will not always be resisted or frustrated. Pg. 117-8
Unwind social security while meeting present commitments and gradually require people to make their arrangements for their own retirement. Pg. 120
Expenditures on schooling per pupil are often as high in the inner cities as in wealthy suburbs, but the quality of schooling is vastly lower. In the suburbs almost all of the money goes for education; in the inner cities much of it must go to preserving discipline, preventing vandalism, or repairing its effects. Pg. 158
Recognize the dangers of an over-governed society; understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society. Pg. 309-10
And lastly, 2 quotes from 2 interviews:
I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, “How do you hold down government spending?” Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.
Interview by John Hawkins (16 September 2003)
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
Fox News interview (May 2004)
Now that you have read hypnotizing bs…try reading Noami Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
She carefully analyzes and verifies Friedman Economic priciples out of the Chicago School of Economics and displays with evidence quite clearly how these priciples create wealth gaps, hyper inflation, and the destruction of all social benefits to the people.
Now to be fair after 10-20 years of shock these economies do arise to become players in the emerging markets, but have lost welath to a few and have also undergone privitization that steals the wealth from the people…
Her is a starter to confirm these actions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzH7AAiqGqs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqnjDR5WZ0I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8&feature=related
I was wondering what the first reaction would be to me posting some Freidman. I realize that its all daisys and he is too much like Hayek, whose ideology is difficult to apply to the real world. But come one, all Freidman does is attack inflation, wealth gaps, and big government. I’m looking for less of that and I think Freidman path is a good one. All we get from politicians is more ways to spend and socialize.
I will be glad to pick up that book though.
You are both missing the point. The point is the rich, like the Fly, always win, even when they appear to be losing. It doesn’t matter if you let the free markets bahave as they will, or if you tax the hell out of them. Regardless, those more financially intelligent will be more wealthy and it will continue to happen regardless. So my question is, why fight it?
When there’s welfare programs, some people are on them for their entire lives, simply because if they get a job, they have to accept less money, or at least the difference is small, that it’s not worth their work. In the current society, when you go to work, you are working for two kinds of people. The very rich, and the very poor.
The poor do very little to create wealth in the nation, other then move money quickly. The rich create lots of jobs, and they build and create wealth, but often times they have too much money that they can’t move it quickly enough to really get this economy going.
The most effecient economy would be the one where those that aren’t in debt, that are saving money are forced to spend to keep the velocity of money going, and those that spend quickly are rewarded.= by those that spend slow and slow the economy down.
At any rate, the wealth gaps will happen the most in a socialist society where money is taken from the rich and the rich move their money overseas, as well as a capitalist society, where the money is taken out of the middle class and given to the poor and upper class.
Overall the economy will be most effecient if the middle class that spens a lot is rewarded, unless they borrow money to spend on cars and boats and other deppreciating assetts (or as some call a liability). Being dependant upon credit is a problem that will get bigger and bigger, the longer we continue with this system. If everyone could borrow a trillion dollars at a 1% interest rate, things would cost way more, and out of neccesity people would have to take that loan. Then if they do, what happens? hyper inflation, and things go up in value, and in order to pay for it, you need even more credit, until it eventually all busts in a huge fashion.
great post though gwar. I never understood all this hatred towards the rich. The same people that drive to work using the invension of a car, that was invented and produced by the rich, fill up their tank with gas, which is only possible because of the rich, and go to work to make money, provided by the rich, come home and go get a loaf of bread, that would be very hard to find and very expensive without the rich. Everything that we do in life, is because of the rich…
Do NOT bite the hand that feeds you.
“The most effecient economy would be the one where those that aren’t in debt, that are saving money are forced to spend to keep the velocity of money going, and those that spend quickly are rewarded” LMAO
I agree with most of what you said and I think milton’s book does too. Except for your statement above.
“Forcing people to spend”. LOL
GW
It is obvious you are sentimental to those who have been wronged by the side effects of uncontrolled capitalism. I agree that unchecked it will do things like Perkins says. Hopefully you can see that Freidman takes the same view but doesn’t really elaborate. I included the 7th paragraph for that very reason. Especially where he says: “It (a society doing the right thing) prevents some people from arbitrarily suppressing others.”
Gwar,
I do see what Friedman says as psotive. I am only talking about the abuses of his policies.
As far as Gaps is concerned you are correct. But the fight should be taken to those who impose fascism rather than the free trade, democratic, capitalistic principles they hide behind.
There is nothing wrong with the previous principles. They are truths or ideals for the whole world to uphold.
I’m just pointing out the fact that various principle should not be used to create the destruction of wealth for many to land in the hands of a few.
If you grew up with your parents representing love, truth and honesty, but they lied, cheated and stole from you how would you become as an adult?
That is the point. We are fostering a scenario where people grow to hate us as a society.
Thankfully some realize it is not the American people, but the kleptocracy.
Still though it makes me nervous when I travel abroad and I nor any citizen should be on the receiving end of this hatred.
Thus 911 my friends. If we do not change this behavior it will only get worse.
I have no problem with some being extremely wealthy, but not at the expense of the world and fellow American citizens.
Gaps, or Gwar or whoever… I see a lot of the advantages from a free economy. But I’m just curious on what you think would happen if we took measures to limit the overall credit available, then we DID enforce the requirements that people spend X%, save x%, and we raised the minimum wage, and had a few restrictions. So while the companies have to have more restrictions, they’re rewarded by greater spending, and more money is flowing. What would be the advantages and disadvantages.
I’m primarily a free market economist, but I’m just curious if you could have someone that REALLY knew what he was doing, somehow able to increase the productivity and rate of exchange in our country, while ALSO increasing the amount of value flowing into our country without taking on excess debt.
Green Hippie, your touting the innumerate Naomi Klein’s semi-sentient attacks on Uncle Miltie have really done your credibility a disservice, ovah heah.
Take a lap.
_______
I have the book in my economics and trading “library.” I also have the George Soros book The Alchemy of Finance since I like to read different viewpoints although Soros wrote this in 1987 prior to turning way left, although he did write in the book about “Reagan’s Imperial Circle.” I am always amused how far left Soros has turned in his economic thought AFTER he milked the capitalist system for all he could get. Still, it’s an interesting read also.