No doubt that Friedman was a genius and I don't disagree with anything he said on that tape. I do think that Friedman (and Friedmanites who are not the genius that their mentor was) describe a hypothetical free market, operating under supposedly objective laws of supply and demand, that has never actually existed, and probably would not work if it did). Many free market people would admit the first half of that but still would take the second half on faith. In theory a free market works perfectly. In practice a fairly tightly regulated market seems to work better.
you don't disagree with friedman but then you do a few lines later.
a truly free market has never existed but in practice a tightly regulated market seems to work better?
which is it?
either it's theory or practice.
the overall market has never been a pure supply and demand market but most things start out that way. then when they're successful the government puts their hooks in them and ruins them.
you don't disagree with friedman because you can't! he doesn't use big words or crazy statistics to make his point either. he just uses basic logic and common sense....minus the emotion of his sister who doesn't have health insurance or his own situation of not having a job or his cocky adversary on the aurora who thinks he knows-itall but clearly doesn't.
and he's right. if you agree with everything he said there then you should be fighting on the same side as the aurora because otherwise you're just lying to yourself.
I didn't say that I agree totally with Milton Friedman, only that I didn't disagree with what he said on the video. The free enterprise system (the real one not the one that only exists in theory, and probably wouldn't work) is superior to Socialist models. In practice, as opposed to theory, a regulated market works better. The key is to have the right amount of the right kind of regulations, which of course we never do and have to keep reforming and improvising as we go along.
In theory, of course, we wouldn't need laws at all (anarchism) and everyone would behave themselves. But they don't of course whether gangbangers or corporate CEOs.
I certainly do not think I know it all. Your the one with know-it-all in his name. Friedman had something to say and is worth listening to. So does Paul Krugman. On the other hand neither Ann Coulter or William Ayers have anything worth listening to, just to give two examples off the top of my head.
I can agree that capitalism worked better than socialism and still support a cap on greenhouses gases or universal healthcare. I'm a liberal not a radical; I favor reforming the system not overthrowing it. The devil, of course, is in the details but I think the liberals have been closer to being right on most (though not all) issues from civil rights to protecting the environment to healthcare.
In a philosophical discussion we might find some common ground. On the issues I expect we will continue to disagree. So far the only actual proposal you have suggested on healthcare is to let people buy it from other states. I can support that but it will not solve the problem. I like the idea of nonprofit health insurance commpanies, alongside private ones, as they have in France. 90% of french people have supplemental insurance policies, alongside the basic one. Everyone has coverage and they spend half what we do per capita, and yes it takes government. It took government to build our interstate highway system. Actually Eisenhower deserves most of the praise for that and he was inspired by the highway system of another country. That being Nazi Germany's Autobahn.
6 comments:
No doubt that Friedman was a genius and I don't disagree with anything he said on that tape. I do think that Friedman (and Friedmanites who are not the genius that their mentor was) describe a hypothetical free market, operating under supposedly objective laws of supply and demand, that has never actually existed, and probably would not work if it did). Many free market people would admit the first half of that but still would take the second half on faith. In theory a free market works perfectly. In practice a fairly tightly regulated market seems to work better.
gary you contradict yourself in your own comment.
you don't disagree with friedman but then you do a few lines later.
a truly free market has never existed but in practice a tightly regulated market seems to work better?
which is it?
either it's theory or practice.
the overall market has never been a pure supply and demand market but most things start out that way. then when they're successful the government puts their hooks in them and ruins them.
you don't disagree with friedman because you can't! he doesn't use big words or crazy statistics to make his point either. he just uses basic logic and common sense....minus the emotion of his sister who doesn't have health insurance or his own situation of not having a job or his cocky adversary on the aurora who thinks he knows-itall but clearly doesn't.
and he's right. if you agree with everything he said there then you should be fighting on the same side as the aurora because otherwise you're just lying to yourself.
welcome aboard gary. happy to have you.
Finally, gary is coming around. The thing I fear most is that he doesn't even realize it.....
Where's the Donk, anyway?
I didn't say that I agree totally with Milton Friedman, only that I didn't disagree with what he said on the video. The free enterprise system (the real one not the one that only exists in theory, and probably wouldn't work) is superior to Socialist models. In practice, as opposed to theory, a regulated market works better. The key is to have the right amount of the right kind of regulations, which of course we never do and have to keep reforming and improvising as we go along.
In theory, of course, we wouldn't need laws at all (anarchism) and everyone would behave themselves. But they don't of course whether gangbangers or corporate CEOs.
I certainly do not think I know it all. Your the one with know-it-all in his name. Friedman had something to say and is worth listening to. So does Paul Krugman. On the other hand neither Ann Coulter or William Ayers have anything worth listening to, just to give two examples off the top of my head.
I can agree that capitalism worked better than socialism and still support a cap on greenhouses gases or universal healthcare. I'm a liberal not a radical; I favor reforming the system not overthrowing it. The devil, of course, is in the details but I think the liberals have been closer to being right on most (though not all) issues from civil rights to protecting the environment to healthcare.
In a philosophical discussion we might find some common ground. On the issues I expect we will continue to disagree. So far the only actual proposal you have suggested on healthcare is to let people buy it from other states. I can support that but it will not solve the problem. I like the idea of nonprofit health insurance commpanies, alongside private ones, as they have in France. 90% of french people have supplemental insurance policies, alongside the basic one. Everyone has coverage and they spend half what we do per capita, and yes it takes government. It took government to build our interstate highway system. Actually Eisenhower deserves most of the praise for that and he was inspired by the highway system of another country. That being Nazi Germany's Autobahn.
i think you're about 6 more months of reading the aurora away from becoming a true conservative.
hang in there gary.
Post a Comment