Ayn Rand had an intimate knowledge of the Left, because she had survived the Russian revolution and had a degree in Marxism-Leninism from the University of St. Petersburg. Her knowledge of economics wasn't especially sophisticated, but it didn't have to be. Her insights came from self evident facts that were litterally unfolding all around her. Detroit's history over the last half century is a perfect example of what she was trying to get across.
Yes I am well aware of that. Friedman was a monetarist and would have increased the money supply in the depression which was clearly something against what Hayek recommended. Similar values but economically different.
I was an undergrad in economics and I was never given to read anything resembling Marx or anything outside the very narrow confines of economics, we read a lot of Friedman, and some things derivative of Keynes. You know, just because there are opposing beliefs that does not merit them equal time. There are great, timeless thinkers who have influenced historical events, and then there are the political pundits favoured by some political line of thought.
Any time there is an attack on anyone who bears a (D) after their name on economic issues, Krugman seems obligated to act as their personal defender. It's gotten rather frequent recently. He's paid to do so, as a "contributor" to numerous left leaning publications. Getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to argue for one side of the political fence pretty much sums up the word I used. But Economics is a field in which the only employer is the government, so they distort it quite well.
It's interesting that a lot of criticism if Friedman has actually come from the right over the years. In the UK, Margret Thatcher had been a devotee of Friedman but publicly disowned monetarism in the mid 1980s after it has wrecked the British manufacturing sector. Hayek criticised monetarism as simply another tool for governments to control the economy. In the USA, Donald Trump rose to power largely as a backlash against Friedman's free market policies which had created the rust belt. Whatever Trump is, he is no follower of Friedman.
Some of us are limited in time, but I agree that Marx is worth a read for "know your enemy" purposes. The reality is intellectuals are no longer a political class rather than an establishment, and we risk a society completely devoid of logical direction if we don't realize that the public at large operate on emotion, not logic. The intellectual right-wing usually gets caught up arguing logic with the Krugman type of hacks and forget the emotional battle is being completely lost.
Legalising of hard drugs, too? I have not known of any politician in Japan or in the US who openly argues in favour of legalisation. Is there any? I am an uneducated Japanese of humble means so my radar is fairly limited.
See this a lot -- Friedman, Hayek - OK, but Rand? Too extreme. She expressed her philosophy, yes, in deliberately provocative ways: she extolled "selfishness," despised "altruism," called welfare recipients "moochers." Bul look deeper - you'll see Rand is quite close to the others. E.g., by "altruism" she meant government-forced redistribution sold as altruism. Remember, unlike them, Rand came from a totalitarian state; she therefore was driven by an urgency no westerner can understand.
iPhone is a bad example for Friedman's laissez faire (anything goes) mind. All major components of iPhone is the outcome of state sponsored research... Apple happens to be the one integrating them. Ferguson, though a great speaker and only a decent historian, is oblivious to real-economy.
Great point. But I'd also say he's not even a decent historian. I can recommend Domenico Losurdo's work, who thoroughly debunks Fergusons imperialist apologias first by examining his work on its own contradictory terms and secondly his abundant historical inaccuracies when he weighs up the "benefits" of colonialism for the colonised.
There is much about which Milton Friedman deserves praise. He, more than many of his contemporary economists, had a good understanding of the destructive power of taxation of earned income, of tangible capital goods and of commerce. On several occasions he expressed agreement with Henry George regarding the advantage of raising pubic revenue by the taxation of the rent of land. And yet, Friedman seemed not to understand that taxing rent was not just "the least bad tax" but an essential component to achieving the non-inflationary, full employment society. Now, I have certainly not read everything that Friedman wrote on economic theory, but it seems certain that he did not bother to engage with those economists such as Harry Gunnison Brown, Mason Gaffney or even C. Lowell Harriss, who looked at the systemic importance of Henry George's body of work. Edward J. Dodson, Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
Freidman was brilliant no doubt that i would beg to be half the economist he was but he was to a certain extent wrong his conrtibutions to the field of economics away from monetarism have monumental his free market ideology was bodering dangerous the same with Niall Ferguson he shoudl stick to economic history
i love you niall but the iphone is not a good example, its a hodgepodge of open source technologies that have been repurposed and remixed into a commercial product. But alas open source in its nature is nearer to communistic thinking than free market economics. I am a free markets guy but the facts cant be ignored without open source there would be no iphone and the web and internet we know today would also not be the same. sometimes a collaborative non competitive approach does work in niche areas such as science and technology. whilst they didn't do very well at implementing them I think it's fair to see that the soviets did have some breakthroughs in science and tech that evaded the west, although they were heavily stymied by a refusal to believe in genetics!
Milton Friedman was right on a lot especially his revival of the quantity theory of money. But he was subtly wrong on a number of salient issues today. First, is his radical defense of free trade that included not even retaliating against dumping. We can see how dumping and other shenanigans that nations such as China engage in can be destructive to our economy. You can find Friedman in other videos on here saying that we should not have any concerns for domestic workers and businesses. All we need to do is provide policies that lower prices for consumers and that is all anyone ever needs to think about. Production does not matter, only consumption. Well, where do goods that can be consumed come from? How can people buy goods if they don't have an income derived from producing goods and services? We need a return to Say's Law to see that there must be a balance between production and consumption. Also, as Ricardo pointed out, free trade breaks down if labor and capital are mobile. Outsourcing has been a disaster for domestic workers as has mass immigration. Friedman set the groundwork for globalism, which is a disaster if one is a conservative.
Actually, credible studies of NAFTA show that the fears of job loss were unfounded and both countries, USA and Mexico, significantly improved their country's wealth.
If you have intellectual self-respect you can skip Sowell and Rand. They are not even close to being peers of Friedman, much less Hayek. And saying Keynesian garbage shows a regrettable ideological narrow-mindedness, even Marx warrants a read and understanding within a historical context.
The smartphone did NOT come into existence by the free market, but by government. It only became a free market product after it was released to the public.
No! Let's not get carried away with Austrian economics. I wish it was an acceptable school of economic thought but quantitative easing was successful in avoiding a depression.
And the centrally planned economy of the USSR produced the Sputnik years ahead of the US market economy which then had to institutionalise a space programme to catch up. This is ridiculous, Niall and you know it. Friedman was propped by the right of his era and made to look like some kind of top economist; he was one of the first in such a lineage and sadly not the last. Some would even argue over the legitimacy of his Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel Nobel prize and that it was created to legitimise Friedman and his keen (e.g. Mont Pelerin Society) thought. Science (and economics for that matter) advances not because of new discoveries and theories but because old Profs die. We are very fortunate that Friedman was no exception to this regularity. Lets aim for some different kind of economics; like planetnomics.
Christopher Graves: I did not suggest that the Soviet economy was a model to be followed. Just that not all is well in market economies (as it is often popularised) and that for certain breakthroughs public spending is still required in market economies. Finally there is not just black and white but varied degrees of grey; e.g. Scandinavian, French, and Swiss varieties of market economies that could be followed if you are looking for models.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
Ayn Rand had an intimate knowledge of the Left, because she had survived the Russian revolution and had a degree in Marxism-Leninism from the University of St. Petersburg. Her knowledge of economics wasn't especially sophisticated, but it didn't have to be. Her insights came from self evident facts that were litterally unfolding all around her. Detroit's history over the last half century is a perfect example of what she was trying to get across.
Brilliant.
Niall is the standard-bearer of Milton's legacy in the 21st century.
Ayn Rand understood economics, because she understood human behaviour.
Brilliant speech and well deserved praise.
Good speech!
The genius of Friedman has its heir in the brilliance of this historian.
"I had the great privilege of lunching with the Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi..." This remark has aged well.
Peter Gabriel's looking well ....
Games without frontiers. Milton Friedman in Chile?
history doesnt repeat, but it sure does rhyme ;)
Yes I am well aware of that. Friedman was a monetarist and would have increased the money supply in the depression which was clearly something against what Hayek recommended. Similar values but economically different.
I was an undergrad in economics and I was never given to read anything resembling Marx or anything outside the very narrow confines of economics, we read a lot of Friedman, and some things derivative of Keynes. You know, just because there are opposing beliefs that does not merit them equal time. There are great, timeless thinkers who have influenced historical events, and then there are the political pundits favoured by some political line of thought.
Great speech
Any time there is an attack on anyone who bears a (D) after their name on economic issues, Krugman seems obligated to act as their personal defender. It's gotten rather frequent recently.
He's paid to do so, as a "contributor" to numerous left leaning publications. Getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to argue for one side of the political fence pretty much sums up the word I used.
But Economics is a field in which the only employer is the government, so they distort it quite well.
It's interesting that a lot of criticism if Friedman has actually come from the right over the years. In the UK, Margret Thatcher had been a devotee of Friedman but publicly disowned monetarism in the mid 1980s after it has wrecked the British manufacturing sector. Hayek criticised monetarism as simply another tool for governments to control the economy. In the USA, Donald Trump rose to power largely as a backlash against Friedman's free market policies which had created the rust belt. Whatever Trump is, he is no follower of Friedman.
Some of us are limited in time, but I agree that Marx is worth a read for "know your enemy" purposes.
The reality is intellectuals are no longer a political class rather than an establishment, and we risk a society completely devoid of logical direction if we don't realize that the public at large operate on emotion, not logic. The intellectual right-wing usually gets caught up arguing logic with the Krugman type of hacks and forget the emotional battle is being completely lost.
Friedman was right most of the times... Mises was right all the time.
when you say Rand are you referring to Ayn Rand or Rand Paul? Neither of them were or are economists
Brilliant speech!
Friedman wasn't an Austrian. Him and Hayek were quite different though they kept their disagreements away from the public arena.
He and Hayek. Not him and Hayek.
Legalising of hard drugs, too?
I have not known of any politician in Japan or in the US who openly argues in favour of legalisation. Is there any?
I am an uneducated Japanese of humble means so my radar is fairly limited.
You know, sometimes I wonder how people who commented 5 years ago are doing today? If you can still reply, please do :)
Ron Paul ran for President in the US in 2012.
Who are these Austrians , because reading Rothbards AGD and Murphys PIG Book I am happy to say Friedman view on the 1930's in still standing strong?
See this a lot -- Friedman, Hayek - OK, but Rand? Too extreme. She expressed her philosophy, yes, in deliberately provocative ways: she extolled "selfishness," despised "altruism," called welfare recipients "moochers." Bul look deeper - you'll see Rand is quite close to the others. E.g., by "altruism" she meant government-forced redistribution sold as altruism. Remember, unlike them, Rand came from a totalitarian state; she therefore was driven by an urgency no westerner can understand.
iPhone is a bad example for Friedman's laissez faire (anything goes) mind. All major components of iPhone is the outcome of state sponsored research... Apple happens to be the one integrating them. Ferguson, though a great speaker and only a decent historian, is oblivious to real-economy.
Great point. But I'd also say he's not even a decent historian. I can recommend Domenico Losurdo's work, who thoroughly debunks Fergusons imperialist apologias first by examining his work on its own contradictory terms and secondly his abundant historical inaccuracies when he weighs up the "benefits" of colonialism for the colonised.
The Austrians have disproved quite a few of Milton Friedman's views.
free to choose. inflaite or not to inflaite
There is much about which Milton Friedman deserves praise. He, more than many of his contemporary economists, had a good understanding of the destructive power of taxation of earned income, of tangible capital goods and of commerce. On several occasions he expressed agreement with Henry George regarding the advantage of raising pubic revenue by the taxation of the rent of land. And yet, Friedman seemed not to understand that taxing rent was not just "the least bad tax" but an essential component to achieving the non-inflationary, full employment society. Now, I have certainly not read everything that Friedman wrote on economic theory, but it seems certain that he did not bother to engage with those economists such as Harry Gunnison Brown, Mason Gaffney or even C. Lowell Harriss, who looked at the systemic importance of Henry George's body of work.
Edward J. Dodson, Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
Freidman was brilliant no doubt that i would beg to be half the economist he was but he was to a certain extent wrong his conrtibutions to the field of economics away from monetarism have monumental his free market ideology was bodering dangerous the same with Niall Ferguson he shoudl stick to economic history
i love you niall but the iphone is not a good example, its a hodgepodge of open source technologies that have been repurposed and remixed into a commercial product. But alas open source in its nature is nearer to communistic thinking than free market economics. I am a free markets guy but the facts cant be ignored without open source there would be no iphone and the web and internet we know today would also not be the same. sometimes a collaborative non competitive approach does work in niche areas such as science and technology. whilst they didn't do very well at implementing them I think it's fair to see that the soviets did have some breakthroughs in science and tech that evaded the west, although they were heavily stymied by a refusal to believe in genetics!
though Rothbard is the greatest ;)
Milton Friedman was right on a lot especially his revival of the quantity theory of money. But he was subtly wrong on a number of salient issues today. First, is his radical defense of free trade that included not even retaliating against dumping. We can see how dumping and other shenanigans that nations such as China engage in can be destructive to our economy. You can find Friedman in other videos on here saying that we should not have any concerns for domestic workers and businesses. All we need to do is provide policies that lower prices for consumers and that is all anyone ever needs to think about. Production does not matter, only consumption. Well, where do goods that can be consumed come from? How can people buy goods if they don't have an income derived from producing goods and services? We need a return to Say's Law to see that there must be a balance between production and consumption.
Also, as Ricardo pointed out, free trade breaks down if labor and capital are mobile. Outsourcing has been a disaster for domestic workers as has mass immigration. Friedman set the groundwork for globalism, which is a disaster if one is a conservative.
Actually, credible studies of NAFTA show that the fears of job loss were unfounded and both countries, USA and Mexico, significantly improved their country's wealth.
If you have intellectual self-respect you can skip Sowell and Rand. They are not even close to being peers of Friedman, much less Hayek. And saying Keynesian garbage shows a regrettable ideological narrow-mindedness, even Marx warrants a read and understanding within a historical context.
This Lass-ay-Fair nit-wit has an American PBS show! That tells you a lot about PBS and where its' bread is buttered.
And your point is
The smartphone did NOT come into existence by the free market, but by government. It only became a free market product after it was released to the public.
No! Let's not get carried away with Austrian economics. I wish it was an acceptable school of economic thought but quantitative easing was successful in avoiding a depression.
In case of no emergency, break glass-steagall
In what way is Krugman a hack? Because he's on the other aisle of you politically?
he speaks really anoingly
And the centrally planned economy of the USSR produced the Sputnik years ahead of the US market economy which then had to institutionalise a space programme to catch up. This is ridiculous, Niall and you know it.
Friedman was propped by the right of his era and made to look like some kind of top economist; he was one of the first in such a lineage and sadly not the last. Some would even argue over the legitimacy of his Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel Nobel prize and that it was created to legitimise Friedman and his keen (e.g. Mont Pelerin Society) thought. Science (and economics for that matter) advances not because of new discoveries and theories but because old Profs die. We are very fortunate that Friedman was no exception to this regularity. Lets aim for some different kind of economics; like planetnomics.
Dimitris, do you think the Soviet economy was a model for us to follow? Would you like to live in a totalitarian society described by Solzhenitsyn?
Christopher Graves: I did not suggest that the Soviet economy was a model to be followed. Just that not all is well in market economies (as it is often popularised) and that for certain breakthroughs public spending is still required in market economies. Finally there is not just black and white but varied degrees of grey; e.g. Scandinavian, French, and Swiss varieties of market economies that could be followed if you are looking for models.