At the time of Reagan when I was young, (I just attended by 30th highschool reunion) I was anti-communist but not greatly concerned with economic liberty. My highschool yearbook and my reunion were repleat with reminders that I was a solid labor Democrat to my peers in that then Republican enclave. This did not change until I took economics in college. When Milton Friedman and the other monterists entered my ken.
Milton Friedman, the great populizer of free markets and free exchange would have been 100 years old today. Capitilism is a marxist word. The intellectuals who helped drive the "long boom" 1982-2007 preffered the "free economy." As Milton would say There is no free lunch, but there should be a free economy.
From the boys at Powerline here he is with Phil Donohue, which one is fresh and exciting even now and which is a relic (hint the relic has more hair).
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/milton-friedman-at-100.php
1 comment:
I see JJV has taken the time honored method of "take credit for all success, accept blame for nothing." Milton Friedman and his fellow travelers gladly accept credit for booms generated by massive deficit spending (1980's), those generated during an era of budget balanced growth under Democratic administrations (1990's) and take credit for more growth under massive deficit spending in the early 2000's before closing the door before the GWB train wreck occurs. Avert your eyes, nothing to see there.
And it's in many ways a silly argument. For virtually everyone, a "free economy" does not mean an economy free of all rules and regulations. While many rail against the IRS (because taxes are unpopular), and some rail against the EPA (although clean air and water are more popular), very few complain about the FDA. In fact, given recent problems (unsafe pharmaceuticals, etc) that have proliferated, both parties have insisted on the expansion of the FDA over the past few years.
So despite rhetoric that kowtows to the so-called "Tea Party", NO ONE is seriously planning on taking government out of business regulation. Why? Because there's a reason the government stepped in in the first place.
Full disclosure - unlike JJV, I used to be a solid Republican and have found myself abandoned as the party marched away to the right in every-loonier lockstep. What Moynihan used to lament on "defining deviancy down" with regard to tolerance of crime and other assorted bad behaviors has reached its pinnacle in a Republican Party that now accepts as normal ideas and actions that were once anathema. I don't know that Friedman would have approved of that, but an alarming number of his fellow travelers are marching in the vanguard.
Post a Comment