Ahahaha, Bwaaahahaha, Gurgle, Splurt, Snort….

Naomi, please, stop it, you\’re killing me.

And here there are more problems, because Obama – who taught law at Chicago for a decade – is embedded in the mindset known as the Chicago School.

You\’re really calling Obama a member of the Chicago School? Seriously?

Look, just because he comes from the place, taught at the law school, doesn\’t mean that he\’s not a meddling Statist. If only he weren\’t.

While Obama talks about toughening trade rules with China, Griffin has been bending the few barriers that do exist. Despite sanctions prohibiting the sale of police equipment, Citadel has been pouring money into controversial China-based security companies that are putting the local population under unprecedented levels of surveillance.

That\’s even more ridiculous. The rules forbid the sale of police equipment. There are no rules on investing in companies in China that make such.

There are rules that forbid me from importing plants into the US. There are no rules forbidding me from investing in a farm in the US that grows plants.

True enough. But before Obama can purge Washington of the scourge of Friedmanism, he has some ideological house cleaning of his own to do.

The scourge of Friedmanism? Can we just line up a few of the man\’s achievements?

The ending of the draft.

The creation of the EITC.

Unsuccessful at this, but a voice of reason against the War on Drugs.

Impeccably liberal (in both senses of the word) policies which have made the US a vastly better place to live.

This is a scourge?

3 thoughts on “Ahahaha, Bwaaahahaha, Gurgle, Splurt, Snort….”

  1. Though Friedman (and the “Chicago School”) certainly qualify as proponents of the free market and can be considered as a particular variety of libertarian, there’s an important distinction, in that they endorse what Austrians (I am one) would condemn as authoritarian interference in the market, specifically, the very idea of “monetary policy,” especially as represented by money-supply management.

    I’d certainly class Friedman and his followers (including such as those at Cato) as seekers of liberty and free of intentional malevolence or duplicity. I’d call them as pragmatists who’ve paid insufficient attention to the difficult-to-trace wider consequences of goverment (authoritarian and coercive) meddling. Though seeing such control as protective of stability and continuity and predicting consequences most dire in its absence, they’ve failed to appreciate the extent and gravity of cumulative “unintended consequences.” I believe a good case could be made that, by providing the methods for coordination of monetary policies with those of commercial banking, trade, and foreign (especially monetary) relations, they’ve actually set the stage for the widest and most catastrophic monetary failure possible.

    I would like to be able to say that the Austrian School has the correct line and, therefore, the correct solution (return to the Gold Standard). But they (including Mises), failed to see (or at least to comprehend the significance of) the most fundamental flaw in all (to date) monetary theory and thus to appreciate that their cure– the Gold Standard–was, by and large–an integral part in a succession which led, step by step, to the present (extreme, unprecedentedly precarious) monetary reality.

  2. Kay Tie:

    Essentially, Friedman was just a “gentler statist” than others. And, while you’re enumerating his achievements, you might mention payroll withholding.

    I don’t mean, in any fashion, to demonize the man or to detract from his role in the spread of greater personal liberty. But it cannot be avoided that he believed there should be some ultimate control by “the best and brightest” or, perhaps, “the nicest and most liberal-minded,” in other words, he himself or some alter ego.

    That much, at least, Mises saw (and categorically rejected).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *