DEBATE:Paul Should Mention Milton Friedman Tomorrow, Emphasis Capitalism and Freedom

[Unknown.User]

..

..

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I believe properly explaining how Individual Liberty (Freedom) works would be highly beneficial, especially if he uses an example.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

How about telling GOP voters the fact that he's the ONLY Republican that can garner enough Independents & Democrats to beat Obama?

 

[sailingaway]

Friedman endorsed Ron for Congress.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...an-endorsed-Ron-Paul-check-out-this-old-video

 

[joshnorris14]

Friedman is the antithesis of Paul. Friedman is the Great Libertarian Compromiser.

 

[jcarcinogen]

"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."
- Milton Friedman

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Friedman is the antithesis of Paul. Friedman is the Great Libertarian Compromiser.

He's not as good as Paul and the Austrians but he'd be a good way to appeal to Republicans. He's seen as a sacred cow by some of these Republicans. I also hope he talks about the cost of the wars too. I think the dollars and cents arguments work better with conservatives than the moral and philosophical arguments against war

 

[joshnorris14]

What's he going to say though? What's he going to reply with when Gingrich undoubtedly retorts with "Well Friedman was in favor of the Fed consistently inflating the money supply at a 4-5% margin, so why do you respect him a free marketeer, Congressman Paul?"

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

What's he going to say though? What's he going to reply with when Gingrich undoubtedly retorts with "Well Friedman was in favor of the Fed consistently inflating the money supply at a 4-5% margin, so why do you respect him a free marketeer, Congressman Paul?"

I don't think anyone is going to want to defend the Federal Reserve or inflation at the debate.

 

[joshnorris14]

I don't think anyone is going to want to defend the Federal Reserve or inflation at the debate.

Exactly why Gingrich would bring it up.

 

[FreedomHorn]

He needs to steal Santorum's thunder on social issues by talking about the freedom message. We aren't going to agree on everything or at least we sure don't now, so we should let states, and each other do what they want.

He also needs to hammer home the point that he is the one with the plan to cut.

 

[digitaldean]

I think his time will be better spent calling all 3 out on how they flip/flop and how he never changed his position. This will show people whatever he says he can be trusted.

 

[dillo]

What's he going to say though? What's he going to reply with when Gingrich undoubtedly retorts with "Well Friedman was in favor of the Fed consistently inflating the money supply at a 4-5% margin, so why do you respect him a free marketeer, Congressman Paul?"

wasnt friedmans whole point on monetary theory that if it never was inflated than population growth would cause deflation?

 

[dillo]

Friedman believed that if the money supply was to be centrally controlled (as by the Federal Reserve) that the preferable way to do it would be with a mechanical system that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate. However, instead of government involvement at all, he was open to a "real," non-government, gold standard where money is produced by the private market: "A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." He did however add this caveat, "Let me emphasize that this note is not a plea for a return to a gold standard.... I regard a return to a gold standard as neither desirable nor feasible—with the one exception that it might become feasible if the doomsday predictions of hyperinflation under our present system should prove correct."[38] He said the reason that it was not feasible was because "there is essentially no government in the world that is willing to surrender control over its domestic monetary policy," however it could be done if "you could re-establish a world in which government's budget accounted for 10 percent of the national income, in which laissez-faire reigned, in which governments did not interfere with economic activities and in which full employment policies had been relegated to the dustbin..."[38]

He was critical of the Federal Reserve's influence on the economics profession. In a 1993 letter to University of Texas economics professor and former House Banking Committee investigator Robert Auerbach, Friedman wrote:

I cannot disagree with you that having something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it is not conducive to independent, objective research. You and I know there has been censorship of the material published. Equally important, the location of the economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive papers on policy and results.[39]

 

[joshnorris14]

FWIW, Friedman in 1993 was much different than Friedman in the 1960's and 1970's.

He became anti-Fed later in life due to the influences of those around him including his son, David Friedman (The Anarcho-Capitalist, author of "the Machinery of Freedom")

 

[dillo]

FWIW, Friedman in 1993 was much different than Friedman in the 1960's and 1970's.

He became anti-Fed later in life due to the influences of those around him including his son, David Friedman (The Anarcho-Capitalist, author of "the Machinery of Freedom")

Friedman's position on governmental control of money changed since 1971 when this criticism was made.[67] In a 1995 interview in Reason magazine he said the "difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction." He said he actually would "like to abolish the Fed," and points out that when he has written about the Fed it is simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists.[9]

I dont think he changed that much. The point is that just because he made suggestions to improve our monetary system, doesn't imply that he thought it was a good system.

 

[joshnorris14]

Friedman's position on governmental control of money changed since 1971 when this criticism was made.[67] In a 1995 interview in Reason magazine he said the "difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction." He said he actually would "like to abolish the Fed," and points out that when he has written about the Fed it is simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists.[9]

I dont think he changed that much. The point is that just because he made suggestions to improve our monetary system, doesn't imply that he thought it was a good system.

1) That strengthens my point that he was the Great Libertarian Compriser
2) I'll have to find you the quotes from David on how his father would simply not talk to him about economics/political philosophy, it is pretty evident that his father shifted towards radical Libertarianism.

 

[Diurdi]

1) That strengthens my point that he was the Great Libertarian Compriser

Well to me, the ability to come up with workable, real solutions is much more valuable than living in a dream world complaining about how everything should be, when your solutions are not applicable to the real world.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Friedman is the antithesis of Paul. Friedman is the Great Libertarian Compromiser.

Friedman mayn't have been a COMPLETE free-marketer but he did more to popularize free markets in the mainstream than anyone in modern history, not even Ron Paul (although Paul still has a chance to surpass Friedman ) His views massively influenced Reagan in US & Thatcher in UK, & although we could argue about how much it ACTUALLY did to free the markets but what he did was to combat the spread of socialist mentality at the time & at least made people think about it by constantly destroying the socialist-utopia-myths in the mainstream, which none of the Austrians were able to accomplish with much success

He's not as good as Paul and the Austrians but he'd be a good way to appeal to Republicans. He's seen as a sacred cow by some of these Republicans. I also hope he talks about the cost of the wars too. I think the dollars and cents arguments work better with conservatives than the moral and philosophical arguments against war

True

And here's a couple of good videos from top economists calling an end of Fed - Friedman & Sowell (Sowell one is EPIC! )

 

[flynn]

Milton Friedman did more to advance the idea of libertarianism than most of the self proclaimed libertarians at the Austrian school. If you look at what Milton Friedman has talked about during speeches and lectures, his ideas were that of individual liberty and free markets. He's also a great debater who literally destroyed and debunked any and every socialist and central planning advocates in any intellectual circle.