Open Borders Welfare State Milton Friedman

[William R]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Make immigrants ineligible for welfare (and voting) --> problem solved.

...incidentally, Friedman was a Keynesian who thought the government should respond to recessions with money printing.

...not someone with great libertarian credentials, just FYI.

 

[William R]

Make immigrants ineligible for welfare (and voting) --> problem solved.

...incidentally, Friedman was a Keynesian who thought the government should respond to recessions with money printing.

...not someone with great libertarian credentials, just FYI.

standard bs reply. Ending birthright citizenship is crucial. Some poor woman swims across a river drops a kid and it qualifies for welfare. It is insanity. Open border clowns are destroying the country.

 

[Ender]

standard bs reply. Ending birthright citizenship is crucial. Some poor woman swims across a river drops a kid and it qualifies for welfare. It is insanity. Open border clowns are destroying the country.

Ending welfare is a standard BS reply? I'd say look in the mirror for BS- especially if you go by Friedman.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Make immigrants ineligible for welfare (and voting) --> problem solved.

...incidentally, Friedman was a Keynesian who thought the government should respond to recessions with money printing.

...not someone with great libertarian credentials, just FYI.

Friedman was not a Keynesian; the Chicago school is not Keynesianism. By this standard, every modern non-Austrian school of economics is Keynesian.

 

[Ender]

Friedman was not a Keynesian; the Chicago school is not Keynesianism. By this standard, every modern non-Austrian school of economics is Keynesian.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-republicans-favorite-economist/

THE IMPACT OF FRIEDMAN

And so, as we examine Milton Friedman's credentials to be the leader of free-market economics, we arrive at the chilling conclusion that it is difficult to consider him a free-market economist at all. Even in the micro sphere, Friedman's theoretical concessions to the egregious ideal of "perfect competition" would permit a great deal of governmental trust-busting, and his neighborhood-effect concession to a government intervention could permit a virtual totalitarian state, even though Friedman illogically confines its application to a few areas. But even here, Friedman uses this argument to justify the State's provision of mass education to everyone.

But it is in the macro sphere, unwisely hived off from the micro by economists who remain after sixty years ignorant of Ludwig von Mises's achievement in integrating them, it is here that Friedman's influence has been at its most baleful. For we find Friedman bearing heavy responsibility both for the withholding tax system and for the disastrous guaranteed annual income looming on the horizon. At the same time, we find Friedman calling for absolute control by the State over the supply of money – a crucial part of the market economy. Whenever the government has, fitfully and almost by accident, stopped increasing the money supply (as Nixon did for several months in the latter half of 1969), Milton Friedman has been there to raise the banner of inflation once again. And wherever we turn, we find Milton Friedman, proposing not measures on behalf of liberty, not programs to whittle away the Leviathan State, but measures to make the power of that State more efficient, and hence, at bottom, more terrible.

The libertarian movement has coasted far too long on the intellectually lazy path of failing to make distinctions, or failing to discriminate, of failing to make a rigorous search to distinguish truth from error in the views of those who claim to be its members or allies. It is almost as if any passing joker who mumbles a few words about "freedom" is automatically clasped to our bosom as a member of the one, big, libertarian family. As our movement grows in influence, we can no longer afford the luxury of this intellectual sloth. It is high time to identify Milton Friedman for what he really is. It is high time to call a spade a spade, and a statist a statist.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Friedman was not a Keynesian; the Chicago school is not Keynesianism. By this standard, every modern non-Austrian school of economics is Keynesian.

He was, it is, and they are.

Like other branches of Keynesianism, Monetarism is unable to explain the bust, and assumes sticky prices (which leads to the policy prescription of inflation).

 

[William R]

Ending welfare is a standard BS reply? I'd say look in the mirror for BS- especially if you go by Friedman.

Kid you have no reply. Nothing Zilch

 

[Mach]

standard bs reply. Ending birthright citizenship is crucial. Some poor woman swims across a river drops a kid and it qualifies for welfare. It is insanity. Open border clowns are destroying the country.

It is not insanity at all, it is a pre-structured implementation of a specific never ending goal. The only way to fight average Americans and get over on them is to water them down into obscurity.

 

[Ender]

Kid you have no reply. Nothing Zilch

Try looking at Post #7.

Reading is your friend.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

He was, it is, and they are.

Like other branches of Keynesianism, Monetarism is unable to explain the bust, and assumes sticky prices (which leads to the policy prescription of inflation).

That's not what defines Keynesianism, and not all Chicago schoolers believe that. Milton's son David is Chicago schooler and an anarcho-capitalist, so he obviously doesn't believe in the Federal Reserv. Chicago has a multiplicity of views. So does the Austrian school; there are Austrians outside the Mises bubble.

Milton Friedman himself focused on money supply, Keynesians tend to focus on aggregate demand. Also, while he didn't believe in the ABCT, Friedman said on multiple occasions that his prescriptions for the money supply were only in the context of what exists; IE a central bank. He was a consummate pragmatist. He never said the Fed was optimal. He wanted to actually help craft economic policy, so he tailored his prescriptions into a workable form that could actually be implemented (wholly or partially).

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-republicans-favorite-economist/

I'm well aware of Rothbard's opinion on Freidman, and it's always confused me. Rothbard made temporary pragmatic alliances with the New Left, Pat Buchanan and the paleoconservative movement along with David Duke, and eventually implored libertarians to vote for Bush Sr. I don't necessarily have a problem with all that (I like Pat Buchanan and paleocon Sam Francis was an amazing thinker), but his repeated rebukes of Friedman in light of those alliances he deemed acceptable is just bizarre.

Milton Friedman is the single most important popularizer of libertarian economics in the mid-late 20th Century. Is he the best free market economist? Certainly not, but had he not come around, all libertarians would have either been Rothbardians or Objectivists the latter half of the 1900s. You think the movement is too small now? Well, it would be a fraction of what it is to day without Friedman.

 

[William R]

Ending welfare is a standard BS reply? I'd say look in the mirror for BS- especially if you go by Friedman.

Bottom line, you're an idiot. How are we going to end welfare when we keep importing people that use welfare at much greater rates than native born. They vote for free stuff.

 

[William R]

He was, it is, and they are.

Like other branches of Keynesianism, Monetarism is unable to explain the bust, and assumes sticky prices (which leads to the policy prescription of inflation).

No Friedman was not a Keynesian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6RWWWjE2Rc

 

[erowe1]

Some poor woman swims across a river drops a kid and it qualifies for welfare. It is insanity.

Of course that's insanity. But it's not any more insane than letting someone whose ancestors have lived here for centuries qualify for welfare. 100% of the problem is the welfare. 0% of the problem is immigration.

 

[William R]

Of course that's insanity. But it's not any more insane than letting someone whose ancestors have lived here for centuries qualify for welfare. 100% of the problem is the welfare. 0% of the problem is immigration.

Yes that's insanity, but importing more poor people who will end up voting for more and more access to my wallet is just much worse.

End birthright citizenship and enforce immigration laws. Legal immigrants need to be skilled self sufficient people.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

That's not what defines Keynesianism

Since Keynes, Keynesians have branched off into several competing schools.

The only commonality among them, as far as I can tell, is what I mentioned (can't explain the bust, sticky prices, inflation).

...which is also common to monetarism.

Milton Friedman himself focused on money supply, Keynesians tend to focus on aggregate demand. Also, while he didn't believe in the ABCT, Friedman said on multiple occasions that his prescriptions for the money supply were only in the context of what exists; IE a central bank. He was a consummate pragmatist. He never said the Fed was optimal. He wanted to actually help craft economic policy, so he tailored his prescriptions into a workable form that could actually be implemented (wholly or partially).

Friedman's magnum opus "proves" that the Great Depression resulted from a failure of the Fed to increase the money supply.

His half-assed "plucking model" for the boom bust cycle (or bust boom, as he saw it) offered no explanation whatsoever for the bust.

...other than policy mistakes by the central bank, e.g. not increasing the money supply sufficiently.

He did criticize the Fed, but to my knowledge, he only ever wanted to reform it, change its mandate, etc.

Can you show me a source where Friedman advocates the abolition of central banking altogether, in favor of a market based monetary system?

 

[ProIndividual]

Monetarism is a form of Keynesian economics dependent on central banking as opposed to a free market setting interest rates, money supply, etc. It's not really debatable for anyone who studied economics. That said, the state runs a cartel or allow a cartel via legal protections for the FED. This brings the economic calculation problem into them accurately determining money supply. This is why they can miss high (inflation) or miss low (deflation), but never get it right. They aim for low inflation to play it safe, as when they miss low it has been disastrous (they didn't miss slightly...they shrank money supply by 30% leading up to the Great Depression). So, they figure better to miss high than low. So, in fact, the issue WAS too low a money supply (and also too much bubble creation via artificially high credit expansion). Both sides are right. The central planning of money supply and interest rates can never guess correct given their central model is too far away from the actual local banks who are in a position to know the correct supply/rate. The market works best when decentralized, where information is more accurate and quickly available to be acted upon in real time. This is why central planning always fails and the free market maximizes utility for all. So, there is no need to argue over which caused the Depression...both did; the source of the problem was the same (the FED).

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm well aware of Rothbard's opinion on Freidman, and it's always confused me. Rothbard made temporary pragmatic alliances with the New Left, Pat Buchanan and the paleoconservative movement along with David Duke, and eventually implored libertarians to vote for Bush Sr. I don't necessarily have a problem with all that (I like Pat Buchanan and paleocon Sam Francis was an amazing thinker), but his repeated rebukes of Friedman in light of those alliances he deemed acceptable is just bizarre.

Even if one disagrees with Rothbard (in whole or in part), within the context of Rothbard's position there is nothing bizarre or difficult to understand about his opposition to and criticism of Friedman. Rothbard and Friedman differed profoundly in that Rothbard's overarching project sought to replace the existing system (which Rothbard regarded as a fundamentally unsound and corrupt) with something radically different, whereas Friedman's overarching project sought to reform the existing system (to which Friedman had no fundamental objections) in order to make it relatively freer and more "efficient."

Friedman was a consequentialist with no use at all for deontological concerns (which, when he bothered to take notice of them at all, he seems to have regarded with dismissive disinterest or even contempt). Rothbard, on the other hand, was a deontologist who was willing and even eager to engage in transient and ad hoc utilitarian strategies (such as the alliances you mentioned) for the sake of what he thought would, on net, help advance his ultimate cause. At the same time, Rothbard regarded most of Friedman's positions and policies - especially those concerned with enhancing the "efficiency" of the government's interventions - as inherently counterproductive and inimical to the cause of liberty (on both pragmatic and deontological grounds). As right or wrong as Rothbard may have been about any of those things, there was nothing inherently contradictory in or between them.