The Economy: Why conservatives should reread Milton Friedman?

1. 79

   Credence2posted 10 years ago

   http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … -friedman/
   
   For me this is right where I live!
   A most interesting and revealing article, your thoughts please...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I read the article you point to and  it is hard to believe but true, that the right  wing extremists that hold the republican party hostage  today are so far to the right that they make milton friedman seem almosthuman anc compassionate.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Greetings, Mio cid. I am with you this is weird. Imagine the late Milton Friedman, hardly a liberal, seeing todays conservatives as dangerous radicals!

         replyreport
         1. 52

            Paul Froehlichposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Barry Goldwater would also see today's tea party wing as dangerous to freedom.  Here's what he said about the Religious Right:
            
            "I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
            
            And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Hi, Paul, it is strange about Reagan. He was the consummate politician. While he gave lip service to the 'Moral Majority' and similar groups for needed political support, he never really delivered on the key portions of their agenda. This sort of supports his disillusionment with the religious right in general, and makes the statement from him that you referenced more than possible.
               
               Is the religious right really conservative or are they something else?

               replyreport
2. 67

   innersmiffposted 10 years ago

   This is not anything surprising, nor a great departure from what the current conservative establishment believe. The idea that the modern right are lassiez-faire extremists is more of an image portrayed by the left to polarise the debate than anything tangible. Are there any great numbers of politicians with any great influence on the right going against the view that government should control the money supply, make laws against monopoly and unfair practices, and tax corporations to fund a general welfare system?
   
   What actually happens is that some on the right propose a modest cut in the increase in government spending over time, and the media make a huge racket about them wanting to "decimate" government and ultimately starve baby pandas or something; label them extremists, stubborn, careless . . .
   
   The politician's game is to argue that the other side are "extremists", secretly wanting to do the opposite of what is good and right in this world, therefore meaning that their own side is the right, good and balanced view that needs to be adopted. This is the case whether it is on the left or the right, and it usually means policy ends up going in the same "moderate" (moderately awful) direction over decades. That game got boring for me.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I've been hearing the same arguments you make every day for years from the right wing nut talking heads  who use this rhetoric to consolidate their audience of about twenty million people who believe this nonsense unquestionably and go out and repeat it like parakeets  even though the argument holds no truth it's a theory that is not based in what's happening in the real world but it does have the benefit for them personally of having a rock solid listenership that allows people like limbaugh for example to get a 200 million dollar contract.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         All these years of listening to these arguments should have given you plenty of time and ammunition to develop a retort, yet you refrain from explaining your views. Why?
         
         Also, you're saying the right-wing are arguing that both the left and right wings are tricking the public? What?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            This is an article by Larry Kudlow, hardly a leftist or an Obama supporter ,and he cites  prominent conservative economists  who also oppose the president but can not honestly deny the facts of reality that the extremists fail to aknowledge even before their very eyes,I guess they can't believe their lying eyes.     "Economist Scott Grannis adds that the Fed is not really “printing money.” Yes, the central bank has purchased the incredible sum of nearly $2.5 trillion in Treasury and mortgage bonds. But most of that has not been put to work by banks or consumers. Grannis argues that consumers have increased their cash balances and that banks are holding onto extra reserves in order to avoid risk following the financial meltdown. As a result, the M2 money supply has been growing at a fairly steady rate of 6 to 7 percent. Not an excessive pace.
            
            Meanwhile, M2 has grown much faster than nominal GDP. Consequently, the velocity (or turnover rate) of money has been falling for years.
            
            All this is to say that the demand for cash and cash equivalence by consumers and banks is so strong in a risk-averse environment that all the Fed has really done is meet those cash demands. It’s not working the printing presses overtime.
            
            In fact, the inflation rate during this whole period has been trending around 2 percent or less, far below the expectations of Fed critics (including myself). Over the past year, M2 growth has been about 7.5 percent and M2 velocity has fallen by about 3.5 percent. So the rise in nominal GDP is a historically low 3.5 percent.
            
            Interestingly, while the inflation rate has remained subdued, so have market-price indicators, such as gold, the dollar, and commodity indexes. The suggestion here is that Bernanke, rather than mounting a high-inflation policy, has been avoiding deflation.
            
            At the end of the day, the Federal Reserve is not the engine of growth. Low tax rates, light regulation, and limited government spending create the incentives for more rapid economic expansion and prosperity-inducing opportunities.
            
            But if I have this story right, the market monetarists want the central bank to enforce a nominal GDP growth rule, which will avoid both deflation and inflation, and thus give fiscal incentives breathing room for a more rapid job-creating expansion.
            
            I don’t agree with Bernanke’s unemployment target or his criticism of lower government spending. But I confess that he may have the monetary-stability story more right than I originally thought.
            
            If gold remains soft, and King Dollar steady, perhaps the former Princeton professor deserves a little more credit. He may have gotten that story right.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               OK so your issue is with opponents of the Fed and QE? Then you need to present an actual argument instead of just pasting half an article. Who are these "extremists" and what are their beliefs??

               replyreport
3. 56

   Education Answerposted 10 years ago

   First off, is this thread intended to question the conservative movement's belief in religion or free enterprise?  It seems like a schizophrenic attempt to denigrate conservatism, with no intent to stick to one topic.
   
   Yes, conservatives DO believe there are rules for business.  If you want to claim that conservatives do not believe that there should be any regulation or any rules for businesses, please provide evidence.  You'll find that Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan all believed in limited regulation, particularly in certain areas that required it.
   
   Conservatives tend to have values that mesh with Christians.  Are you telling me that democrats don't pander to unions?  Yes, that's how politics work.  If a group votes for a candidate, the candidate "owes" them something.  Politics are played on both sides.  When a candidate, like Goldwater, doesn't play by those kinds of rules, you have a rare occurrence.  Note that Goldwater was crushed in the 1964 election and could only get elected, to the senate, in a conservative state in the first place.  If you don't play by the "rules," you don't progress further.  Both sides play these little games.  It's not right, but it's reality.

   replyreport