Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Was Milton Friedman a troll? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:






    Canny, no?

    THOUGHTS TSR???
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Stop creating threads that can be answered in a single word; no
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    :indiff:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yea he even got the Nobel Prize for trolling.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Militantbuthopeful)
    Stop creating threads that can be answered in a single word; no
    I was hoping to steer the debate toward whether or not Friedman's brand of monetarism was indeed trollish?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Holy moley!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Friedman,uh? Just read about him in the Shock Doctrine. He seems to be a kind of human devil.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoulfulBoy)
    Friedman,uh? Just read about him in the Shock Doctrine. He seems to be a kind of human devil.
    Nah, he's generally a good egg. Naomi is a bit wacky tbh.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoulfulBoy)
    Friedman,uh? Just read about him in the Shock Doctrine. He seems to be a kind of human devil.
    From what I remember, that book was one of the worst I had read in a long time.

    It continually misrepresented Friedman or just talked nonsense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Yea he even got the Nobel Prize for trolling.
    Nobel Prize does not say as much as their actions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    From what I remember, that book was one of the worst I had read in a long time.

    It continually misrepresented Friedman or just talked nonsense.
    It wasn't all nonsense. The electric shocks in people to break their will isn't nonsense, an that theory of massive shocks neither. She might be a bit wacky but what she speaks is quite close to the facts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neville 'Facking' Bartos)






    Canny, no?

    THOUGHTS TSR???

    aww I really thought you were referring to his work on t.v.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoulfulBoy)
    It wasn't all nonsense. The electric shocks in people to break their will isn't nonsense, an that theory of massive shocks neither. She might be a bit wacky but what she speaks is quite close to the facts.
    She just distorts them to fit her own agenda.

    She talks about the Free Market agenda in New Orleans. She claimed that only 4 public schools were run by the School Board after New Orleans compared to 123 prior to it whereas Free Market Charter schools increased from 7 to 31. She fails to mention that Public Schools were far slower to open. Now the number of Public Schools outnumber Charter School.

    Milton Friedman wasn't even paid by the Pinochet Regime. He only met Pinochet for 45 minutes and he called the regime vile. Yet it is intimated that he is somehow linked to their acts.

    She talks about Chile, Iraq and Sri Lanka. In all of those cases, they were actions that required the State to be complicit.

    She talks about how the rights of Fisherman in Sri Lanka were trampled by the Capitalist. It is job of the State to protect those rights. The fact they were trampled is a failure of the state.

    She cannot have it both ways. She cannot continually claim that the Capitalist has nefarious aims and then forget to mention the role of the State in failing to protect basic rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Essentially, yes. I would argue that his economics gave no thought to the poor and weak in society and were purely self-serving. Unfortunately, such a charlatan has managed to influence so many of the poor decisions that have been made in our society and in spite of the fact that neo-liberalism has failed (look at the state of our economy now, for example - if the free market fails so often and only causes deeper social divides then what is the point in it?) nobody seems willing to kill it off.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vhvhvh)
    Essentially, yes. I would argue that his economics gave no thought to the poor and weak in society and were purely self-serving. Unfortunately, such a charlatan has managed to influence so many of the poor decisions that have been made in our society and in spite of the fact that neo-liberalism has failed (look at the state of our economy now, for example - if the free market fails so often and only causes deeper social divides then what is the point in it?) nobody seems willing to kill it off.
    The Free Market doesn't fail. It doesn't have an aim. It is a system.

    Anyway, the problem isn't just neo-liberalism. Even European countries that haven't adopted neo liberal policies over the last 20 years are in serious trouble.

    France, for example, has significant exposure to Italian banks. Something in the region of 20% of GDP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But the point is, it is inherently unstable. What is the point in something which provides no social or economic stability for anyone?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    The Free Market doesn't fail. It doesn't have an aim. It is a system.

    Anyway, the problem isn't just neo-liberalism. Even European countries that haven't adopted neo liberal policies over the last 20 years are in serious trouble.

    France, for example, has significant exposure to Italian banks. Something in the region of 20% of GDP.
    Systems with no aim can fail too. Could you tell wich countries haven't adopted any neo liberal policies over the last 20 years?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoulfulBoy)
    Systems with no aim can fail too. Could you tell wich countries haven't adopted any neo liberal policies over the last 20 years?

    That Free Market just describes a system of exchange. I don't really see how it can fail. Anyway, that is just an argument over semantics.


    I have already given an example with France. France has not adopted the same system of wholesale deregulation like with the UK or USA.

    Is that to say that Neo Liberal policies are not responsible for the state of the economy? No.

    It is partly. However, to lay it all at the feet of the Free Market is just a vast over simplification.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.