Milton Friedmanites are totaly illogical

[Psy]

Every time I debate the hard core followers of Milton Friedman it is like debating religious nuts. They throw cap that is obviously wrong, like free-market capitalism has been around for millions of years (some even claim billions or trillions of years), that only private enterprises has given any progress and the governments pollute more then capitalists.

When one brought up the famous argument Friedman made about companies putting a dollar figure on safety saying saftey with cost has to be balanced. I countered with how are consumers suppose to make educated decisions, GM engineers didn't communicate with potential consumers saying there is increase in fiery death but hey it is cheaper to produce, I also countered what about 3rd parties that effected by the saftey of the vehicle in which I got something like " I'm done, this is just getting to be absurd"


Another debate was over planning, he said the USSR was horribly planned thus proof you can't plan a economy, I brought up the point during WWII the major power had planned war time economies were the USSR plans focused resources (the military) it worked and asked if it possible to plan production for militaries why is it impossible to plan production for civilians? And I got "I'm done, this is just getting to be absurd"

In yet another debate I brought up how most content on the Internet was not created for profit and actually most software on Earth is created for use (I admitted I was throwing in small simple programs) and got the something like "you need property rights, which are only protected under capitalism" which didn't really address my point.

I came to the conclusion the Freidmanites are not economists but instead a personality cult.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

Every time I debate the hard core followers of Milton Friedman it is like debating religious nuts. They throw cap that is obviously wrong, like free-market capitalism has been around for millions of years (some even claim billions or trillions of years), that only private enterprises has given any progress and the governments pollute more then capitalists.

When one brought up the famous argument Friedman made about companies putting a dollar figure on safety saying saftey with cost has to be balanced. I countered with how are consumers suppose to make educated decisions, GM engineers didn't communicate with potential consumers saying there is increase in fiery death but hey it is cheaper to produce, I also countered what about 3rd parties that effected by the saftey of the vehicle in which I got something like " I'm done, this is just getting to be absurd"


Another debate was over planning, he said the USSR was horribly planned thus proof you can't plan a economy, I brought up the point during WWII the major power had planned war time economies were the USSR plans focused resources (the military) it worked and asked if it possible to plan production for militaries why is it impossible to plan production for civilians? And I got "I'm done, this is just getting to be absurd"

In yet another debate I brought up how most content on the Internet was not created for profit and actually most software on Earth is created for use (I admitted I was throwing in small simple programs) and got the something like "you need property rights, which are only protected under capitalism" which didn't really address my point.

I came to the conclusion the Freidmanites are not economists but instead a personality cult.

I agree. Trying to discuss economics with a free-market zealot is like talking to a wall. Even more cultish than the Freidmanites are those from the Austrian School (Von Mises Institute). These folks spew some of the most scientifically unvalidated crap that I've ever heard in my life.

[Demogorgon]

Friedman's fan club is almost reasonable vs. the Von Mises cult (and wait until you encounter the Ayn Rand nuts...). Nonetheless they are very much like a religious group yes. (Chomsky's comments about the "neoliberal priesthood" spring to mind).

They frequently rely on circular reasoning: Why is the market good? "Because it produces the best results" Why are these the best results? "Because they are what the market decides on." At least with them you can catch them on market failure however, because unlike the Von Mises maniacs, they at least acknowledge its existence.

Don't try debating them to much on the market too much though, because they will use it to shift the debate onto capitalism's least offensive features (generally talking about how it can produce consumer goods that people want) and hence will ignore the real objections to capitalism (the way ownership of the means of production is controlled by a tiny minority).

Try to keep them focused on capitalism's flaws and remember "the market" and capitalism are not synonymous. I have been reading an interesting book lately which says amongst other things that you can break the flaws of capitalism down under six broad headings, these being:
Inequality
Unemployment
Overwork
Poverty
Lack Of Democracy
Environmental Damage

Keep the debate focussed on those and you will do better in arguing. This is presuming that you are debating Milton Firedman's followers though. They accept the above six problems are genuinely bad things (but argue capitalism does not cause/actually solves them). If you are actually up against Von Mises types though that argument probably won't work as they seer the above as being good things that (according to them) leads to more freedom.

[Psy]

Friedman's fan club is almost reasonable vs. the Von Mises cult (and wait until you encounter the Ayn Rand nuts...). Nonetheless they are very much like a religious group yes. (Chomsky's comments about the "neoliberal priesthood" spring to mind).

They frequently rely on circular reasoning: Why is the market good? "Because it produces the best results" Why are these the best results? "Because they are what the market decides on." At least with them you can catch them on market failure however, because unlike the Von Mises maniacs, they at least acknowledge its existence.

Don't try debating them to much on the market too much though, because they will use it to shift the debate onto capitalism's least offensive features (generally talking about how it can produce consumer goods that people want) and hence will ignore the real objections to capitalism (the way ownership of the means of production is controlled by a tiny minority).

Try to keep them focused on capitalism's flaws and remember "the market" and capitalism are not synonymous. I have been reading an interesting book lately which says amongst other things that you can break the flaws of capitalism down under six broad headings, these being:
Inequality
Unemployment
Overwork
Poverty
Lack Of Democracy
Environmental Damage

Keep the debate focussed on those and you will do better in arguing. This is presuming that you are debating Milton Firedman's followers though. They accept the above six problems are genuinely bad things (but argue capitalism does not cause/actually solves them). If you are actually up against Von Mises types though that argument probably won't work as they seer the above as being good things that (according to them) leads to more freedom.
But when they go to their catch all argument, we are not living in true capitalism but a deformed capitalist system and once states are reduced to only defending property rights all these problems will be solved. Even the current housing/debt bubble they blame on government rather then capitalists, when I asked didn't the capitalists play a key role in driving the speculation they said no it was all the government that drove speculation, yet refused to offer any evidence.

[Demogorgon]

But when they go to their catch all argument, we are not living in true capitalism but a deformed capitalist system and once states are reduced to only defending property rights all these problems will be solved. Even the current housing/debt bubble they blame on government rather then capitalists, when I asked didn't the capitalists play a key role in driving the speculation they said no it was all the government that drove speculation, yet refused to offer any evidence.

That's more a Von Mises argument than a Friedman one. To be honest you are probably best dealing with them the same way you would deal with a seven day creationist-by ignoring them. If you do want to try and argue with them, point out what they are wittering on about is impossible because of the way capitalism works, point out that Government intervention is an intrinsic part of capitalism and so on.

But remember, you are dealing with a hyoer-religious cult here. Not a serious kind of economics. Don't forget that Von Mises' theory rejects all forms of empiricism and claims that all knowledge is drawn from a priori truths about metaphysical axioms. In other words they claim that anything that contradicts their theory is wrong because it contradicts their theory. Mathematics, standard economic theory, observations about human behaviour etc all go straight out the window as they don't match their views. So why bother arguing with those kinds of people? It is no different from trying to counter "but that goes against the bible" when dealing with a young earther.

[Faux Real]

Arguing against Friedmanites always comes to them supporting corporate welfare. They say that CEOs and the like create wealth and are in that position because they used their knowledge - which is so valuable - that they deserve all that money. Tax cuts are good for everyone and to penalize the rich in favor of the "failures" isn't fair - the only time they can think of mentioning the word "fair".

Once you get them on all of these points expect plenty ad homenims. :D

[Psy]

That's more a Von Mises argument than a Friedman one.

I find this argument getting more popular amoung Friedmaintes as they still can't effectively counter what happened in the UK under Thatcher with the British economy reacting the exact opposite as to what Friedman predicted (with capitalists pulling back more), and Britain not having the large military spending Friedmainties use to explain the US under Reagan. They even have to deal with Friedman (when Thatcher just got in) calling Britain the test case that would prove his theories correct. With Friedman never addressing this huge failure most simply claim Thatcher didn't liberate the market enough, some even blame Communist saboteurs (the reaction by workers to it).

[Zurdito]

Even before Britian was the "test case", there was Chile, which Friedman probably conveniently forgot to mention. He was adviser to Pinochet and most of Pinochet's other advisers were from that school of thought...until 1982, when the economy crashed, and Pinochet sacked them all and introduced keynesian policies.

[Demogorgon]

I find this argument getting more popular amoung Friedmaintes as they still can't effectively counter what happened in the UK under Thatcher with the British economy reacting the exact opposite as to what Friedman predicted (with capitalists pulling back more), and Britain not having the large military spending Friedmainties use to explain the US under Reagan. They even have to deal with Friedman (when Thatcher just got in) calling Britain the test case that would prove his theories correct. With Friedman never addressing this huge failure most simply claim Thatcher didn't liberate the market enough, some even blame Communist saboteurs (the reaction by workers to it).

I don't doubt a lot of them are turning to Von Mises lunacy. Friedman is sort of a respectable door to far right economics, that didn't have Von Mises less salubrious features (and unlike Von Mises was an excellent mathemitician and didn't have to resort to mental gymnastics to avoid mathematical problems), but Friedman just isn't extreme enough, so they move on.

It is worth noting that Friedman did address his failure in Britain and elsewhere. He admitted he was wrong about monetarism, though he didn't abandon his other silly ultra free market views. I doubt it is worth pointing out to these guys though. They sound like they have gone well beyond Chicago school stuff and into the dark reaches of Austrian economics

[Psy]

I don't doubt a lot of them are turning to Von Mises lunacy. Friedman is sort of a respectable door to far right economics, that didn't have Von Mises less salubrious features (and unlike Von Mises was an excellent mathemitician and didn't have to resort to mental gymnastics to avoid mathematical problems), but Friedman just isn't extreme enough, so they move on.

It is worth noting that Friedman did address his failure in Britain and elsewhere. He admitted he was wrong about monetarism, though he didn't abandon his other silly ultra free market views. I doubt it is worth pointing out to these guys though. They sound like they have gone well beyond Chicago school stuff and into the dark reaches of Austrian economics
The intellectuals sweep his retraction of monetarism under the rug, for example Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy claim monetarism worked in Britain by pointing to the increase of wealth of a tiny minority in Britain and claiming that is proof it worked.

His Friedmans fan club that takes his works as the gospel also ignore that as they claim Friedman was infallible so come up with conspiracy theories as why Britain didn't go as Friedman predicted (as he is infallible thus it couldn't be his theories)

[Psy]

Looking for arguments I found the economist Ha-Joon Chang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-ojv5-b3U) that actually states all the rich capitalist countries were protectionists during their early years. I think while non-Marxist, Ha-Joon Chang does de-bunk free-market re-writing of history.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Of course. There has never "truly" been a laissez faire economy. The closest example in recent decades was Argentina, which fell into complete dissolution even with the assistance of Friedman's most adamant supporters. As Marx pointed out, the idealized form of capitalism is not the current reality, and all observational evidence points to government involvement as being necessary. The newly formed United States would have utterly failed if it weren't for protectionist trade policies, especially in the market of textiles where Britain was much, much more efficient.

If you must conduct a conversation with a market zealot, there are a few points to hammer home. If capitalism is the necessary mode of production for achieving maximum gratification, why then does the largest amount of growth coincide with big business corporations - who are essentially another arm of the government. Why did Argentina's experiment fail? Why does Venezuela maintain a stable growth rate?

I would also challenge the misconception that somehow Singapore and Hong Kong are the best examples of the free market working when both countries employ heavy zoning laws and extensive social welfare programs. Hong Kong in particular owns all land and only leases it out so the property values are artificially high. In addition, the average work week in Hong Kong is 47-49. Some living!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Of course. There has never "truly" been a laissez faire economy. The closest example in recent decades was Argentina, which fell into complete dissolution even with the assistance of Friedman's most adamant supporters. As Marx pointed out, the idealized form of capitalism is not the current reality, and all observational evidence points to government involvement as being necessary. The newly formed United States would have utterly failed if it weren't for protectionist trade policies, especially in the market of textiles where Britain was much, much more efficient.

If you must conduct a conversation with a market zealot, there are a few points to hammer home. If capitalism is the necessary mode of production for achieving maximum gratification, why then does the largest amount of growth coincide with big business corporations - who are essentially another arm of the government. Why did Argentina's experiment fail? Why does Venezuela maintain a stable growth rate?

I would also challenge the misconception that somehow Singapore and Hong Kong are the best examples of the free market working when both countries employ heavy zoning laws and extensive social welfare programs. Hong Kong in particular owns all land and only leases it out so the property values are artificially high. In addition, the average work week in Hong Kong is 47-49. Some living!





Dubai has a pretty laissez faire economy, as well.

[Psy]

If you must conduct a conversation with a market zealot, there are a few points to hammer home. If capitalism is the necessary mode of production for achieving maximum gratification, why then does the largest amount of growth coincide with big business corporations - who are essentially another arm of the government. Why did Argentina's experiment fail? Why does Venezuela maintain a stable growth rate?

I decided to go into US history, that most through most of US history there has been protectionism and subsides, and that reforms to the market to make it more free has not returned the US to its old growth rates. I found this is like a Jedi mind trick toward them, they don't know how to respond, they don't believe in market cycles (stating all downturns are due to economic policies) so I point out by Milton Friedman's logic protectionism and subsides are better polices as they had longer periods of growth, when they state market cycles I state Milton Friedman stated market cycles don't exist.

[Sentinel]

Don't you think this thread should be in OI instead? I think we actually have some friedmanites there.

Their input would be interesting. :D

I'll move it if you want.

[Psy]

Don't you think this thread should be in OI instead? I think we actually have some friedmanites there.

Their input would be interesting. :D

I'll move it if you want.
Go ahead.

[MT5678]

The OP is right. Neoliberal Capitalism is a religion. The idea is that everything must be deregulated, no matter what happens next.

Their great experiment was when they lobbied corporations to lobby the CIA to kill Allende and impose Pinochet on (guess when) September 11th, 1973.

It was boom-and-bust madness. By the time it was all over, real wages were down to 60% of their 1972 value, the sanitation system (had been privatized) was liquidated, disease was ballooning, the median wage was plummeting, the market system had been oligopolized, the leftists had been rounded up into sports stadiums and machine-gunned.

And Pinochet only had half the economy to destroy. The other half was Codelco, the national copper company. Imagine if he had un-nationalized it, and foreigners controlled all of Chile.

But hey, you can't mess with the market, right?