#1
Post rating: +
Dear social scientist,

The new issue of Econ Journal Watch is online at http://econjwatch.org.

In this issue:

A symposium co-sponsored by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University:

Why Is There No Milton Friedman Today?

Imagine that someone with all the endowments of a Milton Friedman were born in the 1960s or 1970s. Is it conceivable that such a person would develop into a ‘Milton Friedman’ like we know the actual Friedman to have been, including his academic eminence and his eloquent and influential advocacy of classical liberalism? Leading economists address the question: Why is there no Milton Friedman today?
#2
Post rating: +
Leading economists address the question: who took my Milt? who found my Milt?

ps I will find my Milt
#3
Post rating: ~
classical liberalism definitely not. didnt milton freidman advocate shit like a guaranteed minimum income?
#4
Post rating: ~
A_M_E_ do you ever check econ job rumours forum for a lol
#5
Post rating: +
He advocated for a negative income tax (the EITC is the US version currently in use) under the assumption that abolishing all aid to the poor was politically infeasible and that a negative income tax would be better than a robust welfare state.

His heart was in the right place, but, given the time he lived in, there was only so much he could do to fuck the poor.
#6
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
good question. i think the main reason is that the media is so controlled by liberals nowadays that it is hard for a real conservative voice to get on television. america has been taken over by a handout culture and everyone thinks they are entitled to this or that.
#7
Post rating: +++++

stegosaurus posted:

A_M_E_ do you ever check econ job rumours forum for a lol


yeah it's pretty awesome. It's a bunch of PhD job market candidates and university hiring committee professors in their 30's, 40's and 50's posting pedobear ASCII art and ranting about how vapid and cunty female economists are.

A few years ago like half the posts were blind rage about how Emily Oster's research on the effects of menstrual cup use in developing countries wasn't real economics because it was about poor 3rd world girls' icky parts bleeding and hence of no importance, and how unfair it was that she has a good job.

Edited by Aspie_Muslim_Economist_ ()

#8
Post rating: +
I actually think it's mainly posturing late-term phds and grad students, also its unbelievable how obsessed everyone is with status and name and shit, its so funny and such a predictable mode of discourse given the randian autism everyone's steeped in.
#9
Post rating: ~
Most people there are grad students, but I know a lot of econ professors and many of them are on EMJR. A lot gossip and backbiting between professors goes through EJMR since its anonymous.
#10
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
gossip and backbiting? looks like i picked the right profession!
#11
Post rating: ~
not that kind of backbiting!
#12
Poronto
Post rating: +
a lot of barebacking goes on between professors
#13
political car tune
Post rating: ~
Don't froget to "Go, GAY" getFIScal
#14
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
well it's a funny story. chromosomes are capped by sequences known as telomeres which keep genes from degrading. each time a chromosome is copied the telomere shortens and telomeres are also significantly shortened by free radicals within the cell. critically shortened telomeres correlate with the Hayflick limit on cell division
#15
Post rating: +
i dont know what trotskyism is but I was just listening to common Sense with dan CArlin, hosted by dan carlin. and he said it's fucked up how big corporations and rich people use loopholes to avoid paying taxes. thus, we should implement a flat tax rate across the board, including for poor people, and have no exemptions for anybody. so rich peolpe will pay their taxes. then he was like but that's just my RADICAL and non-ideological solution.
#16
Kurdt
Post rating: +
hardcore pragmatism
#17
Post rating: +
Yes he supported the negative income tax which is a form of basic income which so far as I know every credible economist supports as a superior alternative to existing welfare structures. Mainly they avoid the perverse incentives of "welfare traps".

He also identified the system of monetarism which was so obviously correct that every major central bank in the world now runs on its principles and inflation and deflation have completely come under control (there was around 13% inflation in the late 70s, now it is around 1%).

His explanation for the Great Depression was that the Fed failed to intervene in a liquidity crisis by creating lots of money and saving the failing banking infrastructure. Bernanke, who openly loves Friedman, is doing exactly what Friedman would have wanted him to, and it has worked brilliantly.

He was an active and influential advocate in ending the draft during the Vietnam War and he opposed the Iraq War.

People who consider him a radical anti-statist like the Austrians or whatever don't know anything about Milton Friedman. He just sought to effectively diagnose and improve systems and he did it all in a kind, insightful and clear-spoken manner.
#18
Post rating: +
yeah especially regarding pinochet
#19
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
the machinery of freedom by david d friedman
#20
hi
Post rating: +

DeleuzerAndRetardi posted:

yeah especially regarding pinochet

#21
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
one thing i'd like to understand better is whether every system organized on a financial basis necessarily is subject to the same sort of conditions that friedman pointed towards (such as the existence of a natural rate of unemployment). like would a state-manged economy that is mostly coordinated by planners but still capitalist (insofar as it is not planned according to value but rather money) always have the same sorts of problems. because the conclusion to date has been that, yes, there is only one real model of an economy organized around money, and that it probably will need manage inflation in the same way that the central bank would in contemporary canada. because if an economy like cuba's has the same basic problems as canada, then it would seem to follow that there is no clear gain against unemployment made just by nationalizing things and semi-planning things.

there still might be fewer/different business cycles if investment is centrally planned, and things would operate differently in certain other ways i guess, but i'm not sure beyond that.
#22
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
NAIRU my balls
#23
Poronto
Post rating: ~
I'm curious about what the effect of nationalizing the financial sector and leaving the rest of the economy untouched would be; has this ever been tried anywhere
#24
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
saudi arabia
#25
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

littlegreenpills posted:

I'm curious about what the effect of nationalizing the financial sector and leaving the rest of the economy untouched would be; has this ever been tried anywhere



Judaism

#26
Post rating: +

Do you need anybody?


\


I need somebody to love


\


Could it be anybody?


\


I want somebody to love


\

Edited by ArisVelouchiotis ()

#27
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

HenryKrinkle posted:

http://i.ur.com/VFZ5N.gif



Now Biff, I want make sure that we get two coats of wax this time, not just one.
______________________/

#28
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

one thing i'd like to understand better is whether every system organized on a financial basis necessarily is subject to the same sort of conditions that friedman pointed towards (such as the existence of a natural rate of unemployment). like would a state-manged economy that is mostly coordinated by planners but still capitalist (insofar as it is not planned according to value but rather money) always have the same sorts of problems. because the conclusion to date has been that, yes, there is only one real model of an economy organized around money, and that it probably will need manage inflation in the same way that the central bank would in contemporary canada. because if an economy like cuba's has the same basic problems as canada, then it would seem to follow that there is no clear gain against unemployment made just by nationalizing things and semi-planning things.

there still might be fewer/different business cycles if investment is centrally planned, and things would operate differently in certain other ways i guess, but i'm not sure beyond that.



"Every financial system" is pretty broad in an abstract sense. Hypothetically we could author a constitution for a race of devils, like Immanuel Kant said, with a wink.

Realistically human beings and their material needs are not that different across cultures. Everyone needs shelter and to eat and to have medicine and to work in some productive fashion. They also need a sense of spiritual purpose but that is outside the scope of pure economics.

Unemployment will always be a problem because many people do not like to work, some do not even respect having a Job and prefer to dilly-dally with forums or trains or other frivolities. Any effective economic system must force people to productive work in some manner because otherwise they act as a net drain on the collective whole due to their consumption of valuable resources.

Business cycles have a black swan element, which is another way of saying we don't know everything and have to prepare for unexpected disaster. But our knowledge increases year after year, a lot of good policy is known but not implemented for political reasons, and if sensible economic policy was implemented at a high level business cycles could be reduced in frequency and severity.

#29
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~

Agnus_Dei posted:

Business cycles have a black swan element, which is another way of saying we don't know everything and have to prepare for unexpected disaster.

Im not sure thats really what swan lake is about

#30
Post rating: ~
http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/why-do-people-still-read-marx

They think the world is unfair and they want to blame something.

28 GOOD 1 NO GOOD


lol
#31
Post rating: ~

piss posted:

http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/why-do-people-still-read-marxThey think the world is unfair and they want to blame something.

28 GOOD 1 NO GOOD


lol



whereas, as a white middle class male, i know otherwise

#32
Post rating: +
Atlas shrugged was the visionary fictional book, becoming one of the most read books in the World. She describe a strike of the most productive people who refuse to be taxed and leeched on making the system collapse. The ideas of the book form the basics of the Objectivist philosophy. But nothing what described in the book ever happened in large scale, despite taxation and general leeching has increased greatly since Rand typed in her words. My time in TEST and my removal from there for posting (no one even accused me of doing anything wrong outside of that or claimed that I slack as practically didn't miss a stratop) the most successful EVE alliance gave a clear answer why.
#33
Post rating: ~
he died
#34
Post rating: +
I've never heard anyone talk about him but i stumbled on some Richard D Wolff youtubes a few weeks ago and i like him ok. He always goes on with marxist analysis but without using the dirty words, marxist, or communist, to not scare people off.

If we want to actually spread leftism i think hes got the right idea, give the criticism without namedropping mao or trotsky. The Red Scare really did a number on this country even little kids know Socialism = gulags and slavery
#35
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +

Joe_the_Plumber posted:

I've never heard anyone talk about him but i stumbled on some Richard D Wolff youtubes a few weeks ago and i like him ok. He always goes on with marxist analysis but without using the dirty words, marxist, or communist, to not scare people off.

If we want to actually spread leftism i think hes got the right idea, give the criticism without namedropping mao or trotsky. The Red Scare really did a number on this country even little kids know Socialism = gulags and slavery



so what is the strategy when someone says, "sounds like you're talking about socialism"

#36
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +
*slowly draws sweat-drenched sign from inside pants waist* "Comments have been disabled for this video"
#37
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

daddyholes posted:

so what is the strategy when someone says, "sounds like you're talking about socialism"



i dont know, what do Capitalist Democrats say when that happens

#38
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
"What are you going to do? What are you going to do when these educated crowds figure out this is just the Dole/Kemp health care plan from '96? Whats your strategy for THAT Mr. Obamastalin??"
#39
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +++++
Depression Diary day 1246:

Almost mustered up the courage to go outside today. Opened front door and was immediately called a Socialist by passing UPS worker. Maybe tomorrow.
#40
Post rating: ~

Superabound posted:

daddyholes posted:

so what is the strategy when someone says, "sounds like you're talking about socialism"

i dont know, what do Capitalist Democrats say when that happens


democracy is socialism