On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:23:56 -0700, orangatang1 wrote:
> On 15 May, 05:09, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On May 14, 8:48 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Harold Burton" <hal.i.bur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:hal.i.burton-B2640D.21395514052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > > In article
>> > >
<88ec7336-1eba-4980-9600-28c2a4d6e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> > > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Friedman was an issue dodger just like all the remaining ****lls at
GOP
>> > >> "thank" tanks like Hoover, Heritage, Am. Enterprise, the Chicago
>> > >> School, etc.
>>
>> > >> Friedman would never address the land issues raised by the
Georgists
>> > >> and he'ld never touch the "free markets w/o free speech" issue
either.
>>
>> > >> When you dodge issues that are fundamental to your field you are a
>> > >> fraud.
>>
>> > > Care for some cheese with that whine?
>>
>> > > Yeah, and let us know when you win a Nobel Prize.
>>
>> > It's also a classic straw man. "I'll decide what issues should be
>> > fundamental to 'your field', so I can criticize you when you don't
address
>> > them."
>>
>> > > Love the sound of leftards whining.
>>
>> > Well, there are plenty (a substantive majority, even) who are free
marketers
>> > and have no quarrel with Friedman. The head of Obama's economic team
is from
>> > U of Chicago.
>>
>> > That said, there are indeed those who exist on the political fringe
that
>> > have no idea how intertwined human behavior is with economic needs,
and are
>> > thus doomed to criticze men like Friedman ad infinitum (and for the
rest of
>> > us, ad nauseum) based on some Cliff Notes they read about him on some
fringe
>> > socialist/communist/anarchist site.
>>
>> > JG
>>
>> he never had one success. but, he had lots of disasters. of course,
>> you are a chanter, reality is not one of your stronger suits:)
>>
>> There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a fully
>> fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
>> for
>> critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
>> individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
>> requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
>> the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
>> unim****tant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
>> been
>> found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
>> appealing to the less intellectually curious.
>>
>> Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
>> practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
>> in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
>> decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
>>
>> Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
>> will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
>> prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
>> speak
>> out against it are simply sidelined.
>> ROBERT HENDERSON- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Instead of attacking Dr Friedman's reputation why not share your
> vision of a successful economy?
My own version of a successful economy is an economy in which
general quality of life is continually rising. The GDP says just about
nothing in this regard.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
|
