On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:23:30 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.05.15.14.56.16.801976@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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.
>
> Good observation.
>
> Is there *any* metric which actually measures real quality of life
(which I
> would define as a LOCAL equation, mean income after tax less mean
(average
> food + average rent + average utilities + average anything else which
has to
> happen monthly) necessities?
You are looking at individual wealth as opposed to societal wealth. And
in a populated society individual wealth is anywhere and everywhere the
labor you can save yourself or the freedom you gain by commanding the
labor of others. Societal wealth, on the other hand, is the freedom from
harm, discomfort, and toil and the liberty that is shared among all.
There are two ways to achieve this societal wealth in a populated society
(there may be more but I do not know of them):
1. Technological advance and capital development
2. The division and specialization of land and labor
But the measurement of success is not the measurement of these things
directly. For the measurement of success we must turn to more direct
indicators of societal well being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life
There is and will be much disagreement over the weight assigned to the
various measurements of "infant mortality", "longevity", "happiness", and
the like. But these are the things that actually represent the quality of
life; the success or failure of economic policy.
--
"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
|
