Skip to comments.More Milton Friedman, Less Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 05/04/2013 3:54:55 PM PDT by kreitzer
click here to read article
Do you have any idea what I’m talking about?
Do you understand basic economics?
Do you understand the difference between the Austrian economists and the Monetarists who are Keynesians and who provided the theoretic cover for the central bankers to run this country up to the very edge of the cliff of economic collapse?
If not, let me know. I’d be happy to inform you.
A free-market supporting, freedom-loving American patriot who understands that Monetarism is the fiscal policy behind the Keynesians and the academic cover for the central bankers.
Please do. Let’s get started. Begin with your hypothesis that monetarists are Keynesians.
That thought is enough to make your skin crawl.
Nobody is going to persuade an idiologue of anything.
How IS a pencil made?
other good MF videos at link also
You don’t listen to Rush, do you? You seem to know only his caricature.
I think this guy just graduated from poli sci, and he took some econ where he read Friedman, and now he’s out to fix us with his brand new knowledge and wisdom. His dad should kick his ass.
LOL. I remember that Donahue. It’s the one where Milton won over Michael Moore, too.
This is true, and the belief that human activity is causing Global Warming is one of the important tenets of that faith.
However while both Friedman and Keynes agreed that a central bank is necessary. Reading Friedman one gets the impression that the central bank is a necessary evil, and not a true tool of economic policy as Keynes taught. In fact the implementing of the “Friedman Rule” would stop Bernanke from being able to attempt to use quantitative easing to affect the economy.
So while it can be argued that Friedman was a monetarists ( in that he believed that money supply should be controlled by a central bank); he was not a Keynesian in his philosophy of government intervention in the economy.
Exactly. Anyone who's spent any time around human beings knows that being persuasive involves a whole lot more than just being earnest.
I said that Keynesians adore the monetarists, not that all monetarists are Keynesians. However, the monetarists do believe in having a central agency decide the quantity and value of money. It is suspicious why they never wondered or cared (as far as I’ve read) what a government would do with the ability to create as much money as they want, so I suspect they may have Keynesian inclinations.
Keynesians adore the monetarists because monetarism is essentially money creation at the state level by the government through the proxy of the central bank. Monetarism provides the big-government spenders with an endless supply of cash to buy votes with. It is those who are Keynesians at heart (regardless of their stated support for Capitalism and free-markets and sound budgetary principles) that are addicted to this ‘free money’ belief of monetarism.
To be honest, I think you may need a bit more background before you understand what I’m saying and why. The following books are good reads and provide a good basic knowledge of economics:
“The Creature from Jekyll Island,” by G. Edward Griffin
“Meltdown,” by Thomas Woods
“Economics in One Lesson,” by Henry Hazlitt
“The Road to Serfdom,” by Friedrich von Hayek
“The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” by von Hayek
“The Breakdown of Money,” by Christopher Hollis
“The Case Against the Fed,” by Murray Rothbard
“How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes,” by Peter Schiff
Citations a plus, professor.
What a silly, error filled book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.