Milton Friedman has died.

[luiz]

Ouch. That's pretty dumb.

I mean, I'm not particularly attached to capitalism (actually, I am a confirmed skeptic with regard to economics. It is no science, whatever the economists like to claim - it's much closer to a form of philosophy, and Friedman and Porter have much more in common with Sun Tzu and Machiavelli than with Einstein. Doesn't take away from them - Sun Tzu and Machiavelli were great thinkers - but also means that no matter how good their theories, there likely is no single absolute truth for them to find), but printing money to get richer? Yeah, go intelligence.

And economists can't be evil. The vast majority of them are apprentice wizards, though, tackling forces they often fail to fully understand, and often ignoring key factors (like cultural differences, or issues of biology et al) that get in the way of the standard economic theory (I seem to remember hearing about an African incident involving scattered herds of cattle, bringing them all together, immunities to disease, cattle massacre and famine).

Moreover, there is a definite tendency to make economy into an end in itself, rather than a mean to an end (that is, the well-being of the population, and the preservation of their elementary rights) as it should be.

I'd say that Economics is a "social science", though I certainly can see why one would not consider the social sciences to be proper sciences.

Though there are some economists who behave like true scientists, that is, not only making "Laws" based purely on observation but also trying to get a glimpse of the driving forces behind them. I place Friedman among this group.

 

[Evie]

Unfortunately, the driving force behind economic is human behavior, not any sort of natural principle. And human behavior is influenced by so many different variables (and culture having such a dramatic influence, CF the near-captive national market of Japan vs the relatively "Whatever's cheaper" market of the USA) as to make any observation doubtful.

I mean, I'm not saying Friedman didn't try to be as scientifical as possible, but that when trying to explain, describe and worse of all predict the actions of human being, the existence of absolute truths is a rare thing indeed.

And yeah, I can see how the term social science might be applied - along history et al. (Which is no insult for me, as I minored in history)

 

[jameson]

I mean, I'm not saying Friedman didn't try to be as scientifical as possible, but that when trying to explain, describe and worse of all predict the actions of human being, the existence of absolute truths is a rare thing indeed.

Which is, as it happens, precisely what I liked about economics. The impossibility of finding absolute truths in economic behaviour, however, does not at all preclude the possibility of discovering relative truths: under a given set of circumstances, given a certain set of (moral) values, the science of economics may help you discover a course of action more likely to result in a certain (desirable) outcome than another course. That may not sound as a very definite, or even a very satisfactory toolbox, but it's much better than flying completely blind when making economic policy.

 

[luiz]

Well, it does. Then it makes the country a lot poorer afterwards.

And as much as people consider Norway to be socialist, my history/social studies teacher still compares printing money to pissing your pants to stay warm.

Indeed in the short term the increase in liquidity gives a boost to aggregate demand which in turn boosts the product. But since supply has not followed the increase in demand, inflation will arise and we end up with the previous product, but more inflation.

Proving that the Philips Curve (inflation x unemployement) only exists in the short term and should not be used as guidance for policy-makers was one of Friedman's many contributions to the economical science and the world at large. He and Edmond Phelps were the firsts to point that out.

 

[Civicide]

It always fascinates me the distinctions that people make between "hard" and "soft" sciences. If the distinction between the two is that absolute certainty is possible in a "hard science" whereas a "soft science" is just a guessing game, then technically, there is no such thing as a "hard science". Physics comes close, but it's still dependant on quantum mechanics, where randomness is (still) a part of the equation (witness Einstein's famous, and often paraphrased, quote about his quantum theory being inadequate because he refuses to believe that god plays dice with the universe).

Science is defined only by the use of the scientific method, which demands only falsifiability and repeatability.

Sciences like economics, that are dependant on human behavior, are of course subject to greatly unpredictable forces, but the presence of underlying principles still make them applicable to the scientific method. If you raise the price without raising perceived value of a product, demand will decrease. There is randomness, but there is in any field. It all depends on what you choose to ignore.

 

[Ramius75]

May he rest in peace. One of the man i admire.

 

[.Shane.]

Just found out he was the grandfather of one of our closest family friends.

 

[drkodos]

May he rest in peace. One of the man i admire.

Does anyone dead not rest is peace? Just wondering.

 

[Godwynn]

One of my heroes has died.

 

[Godwynn]

Does anyone dead not rest is peace? Just wondering.

I'm sure those pharoah's of Egypt have been awoken once or twice.

 

[amadeus]

That's too bad.

 

[sonorakitch]

Cheers to a man who was jeered by many but turned out right.

~Chris

 

[drkodos]

Cheers to a man who was jeered by many but turned out right.

~Chris

That remains to be seen.


I heard the current Dali Lhama speak at Syracuse University several years ago and he was asked directly what he thought of the French Revolution, whether it was good or bad.

After brief pause, he said, "Too soon to tell."

 

[amadeus]

Well, I don't know what makes the Dalai Lama so special, especially about historical French politics.

 

[drkodos]

Well, I don't know what makes the Dalai Lama so special, especially about historical French politics.

I believe you.

And I do not even need to ask you for a weblink to prove it.


ITS A JOKE. He was telling a joke. Now, let me explain it further. We have no way of knowing what is good or bad. It takes years beyond a lifespan to know what events were good or bad, or worked to improve man's condition.

Look at how the EU in essence accomplished what Hitler initially set out to do; the unification of Western Europe.


It means, do not judge so hastily. And that is the case with Friedman as well. It is merely opinion that he was correct. I belive he was as well, but much more water need go under the bridge before it could be said for certain.

 

[Taliesin]

How shocked he must be to learn that God is a Keynesian!

One of Friedman's disciples taught my intro economics class. He was a riot-- a free-market ideologue to the point of cartoonishness. Very entertaining. He was fond of saying things like, "Recycling is bad for the environment." [Since it decreases a paper company's incentive to plant trees, of course.]

That may not sound as a very definite, or even a very satisfactory toolbox, but it's much better than flying completely blind when making economic policy.

The danger, of course, is that the economists fall under the delusion that they should be more than instruments, and that the rest of us fall for it. Partial blindness is fine when it's the best thing available, but if dim-sighted economists are permitted to impose their solutions where we have something better-- on moral, cultural, and social questions-- the result isn't pretty. (I wonder what such a scenario might look like? )

 

[sysyphus]

Personally, on the whole I thought Friedman was an arrogant idealogue.

That said, he did have a number of theories and practices that have been implemented and have been very beneficial. At the end of the day, the world is a better place as a result of Friedman and his work.

May he rest in piece.

 

[JerichoHill]

It is no science, whatever the economists like to claim - it's much closer to a form of philosophy, and Friedman and Porter have much more in common with Sun Tzu and Machiavelli than with Einstein. Doesn't take away from them - Sun Tzu and Machiavelli were great thinkers -

Just so you know, one economist to a layperson, I completely agree with you.

 

[newfangle]

I enjoyed reading his articles more than any other economist I've come across. A true harbinger of light and justice in this world of filthy pinko teenagers.

I salute you sir.

 

[Zamecnik]

Well, it's always sad to see someone go, but the damage the man did was immense and continues today, though thankfully it is in the process of being rolled back. An extremist with a very limited and simple view of economics, he undermined economics of most of its credibility. RIP, you "neocon of econ."