A response with just a smidgen of patronizing, as opposed to the usual flagrant condescension. Impressive.
Well, I’m trying to answer in a fashion that involves your <3 and not just your brain, else you accuse me of being boring. Which, my dearest, is something I would never want 2b2u.
I’m also mimicking your own slightly tendentious style in an effort to level and connect. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and though I am not even half as witty, young and beautiful as you (here’s me, according to my cell phone) I try to compensate in facts and logic.
I am nonetheless aware of the futility of this humble attempt.
While he was in Chile Friedman gave a speech titled “The Fragility of Freedom” where he described the “role in the destruction of a free society that was played by the emergence of the welfare state.” Chile’s present difficulties, he argued, “were due almost entirely to the forty-year trend toward collectivism, socialism and the welfare state … a course that would lead to coercion rather than freedom.”
Friedman politely neglected to mention the lack of political and civil liberty under the Pinochet regime. Many of its victims were drugged and taken in military airplanes to be dropped over the South Atlantic, with their bellies slit open while they were still alive so that their bodies would not float and be discovered.
Viva la liberté!
The Salon article is not about the Chilean miracle, but rather about the supposed contradiction between libertarian principles and democracy. That requires reading more than the first few lines and it’s a different discussion altogether.
Good thing no one is claiming it’s about the Chilean miracle simpliciter. Friedman’s quote is perfectly relevant to the discussion of compatibility between liberalism and democracy. He unequivocally states that the trend towards collectivism destroyed the Chilean economy—whatever that means. Central planning? State allocation of resources? Representative democracy? Direct democracy? Co-ops? Friedman obv wasn’t interested in being clear or honest, since the
But of course! Friedman’s lack of detail on a simple issue is a clear and obvious sign that he’s a distended asshole.
Welfare State is state capitalism; and it’s a trivial fact that Keynes wasn’t a socialist. This has become a rather trite topic to discuss
I’m not sure I see where you’re going with the first sentence and how does that fit with the rest. Secondly, there was a time when a Soviet leader (Khrushchev, if I’m not mistaken), did something silly with a shoe at UN and threatened to bury some “you”. Should I then assume that all Marxists are similarly erroneous and debating-challenged and should I bring this up every time I talk to one, or should I realize that guilt by association..? umm, never mind.
with the pathological liars of your circle.
I shall bring to them the message that we’ve been deconspired and that the Marxist Brotherhood of Coercing Pants is on to us. :)
No more soul rapes for now, at least until the heat dissipates and it’s no longer “on”.
As for Friedman, his point is that economic liberalization is followed sooner or later by democratization and general prosperity. But how can we measure the success of Friedman’s recipe?
I would go with UN’s HDI or “Human Development Index”. In 2011, Chile scores highest in South America (44), followed closely by Argentina (45), another recipient of similar shock-liberalization. In terms of democracy, Chile does not score as high as its peers (Uruguay, Costa Rica score higher) but
it’sits showing is still not too shabby.
How precious of you to refer to the fascist coup in Chile as “shock-
Nobody’s saying that Pinochet’s crimes were necessary or positively elevating. Friedman was not a human rights crusader but rather an economist. I trust you are not suggesting that he “counseled” for murders to be committed.
The point I’m trying to make here is that this guy was not a fascist. He genuinely believed, like many libertarians and even some on the left, that liberalizing an economy will create in the long run the wealth that’s necessary for people to prosper and that the freer people are to pursue their self-interest, the better they (and society in general) will fare. It seems to me that such a belief is far more altruistic and humanist than the view that it is more important to force people through a Procrustean bed in order to eliminate reasons they may have to envy one another. What do I mean by that? For instance, Mao had this dream of an entire nation dressed in some horrible uniforms, waking up at the same time, clocking in 8 hours of work, going home to sleep 8 hours and then having “leisure” for another 8. Is this the kind of life you would like to live?
liberalization”, yet nonetheless unsurprising. Other Latin American countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Peru, rank higher in employment rates; and Cuba surpasses Chile in employment rates. So while Chile ranked 44th in HDI this is starkly
I was under the impression that HDI is a vastly more comprehensive measure than the rate of unemployment. Furthermore, your source gives a difference of less than one percentage point between Chile and the other countries you mention. The only notable exception is Cuba, where the unemployment rate is significantly lower at 3.8%, but that’s still a monumental failure for a labor camp constituted on Marxist ideals. Furthermore, the unemployment rate in a free economy is heavily dependent on which point in the economic cycle the “pulse” is taken. If it’s just coming out of a recession, a freer economy will tend to suffer more acutely (albeit for a much shorter time) before bouncing back.
overshadowed by its also ranking 9th and 7th in greatest wealth disparity, where the wealthiest 10% rake in 45.6% of the entire economy and the wealthiest 20% rake in a wopping 61%,
So you’re saying that investment in their people notwithstanding (HDI=life expectancy+literacy+education+other standards of living), the fact that the top is doing comparatively better nullifies any progress the society as a whole has made. In other words, it doesn’t matter that people live far better lives than their parents insofar as the gap between the rich and the poor has grown. Is this what you’re saying?
respectively. You were saying? This is farcically higher than the United States, which ranks 54th. Must be those freer markets.
In contrast, countries that take the “Marxist” route (or whatever is close to that idiosyncratic set of gaseous, ivory tower emanations) tend to perform poorly by any measure.
In terms of development? Employment? Doctors per capita? Are you
HDI is specifically designed to measure development. They call it a “composite” statistic. Everything else is part of it: It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life. (..) devised and launched by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq in 1990 and had the explicit purpose “to shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting to people centered policies”. (..) Haq was sure that a simple composite measure of human development was needed in order to convince the public, academics, and policy-makers that they can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but also improvements in human well-being.
referring to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany? Since I know you people are fond of accrediting the latter to Marxists, and ignoring the former wasn’t Marxist in none other than a nominal sense. This isn’t a
If it’s futile, why bring it up? Methinx that your inability to stay on target tends to blow up your chances of successful argumentation.
discussion that needs to be had since it’s futile and you’re obviously
not interested in understanding the nuances of what Development means and should mean. Cherry-picking which stats to show doesn’t
Showing a comprehensive statistic is not cherry-picking, it’s summarizing / synthesizing. Synthesizing, as derived from the noun synthesis (from the ancient Greek σύνθεσις, σύν ”with” and θέσις“placing”), referring to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new.
help your case either.
Yes, my case needs a lot of help and my bottom has started to feel like Milton Friedman (see above or the artist formerly known as goatse.cx).
Then again, who would want to take seriously a measure devised and reported by the United Nations, that Conservative, right leaning institution universally loved by libertarians? They[UN]’re clearly in bed with Friedman and those who think alike. Case closed.
Yes because Chile ranked 44th in the HDI, it means Friedman’s
Rather, because it ranks first among its South American peers. 44 is just an easy-to-remember number.
oblation of the Chilean people to his free market experiment has been historically absolved and retroactively justified. To what lengths does
I don’t consider Pinochet’s crimes as part of “Friedman’s oblation”. Rather, those were P’s oblation to his own people. Unless, of course, you believe that Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, the Korean Kims and countless African Marxist dictators killed their own people as part of their Marxist opera and such killings are a necessary, sine qua non part of inflicting an egalitarian nightmare Marxists on envy-suffering masses.
your sycophancy extend? You ignored the original quote, which had nothing to do with economic development, but with Friedman’s disturbing alacrity to condone slaughtering and torturing Chileans in the name of Free Market Freedom(TM). Apparently if they’re dying for the sake of Libertarian Ideals as opposed to under the hammer & sickle banner of those dreadful Marxist paupers, then everything is okay.
First, the full speech the quote was taken from (PDF) that became an essay a few years later should be sufficient “defense” to that accusation. Furthermore, the so-called “condoning” has been thoroughly debunked in countless essays, interviews and articles and it is really an ad hominem:
If you need to get more context, there’s an interesting book by Joshua Mitchell (and a quick intro).
But if you’re really interested in figuring out Friedman and his infectious “ideology” you can’t do better than watching his PBS documentary, Free to Choose. It is quite seductive, long and anchored in reason, so to keep your emotion-fueled attachment to the libelous myth of his murderous involvement in Chile, combine it with Missing (1982; imdb, wikipedia, trailer, full).