From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Milton Friedman...
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:29:23 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <2098@usna.NAVY.MIL> potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF)) writes:
>
>   yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu writes:
>
>> I further suggest that Friedman's economic policies have been
>>shown to be quite appealing to torture regimes, and are now
>>apparently quite the rage among the Nationalist right wing in
>>Russia.....[deleted].... Thus, advocates of Milt's economics
>>should explain just how far they are willing to go to give the
>>rest of us the benefits of his brave new economy.
>
>
>  It sounds to me like you have a personal vendetta against MR.
>Friedman. A smidgen of jealousy perhaps......

What a peculiar take. I find his economic arguments unpersuasive, his
politics to be dangerous, and his affection for torture regimes to
be offensive. Simple as that.

>  Just what type of economic system do you advocate? Your comments
>have been limited to derision of Libertarianism. So what is your
>Utopia? Status Quo Americana with a staggering deficit? Marxist
>Communism which has been a dismal failure all over the world (Just
>look at Cuba today if you need more proof. Soap is rationed to 1/2
>bar a month...). Pure socialism as Sweden had which also failed.
>  How much more proof do you need? The U.S. declining though it
>is, is an economic powerhouse because of CAPITALISM, and individual
>liberty. Please enlighten us as to your position.


Sweden was pure socialism?You must be using a non-standard definition
because a nation which has an economy dominated by privately held and
very large corporations is not usually considered to be "pure socialist".
And, while I am certainly no apologist for Castro, I think you need to
look at Cuba more closely. Cuba is under an economic blockade from the
dominant economic power in the region and has been the target of both
political and economic attacks for 30 years. Despite this, 
most Cubans have enjoyed  a standard of living which is far above that
of comparable latin american and Caribean nations. Compare Cuba, for
example, with Haiti, a nation which has welcomed American investment
and economic aid.

As for my own economic views, I am in favor of economic systems which
will encourage prosperity and  democracy and which will not destroy the 
biosphere. And on this basis, I favor what seems to me to be an updated
Jeffersonianism: small business, co-operatives, worker/community
run business, breakup of concentrations of economic power, control of
large scale investment in as democratic a way as possible -- e.g. through
elections, recall, binding referendum, lottery like appointments to
boards of major institutions (similar to jury selection), ....
I agree with J.S. Mill that a system in which the populace is divided into
a small group of investors and a large group of job-seekers is one which
is inimical to social progress, and as we have learned since the time of
Mill dangerous to the environment. I agree with the people who originally
called themselves libertarians (e.g.,  Bakunin, Kropotkin, and thier
modern heirs like Chomsky and Bookchin) that  centralized rule, either
by "Communist" bureaucrats or their corporatist counterparts is both
immoral and inefficient. And I don't believe that any society can
or should survive if it does not act to protect and support those who
for one reason or another cannot protect or support themselves. 



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu