Two Giants Of Our Time: John Kenneth Galbraith And Milton Friedman

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith

"The Great Depression <1929-39>, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy." --Milton Friedman

"Economic freedom is . . . an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom." --Milton Friedman

"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." --John Kenneth Galbraith

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) died on April 26, 2006 at the age of 97. Economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) died on November 16, 2006 at the age of 94. Along with the great John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), these two economists dominated the field of economics during the second half of the 20th Century. There existed such an intellectual competition between the two economists -- not unlike the rivalry that prevailed between President Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826) and President John Adams (1735-1826), who both died on the same day -- that Galbraith's death may have influenced the time of Friedman's death.

Both were influential in framing the general economic debate and in steering general economic policies within their own country, but also abroad. For one, Galbraith was an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt,Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedyand Lyndon B. Johnson. Similarly, Friedman's ideas strongly influenced the economic policies of, among others, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, American President Ronald Reaganand Chilean President Antonio Pinochet. He also persuaded the Nixon administration to abolish militaryconscription.

John K. Galbraith's most influential book was The Affluent Society(1958), in which he proposed the idea that post-war private expenditures were generating marginal social benefits that were lower than would be derived from increased public expenditures on needed economic infrastructures and social programs. The general principle here is that public expenditures should be increased until one marginal dollar spent publicly generates the same marginal social benefit as one marginal dollar spent on private goods and services. This is still a fundamental precept of modern economic welfare theory.

Milton Friedman, for his part, espoused the 18th Century French physiocrats' economic philosophy that government should interfere as little as possible with the efficient functioning of free markets, according to the fundamental law of supply and demand. He advocated laissez-faire capitalismand free market economics. In his most important work, Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman became the universal champion of all those who advocate low taxation and small government.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1495.shtml

The empirical evidence is in. Friedman and the so-called conservatives are wrong.
The most successful countries in the world, those with the highest standard of living, best health care, lowest infant mortality, and highest overall well being are the Nordic countries.

THe worst, meanest and and now the poorest in nearly all meaningful measure include the US, now organized along the lines that Friedman espoused.

Between Friedman and Hayek I have tough time deciding who was worse. They both enabled the neo-cons with those anti-people policies. Sachs recently demonstrated that Hayek was dead wrong re his road to serfdom.

ensures that the poorest and most vulnerable in society are given a fair chance to succeed.

This can only be done through social programs and a progressive tax code.

The wealthy's responsibility to society is to look after those who are less fortunate. If all wealthy people were truly altruistic, there would be no need for social programs or an income tax, for they would share their wealth with all, but that world exists in fairy tales. Wealthy people, all too often, exploit those less fortunate.

Income and wealth redistribution in the form of the New Deal worked for America, but America has abandoned the War on Poverty. The only way, in my mind, the Democrats could redeem this failure is to attempt to pass FDR's Economic Bill of Rights.

He said:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html

We are a nation that claims to be the richest in the world, yet 45,000,000 have no health insurance. We claim to be the richest in the world, yet we make our students who can make the grade take on interest-bearing debt. We claim to be the richest nation in the world, yet our schools are failing due to neglect, lack of teachers, and lack of funding. We claim to be the richest nation in the world, yet 37,000,000 Americans live below the poverty line. We claim to be the rhichest in the world, yet we won't even ensure the minimum wage is protected against being eaten away by annual pay cuts in the form of inflation.

Is this the best America can do? Is this what it means to be the richest nation in the world? What is it to a poor man that you would spend more money on war and death than on poverty relief? Is he truly worth more dying in a trench than finding a living?

I don't think charity is the answer because it's always either selective or limited or both. We need to share with those less fortunate than us and the most efficient way is collection and redistribution of assets, whether it's money or goods. This is how it works.

some famous guy said that.

We need to start running our economies with policies that actually work, not crazy ideology.

Off with his head!

:evilgrin:

much further concentration of wealth among the very few, a vanishing middle-class, a burgeoning under class, and rampant corporate mal- and misfeasance in an evolving corporatist society which incarcerates vast numbers of the under class, who have systematically been denied economic freedom, with cruel and unusual punishment for non-violent crimes.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."