One is a self made man, who fought in the army, and managed to get a PhD in economics as a black man during the civil rights battles in the 60's, the other one is a turd living in his fathers shadow, who would be nothing without his connections who compares Romney to hitler for having a swiss bank account....Yeah they are almost in the same league.....
"So we're left with a world in which Friedman is an iconic figure, and yet no major political movement in any of the developed world's major countries is calling for a Friedmanite solution to the dominant policy problem of the moment." Maybe that's problem.
This is still just ad hominem. Krugman wrote a very good essay, book review, a few years back that was quite favorable towards Friedman. My (rhetorical) question is, can you read the essay, or not? On the one hand you dislike Krugman, but on the other you like Friedman. The ad hominem approach sure has its difficulties!
Ricter, has Max E. ever actually addressed the content of any of your posts? Or is he perhaps far too busy being vacuously self-important?
Sometimes he tries. For example, the ongoing, "you can't solve a debt problem by adding more debt" <del>argument</del> conclusion, which is in his mind so obviously logical as to be beyond discussion.
But then how can you tell he's actually trying? His obliviousness of, or disregard for, the distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics notwithstanding.
I dunno. He's not on my ignore list because he doesn't direct the ad hominem at me. So I continue to argue. The best I've ever done on this topic is hear the other say (not Max that I recall), "ok, it could work if government would do it right, but government never does it right." And then two posts later we're back at square one with, "you cannot solve a debt problem by adding more debt." Who was it who asked, not long ago, about the futility of our arguments here in P&R? : )
Yeah its funny, they blame the free market for all that ails us, but then never bother allowing the free market to work, cause it would force governments to be responsible, on the other hand keynesian economics allows governments to be wrecklessly irresponsible, cause the government never has to cut their budget back, and all you ever hear is "We need to spend more," with every country already in debt up to their eye balls.....
And all we ever hear from, your side is we need to spend even more, so how much more should we be spending? 2 trillion dollar deficits? 3 trillion dollar deficits? Then when that doesnt work it comes back to the old fail safe, "We didnt spend enough, thats why it didnt work" All we know is that the only thing we havent tried is allowing the free market to work, we have tried the keynesian solutions, and they have failed, repeatedly.
Actually i have said close to the same thing, except its that the government is INCAPABLE of doing it right, they simply arent mobile enough, and they dont have the will power to put money away during the good times, so all we ever get is one side, and all we end up doing is piling on more and more debt..... Saying that keynesian economics works, is like going up to a golfer and telling him that if he just shoots 18 holes in 1 he will win the game for sure. Sure that is true, theoretically, but if it can not be executed what is the point of beating your head against a wall, trying, and making things worse in an attempt to achieve something which is impossible.... All that we have as a result of keynesian economics is a trail of ruins, and bankrupted countries.....