Again: Not being able to sustain your arguments through logic, you attempt to change the topic to me from the subject. I am not the subject here.
I wonder how you'd feel about Friedman if you were a Thalidomide baby: https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/milton-friedmans-distortions/ As for Hayek, http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2011/11/09/how-keynes-beat-hayek/ You have a penchant for ideologues and dogma. Some people never grow out of it. Whatever faults you think Keynes may have had, he walked the talk and was pragmatic. He understood the economy better than his detractors, put his money where his mouth was, and became rich. He was a fairly active trader in his day who traded in accordance with his own understanding of the economy. Can you say that about either Friedman or Hayek? (Hint: no.)
I don't base my opinion on sensasionalist headlines, only children and morons do that, because they draw opinions on emotions and not logic... The answer to your post is simple: Furthermore, again, making it clear how every centralized/big government action is a bad idea. I quote a part of the text from "Free To Choose: A Personal Statement", which speaks about the Consumer Products Safety Commision(it is interesting to note especially the highlighted part of the text at the bottom, which makes it clear how it applies to any product, including thalidomide, and that governments actions, are subject to errors just as companies actions, because they are made by people in both situations, but when government makes a mistake, because of centralization, the consequences are ALWAYS of catastrophic proportions if compared to private companies): "In August 1973, only three months after starting operation, it "banned certain brands of aerosol spray adhesives as an imminent hazard. Its decision was based primarily on the preliminary findings of one academic researcher who claimed that they could cause birth defects. After more thorough research failed to corroborate the initial report, the commission lifted the ban in March 1974."15 That prompt admission of error is most commendable and most unusual for a government agency. Yet it did not prevent harm. "It seems that at least nine pregnant women who had used the spray adhesives reacted to the news of the commission's initial decision by undergoing abortions. They decided not to carry through their pregnancies for fear of producing babies with birth defects."16 A far more serious example is the episode with respect to Tris. The commission, when established, was assigned responsibility for administering the "Flammable Fabrics Act," dating back to 1953, which was intended to reduce death and injuries from the accidental burning of products, fabrics, or related materials. A standard for children's sleepwear that had been issued in 1971 by the predecessor agency was strengthened by the CPSC in mid-1973. At the time the cheapest way to meet this standard was by impregnating the cloth with a flame-retardant chemical—Tris. Soon, something like 99 percent of all children's sleepwear produced and sold in the United States was impregnated with Tris. Later it was discovered that Tris was a potent carcinogen. On April 8, 1977, the commission banned its use in children's apparel and provided for withdrawal of Tris-treated garments from the market and their return by consumers. Needless to say, in its 1977 Annual Report the commission made a virtue of the correction of a dangerous situation that had arisen solely as a result of its own earlier actions, without acknowledging its own role in the development of the problem. The initial requirements exposed millions of children to the danger of developing cancer. Both the initial requirements and the subsequent banning of Tris imposed heavy costs on the producers of children's sleepwear, which meant, ultimately, on their customers. They were taxed, as it were, coming and going. This example is instructive in showing the difference between across-the-board regulation and the operation of the market. Had the market been allowed to operate, some manufacturers no doubt would have used Tris in order to try to enhance the appeal of their sleepwear by being able to claim flame resistance, but Tris would have been introduced gradually. There would have been time for the information about Tris's carcinogenic qualities to have been discovered and to lead to its withdrawal before it was used on a massive scale."
No, everything that is written and showed there was pure logic and facts, written by one of the most recognized economists of this world... First of all, who are you to tell me when I'm going to talk about something or not? As for Hayek/Friedman/Keynes/me, again, personal attacks to one or the other has nothing to do with ideas. If one was rich or not is irrelevant, I'm talking about LOGIC, IDEAS here... Not this or that guy, you again attempt to invalidate arguments from one side by performing personal attacks/references, because you cannot sustain your ideas through logic.
How's this for an idea: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650 Milton Friedman, who has died aged 94, was not the most important economist of the post-war era - that title belongs to the brilliant Paul Samuelson - but he was certainly the most controversial. Yet despite his views being championed by so many politicians on the right, it may come as a surprise that Friedman's career as a policymaker largely ended in failure. Given his status as a long-standing hate figure, the assumption by many of the left is that his agenda was cemented into place during the Reagan and Thatcher administrations in the early 1980s, especially Friedman's well-known view that inflation is solely influenced by changes in the money supply. But very few of Friedman's most cherished proposals were ever put in to practice. Of those that where - such as monetarism - almost all turned into failure. The great irony for Friedman's fans is that the one piece of public policy he was responsible for that was widely and internationally adopted was one that greatly increased the ability of central governments to collect taxes - a policy he later repudiated in disgust. Obituaries of Friedman will doubtlessly sing of his successes. But close examination will show them to be few, and none unalloyed. For all his high public profile - thanks to his regular column in Newsweek and series on US television, Free To Choose, which made him into something of a star - today no mainstream academic economist is a monetarist and Friedman left no lasting school of academic heirs. Even the "Chicago school" at the University of Chicago has waned in influence, eclipsed by the mighty MIT army of economists that followed Samuelson. Of course Friedman is greatly respected for his theoretical work as an economist, especially on his analysis of the role of money, the importance of inflation expectations in wages and employment, and perhaps his most lasting contribution (it could be argued), the permanent income hypothesis, which suggests that households take a longer view of anticipating their past and future income than previously thought. His award of a Nobel prize in economics was richly deserved - even if he was churlish in accepting it (he said after winning: "I would not want a professional judgment of my scientific work to be those seven people who selected me for the award"). In terms of the policies he inspired or influenced, however, the report card is not so glowing. His great claim, the idea that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" may have set off the Monetarist versus Keynesian "econ-wars" of the late 1970s and 1980s. But Friedman's ideas of directly targeting the money supply were tried and rejected as a failure, in both the UK and the US, and Friedman himself backed away from his dogmatic earlier positions. Today, no major central bank directly targets money supply data in setting monetary policy - instead they are far more pragmatic. Even Friedman's great admirer Alan Greenspan never tied himself to the monetarist mast, preferring to keep his options open. Friedman also railed long and hard for school vouchers to be adopted, to little avail, and his libertarian leanings provoked him to call for recreational drugs and prostitution to be legalised. He lobbied against environmental protection and regulations of all kinds, the vast majority of which were happily ignored by his friends and enemies. Even the economic reforms in Pinochet's Chile he is said to have inspired have run into trouble. Friedman's first big role as a policy advisor came in 1964 to Barry Goldwater - the least successful Republican presidential candidate in the last 100 years. His next gig was for Richard Nixon - an unsuccessful president in a different way - although Nixon ignored him when it mattered, except when he could use Friedman as cover for politically difficult decisions, such as ending compulsory military service. And Friedman's one success? In 1942, during world war two, Friedman actually went to work for the US government. While there he helped design the payroll tax that in Britain is known as PAYE, Pay As You Earn, and in the US as withholding tax, the system that allows the government to administer the taking of income tax directly from salaries and pay packets. Unlike everything else he argued for, withholding tax was withstood the test of time and is in use all around the world. It was the best thing that Keynesian-style government could ever have wished for, and Friedman bitterly regretted it. In his memoirs he wrote: "It never occurred to me at the time that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom. Yet, that is precisely what I was doing. [My wife] Rose has repeatedly chided me over the years about the role that I played in making possible the current overgrown government we both criticize so strongly." Rest in peace Milton Friedman, big government's best friend.
As for Hayek, his faith-based philosophy is not even internally consistent, and neither are his adherents, as I posted earlier: http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2011/11/09/how-keynes-beat-hayek/
Wow, a personal attack from a leftist newspaper to Milton Friedman. As I told you more than once: personal attacks are the last resort of the person who can't argue through logic. Everything I wrote up there was based on facts, argueing against your thalidomide fact. NOT ONE POINT were you able to counter-argue through logic... Everything you were capable of until now was this: opinions and personal attacks/referrences... Let me know when you're up to the challenge of arguing with logic.
A chronology of his career is a personal attack? I guess you don't think that highly of his contribution either, then. Who knew.
As presented in the chronology, his cherished ideas failed and have been largely dismissed even by those who admired him.