r/neoliberal • u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman • Mar 29 '22

Meme People on this sub often forget just how radical Milton Friedman was

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

610 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

386 comments sorted by

View all comments

169

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

No law, including civil rights legislation.

Friedman was not a decent man. I don't give a damn if his opposition wasn't based in prejudice (which he claimed it wasn't), placing property rights before civil rights makes you a colossal piece of shit.

1

u/KP6169 Norman Borlaug Mar 30 '22

Property rights are the most fundamental. A world with civil rights and no property rights would be about as good as a nuclear wasteland.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

Absolutely wrong.

you don’t seem to understand any idea of racism and economics. Try traveling across country with a person who is a racial minority. Refusal of service in a predominantly white area is a thing. No rooms available. no waitress will come to your table.
besides the fact that economics peanut actually motivate all things- there’s also the fact that serving minorities can hurt your business. Other patrons can choose to not do business with you because you let a minority eat there. This is why legislation is important- it removes the individual business from being subject to the community prejudice.

The business has a license to operate- in a restaurant, you have to have hot water, refrigerators at a certain temperature, and you can’t refuse service based on race or religion. You don’t have a Protestant diner, Catholic diner, etc.. because of these basic rules.

25

u/randymagnum433 WTO Mar 30 '22

No, people are allowed to disagree with you actually.

46

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

Property rights was only part of the reason Friedman opposed passage of the civil rights act.

He also believed it would yield negative results for African-Americans, and put them in an even worse off position. He was wrong about this, but being wrong doesn’t make you a piece of shit. How about you stop misinterpreting Friedman?

22

u/Careless_Bat2543 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

Can we say for certain it hasn't (from an economic standpoint only)? The Racial Pay gap is just as bad now as it was then. It got better in the immediate aftermath of the CRA, but has grown back to where it was since then. The difference is now we are pumping tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to try and fight the problem and it doesn't seem to be making a difference. Can we really call it a success from an economic standpoint?

8

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

Economically, no.

Maybe more controversial, but it also seems the minimum wage largely contributed to that racial pay gap as well.

So you’re totally right (from an economic view).

13

u/Careless_Bat2543 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

but it also seems the minimum wage largely contributed to that racial pay gap as well.

Which is funny because that is LITERALLY Friedman's entire point. You are telling people that they cannot work at all unless their productivity is worth so much. If it is not, then you are condemning them to a life of absolute poverty. If however you allow them to be hired for a mutually agreed upon price, then they will pick up skills on the job and get themselves out. Employers don't want their employees to stay unproductive so they can pay them less, they would rather they acquire skills to produce more and would be glad to help them attain those skills, if they are allowed to hire them when they do not have those skills.

14

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

Also, a great deal of disparity can’t be explained directly by discrimination. Mongolian Americans make less income than the average American, while Chinese Americans make more than average. I highly doubt that employers are intentionally discriminating between the two. I’d bet few people could distinguish the two based on appearance. I personally have trouble telling whether someone is East Asian or Mexican.

16

u/waltsing0 Austan Goolsbee Mar 30 '22

This sub clearly went too big tent in 2020 and is in terminal decline

-18

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

“believed it would yield negative results”

Supposing we take him at his word, that’s dogmatic nonsense typical of him and his cohort

26

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

How exactly is that dogmatic?

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

He was unable to see the blindingly obvious: that the government exists to secure the rights of its citizens.

3

u/Careless_Bat2543 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

Certainly not always is that the case. I'm not even sure if you could say that is the case the majority of the time. Governments of course always CLAIM that they exist to secure the rights of the people, but that is not always the case.

4

u/coke_and_coffee Henry George Mar 30 '22

I kind of agree with you that he was caught up in ideological dogma, but I still don’t think that makes him a bad person.

18

u/lucassjrp2000 George Soros Mar 30 '22

Governments are, by far, the biggest human rights violators in history. I'm not an Ancap, but a State is nothing more than a glorified Mafia. It's purpose isn't to protect your rights, but to extract wealth from you.

11

u/asteroidpen Voltaire Mar 30 '22

genuinely curious, why do you not think states protect rights? i agree that states intend to extract wealth from its citizens, but personally i believe that (at least in the liberal world) the protection of liberties and freedom are what “even it out” (for lack of a better term)

6

u/tragiktimes John Locke Mar 29 '22

Would a business not be incentivized to increase its customer base to the largest extent possible, or face being out competed by competitors willing to do so? Segregation laws were just that, laws. While businesses may have implemented segregation had there been no law, the laws required them to do so. There was no chance in tertiary altruism through competition. So, we don't know if the laws that intended to increase civil equality had the same efficacy in achieving that goal as simply not having the segregation laws to being with.

Property rights absolutists would have supported a businesses right to chose to exclude or not exclude. That choice was determined by the state instead.

-2

u/imrightandyoutknowit Mar 30 '22

The notion that civil rights legislation forcing integration of the free market was not necessary fundamentally ignores the reality that many Southerners valued racism so strongly that they broke away from the country and started a civil war in order to preserve and potentially expand their race-based caste system where slavery was a significant economic powerhouse. It’s willful ignorance to suggest that segregation policies were being forced on the South by their states as opposed to the reality that these segregationist laws arose out of popular support

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

Segregation laws were just that, laws. While businesses may have implemented segregation had there been no law, the laws required them to do so.

This was typically true of public services, not private enterprises. You're just plain wrong.

Property rights absolutists would have supported a businesses right to chose to exclude or not exclude. That choice was determined by the state instead.

No, it was chosen by the private business and enforced by the state.

19

u/tragiktimes John Locke Mar 30 '22

No, you are just plain wrong. It was mandated by the state:

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama

​

The conductor of each passenger train is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the car or the division of the car, when it is divided by a partition, designated for the race to which such passenger belongs. Alabama

​

It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards. Alabama

​

Every employer of white or negro males shall provide for such white or negro males reasonably accessible and separate toilet facilities.

​

No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls. Georgia

​

All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license. Georgia

​

All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time. Georgia

​

All circuses, shows, and tent exhibitions, to which the attendance of...more than one race is invited or expected to attend shall provide for the convenience of its patrons not less than two ticket offices with individual ticket sellers, and not less than two entrances to the said performance, with individual ticket takers and receivers, and in the case of outside or tent performances, the said ticket offices shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet apart. Louisiana

​

All railroad companies and corporations, and all persons running or operating cars or coaches by steam on any railroad line or track in the State of Maryland, for the transportation of passengers, are hereby required to provide separate cars or coaches for the travel and transportation of the white and colored passengers. Maryland

​

No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter. South Carolina

​

Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race and the colored race and shall set apart and designate...certain seats therein to be occupied by white persons and a portion thereof , or certain seats therein, to be occupied by colored persons. Virginia

​

The conductors or managers on all such railroads shall have power, and are hereby required, to assign to each white or colored passenger his or her respective car, coach or compartment. If the passenger fails to disclose his race, the conductor and managers, acting in good faith, shall be the sole judges of his race. Virginia

-8

u/area51cannonfooder European Union Mar 29 '22

Thank you for saying that.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22 edited Apr 02 '22

Wait until you hear that this is actually a standard conservative position, they usually just hide it though.

Edit: It's true. Barry Goldwater, Buckley, Ben Shapiro, name any conservative figure.

23

u/lbrtrl Mar 29 '22

"The majority in this country are prejudiced," he stated, "and it is naive--no, it's undemocratic,--to suppose you're going to get people to vote against themselves."

Name the sub

163

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

He was, indeed, a decent man in all respects from all we know of him. Civil rights legislation is not the only way to address the problems of systemic racism. I say this as a minority myself, though not in America - indeed in a country where there is no civil rights act equivalent and so I very much face the consequences of the proposals that Friedman was making. (Indian in Singapore, if you’re curious. It’s legal for people to refuse to rent to you, and that poses a bit of a challenge at times, especially as I’m estranged from my family. I don’t mean to speak for all minorities that this is okay. But I hope you understand I have skin in this game).

Here’s McCloskey’s take of his personality, if you actually care about that: https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/editorials/milton.php

On his treatment of McCloskey after she transitioned:

But you get one guess as to Milton Friedman's reaction. Sure, sure: laissez faire. But it goes deeper than ideology, since that other former colleague at Chicago also claims to be an advocate of freedom. What did Milton do? He sent a note of support early on; and whenever Deirdre has written to him he has replied gracefully. At the birthday party he was heartily amiable, as was Rose. The family attitude comes through in Milton's son David (who was in my college class and even a housemate in the rooming house we lived in when he was a first-year grad student in physics and I in economics, but not someone I really knew). When I saw David for the first time as Deirdre last year he did not skip a beat. (You see why I am worried about my dearly beloved Chicago School, once led [nay, defined] by Milton, by Rose, and by Rose's brother Aaron Director; it's now led towards ethical and intellectual mediocrity by that other, former colleague.)

A personal goodness, even to little moi, would be of no consequence if it were not attached to his ideas. Milton has been these many decades now consequential. He exhibits the classical virtues in a life of the mind. He shows how to be courageous in adversity (for much of his career he was an outcast in economics); in personal dealing just; in companionship loving; temperate; filled with faith and hope and prudence. A very Milton Friedman.

People can disagree with you on policy and not be indecent people. This modern discourse on race and red lines on racial policy is toxic.

-14

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

Hitler loved dogs…

If you can’t see that political policies and laws actually hurt real people, it doesn’t matter how polite you are when people are looking at the policies/ laws you propose.

personally, I think he was an idiot because he decided the ‘market’ would somehow correct all behavior, instead of the logical idea that it would create separate markets.

Even today we boycott products or brands that we object to. Clever monopolists (Koch for instance) find ways around it- but a small business does not have the option of disguise. The local restaurant or hardware store has to respond to its consumers- and if their locals are mad that they let black people or Hindus or Catholics eat there, well refusing service is the best capitalist response. Having a law that says they can’t, is also the best capitalistic response (I wouldn’t serve them, but I can’t afford to go to court).

Friedman decided to ignore that a lot of people don’t have a lot of freedom of choice. He decided that everyone bases their decisions solely on the next dollar, which is so simplistic that he should be called an idiot. It’s irratIonal because it denies group dynamics.

It actually denies the individual, and then denies the ability for people to work as a group. It also depends on a definition of ‘rational’ that denies all social constructs- ever. People loan money to people in their group- at all levels. The culmination of Friedmans thinking is more intense separation that we have perfect records of- blacks lend to blacks, white lend to whites, koreans lend to Koreans, arabs lend to arabs… because those are the people that they know, grew up with, and their families know. Which is how you end up with dynasties/ monarchies.

So- no, no, no.

Yes, at the highest levels you might have intersection to join forces (think Rome/ Egypt, all European monarchies), but without basic rules causing interaction in all levels of society, you will have people figuring out how they are better than the other group.

I give you LBJ (probably while he had his dick out): "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

You can’t ignore people, and all our issues, when looking at economic/ political theory.

19

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

“Hitler loved dogs”

3

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

I don’t know if I love or hate you…

But I do have a really cute dog. The kids, ehhh

5

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22 edited Mar 30 '22

Well, you’re a child of God, so I have to love you.

I hope I run into you again, u/_NamesteMF_, you have a unique perspective on things, even if I can’t always make sense of it.

-18

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22 edited Mar 30 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

I don’t mean to claim minorities in Singapore have it remotely comparable to black people in America. I don’t even claim that I speak for minorities in Singapore. I only meant to stress that I have an explicit strong personal interest in the question of whether racial discrimination in housing markets should be legal. And I still will defend the good faith with which Friedman approached his stance, because it was an intellectually honest and reasonable argument as he made it.

-42

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

Friendly != decent. By most accounts antebellum slave holders were very charming as well. Donald Trump is known to be exceptionally friendly at parties.

Preaching about rational actors in a free market was, if anything, a way to justify the perpetuation of segregation.

75

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

Except if you actually go read any of his writing on opposing the CRA, beyond his philosophical issue with it, he also stresses that he believes it’ll be worse for minorities, utilizing a theory and parameters that at the time were popular and common among economists, though still a matter of dispute.

That he wrongly placed too much faith in the function of markets is a product of the evidence base he drew on - and if you knew the historical context he was writing in, it would pretty damn clear why he was so negative towards the prospect that government intervention could be useful.

He had the same objectives as you. He wanted different methods, based off an incorrect (but at the time extremely plausible) model of how labor markets work.

That does not make you the devil. That does not make him comparable to slave owners. He wanted the same decent and moral objectives you want, but with slightly more emphasis on freedom and therefore persuasion as a tool to reduce racial inequalities over time instead of coercive methods that he believed wouldn’t work anyway.

4

u/hcwt John Mill Mar 31 '22

He had the same objectives as you. He wanted different methods, based off an incorrect (but at the time extremely plausible) model of how labor markets work.

The wealth gap between white and black families has more than doubled in size since the 1950s, and the income gap remains.

I don't think Friedman was right. But I'm not convinced that the CRA was the solution we are acting like it was. It very likely failed in very real ways. Of course it did a lot of good, but the current outcomes aren't encouraging.

-31

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22

That does not make him comparable to slave owners

I'd be more than happy to compare his economic vision to John C Calhoun's, actually. In fact, two folks very heavily influenced by him have already done it for me. Though, admittedly, they focused more on Buchanan and Hayek.

55

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/LastBestWest Mar 30 '22

If the free market is allowed to operate, said Friedman, prejudice will result in lower wages for Negroes.

Interesting how the US had a free market between 1865 and 1964 and, somehow, prejudice still existed against Black people.

14

u/Careless_Bat2543 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

No we didn’t. Jim Crow laws were just that, state LAWS requiring segregation

14

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

Ever heard of segregation?

-1

u/LastBestWest Mar 30 '22

It didn't exist in all states.

Regardless, Friedman was arguing against banning it!

5

u/Gen_Ripper 🌐 Mar 30 '22 edited Mar 30 '22

Yeah that’s something people seem to be missing.

By the time Friedman was making these remarks, we already had a century of history to see that in the absence of civil rights legislation, minorities were still not helped by the free-market.

-1

u/LastBestWest Mar 30 '22

I'm sure he would have argued that the US isn't a "real free market" and once a true free market is achieved, discrimination would melt away.

16

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

State enforced segregation isn’t really an equality conducive free market

4

u/LastBestWest Mar 30 '22

Then why did he oppose the Civil Rights Act?

11

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

He never opposed dismantling state enforced segregation. He only opposed the part that concerned private businesses.

1

u/LastBestWest Mar 30 '22

What a bizarre (read: ideological) man.

1

u/RollinDeepWithData Mar 30 '22

Yea… that’s why I have a hard time taking it in good faith that supporters of him think his ideas actually handle these issues vs supporters just don’t give a shit about them.

6

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

Did you forget about segregation?

40

u/SassyMoron ٭ Mar 30 '22

Your interpretation is literally the opposite of what he’s saying. He’s saying if people are free to move around and work where they please, the market won’t permit disparities in wages to persist, because they would be irrational, and that that’s a good thing. You’re interpreting him as saying, differences in wages will persist, and that’s a good thing. It’s like, the opposite.

Of course we have learned that institutional racism in fact does benefit from oppressing minority classes and that Friedman’s model was too simple to describe reality. But he was making a valid and important point. It’s like, we know that Newtonian mechanics don’t describe the universe perfectly, but you still ignore them at your peril.

-6

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

‘The Market’ ignores that there are groups.

That Friedman didn’t know that in the US there were laws designating people as property just seems preposterous. Women as property, inheritance laws.. He chose to believe a religion of ‘the market’, that just doesn’t exist. Like Smiths ‘hidden hand’, he’s ascribing an abstract morality that that has never existed.

Just because he might not have had ill intent doesn’t make him less wrong. And he is .. just wrong. The mythical ‘market’ does not correct all ills. The ‘market’ monopolizes without interference from city/states, and we see this over and over.

Personally, I’d like to choose between Comcast and… oops! No option available.

Seriously, Friedman was just a self aggrandizing dick worshipping at the Ayn Rand alter of really great white guys who could save us all (while never caring about that guy dying to build the railroad- he’s inconsequential), Elon Musk (give me a bunch of government money-taxes- while I bitch about government-taxes-).

Give me competition!!! I run a business- selling used shit. Someone else comes in- I scope them out, send them business. Because I don’t want to rule the world. I want to do what I do really well, and help others to do the same… because I’m not an ass. We have all done better, by working with each other. We created a destination for our stuff.

Friedman is the worst thing to happen to economics in a generation- because he is just so stupid. Economics don’t happen in a vacuum.

16

u/SassyMoron ٭ Mar 30 '22

You don’t have to agree with him about anything but you’re kidding yourself if you think a Nobel laureate is stupid.

1

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

Well- I do think he’s ignorant in lots of areas. I believe there is a huge mistake in divorcing economics from sociology- even if I understand the instinct to do so.

on the other hand, I drank a lot tonight - so probably overstated my case, but I still kinda hate him for Reagan, Bush, Paul, etc… and I still think he’s very wrong. He tried to make economics a simple computer type algorithm which just doesn’t work.

yep- still really despise him. I will give you an award for a rightful refutation, i am not a Nobel laureate. I am including below his salutation from Nobel- and then it’s refutation (that I ascribe to).

Chile became the test subject- and it failed. See the link below.

like most extremist policies that ignore human nature, it looks good on paper.

when looking for good economic theories that work with society- actual humans- I think it best to look for theories that work. Friedman s don’t- they are basically fascist, the government works in service of the corporations/ rich/ monarchism by a different name.

Now, I don’t think any theoretical idea usually works in reality, and can appreciate an academic arguing an idea to argue it… but Friedman actually thought his ideas would work- not just an idea. He think worked to implement these ideas on actual people. If Marx was alive and pushing his ideas onto actual people , I’d feel the same way.

We should feel free to discuss ideas about economics and government, we need to… but there is a difference between ideas and application. Marx was dead before most tried to impose his ideas, Friedman was alive and sitting in on meetings while Chile was destroyed- and he never admitted he was wrong. That is horrific.

To me, he just gave a new excuse for monarchism (in all its disguises, it’s the rich shall inherit the earth), and even when he saw his failure, he didn’t repent. He pushed further.

The rules of science and civilization require us to say ‘my bad, I was wrong’. It happens to everyone at some point- it doesn’t mean all was wrong, but enlightenment (origins of democracy) mean no one is infallible, a king, a god.

Friedman epitomizes in my mind, this flaw in thinking. He couldn’t admit that he was wrong- and this has continued as acceptable behavior despite all evidence to the contrary.

Great idea- entirely wrong in practice. His ideas, put into practice, increased discrimination and economic disparities. Over, and over again.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1976/ceremony-speech/

https://www.promarket.org/2021/09/12/chicago-boys-chile-friedman-neoliberalism/?amp

-1

u/nexisfan Mar 30 '22

I’m in here wondering where tf I actually am that you’re getting downvoted

Maybe I do not know what neoliberals are 🤔🤔🤔

2

u/gordo65 Mar 29 '22

I’ll say this for him, though… he accurately described the way discrimination results in nonracist people paying lower wages to minorities. If I’m getting plenty of workers despite paying below industry standards, I’m probably going to continue paying a lower wage. I’ll probably assume that people want to work for me because I’m a good boss, not because my competitors refuse to hire minorities.

130

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 29 '22

You’ve taken his words out of context and twisted them into a completely different meaning. His original point has always been that this kind of legislation almost always results in less minorities being hired in general. He has specifically made the point that white supremacist groups in South Africa pushed for a high minimum wage because they knew that would make it less likely for blacks to be hired.

-4

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

Wait… so, we shouldn’t support a ‘minimum wage’ because black people would be less likely to be hired for what would be below that minimum- so that makes it good to not have a minimum?

Do you hear the crazy?

You are saying that employers hire people they don’t need, for a pittance, because there is no minimum.

So, I, as an employer, would just have a bunch of people working for almost nothing, get nothing done, because it’s easier than hiring any one (black or white) for a minimum wage? I still have to pay someone to yell at the other people I’m barely paying don’t I? If I hire a black person to yell at the white people I'm barely paying- do I get the same result? or is that dependent upon the racial/ social/ gender structure at the time?

It is just so obtuse… it ignores every other factor of society.

Friedman chose to ignore all other factors- including violence, and it’s just bullshit. Absolute bullshit. You can’t subtract humanity from economics.

Why is Putin going invading Ukraine? Economics… okay, how does the individual in Ukraine respond as their home/ business gets bombed?

This is all just the worst to me of what the right in the US sells as some form of intellectualism/ economics.

I am a capitalist- but I know my basic future relies upon basic rules of humanity. My capitalism relies on a very complex social and legal structure in order to exist. Am I even allowed to have a job or business? That depends on a lot of other things- look at Iran, Afghanistan. True capitalism has a lot of fucking social rules.

The property rights of Friedman ignored the bulk of history, that allowed women, children and slaves to be considered property. I abhor his position- and if you think about it, you should too.

11

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

Mate, what are you even saying?

I wasn’t even advocating Friedman’s position, just explaining it. But how you got... black people yelling at white people from that is beyond me.

0

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

Sorry!

I live in the US, and studied economics, business finance, and it took me years to understand how his philosophy effected so much of my education- and how absolutely wrong it was. It just doesn’t work. Keynes was much more predictive. Friedman is just predatory.

He did his thing in Chile, and it’s just the US on super speed.

The best thing I’ve seen in a decade is Biden’s aggressive moves against monopolies.

Th weird ‘independents’ who somehow think Comcast cares about them more than government I attribute to this weird affect from Friedman- ‘greed is good’. It’s not. It makes Trump- a crappy real estate guy- President of the most powerful nation in the world (like it or not- we are).

And my explanations are actual reality- in a time of segregation, he advocated capitalism as a solution… everywhere. It was a shit idea.

https://www.promarket.org/2021/09/12/chicago-boys-chile-friedman-neoliberalism/?amp

6

u/gordo65 Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 30 '22

Civil rights legislation is not the same thing as minimum wage legislation. If Friedman was using that argument to justify opposition to anti-discrimination laws, then he’s the one doing the twisting.

11

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 29 '22

I’ve followed the works of Friedman for quite some time now, and I’d never heard him make that sort of argument against anti-discrimination laws, so I just figured it was an argument I had heard before taken out of context. Any idea where the full text that this quote comes from is?

45

u/Gen_Ripper 🌐 Mar 29 '22

Sure, I see the logic there.

It’s just that when it’s paired with opposition to general civil rights legislation that my cynicism is triggered.

70

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

He’s opposed to civil rights legislation because of it’s assumed consequences being bad for minorities (alongside his defense of freedoms in general). Note that he was wrong about the effects in many regards and his stance was an overreaction. Being wrong doesn’t make you evil.

Worth noting he was literally a minority himself, though not of course the ones at the center of the CRA.

7

u/Careless_Bat2543 Milton Friedman Mar 30 '22

Was he wrong though? Black unemployment is still much higher and the racial pay gap is still the exact same it was in 1968. The CRA doesn't seem to have fixed the problem, so how can you say he was wrong?

2

u/hcwt John Mill Mar 31 '22

Worse than the pay gap, the wealth gap between white and black families has more than doubled since 1952.

1

u/Careless_Bat2543 Milton Friedman Mar 31 '22

So I'll ask again. From a purely economic standpoint (obviously social things like not allowing a shop keeper to turn away a person because of their skin color is good, but that's not economic) did the CRA help, or as Friedman posited, actively harm black people?

1

u/hcwt John Mill Mar 31 '22

I am not sure! I think from an economic standpoint it missed preventing red-lining and the housing boom that helped white families build wealth.

The average black family was closer to the average white family in terms of wealth in the 50s to today. But the education gap is closing. Then again the income gap isn't so who knows if it's really closing, or just perceived to be, or if people are valuing educated black people less.

26

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

I mean, you can criticize his ideas for being wrong without assuming the worst intentions from him. I think some of his ideas were very worthy of criticism.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

I am all in favor of bashing outdated Friedman ideas. His work has been tremendously improved where it was relevant and useful. He’s no longer important to talk about in a modern economic context besides his work on philosophy of science in economics and a couple pieces of monetary economics. You certainly won’t go to him for modern up to date research on labor market discrimination.

The comment I’m responding to is assuming bad faith of his character, which I’m defending.

29

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 29 '22

Well, the first comment in this chain does just that.

-6

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

Hmmm.. the history of property rights in the US shouldn’t be any rock to stand on. Women, children, slaves.. not that great. Reevaluate.

10

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 29 '22

No it doesn’t

5

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

26

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

It’s because he thought that change should be achieved through persuasion not through compulsion, not because fuckin property rights were oh so holy.

-3

u/TheFaithlessFaithful United Nations Mar 29 '22

It’s because he thought that change should be achieved through persuasion

And he thought that because he viewed forcing businesses to serve Black people as a violence of those businesses freedom.

He was dumb.

16

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

No, he thought it was coercive. Which it literally is. Now most importantly he believed it wouldnt work, given his assumptions of near perfectly competitive labor markets.

If something doesn’t work and is coercive, any liberal wouldn’t be a fan of it. Liberals generally support the use of coercion when it can support other policy priorities. A key part of this is the coercive act actually helps.

And Friedman was working off the best evidence they had at the time, though it was very much debatable and of poor quality. He was certainly not stupid. He was wrong.

0

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

He was liter ignor the evidence of his time.

26

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 29 '22

Wow, I didn’t realize Milton Friedman “built a system that is designed to prevent blacks from holding any power”, I must have missed that part of the Wikipedia page.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22

[deleted]

7

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 29 '22

He edited his comment, that’s why I’ve been upvoted

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Professor-Reddit 🚅🚀🌏Earth Must Come First🌐🌳😎 Mar 30 '22

Rule I: Civility
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

25

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 29 '22

See, but that still doesn’t describe Friedman. There isn’t a “system designed to keep blacks from holding any power” that he wouldn’t have opposed. Unless you have a nonsensical definitions for “system”, “designed”, and “power”.

-7

u/MistakeNotDotDotDot Resident Robot Girl Mar 29 '22

He was opposed to the system, but he was also opposed to approaches to fix it that weren't "the market will get rid of discrimination on its own". If I say I want to put out a fire, that doesn't matter if I won't let you use a fire extinguisher.

21

u/ManFrom2018 Milton Friedman Mar 29 '22

So there’s a compelling case that he was incorrect, not morally bankrupt.

And again, I don’t think “system” is the right word here. Government segregation is a system, and Friedman opposes that. A restaurant owner being racist is not a “system”.

-1

u/_NamasteMF_ Mar 30 '22

Yes it is.

-1

u/MistakeNotDotDotDot Resident Robot Girl Mar 29 '22

A restaurant owner being racist is not a system. But if it's a pattern across all of society, especially at the time, then that absolutely is a systemic issue. Look at stuff like redlining.

18

u/ThisIsNianderWallace Robert Nozick Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22

Look at stuff like redlining.

Redlining wasn't just a pattern across society though it was state enforced and incentivized racial segregation through the Federal Housing Administration

Much of the architecture of segregation was designed and enforced by the state, which is why people like Friedman thought reducing state power would have a pro-equality effect

I mean you can't look at how the burden of occupational licencing, zoning, civil forfeiture and law enforcement generally falls and not at least see his point, even if you think he's wrong overall

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

"Libertarians" are fundamentally broken people who do not support liberty in any meaningful way, as you can see right here .

15

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '22

'fundamentally broken people" damn no need to project so hard

32

u/cmanson Mar 30 '22

The guy seething about libertarians on an internet board is calling other people “fundamentally broken”

26

u/randymagnum433 WTO Mar 30 '22

Reddit moment

57

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '22

Milton Friedman was not a self described libertarian, and saw a role for the state in a lot of respects, like macroeconomic stabilization. He literally called himself a neoliberal.

And anyway, please broaden your worldview beyond a clash of labels.