Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Galraedia

(5,025 posts)
Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:11 AM Jun 2013

The Problem With Libertarianism In One Dumb Milton Friedman Quote

Recently a Libertarian friend of mine posted on Facebook this gem of a quote:

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.


I’ve come across this Milton Friedman quote several times before and it always brings a smile to my face because it sums up Libertarianism as a whole.

Milton Friedman was a prominent economist and Nobel laureate who made important contributions to monetary theory. But he was also doggedly committed to unfettered capitalism to the extent that he advocated allowing racial discrimination, which is the final logical conclusion of free market idealism. He’s basically the male Ayn Rand…but better at writing fiction.

So what’s wrong with this particular Milton Friedman quote. First of all, sand is actually kind of awful. Indeed, human civilization was founded in the Arabian and Saharan deserts for the sole purpose of removing sand from people’s lives. If anything government is about creating a shortage of sand and accomplished it with aplomb. So…thanks government! (Not to mention that desertification is one of the greatest environmental threats facing the globe — so maybe we could use some government sand removal)

Read more: http://recessappointment.com/2012/08/07/the-problem-with-libertarianism-in-one-dumb-milton-friedman-quote/
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Problem With Libertarianism In One Dumb Milton Friedman Quote (Original Post) Galraedia Jun 2013 OP
"The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. longship Jun 2013 #1
Yes, and all about the Republicans' m.o. as well. nt SunSeeker Jun 2013 #2
K & R MinM Jul 2013 #3
I agree. The book of the decade. reusrename Jul 2013 #4
Milton Friedman's economic extremism MinM Jul 2013 #5
Milton Friedman was an evil man and a crackpot to boot. n/t duffyduff Jul 2013 #6
Back in the 1980s, PBS gave him a whole series to expound his nonsense Lydia Leftcoast Jul 2013 #7

longship

(40,416 posts)
1. "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.
Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:19 AM
Jun 2013

A stupendously great read.

The Shock Doctrine (Wiki)

I read it twice in a row. Once wasn't enough.

You'll know all about Milton Friedman before you're done.

MinM

(2,650 posts)
3. K & R
Mon Jul 1, 2013, 08:07 AM
Jul 2013

Naomi Klein and the 'Shock Doctrine' cannot be recommended enough.

On the other end of the spectrum -- from Chicago to Chile -- Milton Friedman will never be ostracized enough.

 

reusrename

(1,716 posts)
4. I agree. The book of the decade.
Mon Jul 1, 2013, 12:08 PM
Jul 2013

Sometimes I think that's where the breakdown occurs in these discussions. I would almost bet that the Snowden/Greenwald detractors have never read 'The Shock Doctrine' and are just uniformed about how the world operates.

MinM

(2,650 posts)
5. Milton Friedman's economic extremism
Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:26 AM
Jul 2013
@Salon: Neoliberalism has made capitalist slaves of us all: How we're still paying for Milton Friedman's economic extremism http://slnm.us/O3wgWaz

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
7. Back in the 1980s, PBS gave him a whole series to expound his nonsense
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:56 PM
Jul 2013

It was called "Free to Choose."

An example of his "thinking":

He compared UCLA (a state school) and USC (an expensive private school) and noted that a higher percentage of USC students than UCLA students graduated in four years. His conclusion: USC students valued their education more because they (yeah, right, they, not their parents?) had to pay for it, while the UCLA students were a bunch of slackers who didn't value their education because it was too inexpensive.

As a professor at the (private and expensive) University of Chicago, Friedman never seems to considered that maybe UCLA students were taking longer to graduate because they were less affluent and had to take jobs to pay their tuition.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Problem With Libertar...