So what's that a video of? Can't see anything at work.
Milton Friedman responding to Phil Donahue's criticism of capitalism as a less virtuous way to organize society because "it runs on and promotes greed." Friedman disputes the notion that economic self-interest is somehow less noble than political self-interest.
I don't always agree with Friedman, but it's a classic clip. So spot on.
So what's that a video of? Can't see anything at work.
Milton Friedman responding to Phil Donahue's criticism of capitalism as a less virtuous way to organize society because "it runs on and promotes greed." Friedman disputes the notion that economic self-interest is somehow less noble than political self-interest.
I don't always agree with Friedman, but it's a classic clip. So spot on.
Right. This is what has me intrigued when you talk about the real issue being the individual vs. the....establishment for lack of a better word. That's not the word you use though.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
So what's that a video of? Can't see anything at work.
Milton Friedman responding to Phil Donahue's criticism of capitalism as a less virtuous way to organize society because "it runs on and promotes greed." Friedman disputes the notion that economic self-interest is somehow less noble than political self-interest.
I don't always agree with Friedman, but it's a classic clip. So spot on.
Right. This is what has me intrigued when you talk about the real issue being the individual vs. the....establishment for lack of a better word. That's not the word you use though.
There it is. Anti-establishmentarianism just didn't sound very thodoksian.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
4/5 wrote:
That thread was pretty interesting.
I just brought it up because my friend (who is reading the Hazlitt book) maintains his anti-capitalism stance because it promotes greed. So we've spent a lot of times semi-drunkenly debating the difference between self-interest and greed, whether capitalism is the cause of that greed or human nature is to blame, etc.
The funny thing is, a lot of times avid "free-marketeers" are at fault for spreading the idea that free markets are about money and the like exclusively. Actively ignoring negative externalities, or protesting policies that seek to curtail them without proposing alternate solutions, is the example coming to me at this time.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
That broad playing Palin in the HBO version looks like a dead ringer. Ed Harris looks like a very convincing John McCain, as well.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Only two chapters in, but this book is incredible. It's up there with Tainter's book on complexity as far as intellectually foundational books go.
From a review:
Quote:
...Neo-classical theory has evolved into an incredibly elaborate, increasingly rigorous, ever-expanding construction. Yet the whole edifice rests on shaky foundations. As Nelson and Winter put it, ‘orthodoxy builds a rococo logical palace on loose empirical sand.’ Their basic objection is simple: orthodoxy neglects or misconceives the role of information in economic life. This refers not only to the fact that information-gathering is costly, and that there is a trade-off between collecting information and using it. It refers more fundamentally to the fact that we do not know what that trade-off is. Leif Johansen, whose recent death was a great loss to the economic profession, once offered the following illustration: ‘It is like going into a big forest to pick mushrooms. One may explore the possibilities in one limited region, but at some point one must stop the exploration and start picking because further exploration as to the possibilities of finding more and better mushrooms would defeat the purpose of the outing. One must decide to stop on an intuitive basis, i.e. without actually investigating whether further exploration would have yielded better results.’ In other words, there is a process of search that stops when one has found something that is good enough, or ‘satisfactory’, without it being assumed that what has been found is in any way ‘optimal’.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm Posts: 12287 Location: Manguetown Gender: Male
Hayek would be proud.
_________________ There's just no mercy in your eyes There ain't no time to set things right And I'm afraid I've lost the fight I'm just a painful reminder Another day you leave behind
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
from thodoks' excerpt a couple posts up
Quote:
It refers more fundamentally to the fact that we do not know what that trade-off is.
This reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld and Frank Knight. It's also a lot of what makes life good. A world of perfect competition and perfect information would be a boring hell.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum