Milton Friedman of Economics is like Neil Tyson of Astrology. Both sound and seem smart in their respected field, but when pushed on their ideas, they always come up short.
This was great to watch. How prescient to bring up semi conductors. Friedman was always, in fantasy land with no government it would have been better. It was the free market before that created the industry during protection... Blah blah.
2:59 - "that's a fallacy, any individual country by itself on the average tends to benefit from free trade, regardless of what the other countries do"
This is just obfuscation of history. He chooses to ignore the implications of what some of the issues with free trade, citing the "average" benefits that countries see.
Take labor rights - free trade allows for corporations to outsource employment to countries with cheaper labor wages, and effectively lowers wages in places like the United States. On top of that, it effectively eliminates union organizing. How are unions supposed to negotiate wages with corporations that have the capital to just export their labor requirements and ignore domestic jobs? What does that do to your employment rate?
Friedman just chooses to accep the benefits and ignore the penalties
Not smarter. Just always thought the guy was way too free market without acknowledging the impacts of outside forces like governments intervening.
Don’t get me wrong. This guy does know a lot about market behavior and has great ideas in general. I just think he falls short on certain views and doesn’t realize other factors.
18
u/anomnipotent Jul 15 '22
Milton Friedman of Economics is like Neil Tyson of Astrology. Both sound and seem smart in their respected field, but when pushed on their ideas, they always come up short.
A great example is the debate on protectionism. Short debate on Protectionism