Milton Friedman Puts A Young (and skinny) Michael Moore In His Place
- Thread starter thesniper
- Start date
I understand... Your view is, basically, that people who choose totalitarian regimes get precisely what they have asked for and what they deserve. However, what about the thousands/millions of people in other countries who die trying to save their people from the totalitarian regimes that favor expansion? 416.8 thousand American military casualties in WWII. Not that I am suggesting a direct connection, but let's try this logic on for size. Do you think those lives (and others) are a good price to pay for the capitalist business cycle and the cleaning out of excess and corruption?
I am not suggesting I know the answer and I am not judging or anything like that. I am just trying to understand the logic.
What I think doesn't matter it is what the society believes in that molds it's future. WWII was a very popular war and victory outweighed it's cost in the eyes of the people. Vietnam and Iraq not so. Sentiment reflects the direction of the people and what doctrine they are willing to embrace.
Who was WWII very popular with? Nobody that I have ever known who fought and certainly none of their children.
Have you ever visited Omaha/Juno/Utah Beaches? It's a worthwhile experience. I highly recommend it.
Huh? I didn't use the term "popular".
At any rate, I am pretty sure you see my point. If you had magical economic policies that could have prevented the Great Depression and, by extension, the Great War that followed, would you avoid them because they interfere with the "creative destruction" of capitalism?
Priceless indeed. Friedman is full of it. He posed the question, what if Ford had to pay $200 million to repair the defect, what then? The key word is defect. The fact that the car had a defect makes it inappropriate to knowingly market regardless of the cost/benefit. Ford subjected their customers to risks that they were aware of but that the customers were not. There is nothing "subtle" about that, whatever Uncle Milty may think.
Why does capitalism mean that they have to sell crap and it's only a question of how much they'll have to pay to victims? Does Friedman not know the managerial accounting and microeconomic concept of sunk cost? What about other cars on the road at the time that did not have such a known (to the manufacturer) defect? How did they manage to get produced? Why could Ford just not go back to the drawing board and compete with other comparatively safe cars being produced? Ford fucked up and tried to get away with it, and here's Milton, posing as their front man.
Products with known and potentially dangerous defects are now recalled as a matter of course, as they should be, rather than companies playing "Shh! Let's see what happens." Otherwise, there is genuine hell to pay, again, as it should be. Companies should not be playing math with known but undisclosed and potentially deadly defects. Friedman made so many bullshit strawman arguments it was hard to keep track. Friedman is full of Rand.
Yeah, I don't think that Pinto owners would have made the auto selections they did had they known what was wrong with the car. And I doubt they would have minded spending the additional $13 or whatever for the correction of a potentially deadly defect. Yet Friedman appeared to be defending Ford. Perhaps I missed it, so could you direct me to the point where Friedman specifically says customers should be made aware of potentially deadly defects? If you tell me how far along in the exchange he points this out, then I will stand somewhat corrected.