And I agree with what you say about Friedman's beliefs, with the exception of your comment about money supply. I think he believed it was the key factor in determining price levels, and was a (but not the) key factor in determining a society's wealth. I think he believed the key factor was how free people are to pursue their self interests.

At the risk of beating this to death, there are two main risks to free markets. First is the risk of excessive government intervention and second is the risk of special interests (including but not limited to businesses) warping markets in their favor. It's difficult to maintain the right balance because politics plays such a large role. Of the two risks, the former is often relatively popular - as is the case today - while the latter is always unpopular but difficult to guard against.

I once attended an undergrad econ class at Stanford with Dr. Friedman making a guest appearance. He spoke briefly and answered questions. He believed that markets were more rational than any single individual and he believed they had an intrinsic natural discipline that served to operationally rationalize markets. That's why he was such a strong advocate of free markets and minimal government. He was a fan of Adam Smith. However, he felt that money supply was the key factor in determining a society's wealth. Again, always examine the underlying assumptions--this was Greenspan's self-admitted flaw.

Protectionist is not a bad word.  You have a family with a couple of kids running around--you protect your family. You love the kids on the street and you think the world of the other families and you think they're great people. But I'm not going to sacrifice my own children because it benefits somebody else on the street. I protect my family. We protect our neighborhood. Our neighborhoods protect our cities. On and on, stretch that out: we should protect our country.

-------------------------------------

Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.

I did not, thanks for pointing that out. This is unreal and the projected 10% for 2009, 2010 looks like it's going to be low...

We need a super aggressive jobs program and one thing I notice not mentioned is keeping jobs in the U.S.

The minute anything about putting one's domestic labor force first the pundit zombies scream "protectionism".

Well, since when does increasing a middle class group, stable income, mean bad news for a national economy or even hurt a global economy. one just grew the consumer base in that process, so I suspect these screaming walking dead
are completely opposite in their assumptions of what does what.

if this is what you are saying, that is what his post is saying as well. One must have a regulatory framework, a check and balance system with capitalism.

In terms of politeness well, now you are all offended when you attacked NDD's post originally, with out any justification.

In large part, these stories of struggle have escaped the nation's collective memory. They need to be kept alive, because they tell a simple truth. That, despite the protestations of the neo-liberal Right to the country (too much I say)that it is those that those who fight bank against the market are the radicals, those who oppose the course of nature itself with violence. That in fact, the "free"market was made by the state, by violence, and over the beaten and bloodied bodies of men like these. That May Day, is an American holiday, to commemorate the massacre of American workers in the city of Chicago.

By denying us our past, the condemn to a dim future. By shining light on how this world they made came into being, we can change it. There is an alternative.

Keep it up.

If you somehow infer that I 'do not understand how the industrial revolution and other technological innovations raised all standards of living' than I can only conclude you did not read my post, where I made that exact point.

I provided examples of how the poor are better off and you have ignored them. You say ‘no one is arguing against free enterprise,’ but earlier you said that the ‘middle class only came into being when government stepped in.’ I believe that ignores history. In fact, I believe the middle class would be much better off with less government. (But I not saying there should be no government.)

It looks like we both agree that a framework of government stability and regulation is necessary. You seem to think, however, that it is the framework itself that leads to prosperity while I believe it simply enables free enterprise to create prosperity. A subtle difference, perhaps, but it makes all the difference.

Finally, you warn against trolls but then you accuse me of knowing only what I hear from talk radio. Considering you don’t know anything at all about me, other than the few dozen words I have posted here, that is an unwarranted ad hominem attack. I hope you’re not so rude to your other guests.

to me is when one claims because man is greed ridden that is a motivator to have unregulated pure capitalism is missing the point of what greed alone will wrought. Where as Madison also acknowledged the power hungry, greed ridden man but by creating a series of checks and balances, opposing powers it keeps it all in check and government, regulation is that balance, that check to the greed and power of capitalism. In other words regulated capitalism works much better.

The same is true with societies, why we have laws and systems to deal with "out of bounds" behaviors...it's a set of rules with consequences if one breaks those rules to have trust in society so it can operate smoothly.

See "The Rise & Fall" exerpt: http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/publications.taf?function=de...