The idea that politics and economics exist in separate universes is a fraud.
This is how they sold the Federal Reserve.
What did that do for the US economy? The Treasury prints bonds (paper) that the Fed buys with their dollars (paper). This “magic” is suppose to improve our “economy”? It is a political scam.
He was most probably referring to the eastern bloc where all economic decisions are taken by the state but it’s not very different in the west. Power begets power, so it’s not really possible to separate both.
In a democratic setting people can theoretically elect non-wealthy leaders, but in practice it’s unavoidable that the wealthy will have some kind of advantage at their disposal.
And goes on to prescribe a system to achieve that.
Best argument against capitalism
Is the implication here that the people who own all the companies I will ever work for, rent a home from, buy all my products and services should largely go unregulated? Because then political power is policing/controlling economic power?
Why would I want a legion of people who’s interests are diametrically opposed to my own have their power gone unchecked? That sounds like a much more certain path toward tyranny. Politicians are elected by the people, the people who own everything are elected by no one.
Makes sense if that means Politicians shouldn’t be wealthy titans of industry. But that dude was terrible
economic power is political power
I absolutely do not agree with this, nor anything Milton Friedman said. Historical data also shows he is wrong. Put the power of the economy and politics in the hands of the people and let us democratically run society for once.
He was objectively wrong about everything economics, and all of his economic plans have proven disastrous. He was the primary architect of the neoliberal hellhole we know find ourselves in.
In practice, oligarchy and kleptocracy aren’t really different.
Billionaires/oligarchs/kleptocrats are an abomination, and should not exist.
Corporations structured as oligarchies should be heavily penalized as compared to corporations that are democratically structured, with protections and power built in for the public interest.
And land and housing ownership should be progressively taxed (if not criminally barred), to make parasitism/kleptocracy related to the hoarding of land and housing (by foreign and domestic parasites/kleptocrats) a losing economic strategy.
Ideally, one wants separation of power in any system.
Omnipotent government that controls the majority of industry is bad as those in office will tend to hoard resources for themselves without any checks to their power (Russia, China, Venezuela, etc.).
Monarchy is bad because royalty and nobles hoard resources.
Capitalism plus democracy is the best system but when a subset of the population obtains too much wealth (new oligarch) and have disproportionate influence on legislators—that is also bad. Ideally we’d be taxing wealth of ultra high net worth individuals to limit their influence, breaking up mega corporations/banks/financial institutions to promote competition, giving those running for office equal exposure to voice their agenda, and limiting or eliminating contributions from individuals or corporations. People should be rewarded for their hard work financially but the top 10% should really only have 100-1000x the wealth that of the bottom 10%. Above that and they have too much influence and the masses become disenfranchised. Taxing wealth above that threshold also keeps politicians from accumulating too much wealth and influence.
Friedman’s warning about the dangers of concentrated power highlights the importance of distinguishing between governance and politics. In an ideal system, governance focuses on serving the public good, while politics involves the competition for power. Governance and politics mostly tend to over lap the more corrupt the government is. Well executed government empowers the citizenry and the institutions, not the personal whims of politicians or judges, or the people bribing them.
11 comments
The idea that politics and economics exist in separate universes is a fraud.
This is how they sold the Federal Reserve.
What did that do for the US economy? The Treasury prints bonds (paper) that the Fed buys with their dollars (paper). This “magic” is suppose to improve our “economy”? It is a political scam.
He was most probably referring to the eastern bloc where all economic decisions are taken by the state but it’s not very different in the west. Power begets power, so it’s not really possible to separate both.
In a democratic setting people can theoretically elect non-wealthy leaders, but in practice it’s unavoidable that the wealthy will have some kind of advantage at their disposal.
And goes on to prescribe a system to achieve that.
Best argument against capitalism
Is the implication here that the people who own all the companies I will ever work for, rent a home from, buy all my products and services should largely go unregulated? Because then political power is policing/controlling economic power?
Why would I want a legion of people who’s interests are diametrically opposed to my own have their power gone unchecked? That sounds like a much more certain path toward tyranny. Politicians are elected by the people, the people who own everything are elected by no one.
Makes sense if that means Politicians shouldn’t be wealthy titans of industry. But that dude was terrible
economic power is political power
I absolutely do not agree with this, nor anything Milton Friedman said. Historical data also shows he is wrong. Put the power of the economy and politics in the hands of the people and let us democratically run society for once.
He was objectively wrong about everything economics, and all of his economic plans have proven disastrous. He was the primary architect of the neoliberal hellhole we know find ourselves in.
In practice, oligarchy and kleptocracy aren’t really different.
Billionaires/oligarchs/kleptocrats are an abomination, and should not exist.
Corporations structured as oligarchies should be heavily penalized as compared to corporations that are democratically structured, with protections and power built in for the public interest.
And land and housing ownership should be progressively taxed (if not criminally barred), to make parasitism/kleptocracy related to the hoarding of land and housing (by foreign and domestic parasites/kleptocrats) a losing economic strategy.
Ideally, one wants separation of power in any system.
Omnipotent government that controls the majority of industry is bad as those in office will tend to hoard resources for themselves without any checks to their power (Russia, China, Venezuela, etc.).
Monarchy is bad because royalty and nobles hoard resources.
Capitalism plus democracy is the best system but when a subset of the population obtains too much wealth (new oligarch) and have disproportionate influence on legislators—that is also bad. Ideally we’d be taxing wealth of ultra high net worth individuals to limit their influence, breaking up mega corporations/banks/financial institutions to promote competition, giving those running for office equal exposure to voice their agenda, and limiting or eliminating contributions from individuals or corporations. People should be rewarded for their hard work financially but the top 10% should really only have 100-1000x the wealth that of the bottom 10%. Above that and they have too much influence and the masses become disenfranchised. Taxing wealth above that threshold also keeps politicians from accumulating too much wealth and influence.
Friedman’s warning about the dangers of concentrated power highlights the importance of distinguishing between governance and politics. In an ideal system, governance focuses on serving the public good, while politics involves the competition for power. Governance and politics mostly tend to over lap the more corrupt the government is. Well executed government empowers the citizenry and the institutions, not the personal whims of politicians or judges, or the people bribing them.