Take a look:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
Or here:
Rational Wiki on Milton Friedman
-
What's wrong with them? They're incomplete but we can't expect them to cover his scientific contributions thoroughly. If you're not hero-worshipping, Friedman was a smart economist and also an ideologue who had some kooky ideas to which he didn't apply the same careful scrutiny he brought to economics. The article illustrates that okay.
-
What's wrong with them? They're incomplete but we can't expect them to cover his scientific contributions thoroughly. If you're not hero-worshipping, Friedman was a smart economist and also an ideologue who had some kooky ideas to which he didn't apply the same careful scrutiny he brought to economics. The article illustrates that okay.
Libertarians often name-drop Chicago school economists in an attempt to prove that their politics have some "scientific" basis. However, among the hardcore economic types, there is often infighting among the Chicago school followers and the Austrians. This is most evident in the Ludwig von Mises Institute's accusations that the Cato Institute isn't really libertarian. The Chicago school economists, however, have been far more influential in actual policy circles and haven't produced high-profile activists within the Libertarian Party like the Austrians did with Murray Rothbard. This has led the Austrians and anarcho-capitalists to refer to the Chicago and Cato types as "Beltway libertarians."
reminder: academic economics is best understood as a battle between various "schools" of economics (Chicago, Austrian, Marxist, feminist, Keynesian, etc) just like sociology is a battle between functionalism, symbolic interactionism, postmodernism, structuralism, poststructuralism, critical theory, neorealism, etc
-
The section on Chile is pretty much the low intellectual quality you'd expect. No recognition of the fact that the 1982 crisis was actually the collapse of a very non-Friedmanlike monetary policy - namely a fixed exchange rate. (Friedman being the friggin guy famous for writing "The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates" in 1953.) Or the fact that, um, today Chile is the richest and most successful Latin American country, which is always an awkward point in these discussions.
(Yes, I know that the strongest period of growth happened in Chile after Pinochet left - this is entirely consistent with Friedman's views, since post-Pinochet Chile actually continued liberalizing the economy. Friedman was pro-market and pro-democracy.)
-
its staggering how leftists just ignore this. And its not even that they have some argument for why Chile isnt doing as well as people think - they literally just dont believe that the success of Chile today is relevant when it comes to assessing the economic/political events and policies that shaped its current state. All that matters is that the nice left wing Chilean people who wanted to do nice things got beaten by the big evil capitalists who killed people (!!!) and thats bad and evil and wrong. Thats genuinely the level of discourse here.Or the fact that, um, today Chile is the richest and most successful Latin American country, which is always an awkward point in these discussions.
-
Libertarians often name-drop Chicago school economists in an attempt to prove that their politics have some "scientific" basis. However, among the hardcore economic types, there is often infighting among the Chicago school followers and the Austrians. This is most evident in the Ludwig von Mises Institute's accusations that the Cato Institute isn't really libertarian. The Chicago school economists, however, have been far more influential in actual policy circles and haven't produced high-profile activists within the Libertarian Party like the Austrians did with Murray Rothbard. This has led the Austrians and anarcho-capitalists to refer to the Chicago and Cato types as "Beltway libertarians."
reminder: academic economics is best understood as a battle between various "schools" of economics (Chicago, Austrian, Marxist, feminist, Keynesian, etc) just like sociology is a battle between functionalism, symbolic interactionism, postmodernism, structuralism, poststructuralism, critical theory, neorealism, etcYeah, portrayal of economics as a set of competing schools is annoying, but it's endemic in the popular understanding of the subject. When I interact with non-economists, I often get asked what "school" I am, which is a subtle and pretentious way of asking what my politics are (aside from ignoring that econ is a lot more than macro no giod p).
But you can hardly single out this article as an egregious example. And if you read it carefully, it's really describing rival economic schools of libertarians. In fact, libertarians are the primary offenders perpetuating the clashing schools perception of economics. Just look at how often they rant about "Keynesians."
-
What's wrong with them? They're incomplete but we can't expect them to cover his scientific contributions thoroughly. If you're not hero-worshipping, Friedman was a smart economist and also an ideologue who had some kooky ideas to which he didn't apply the same careful scrutiny he brought to economics. The article illustrates that okay.
Really? You just see nothing wrong with those two articles?
-
We should blitzkrieg-edit the articles.
I don't want them folks coming over to this website. Let them mellow in their filth.Why should they know who is doing the blitz?
Let's do it. We can relegate the controversy to some dumb little corner.It was attempted earlier on wikipedia but it didn't get much participation. Wikipedia is filled with aspies (most of whom not experts in the subjects) who will report you to the admins (biggest aspies in the world, with too much time on their hands) if you change the image of a wikiproject or some minor stuff. Trying to fix the entries for economics on this site would be even harder as it seems it is only maintained by 2 regular-users, and its small niche audience.
-
We should blitzkrieg-edit the articles.
I don't want them folks coming over to this website. Let them mellow in their filth.
Why should they know who is doing the blitz?
Let's do it. We can relegate the controversy to some dumb little corner.It was attempted earlier on wikipedia but it didn't get much participation. Wikipedia is filled with aspies (most of whom not experts in the subjects) who will report you to the admins (biggest aspies in the world, with too much time on their hands) if you change the image of a wikiproject or some minor stuff. Trying to fix the entries for economics on this site would be even harder as it seems it is only maintained by 2 regular-users, and its small niche audience.
We actually made the comparative advantage article a LOT better.
This would only require one user to write up an article ahead of time and blitz-edit it.
I don't think, if enough facts were used, that a solid edit would get denied. The entire CA wiki article pretty much stuck, after all.
-
^ Some aspie editor changed "free trade" in the comparative advantage article to "free market" because that's the term used in one of the sources cited by the entry. Someone else keeps trying to add back in material about Ha-Joon Chang and development. Give it enough time and they'll ruin the article again.
-
^ Some aspie editor changed "free trade" in the comparative advantage article to "free market" because that's the term used in one of the sources cited by the entry. Someone else keeps trying to add back in material about Ha-Joon Chang and development. Give it enough time and they'll ruin the article again.
So call them out on the talk page. For gods sake if you are an economist use some credentials.