What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 賵丕賱丨乇賷丞
賮賽賷 賴賻匕賴賽 丕賱鬲購賾丨賮賻丞賽 丕賱乇賻賾丕卅賽毓丞賽 賷賻毓乇賽囟購 賲賷賱鬲賵賳 賮乇賷丿賲丕賳 丕賱氐購賾賵乇丞賻 丕賱賳賽賾賴丕卅賽賷丞賻 賱賽賮賻賱爻賻賮鬲賽賴賽 丕賱丕賯鬲賽氐賻丕丿賽賷丞賽 丕賱鬲賽賷 賰賻丕賳賻 賱賴賻丕 兀賻亘毓賻丿購 丕賱兀賻孬賻乇貨 鬲賽賱賰賻 丕賱爻賽賾賷丕爻丞賽 丕賱鬲賽賷 鬲購毓賻丿購賾 賮賽賷賴賻丕 丕賱乇賻賾兀爻賲賻丕賱賷丞購 丕賱鬲賻賾賳丕賮購爻賽賷丞購 兀賻丿賻丕丞賸 賱鬲賻丨賯賽賷賯賽 丕賱丨購乇賽賾賷丞賽 丕賱丕賯鬲賽氐賻丕丿賽賷丞賽 賵卮賻乇賿胤賸丕 兀爻賻丕爻賽賷賸賾丕 賱賱丨購乇賽賾賷丞賽 丕賱爻賽賾賷丕爻賽賷丞. 賵丕賱賲購丨氐賽賾賱丞購 賰賽鬲丕亘賹 賷賻鬲賲賷賻賾夭購 亘爻購賴賵賱賻丞賽 丕賱賮賻賴賲賽 亘賽賷毓賻 賲賽賳賴購 賲丕 賷賻乇亘購賵 毓賻賱賶 賳賽氐賮賽 賲賽賱賷購賵賳賽 賳購爻禺賻丞賺 亘丕賱賱購賾睾丞賽 丕賱廿賽賳噩賱賽賷夭賽賷丞貙 賵鬲購乇噩賽賲賻 廿賽賱賶 孬賻賲丕賳賽賷賻 毓賻卮賿乇丞賻 賱購睾賻丞貙 賵鬲購卮賽賷乇購 丕賱鬲賻賾賵賯購賾毓丕鬲購 廿賽賱賶 兀賻賳 兀賻孬乇賻賴購 賷賻夭丿賻丕丿購 毓購賲賯賸丕 亘賲購乇賵乇賽 丕賱賵賻賯賿鬲.
220 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 1962
1819 people are currently reading
37470 people want to read
About the author
Milton Friedman
186听books1,610听followersMilton Friedman was an American Nobel Laureate economist and public intellectual. He made major contributions to the fields of economics and statistics. In 1976, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy. He was an advocate of economic freedom.
According to The Economist, Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century...possibly of all of it". Former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan stated, "There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people."
Source: Wikipedia
According to The Economist, Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century...possibly of all of it". Former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan stated, "There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people."
Source: Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 967 reviews
December 10, 2010
This book is an interesting case of modern day sophistry 鈥� where the worse argument is made to appear the better. If one needed proof that much of modern economics is an exercise in ideology and self-interested appeals on behalf of the obscenely wealthy then this book provides ample evidence.
The French Revolution was fought under a flag of three colours and for three causes, Libert茅, 茅galit茅, fraternit茅 鈥� Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood. Friedman is only interested in what he refers to as freedom. He rails against equality as all liberals (in the traditional definition of that term) tend to. It is hard to imagine anything more mean-spirited than such a person. Naturally, this freedom he is so fond of generally equates to a freedom for the majority to have less while the few are given much more. He says the opposite, of course, but decades of the applications of his prescriptions have turned America into a grossly and increasingly unequal society. Should a theorist be held responsible for the consequences of their theories? If Marx is to be held responsible for Soviet Russia then Friedman is much more responsible for the state of current day America. Even the so called 鈥榣eft鈥� 鈥� as in the Democrats in the US, the Labour Party in Britain and the Labor Party in Australia all look to 鈥榤arket-based鈥� solutions to problems.
Neo-liberals and neo-conservatives will complain that Friedman鈥檚 ideas have never been fully implemented and that this is why we have so much trouble today 鈥� if you ever want to create a utopian vision splendid my suggestion is to follow Plato鈥檚 example in the Republic 鈥� make the society you envision so impossible to implement that your followers can always claim some vital element has been left out and so never properly applied. Here we have a government whose sole role is supplying the police and army 鈥� both mostly to protect the interests of property. All other government activity (even printing money and registering doctors) is either fundamentally wrong and needs to be done by the private sector or should be presumed dangerous and in need of constant vigilance.
I was keen to see what he might say about monopolies 鈥� given he appears obsessed with 鈥榗ompetition鈥� I thought he might discuss the benefits of anti-trust laws, for example. But how foolish of me. The only monopolies he was actually concerned about are those of trade unions. Individuals are all that matter, while trade unions are an example of 鈥榗ollectivism鈥� and therefore enough to have him fuming and spitting fire.
It is remarkable how rarely he supports any of his assertions with anything other than the boldness of his claims. One of my favourite examples was towards the end where he discusses the effect of government subsidies in the US on cotton growers overseas 鈥� I won鈥檛 go into the details of the argument, it is even one of the few I would tend to agree with him on, but he says, 鈥淭he list of similar cases could be multiplied.鈥� Well, yes, obviously 鈥� given that he gave but one example they could hardly be divided.
Here is yet another commentator who presents himself as a scientist and his social theories as self-evident truths, rather than the ideological sophistry they really are. I hadn鈥檛 realised just how radical this guy was 鈥� no wonder he disliked being called a conservative. There is little he is seeking to conserve and much he is seeking to overturn.
The French Revolution was fought under a flag of three colours and for three causes, Libert茅, 茅galit茅, fraternit茅 鈥� Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood. Friedman is only interested in what he refers to as freedom. He rails against equality as all liberals (in the traditional definition of that term) tend to. It is hard to imagine anything more mean-spirited than such a person. Naturally, this freedom he is so fond of generally equates to a freedom for the majority to have less while the few are given much more. He says the opposite, of course, but decades of the applications of his prescriptions have turned America into a grossly and increasingly unequal society. Should a theorist be held responsible for the consequences of their theories? If Marx is to be held responsible for Soviet Russia then Friedman is much more responsible for the state of current day America. Even the so called 鈥榣eft鈥� 鈥� as in the Democrats in the US, the Labour Party in Britain and the Labor Party in Australia all look to 鈥榤arket-based鈥� solutions to problems.
Neo-liberals and neo-conservatives will complain that Friedman鈥檚 ideas have never been fully implemented and that this is why we have so much trouble today 鈥� if you ever want to create a utopian vision splendid my suggestion is to follow Plato鈥檚 example in the Republic 鈥� make the society you envision so impossible to implement that your followers can always claim some vital element has been left out and so never properly applied. Here we have a government whose sole role is supplying the police and army 鈥� both mostly to protect the interests of property. All other government activity (even printing money and registering doctors) is either fundamentally wrong and needs to be done by the private sector or should be presumed dangerous and in need of constant vigilance.
I was keen to see what he might say about monopolies 鈥� given he appears obsessed with 鈥榗ompetition鈥� I thought he might discuss the benefits of anti-trust laws, for example. But how foolish of me. The only monopolies he was actually concerned about are those of trade unions. Individuals are all that matter, while trade unions are an example of 鈥榗ollectivism鈥� and therefore enough to have him fuming and spitting fire.
It is remarkable how rarely he supports any of his assertions with anything other than the boldness of his claims. One of my favourite examples was towards the end where he discusses the effect of government subsidies in the US on cotton growers overseas 鈥� I won鈥檛 go into the details of the argument, it is even one of the few I would tend to agree with him on, but he says, 鈥淭he list of similar cases could be multiplied.鈥� Well, yes, obviously 鈥� given that he gave but one example they could hardly be divided.
Here is yet another commentator who presents himself as a scientist and his social theories as self-evident truths, rather than the ideological sophistry they really are. I hadn鈥檛 realised just how radical this guy was 鈥� no wonder he disliked being called a conservative. There is little he is seeking to conserve and much he is seeking to overturn.
October 19, 2020
One of the most destructive books ever written
Officer Barbrady: 鈥瀁es, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of s**t, I am never reading again.鈥�
No, of course, I will keep on reading forever, don麓t worry.
Most of why it麓s so stupid has been/will be described in my reviews of books by Naomi Klein, David Graeber, others, and the rants about Hans Roslings麓 Factfulness and Steven Pinkers麓 Enlightenment now.
It麓s one of those evil books one might ask to how many people it brought suffering, poverty, and a terrible life until an unnecessary, early death. Let麓s make a thought experiment:
Let麓s say that the Keynesian model stayed and established stable, fair democracies all over the world, strong Nordic model utopias where everybody is happy. Influenced by that, natural destruction, poverty in the Southern hemisphere, climate change, and all the other problems we are facing right now are not nearly as bad and can be solved. So how many people live better lives in such an alternate universe?
I would really like to do the math, but it麓s a bit tricky, so let麓s say that this idiotic economic, political, and social systems keep running for some more years, close to the 22nd century, when there will possibly be up to an 11-digit number of people on the planet. Even if we just take a small amount of these, just one percent of 10 billion, 100.000.000 people that have horrible existences, it麓s a crime against humanity of unimaginable dimensions. But we are right now, at this moment, accepting and ignoring that billions of people are dying, suffering, and despairing without any other purpose than to make the rich richer.
All politics is part of the problem at the moment, the only change can come from the civil society and NGOs, only engagement in those is useful, real democracy doesn麓t exist anymore.
The freaking maddest thing about this bonkers ideology faith bad science nightmare is that nobody talks, debates, analyses, thinks,... openly about Hayek and his fanatic soldier Friedman, that the foundation of the corpocracy we are all living in is nothing to openly quarrel about, because it麓s like law, it麓s like faith, it麓s a total dogma that has infected and weakened close to all Western puppet democracies for decades and is at the moment destroying the whole nature of this only earth at a never before seen speed while boiling it at the same time.
Because of much talk and discussion about the replication crisis with friends and in general, I will add these thoughts to all following nonfiction books dealing with humanities in the future, so you might have already seen it.
Sorry folks, this is one of my last rants, I am sick and tired of this and want to focus on true science and great fiction instead, not this disturbed fairytales for adults who never had the chance to built a free opinion because most of the media they consume to stay informed and get educated avoids any criticism of the current economic system.
Without having read or heard ideas by Chomsky, Monbiot, Klein, Ken Robinson, Monbiot, Peter Singer, William McDonough, Ziegler, Colin Crouch, Jeremy Rifkin, David Graeber, John Perkins, and others, humans will always react to people like me, condemning the manipulation Friedman was practicing with terrifying success, with anger and refusal.
These authors don麓t hide aspects of the truth and describe the real state of the world that should be read instead of epic facepalms like this. They don麓t predict the future and preach the one only, the true way, ignoring anything like black swans, coincidences or the, for each small child logical, fact that nobody knows what will happen, and collect exactly the free available data people such as Friedman wanted to ignore forever.
Some words about the publication crisis that even have some positive points at the end so that this whole thing is not that depressing.
One could call the replication crisis the viral fake news epidemic of many fields of science that was a hidden, chronic disease over decades and centuries and has become extremely widespread during the last years, since the first critics began vaccinating against it, provoking virulent counterarguments. I don麓t know how else this could end than with nothing else than paradigm shifts, discovering many anachronisms, and a better, fact- and number based research with many control instances before something of an impact on the social policy gets accepted.
A few points that led to it:
I had an intuitive feeling regarding this for years, but the replication crisis proofed that there are too many interconnections of not strictly scientific fields such as economics and politics with many humanities. Look, already some of the titles are biased towards a more positive or negative attitude, but thinking too optimistic is the same mistake as being too pessimistic, it isn麓t objective anymore and one can be instrumentalized without even recognizing it.
In natural sciences, theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, physicians鈥� that were friends of a certain idea will always say that there is the option of change, that a discovery may lead to a new revolution, and that their old work has to be reexamined. So in science regarding the real world the specialists are much more open to change than in some humanities, isn麓t that strange?
It would be as if one would say that all humans are representative, similar, that there are no differences. But it麓s not, each time a study is made there are different people, opinions, so many coincidences, and unique happenings that it麓s impossible to reproduce it.
Scandinavia vs the normal world. The society people live in makes happiness, not theoretical, not definitive concepts.
One can manipulate so many parameters in those studies that the result can be extremely positive or negative, just depending on what who funds the study and does the study wants as results.
One could use the studies she/ he needs to create an optimistic or a pessimistic book and many studies about human nature are redundant, repetitive, or biased towards a certain result, often an optimistic outcome or spectacular, groundbreaking results. Do you know who does that too? Statistics, economics, politics, and faith.
I wish I could be a bit more optimistic than realistic, but not hard evidence based stuff is a bit of a no go if it involves practical applications, especially if there is the danger of not working against big problems by doing as if they weren麓t there.
A few points that lead away from it:
1. Tech
2. Nordic model
3. Open data, open government,
4. Blockchains, cryptocurrencies, quantum computing, to make each financial transaction transparent and traceable.
5. Points mentioned in the Wiki article
6. It must be horrible for the poor scientists who work in those fields and are now suffering because the founding fathers used theories and concepts that have nothing to do with real science. They worked hard to build a career to just find out that the predecessors integrated methods that couldn麓t work in other systems, let's say an evolving computer program or a machine or a human body or anywhere except in ones麓 imagination. They are truly courageous to risk criticism because of the humanities bashing wave that won麓t end soon. As in so many fields, it are a few black sheep who ruin everything for many others and the more progressive a young scientist is, the more he is in danger of getting smashed between a hyper sensible public awareness and the old anachronism shepherds, avoiding anything progressive with the danger of a paradigm shift or even a relativization of the field they dedicated their career to. There has to be strict segregation between theories and ideas and applications in real life, so that anything can be researched, but not used to do crazy things.
The worst bad science practice includes, from Wikipedia, taken from the article about the replication crisis:
1. The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is, as of 2020, an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social sciences and medicine most severely.[
2. The inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work. The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the field of psychology and in medicine, where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results
3. A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments).[8] In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did.
4. 鈥濸sychological research is, on average, afflicted with low statistical power."
5. Firstly, questionable research practices (QRPs) have been identified as common in the field.[18] Such practices, while not intentionally fraudulent, involve capitalizing on the gray area of acceptable scientific practices or exploiting flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting, often in an effort to obtain a desired outcome. Examples of QRPs include selective reporting or partial publication of data (reporting only some of the study conditions or collected dependent measures in a publication), optional stopping (choosing when to stop data collection, often based on statistical significance of tests), p-value rounding (rounding p-values down to 0.05 to suggest statistical significance), file drawer effect (nonpublication of data), post-hoc storytelling (framing exploratory analyses as confirmatory analyses), and manipulation of outliers (either removing outliers or leaving outliers in a dataset to cause a statistical test to be significant).[18][19][20][21] A survey of over 2,000 psychologists indicated that a majority of respondents admitted to using at least one QRP.[18] False positive conclusions, often resulting from the pressure to publish or the author's own confirmation bias, are an inherent hazard in the field, requiring a certain degree of skepticism on the part of readers.[2
6. Secondly, psychology and social psychology in particular, has found itself at the center of several scandals involving outright fraudulent research,
7. Thirdly, several effects in psychological science have been found to be difficult to replicate even before the current replication crisis. Replications appear particularly difficult when research trials are pre-registered and conducted by research groups not highly invested in the theory under questioning.
8. Scrutiny of many effects have shown that several core beliefs are hard to replicate. A recent special edition of the journal Social Psychology focused on replication studies and a number of previously held beliefs were found to be difficult to replicate.[25] A 2012 special edition of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science also focused on issues ranging from publication bias to null-aversion that contribute to the replication crises in psychology.[26] In 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published, called the Reproducibility Project. Researchers from around the world collaborated to replicate 100 empirical studies from three top psychology journals. Fewer than half of the attempted replications were successful at producing statistically significant results in the expected directions, though most of the attempted replications did produce trends in the expected directions.
9. Many research trials and meta-analyses are compromised by poor quality and conflicts of interest that involve both authors and professional advocacy organizations, resulting in many false positives regarding the effectiveness of certain types of psychotherapy
10. The reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals.[44] Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.
11. Highlighting the social structure that discourages replication in psychology, Brian D. Earp and Jim A. C. Everett enumerated five points as to why replication attempts are uncommon:[50][51]
12. "Independent, direct replications of others' findings can be time-consuming for the replicating researcher"
13. "[Replications] are likely to take energy and resources directly away from other projects that reflect one's own original thinking"
14. "[Replications] are generally harder to publish (in large part because they are viewed as being unoriginal)"
15. "Even if [replications] are published, they are likely to be seen as 'bricklaying' exercises, rather than as major contributions to the field
16. "[Replications] bring less recognition and reward, and even basic career security, to their authors"[52]
17. For these reasons the authors advocated that psychology is facing a disciplinary social dilemma, where the interests of the discipline are at odds with the interests of the individual researcher
18. Medicine. Out of 49 medical studies from 1990鈥�2003 with more than 1000 citations, 45 claimed that the studied therapy was effective. Out of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[58] The US Food and Drug Administration in 1977鈥�1990 found flaws in 10鈥�20% of medical studies
19. Marketing is another discipline with a "desperate need" for replication.[64] Many famous marketing studies fail to be repeated upon replication, a notable example being the "too-many-choices" effect, in which a high number of choices of product makes a consumer less likely to purchase.[65] In addition to the previously mentioned arguments, replication studies in marketing are needed to examine the applicability of theories and models across countries and cultures, which is especially important because of possible influences of globalization.
Continued in comments
Officer Barbrady: 鈥瀁es, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of s**t, I am never reading again.鈥�
No, of course, I will keep on reading forever, don麓t worry.
Most of why it麓s so stupid has been/will be described in my reviews of books by Naomi Klein, David Graeber, others, and the rants about Hans Roslings麓 Factfulness and Steven Pinkers麓 Enlightenment now.
It麓s one of those evil books one might ask to how many people it brought suffering, poverty, and a terrible life until an unnecessary, early death. Let麓s make a thought experiment:
Let麓s say that the Keynesian model stayed and established stable, fair democracies all over the world, strong Nordic model utopias where everybody is happy. Influenced by that, natural destruction, poverty in the Southern hemisphere, climate change, and all the other problems we are facing right now are not nearly as bad and can be solved. So how many people live better lives in such an alternate universe?
I would really like to do the math, but it麓s a bit tricky, so let麓s say that this idiotic economic, political, and social systems keep running for some more years, close to the 22nd century, when there will possibly be up to an 11-digit number of people on the planet. Even if we just take a small amount of these, just one percent of 10 billion, 100.000.000 people that have horrible existences, it麓s a crime against humanity of unimaginable dimensions. But we are right now, at this moment, accepting and ignoring that billions of people are dying, suffering, and despairing without any other purpose than to make the rich richer.
All politics is part of the problem at the moment, the only change can come from the civil society and NGOs, only engagement in those is useful, real democracy doesn麓t exist anymore.
The freaking maddest thing about this bonkers ideology faith bad science nightmare is that nobody talks, debates, analyses, thinks,... openly about Hayek and his fanatic soldier Friedman, that the foundation of the corpocracy we are all living in is nothing to openly quarrel about, because it麓s like law, it麓s like faith, it麓s a total dogma that has infected and weakened close to all Western puppet democracies for decades and is at the moment destroying the whole nature of this only earth at a never before seen speed while boiling it at the same time.
Because of much talk and discussion about the replication crisis with friends and in general, I will add these thoughts to all following nonfiction books dealing with humanities in the future, so you might have already seen it.
Sorry folks, this is one of my last rants, I am sick and tired of this and want to focus on true science and great fiction instead, not this disturbed fairytales for adults who never had the chance to built a free opinion because most of the media they consume to stay informed and get educated avoids any criticism of the current economic system.
Without having read or heard ideas by Chomsky, Monbiot, Klein, Ken Robinson, Monbiot, Peter Singer, William McDonough, Ziegler, Colin Crouch, Jeremy Rifkin, David Graeber, John Perkins, and others, humans will always react to people like me, condemning the manipulation Friedman was practicing with terrifying success, with anger and refusal.
These authors don麓t hide aspects of the truth and describe the real state of the world that should be read instead of epic facepalms like this. They don麓t predict the future and preach the one only, the true way, ignoring anything like black swans, coincidences or the, for each small child logical, fact that nobody knows what will happen, and collect exactly the free available data people such as Friedman wanted to ignore forever.
Some words about the publication crisis that even have some positive points at the end so that this whole thing is not that depressing.
One could call the replication crisis the viral fake news epidemic of many fields of science that was a hidden, chronic disease over decades and centuries and has become extremely widespread during the last years, since the first critics began vaccinating against it, provoking virulent counterarguments. I don麓t know how else this could end than with nothing else than paradigm shifts, discovering many anachronisms, and a better, fact- and number based research with many control instances before something of an impact on the social policy gets accepted.
A few points that led to it:
I had an intuitive feeling regarding this for years, but the replication crisis proofed that there are too many interconnections of not strictly scientific fields such as economics and politics with many humanities. Look, already some of the titles are biased towards a more positive or negative attitude, but thinking too optimistic is the same mistake as being too pessimistic, it isn麓t objective anymore and one can be instrumentalized without even recognizing it.
In natural sciences, theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, physicians鈥� that were friends of a certain idea will always say that there is the option of change, that a discovery may lead to a new revolution, and that their old work has to be reexamined. So in science regarding the real world the specialists are much more open to change than in some humanities, isn麓t that strange?
It would be as if one would say that all humans are representative, similar, that there are no differences. But it麓s not, each time a study is made there are different people, opinions, so many coincidences, and unique happenings that it麓s impossible to reproduce it.
Scandinavia vs the normal world. The society people live in makes happiness, not theoretical, not definitive concepts.
One can manipulate so many parameters in those studies that the result can be extremely positive or negative, just depending on what who funds the study and does the study wants as results.
One could use the studies she/ he needs to create an optimistic or a pessimistic book and many studies about human nature are redundant, repetitive, or biased towards a certain result, often an optimistic outcome or spectacular, groundbreaking results. Do you know who does that too? Statistics, economics, politics, and faith.
I wish I could be a bit more optimistic than realistic, but not hard evidence based stuff is a bit of a no go if it involves practical applications, especially if there is the danger of not working against big problems by doing as if they weren麓t there.
A few points that lead away from it:
1. Tech
2. Nordic model
3. Open data, open government,
4. Blockchains, cryptocurrencies, quantum computing, to make each financial transaction transparent and traceable.
5. Points mentioned in the Wiki article
6. It must be horrible for the poor scientists who work in those fields and are now suffering because the founding fathers used theories and concepts that have nothing to do with real science. They worked hard to build a career to just find out that the predecessors integrated methods that couldn麓t work in other systems, let's say an evolving computer program or a machine or a human body or anywhere except in ones麓 imagination. They are truly courageous to risk criticism because of the humanities bashing wave that won麓t end soon. As in so many fields, it are a few black sheep who ruin everything for many others and the more progressive a young scientist is, the more he is in danger of getting smashed between a hyper sensible public awareness and the old anachronism shepherds, avoiding anything progressive with the danger of a paradigm shift or even a relativization of the field they dedicated their career to. There has to be strict segregation between theories and ideas and applications in real life, so that anything can be researched, but not used to do crazy things.
The worst bad science practice includes, from Wikipedia, taken from the article about the replication crisis:
1. The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is, as of 2020, an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social sciences and medicine most severely.[
2. The inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work. The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the field of psychology and in medicine, where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results
3. A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments).[8] In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did.
4. 鈥濸sychological research is, on average, afflicted with low statistical power."
5. Firstly, questionable research practices (QRPs) have been identified as common in the field.[18] Such practices, while not intentionally fraudulent, involve capitalizing on the gray area of acceptable scientific practices or exploiting flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting, often in an effort to obtain a desired outcome. Examples of QRPs include selective reporting or partial publication of data (reporting only some of the study conditions or collected dependent measures in a publication), optional stopping (choosing when to stop data collection, often based on statistical significance of tests), p-value rounding (rounding p-values down to 0.05 to suggest statistical significance), file drawer effect (nonpublication of data), post-hoc storytelling (framing exploratory analyses as confirmatory analyses), and manipulation of outliers (either removing outliers or leaving outliers in a dataset to cause a statistical test to be significant).[18][19][20][21] A survey of over 2,000 psychologists indicated that a majority of respondents admitted to using at least one QRP.[18] False positive conclusions, often resulting from the pressure to publish or the author's own confirmation bias, are an inherent hazard in the field, requiring a certain degree of skepticism on the part of readers.[2
6. Secondly, psychology and social psychology in particular, has found itself at the center of several scandals involving outright fraudulent research,
7. Thirdly, several effects in psychological science have been found to be difficult to replicate even before the current replication crisis. Replications appear particularly difficult when research trials are pre-registered and conducted by research groups not highly invested in the theory under questioning.
8. Scrutiny of many effects have shown that several core beliefs are hard to replicate. A recent special edition of the journal Social Psychology focused on replication studies and a number of previously held beliefs were found to be difficult to replicate.[25] A 2012 special edition of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science also focused on issues ranging from publication bias to null-aversion that contribute to the replication crises in psychology.[26] In 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published, called the Reproducibility Project. Researchers from around the world collaborated to replicate 100 empirical studies from three top psychology journals. Fewer than half of the attempted replications were successful at producing statistically significant results in the expected directions, though most of the attempted replications did produce trends in the expected directions.
9. Many research trials and meta-analyses are compromised by poor quality and conflicts of interest that involve both authors and professional advocacy organizations, resulting in many false positives regarding the effectiveness of certain types of psychotherapy
10. The reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals.[44] Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.
11. Highlighting the social structure that discourages replication in psychology, Brian D. Earp and Jim A. C. Everett enumerated five points as to why replication attempts are uncommon:[50][51]
12. "Independent, direct replications of others' findings can be time-consuming for the replicating researcher"
13. "[Replications] are likely to take energy and resources directly away from other projects that reflect one's own original thinking"
14. "[Replications] are generally harder to publish (in large part because they are viewed as being unoriginal)"
15. "Even if [replications] are published, they are likely to be seen as 'bricklaying' exercises, rather than as major contributions to the field
16. "[Replications] bring less recognition and reward, and even basic career security, to their authors"[52]
17. For these reasons the authors advocated that psychology is facing a disciplinary social dilemma, where the interests of the discipline are at odds with the interests of the individual researcher
18. Medicine. Out of 49 medical studies from 1990鈥�2003 with more than 1000 citations, 45 claimed that the studied therapy was effective. Out of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.[58] The US Food and Drug Administration in 1977鈥�1990 found flaws in 10鈥�20% of medical studies
19. Marketing is another discipline with a "desperate need" for replication.[64] Many famous marketing studies fail to be repeated upon replication, a notable example being the "too-many-choices" effect, in which a high number of choices of product makes a consumer less likely to purchase.[65] In addition to the previously mentioned arguments, replication studies in marketing are needed to examine the applicability of theories and models across countries and cultures, which is especially important because of possible influences of globalization.
Continued in comments
August 6, 2011
Live and (hopefully) Learn...Before reading this book, I thought I was a fairly strong proponent of both free markets and limited government. TURNS OUT...I WAS WRONG!! Uncle Milt believed down to his very core in the rightness of free markets and after reading his passionate treatise on the benefits of same, I find I am not quite as far along the boulevard of laissez faire as I originally thought.
Despite being under 250 pages, this is a dense, meaty work designed to summarize the arguments in favor of encouraging free markets and minimal government intervention by raising questions and presenting ideas formulated over Friedman鈥檚 extensive career as a Nobel Prize winning economist. Given the number of topics Friedman discusses, each one is addressed more in 鈥渟urvey鈥� fashion, with references to additional works in which the ideas are discussed at greater length. That said, there is certainly enough detail provided by Friedman to provide a persuasive description of his core values and the merits of the ideas under-pinning them.
While very well written, this is certainly not in the category of a pleasure read and it was at times a slog to get through. However, I found many of the ideas interesting and even when I couldn鈥檛 see myself getting to where Friedman wanted me to go, I could still understand where he was coming from and he always gave me cause to pause and re-evaluate. That鈥檚 really all I ever ask for in a work like this?
One big plus for me and one of the things I do want to praise about this book is its tone. Friedman, while confidant and passionate about his beliefs, is never derogatory or mean-spirited towards those who feel differently. The quickest way to get me to turn off of any book is to personally attack the other side (e.g., political hit pieces by the likes of Ann Coulter and Al Franken). Whenever I hear rabid, political trash talk like that, my first thought is that the author either is not smart enough to defend their position or their position doesn鈥檛 have much of a defense and so they simply foam at the mouth and make loud noises.
Well Friedman, to his credit, is respectful and argues issues, not people. Granted, he clearly thinks those that advocate 鈥渃entralized power鈥� and 鈥渂ig government鈥� are wrong and that their policies are disastrous. However, he assumes them to be 鈥渕en of good will鈥� and tries to persuade with the power of his ideas, rather than resort to meaningless personal attacks. Well done, sir. Well done.
As I mentioned above, there are 12 Chapters in the book (not counting the intro and the conclusion) so I thought I would identify and briefly describe each one so you can see the breadth of ideas/concepts Friedman discusses, many of which I did not anticipate going in.
Chapter 1: The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom
Oddly enough, this was my least favorite chapter in the book and had me off to a kind of meh start with Uncle Milt. In it, Friedman makes the case that 鈥渆conomic freedom,鈥� in addition to be necessary for its own sake, is a vital, necessary component of 鈥減olitical freedom.鈥� He argues that if the government controls the means of production, real dissent and the free exchange of ideas are impossible because dissenting groups can鈥檛 overcome the government鈥檚 ability to withhold the means by which their ideas are disseminated. While I find merit in Friedman鈥檚 statements, this was one of the few instances where he doesn鈥檛 provide evidential support for his position and so I didn鈥檛 find the case he made very strong.
Bonus Quote from Chapter 1
Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated -- a system of checks and balances.Chapter 2: The Role of Government in a Free Society
This is probably the chapter that would likely feel the most to the casual reader. It is a restatement of the foundation of the liberal (NOTE: that鈥檚 the 19th century usage of the term) position in favor of limited government. Friedman states that government鈥檚 role should limited to: (i) establishing and enforcing rules of a level playing field while protecting individual freedom and property rights; (ii) preventing, and if necessary eliminating, monopolies as they are coercive and destroy freedom; and (iii) performing functions necessary to avoid 鈥渘eighborhood鈥� effects. These 鈥渘eighborhood鈥� effects are instances where the action of one individual (e.g., company dumping toxic waste in river) imposes a significant cost on other individuals for which a 鈥渧oluntary鈥� or 鈥渇ree market鈥� exchange/compensation is not feasible. As you can imagine, this latter aspect can be very tricky because it becomes a matter of 鈥渨here do you draw the line.鈥� However, Friedman, to his credit, does an excellent job of providing policies that would prevent this from becoming a slippery slope.
Bonus Quote from Chapter 2
Fundamental differences in basic values can seldom if ever be resolved at the ballot box; ultimately they can only be decided, though not resolved, by conflict. The religious and civil wars of history are a bloody testament to this judgment. The widespread use of the [free] market reduces the strain on the social fabric by rendering conformity unnecessary with respect to any activities it encompasses.Chapter 3: The Control of Money
Here Uncle Milt lays out the case that the Federal Reserve, established in 1913 with the best of intentions, has done far more harm than good. Given the most recent economic downturn and the huge government bailout following the banking crisis, this idea has gained a lot of traction lately. Friedman, writing in 1962, uses the Great Depression and the Stock March Crash of 1929 as representative example of how the Federal Reserve and government intervention in the market in the form of the New Deal, actually prolonged and exacerbated the country鈥檚 financial problems. While this chapter was well done, it felt like a bit of a rehash for me since I had recently read , which goes through a similar analysis in greater detail. You can see my review of the book here:
Chapter 4: International Financial and Trade Arrangements
Friedman really impressed me with this chapter. Written in 1962, Friedman proposes a list of 7 policy directives that he thought should be implemented in regard to currency exchanges and international trade. At the time they were proposed, they were a plea for floating exchange rates and a complete repudiation of the then existing Bretton Woods system of currency control. Well, beginning just 9 years later, all 7 of Friedman鈥檚 policy directives were eventually adopted and today floating exchange rates are the norm throughout most of the world.
Chapter 5: Fiscal Policy
This chapter is a pretty scathing rebuke (though politely done) of the Keynesian position that government spending should be used to eliminate unemployment and 鈥渒eep the economic engines鈥� humming. The Keynesian approach is to view the government as a way to balance or 鈥渆ven out鈥� spending from the private sector. In other words, as private expenditures fall, government spending should rise to offset the drop and when private expenditures rise, government spending should be reduced. While government has bee great about increasing spending, I am less confident in its ability to subsequently reduce those expenditures leading me to agree with Friedman when he says, 鈥� Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
The philosophy of encouraging government spending is rooted in the belief of the Keynesian 鈥渕ultiplier鈥� effect of government spending. This holds (or at least held in 1962) that for every $100 in government spending, national income would rise by approximately $300. Friedman鈥檚 analysis contradicts this theory and I found it well stated and convincing. He finishes his argument with the following:
What we need is not a skillful monetary driver of the economic vehicle continuously turning the steering wheel to adjust to the unexpected irregularities of the route, but some means of keeping the monetary passenger who is in the back seat as ballast from occasionally leaning over and giving the steering wheel a jerk that threatens to send the car off the road.Chapter 6: The Role of Government in Education
Ah鈥�.vouchers. Clearly, one of the most divisive words in American politics over the last few election cycles. The mere mention of the word is enough to start an expletive laden political cat fight in which, of course, nothing gets accomplished. Well, whatever side of the issue you are on, it was refreshing to read Friedman鈥檚 thoughtful, non-vitriolic explanation of his position. Obviously, as a 鈥渇ree market鈥� guy, he was strongly in favor of vouchers and his reasons (whether you agree or disagree) are well stated and create a sound basis for reasonable debate. This is one of those areas that I am not sure where exactly I come out, but I always appreciate reasoned discourse on the subject.
I did disagree with at least one aspect of his discussion. In discussing the bureaucratic nature of the teaching industry he says:
With respect to teachers' salaries, the major problem is not that they are too low on the average鈥ut that they are too uniform and rigid. Poor teachers are grossly overpaid and good teachers grossly underpaid.I think salaries for teachers are not too low on average and I think that is part of the reason it is so tough to find enough good people to take up that profession. However, this was written back in 1962 and maybe the disparity wasn鈥檛 as pronounced then.
Chapter 7: Capitalism and Discrimination
This was one of the most intriguing chapters (along with the Chapter 9 on occupational licensure below) and yet it is a difficult one to summarize without giving the wrong impression. Friedman discusses how he believes the free market should deal with racism and discrimination and opposes, consistent with his free market ideals, government actions like 鈥渇air employment practices鈥� and 鈥渞ight to work laws鈥� because he believes they do more harm than good and violate the principles of freedom. He compares the requirement of considering criteria like race, color and religion as analogous in principle to the Nuremburg laws enacted by the Nazi鈥檚 during World War II.
He further argues that 鈥淎s a general rule, any minority that counts on specific, majority action to defend its interests is short-sighted in the extreme.鈥�
Friedman argues that the correct approach is to persuade our fellow man to be of like mind and win the battle in the marketplace of ideas where all truths eventually find expression if the freedom to express them is protected. I didn鈥檛 agree with everything that Friedman said and can鈥檛 ride along with him completely, but I thought he made his case very well and that his arguments were founded on principles of rightness and justice and so provide excellent food for thought.
Chapter 8: Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and Labor
This is a very dry chapter on the evils of both monopolies and coercive trade unions and that the proper role of government should be to prevent both as they impinge upon the freedom of citizens. According to Friedman, most monopolies come about as a result of 鈥渇avorable treatment by government鈥� towards one group (he used the railroads as an example) and that without government interference or generous handouts, monopolies would be for more rare. Food for thought.
Chapter 9: Occupational Licensure
This is Friedman at his most radical and I found this to be incredibly interesting to read even though I found I could not completely agree with his proposals. Friedman begins by laying out the 3 forms of government barrier to practicing in a particular occupation. The least restrictive is registration, which is simply putting your name on a list. For example, anyone who wants to sell firearms must be identified on a government list. This is purely informational and Friedman did not have a real issue with this because it does not act as a barrier.
The second level is 鈥渃ertification鈥� which, though more restrictive, is completely voluntary. It allows a person practicing in a particular industry to obtain a certification following enhanced training that they can advertise to their customers. This would include the CPA certification for accountants. Again, Friedman, with some reservations, is generally okay with this so long as the certification remains voluntary.
The third, and most restrictive is 鈥渓icensure鈥� which requires a state license in order to practice. This includes the medical and legal professions among others. Friedman is fervently against all form of licensure and in order to try and prove his case he uses the medical profession as it is the one that would seem to call for licensure more strongly. I give him credit for this as it would have been easier to set up a straw man for this proposition.
I can鈥檛 say he sold me on his ideas here, but I was surprised at how much 鈥渞oom for discussion鈥� there was when he was done. I certainly did not think he was off his rocker when he was done (a thought that did occur to me early on in the chapter). Definitely, an interesting discussion.
Chapter 10: Distribution of Income
Nothing new or ground-breaking here by today鈥檚 standards. However, considering it was written in 1962 when the top tax bracket was 91%, Friedman鈥檚 arguments in favor of a flat tax and a removal of 鈥渃orporate welfare鈥� were pretty out there.
Chapter 11: Social Welfare Measures
Chapter 11 and 12 really go hand in hand. Here is Chapter 11, Friedman argues that most of the government programs designed to help are inefficient, bureaucratically intensive and end up costing more and doing less good then they should. He argues there are more effective ways of getting 鈥渁ssistance鈥� to those that need it (see Chapter 12). He also takes particular aim at Social Security as a horribly unfair system. Not a whole lot that I found I disagreed with here are least in so far as the wasteful nature of government spending in these areas.
Chapter 12: Alleviation of Poverty
This is Friedman鈥檚 solution to the problems he exposes in Chapter 11. He proposes a 鈥渘egative income tax鈥� for people under a certain 鈥渢hreshold鈥� of income. Under a negative income tax scheme, anyone earning less than 鈥淴鈥� would receive a lump sum from the government bringing them up to an agreed upon 鈥渕inimum income level.鈥� Rather than a whole host of wastefully run government programs (subsidized housing, welfare, food stamps, etc.), that cost Billions a year 鈥渏ust to operate,鈥� these funds (along with tax receipts) could be redirected into cash payments that would provide greater assistance to those who need it.
I don鈥檛 know enough about the implications of such a program to know whether it is a truly workable system or whether there are significant drawbacks that would make it less attractive, but when I heard it鈥�.I 鈥�..LOVED鈥�..IT It seems like a simple, elegant solution and an appealing way to streamline government bureaucracy and still help those less fortunate to maintain a minimum standard of living.
CONCLUSION
Overall, this has to be considered one of the giant works of advocacy for both free markets and limited government. I found Friedman thoughtful throughout (even when I did not agree with him) and found this to be a work that can be viewed by people across the political spectrum without raising undo ire. I am giving this 4.0 stars overall, but certainly think a few of the chapters are 5 star worthy, including the final chapter.
4.0 stars. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
November 10, 2011
Friedman has constructed an airtight bubble of neoliberal thought where freedom is the greatest value, and everything makes sense and fits together rationally only because it has no connection whatsoever to any kind of historical context, much less the current social and political realities of our time. None. Period. It is as though neither history nor reality as it is experienced by the poor exist, an astonishing tour de force to explain why those with extreme wealth should feel happy and content and not the least bit guilty because exploitation really is to the benefit of all.
It depressed me to read this, and made me go back and give Hayek another star. Much as I disagreed with him and was saddened by his reduction of all socialist thought to what was essentially Stalinism, I could at least see him grappling with the very real issues of our world with some kind of integrity.
There is no integrity here I'm afraid. Instead Friedman says absurd things like
"This is a role of inequality of wealth in preserving political freedom that is seldom noted -- the role of the patron." [17] With these ideas he'll never lack one.
"children are at one and the same time consumer goods and potentially responsible members of society" [33] Consumer goods...I don't even have a comeback to that one. Luckily I don't need one.
"It is hard to see that discrimination can have any meaning other than a 'taste' of others that one does not share." [110] Good god, don't get me started on his views on race and why white people shouldn't have to interact with a Negro in their local store if they don't want to.
How unions harm the world at large [124]. The end of child labour and the 8 hour day are enough to start with as a riposte I think...
The evils of requiring medical doctors to be licensed. [149] Yep. Apparently one in a thousand quacks is actually on to something, and licensing reduces their abilities to experiment [157]. But now I begin to see why we need a large pool of really poor people.
And of course, the old familiar and expected standbys lifted directly from this book into attempts at policy -- the evils of public housing, minimum wage causing poverty (and sadly not in the correct sense that in the US working for minimum wage leaves you under the poverty line), social security as an invasion of our lives...and etc. To be fair, I did expect the unions are evil bit. But the rest was an enlightening surprise.
To cap it all off he writes "Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom..." [188]
Believe me, the last thing this book is characterised by is humility.
It depressed me to read this, and made me go back and give Hayek another star. Much as I disagreed with him and was saddened by his reduction of all socialist thought to what was essentially Stalinism, I could at least see him grappling with the very real issues of our world with some kind of integrity.
There is no integrity here I'm afraid. Instead Friedman says absurd things like
"This is a role of inequality of wealth in preserving political freedom that is seldom noted -- the role of the patron." [17] With these ideas he'll never lack one.
"children are at one and the same time consumer goods and potentially responsible members of society" [33] Consumer goods...I don't even have a comeback to that one. Luckily I don't need one.
"It is hard to see that discrimination can have any meaning other than a 'taste' of others that one does not share." [110] Good god, don't get me started on his views on race and why white people shouldn't have to interact with a Negro in their local store if they don't want to.
How unions harm the world at large [124]. The end of child labour and the 8 hour day are enough to start with as a riposte I think...
The evils of requiring medical doctors to be licensed. [149] Yep. Apparently one in a thousand quacks is actually on to something, and licensing reduces their abilities to experiment [157]. But now I begin to see why we need a large pool of really poor people.
And of course, the old familiar and expected standbys lifted directly from this book into attempts at policy -- the evils of public housing, minimum wage causing poverty (and sadly not in the correct sense that in the US working for minimum wage leaves you under the poverty line), social security as an invasion of our lives...and etc. To be fair, I did expect the unions are evil bit. But the rest was an enlightening surprise.
To cap it all off he writes "Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom..." [188]
Believe me, the last thing this book is characterised by is humility.
September 2, 2013
Friedman is a good marketer. It's pretty clear why people without a deep logical background, or analytic training, would believe this book has something to say about freedom. Friedman slyly uses the terms free, freedom, and free enterprise, in every three sentences. Eventually the weary subconscious relents, and accepts that the man must be talking substantively about issues of freedom, why else is the word so omnipresent!? Of course he's not really. For Friedman, freedom is negative liberty, the liberty not to be interfered with, and he takes his starting point of analysis to be the individual (which rarely holds since he'll quickly talk about net economic effects that are never started by an individual, nor realized by them either). But capitalism is a lot like the old Chinese proverb about the butterfly effect, except far more potent. To start with the individual, in a system that is so necessarily interconnected, inter-impacting, globalized, and omnipresent, is as silly as to start with the atom in analyzing the relationship between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy. Both in economics and in astronomy, little progress will be made!
But what about this idea of negative liberty - that freedom is in essence not to be interfered with. Well given the necessary butterfly effect of the economy, it is an obvious absurdity, since your job choices, prospects of employment, educational venues, duration of employment, financial stability, etc., are all frequently impacted by sources outside your control. But even if they were not, is freedom really negative liberty? That seems dubious, and fortunately philosophers are finally coming around to the idea that freedom is actually realizing your fullest potential, not being left alone. We are social species, and we realize are fullest potential in social relationships. Friedman is right to promote voluntary co-operation, but he鈥檚 wrong that capitalism is the best outlet for this expression.
Okay, so how does all this really play out in the book? Can 200 pages really be objected to by just rejecting negative liberty out of hand? Maybe not.
Friedman has one argument that if accepted justifies almost all his conclusions throughout the book, but if rejected, undermines the entire text. He attempts to show that capitalism really is the best expression of negative liberty. Here it is:
"As in that simple model [of a non-coerced barter economy], so in the complex enterprise and money exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and voluntary provided: A) the enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting parties are individuals and B) that individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary."
The first problem with this position is that the barter economy he refers to is qualitatively different than free-market corporate capitalism. He's comparing apples to oranges, or at the very least a game of catch to the NFL. But even if he weren't, the privatization of the means of production into a few hands, (which is A), undermines B. Individuals that do not own means of production are not free to enter or not into particular exchange, for if they do not enter the exchange (of selling their labor power), they will starve to death. If one cannot avoid the exchange all together, then one cannot reasonably be said to be free to enter into it. If one wants a more detailed explanation as to why this is the case, I would recommend reading CB Macpherson on Friedman.
Anyone that reads my reviews knows I am a socialist, so finding problems with this book was bound to happen. And anyone who doesn鈥檛 know my views is going to read this review and think it sucks because Friedman showed that socialism and freedom do not go together. The problem is for Friedman there鈥檚 only one kind of socialism, the USSR. Instead of a few capitalist owning the means of production, the state does. That鈥檚 it for Friedman. Two possible modes of production. He never once deals with the argument as to whether the workers should own the means of production democratically. I recently saw a debate with Friedman and Samuel Bowles where this question was raised. Instead of answering it, the host quickly changed the subject. So Friedman knows this 鈥榩ossibility鈥� exist, but refuses to address it.
So before the naysayer reads this review and wants to spit fire at me and accuse me of being a tyrant, go pick up Richard Wolff鈥檚 鈥淒emocracy at Work鈥�. It鈥檚 a very short read. It鈥檚 well argued. And anyone of average intelligence can understand it. If, and only if, after you鈥檝e understood what a Workers Self Directed Enterprise is, you still have problems with my advocacy of socialism against Friedman鈥檚 warped cold-war dichotomy, will I engage in a critical discussion.
But what about this idea of negative liberty - that freedom is in essence not to be interfered with. Well given the necessary butterfly effect of the economy, it is an obvious absurdity, since your job choices, prospects of employment, educational venues, duration of employment, financial stability, etc., are all frequently impacted by sources outside your control. But even if they were not, is freedom really negative liberty? That seems dubious, and fortunately philosophers are finally coming around to the idea that freedom is actually realizing your fullest potential, not being left alone. We are social species, and we realize are fullest potential in social relationships. Friedman is right to promote voluntary co-operation, but he鈥檚 wrong that capitalism is the best outlet for this expression.
Okay, so how does all this really play out in the book? Can 200 pages really be objected to by just rejecting negative liberty out of hand? Maybe not.
Friedman has one argument that if accepted justifies almost all his conclusions throughout the book, but if rejected, undermines the entire text. He attempts to show that capitalism really is the best expression of negative liberty. Here it is:
"As in that simple model [of a non-coerced barter economy], so in the complex enterprise and money exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and voluntary provided: A) the enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting parties are individuals and B) that individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary."
The first problem with this position is that the barter economy he refers to is qualitatively different than free-market corporate capitalism. He's comparing apples to oranges, or at the very least a game of catch to the NFL. But even if he weren't, the privatization of the means of production into a few hands, (which is A), undermines B. Individuals that do not own means of production are not free to enter or not into particular exchange, for if they do not enter the exchange (of selling their labor power), they will starve to death. If one cannot avoid the exchange all together, then one cannot reasonably be said to be free to enter into it. If one wants a more detailed explanation as to why this is the case, I would recommend reading CB Macpherson on Friedman.
Anyone that reads my reviews knows I am a socialist, so finding problems with this book was bound to happen. And anyone who doesn鈥檛 know my views is going to read this review and think it sucks because Friedman showed that socialism and freedom do not go together. The problem is for Friedman there鈥檚 only one kind of socialism, the USSR. Instead of a few capitalist owning the means of production, the state does. That鈥檚 it for Friedman. Two possible modes of production. He never once deals with the argument as to whether the workers should own the means of production democratically. I recently saw a debate with Friedman and Samuel Bowles where this question was raised. Instead of answering it, the host quickly changed the subject. So Friedman knows this 鈥榩ossibility鈥� exist, but refuses to address it.
So before the naysayer reads this review and wants to spit fire at me and accuse me of being a tyrant, go pick up Richard Wolff鈥檚 鈥淒emocracy at Work鈥�. It鈥檚 a very short read. It鈥檚 well argued. And anyone of average intelligence can understand it. If, and only if, after you鈥檝e understood what a Workers Self Directed Enterprise is, you still have problems with my advocacy of socialism against Friedman鈥檚 warped cold-war dichotomy, will I engage in a critical discussion.
January 18, 2024
賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 賵 賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲
亘丕 诏匕乇 丕夭 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴 賵 賳賵夭丿賴 亘賴 鬲丿乇蹖噩 賲毓賳丕 賵 賲賮賴賵賲 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 丿乇 睾乇亘 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 讴乇丿.
丕诏乇 丿乇 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴賲 賲鬲賮讴乇丕賳蹖 賴賲趩賵賳 丌丿丕賲 丕爻賲蹖鬲 賵 噩丕賳 賱丕讴 亘乇 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 丿禺丕賱鬲鈥屬囏й� 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮賴乇賵賳丿丕賳貙 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿貙 鬲賯賵蹖鬲 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 丨丕讴賲蹖鬲 賯丕賳賵賳 鬲丕讴蹖丿 丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙 讴賲鈥屭┵� 丕蹖賳 丕氐賵賱 讴賲乇賳诏 卮丿賴 賵 噩丕蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 丕氐賵賱蹖 亘丕 丿禺丕賱鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賴賲趩賵賳 亘乇丕亘乇蹖 孬乇賵鬲貙 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 鬲氐丕毓丿蹖貙 丿禺丕賱鬲 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 鬲噩丕乇鬲 賵 亘丕夭丕乇 賵 丕蹖噩丕丿 丿賵賱鬲 乇賮丕賴 丿丕丿賳丿.
賲孬賱丕 丕诏乇 賴賲蹖賳 丕賲乇賵夭 賴賲 丿乇 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 (賴賲趩賵賳 亘毓囟蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丿賳蹖丕) 丕夭 诏乇賵賴鈥屬囏й� 芦賱蹖亘乇丕賱禄 氐丨亘鬲 讴賳蹖丿貙 丕夭 賳馗乇 鬲讴賮乇 丨丕讴賲 亘乇 噩丕賲毓賴 丕夭 丨夭亘 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲 蹖丕 诏乇賵賴鈥屬囏й� 趩倬鈥屫� 蹖丕 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 芦progressives禄 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呝嗀� 氐丨亘鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫й屫� 丨夭亘 賵 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 讴賴 丨丿丕賯賱 丿乇 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲賵丕囟毓 诏乇丕蹖卮 亘賴 趩倬 賵 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 讴丕賲賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴賲 亘丕卮賳丿.
賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 亘乇禺蹖 亘诏賵蹖賳丿 丨夭亘 噩賲賴賵乇蹖鈥屫堌з� 讴賴 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 噩賳丕丨 乇丕爻鬲 丌賲乇蹖讴丕爻鬲 賵 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж� (conservatives) 禺賵丕賳丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 乇丕 亘丕蹖丿 賲毓丕丿賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱 賯乇賳 賳賵夭丿賴賲蹖 蹖丕 賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 亘賳丕賲蹖賲. 丕蹖賳 賴賲 鬲毓乇蹖賮 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賳蹖爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж臂� 賴賲 丿乇 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲賵丕乇丿 丿乇 鬲囟丕丿 亘丕 丕氐賵賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 丕爻鬲. (卮丕蹖丿 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴 亘賴 亘賴丕賳賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘 蹖丕 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鈥屫й� 丿蹖诏乇貙 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж臂� 賵 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賳賵蹖爻賲)
亘賴 賴乇丨丕賱 賲蹖賱鬲賵賳 賮乇蹖丿賲賳貙 丕爻鬲丕丿 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 賵 亘乇賳丿賴鈥屰� 賳賵亘賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿貙 亘丕 丌诏丕賴蹖 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 賲爻丕卅賱貙 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 讴賴 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 賲毓乇賵賮鈥屫臂屬� 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵爻鬲貙 鬲兀讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丕賵 胤亘賯 鬲毓乇蹖賮 夭賲丕賳賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿 賳賴 賱蹖亘乇丕賱賽 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж� 賵 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 芦賱蹖亘乇丕賱 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賴鈥屰� 丌賳禄 賳丕賲蹖丿賴 卮賵丿:
丕鬲乇蹖卮蹖鈥屬囏й� 賴賲趩賵賳 賲蹖夭爻 賵 賴丕蹖讴 賵 丌賲乇蹖讴丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 賴賲趩賵賳 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 讴賵卮蹖丿賳丿 亘賴 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 诏匕卮鬲賴鈥屰� 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘乇诏乇丿賳丿 賵 丕氐賵賱 丌賳 乇丕 丕丨蹖丕 讴賳賳丿貙 丕蹖賳 亘丕夭诏卮鬲賽 丿賵亘丕乇賴 乇丕 賯亘賱 丕夭 賴賲賴 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳賽 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賵 趩倬鈥屬囏� 芦賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲禄 賳丕賲蹖丿賳丿 賵 禺賵丿 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賳蹖夭 亘賴 鬲丿乇蹖噩 丕蹖賳 丕氐胤賱丕丨 乇丕 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲賳丿.
丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 鬲毓乇蹖賮 丿賯蹖賯 賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 賵 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屬囏й� 丌賳 亘丕 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 亘丨孬 賵 噩丿賱 賵 丨乇賮 賵 丨丿蹖孬 亘爻蹖丕乇 丕爻鬲 賵 丕鬲賮丕賯 賳馗乇 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貙 卮丕蹖丿 丿乇爻鬲鈥屫� 丕蹖賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 賴蹖趩 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 亘蹖賳 芦賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賱丕爻蹖讴禄 賵 丌賳趩賴 芦賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲禄 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 賯丕卅賱 賳卮賵蹖賲貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨丕賱 亘乇禺蹖 賲毓鬲賯丿賳丿 賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏� 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 倬蹖卮蹖賳蹖丕賳 讴賱丕爻蹖讴卮丕賳貙 鬲丕讴蹖丿 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 亘乇 讴賵趩讴鈥屫池ж槽� 丿賵賱鬲貙 禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽屫� 賵 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賳丿.
賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賵 賴賲讴丕乇丕賳卮 乇丕 睾賵賱鈥屬囏й� 賲讴鬲亘 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 卮蹖讴丕诏賵 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 賲毓鬲賯丿賳丿 賲讴鬲亘 卮蹖讴丕诏賵 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 賲讴鬲亘 丕鬲乇蹖卮蹖 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 鬲賲丕賲 毓蹖丕乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 趩蹖夭蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 芦賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲禄 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呝嗀�.
丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲噩賲賵毓賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖鈥屬囏й� 賲乇鬲亘 卮丿賴 賵 賵蹖乇丕蹖卮 卮丿賴鈥屰� 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖賱鬲賵賳 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丕夭 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴賱蹖丕鬲 賵 丕氐賵賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 禺賵丿丿丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賵丕乇丿 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 倬爻 卮丕蹖丿 亘丿 賳亘丕卮丿 丕诏乇 賯亘賱 丕夭 賲胤丕賱毓賴鈥屰� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 倬蹖卮鈥屫操呟屬嗁団€屫й� 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 丕氐賵賱 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖丿 (賲孬賱丕 讴鬲丕亘 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 賲蹖夭爻 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿賴 亘丕卮蹖丿)
亘蹖卮鬲乇賽 賲亘丕丨孬 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 蹖讴 賳馗丕賲 賱蹖亘乇丕賱 賳賯卮 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 賲爻丕卅賱 賲禺鬲賱賮 趩蹖爻鬲貙 蹖毓賳蹖 蹖讴 丿賵賱鬲賽 讴丕倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻鬲 趩賴 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 亘丕蹖丿 亘讴賳丿 賵 趩賴 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 賳讴賳丿. 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳貙 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵乇 睾賱胤 乇丕 丿乇 匕賴賳 賲禺丕胤亘丕賳 爻丕禺鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏й� 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 亘賴 讴賱蹖 丿賵賱鬲鈥屫池屫� 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐嗀� 亘丕 鬲囟毓蹖賮 丿賵賱鬲 賳賵毓蹖 芦丌賳丕乇卮蹖禄 乇丕 亘乇 噩丕賲毓賴 丨丕讴賲 讴賳賳丿 鬲丕 亘禺卮 禺氐賵氐蹖 丌夭丕丿蹖 賴乇 毓賲賱蹖 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿. 丕诏乇 趩賳蹖賳 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屫� 亘丕 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 睾丕賮賱诏蹖乇 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 卮丿. 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賳賯卮鈥屬囏й� 禺丕氐蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丿賵賱鬲 賯丕卅賱 丕爻鬲貙 賳賯卮鈥屬囏й屰� 丨鬲蹖 卮丕蹖丿 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賵 賵爻蹖毓鈥屫� 丕夭 丕鬲乇蹖卮蹖鈥屬囏�.
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 趩讴蹖丿賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賲亘丕丨孬 诏爻鬲乇丿賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫①堌辟�:
賮氐賱 丕賵賱: 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 亘丕 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖
爻蹖丕爻鬲 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 鬲賳诏丕鬲賳诏蹖 亘丕 賴賲 丿丕乇賳丿. 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳丕 讴賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 亘丿賵賳 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賳丕賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲. 丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 鬲囟賲蹖賳賽 丌夭丕丿蹖賽 賮乇丿蹖 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲 亘丕卮丿.
丕賱诏賵蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賽 賲賵乇丿 賯亘賵賱 丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳貙 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賲亘丕丿賱丕鬲 丌夭丕丿 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屭柏ж臂� 禺氐賵氐蹖 (爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 乇賯丕亘鬲蹖) 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 亘禺卮 禺氐賵氐蹖 賴賲 亘蹖鈥屫观屫� 賵 賳賯氐 賳蹖爻鬲. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 亘賴 賯賵丕賳蹖賳蹖 賳蹖丕夭 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 賵 丨賯賵賯 賲丿賳蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 丨賮馗 卮賵丿:
丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳貙 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿貙 禺賵丿 賳賵毓蹖 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕夭 賳賵毓 芦賳馗丕賲 賳賲丕蹖賳丿诏蹖 賳爻亘蹖禄 丕爻鬲. 賳馗丕賲蹖 讴賴 賴乇 賳賴丕丿 禺氐賵氐蹖貙 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 賲乇丿賲 丕爻鬲 賵 丨鬲蹖 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 丕賯賱蹖鬲 丿乇 丌賳 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 蹖丕 亘賴 毓亘丕乇鬲蹖 丕讴孬乇蹖鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賳馗乇卮 乇丕 亘賴 丕賯賱蹖鬲 鬲丨賲蹖賱 讴賳丿.
賮氐賱 丿賵賲: 賳賯卮 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 丌夭丕丿
丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賮乇蹖丿賲賳貙 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲爻丕卅賱 噩丕賲毓賴 乇丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 亘丕夭丕乇 丨賱 讴乇丿 蹖丕 亘賴丕蹖 丌賳 趩賳丕賳 夭蹖丕丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 丕夭 乇丕賴鈥屫� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 卮賵丿.
丕賳噩丕賲 趩賳蹖賳 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 噩夭賵 賵馗丕蹖賮 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻鬲.
賲賴賲鬲乇蹖賳 讴丕乇賴丕蹖 讴賴 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕蹖丿 丕賳噩丕賲 丿賴丿:
鈥� 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 賳賯卮 賯丕賳賵賳鈥屭柏ж� 賵鈥� 丿丕賵乇: 丿賵賱鬲 賯賵丕毓丿 亘丕夭蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 亘丕夭丕乇 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 爻丕夭 賵 讴丕乇 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 亘賴 賳賲丕蹖賳丿诏蹖 丕夭 賲乇丿賲 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 亘乇 丕噩乇丕蹖 丿乇爻鬲 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 賳馗丕乇鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丌夭丕丿蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕賮乇丕丿 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 賲睾丕蹖乇 亘丕卮丿貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 亘丕蹖丿 丌夭丕丿蹖賽 蹖讴蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 丨賮馗 丌夭丕丿蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賲丨丿賵丿 讴乇丿.
賲丐爻爻丕鬲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 丕噩丕夭賴 賳丿丕乇賳丿 乇賯亘丕蹖卮丕賳 乇丕 丕夭 氐丨賳賴 亘蹖乇賵賳 讴賳賳丿貙 賲诏乇 亘丕 賮乇賵禺鬲賳 讴丕賱丕蹖蹖 亘賴鬲乇 亘丕 賯蹖賲鬲蹖 亘乇丕亘乇賽 讴丕賱丕蹖 乇賯亘丕蹖 禺賵丿貙 蹖丕 賮乇賵禺鬲賳 賴賲丕賳 讴丕賱丕 亘丕 賯蹖賲鬲蹖 倬丕蹖蹖賳鈥屫�.
鈥� 丕賳丨氐丕乇 賮賳蹖 賵 丌孬丕乇 賴賲噩賵丕乇蹖: 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲爻丕卅賱 亘賴 丿賱丕蹖賱 賮賳蹖 蹖丕 丿蹖乇亘丕夭丿賴 亘賵丿賳 亘丕夭诏卮鬲 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 鬲賵爻胤 亘禺卮 禺氐賵氐蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賲孬賱丕 爻丕禺鬲 乇丕賴鈥屫①囐� 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賳 亘丕乇 丿乇 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 丿丕賵胤賱亘 禺氐賵氐蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲 賵 丿賵賱鬲 賳賯卮 丌賳 乇丕 亘乇 毓賴丿賴 诏乇賮鬲 (丕讴賳賵賳 趩賳蹖賳 丕賳丨氐丕乇蹖 鬲賵噩蹖賴鈥屬矩佰屫� 賳蹖爻鬲)
亘乇禺蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 亘丕 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲卮丕賳 丌孬丕乇蹖 亘乇 丕賮乇丕丿 丿蹖诏乇 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж辟嗀� 讴賴 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丌賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇禺賵丕爻鬲 賴夭蹖賳賴 讴乇丿. 賲孬賱丕 蹖讴 讴丕乇禺丕賳賴 亘丕 丌賱賵丿賴 讴乇丿賳 蹖讴 乇賵丿禺丕賳賴 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 賳丕丨蹖賴 鬲兀孬蹖乇 賲賳賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 賵 亘丕蹖丿 賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屰� 丕蹖賳 丌賱賵丿诏蹖 乇丕 亘倬乇丿丕夭丿 賵賱蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 鬲讴 鬲讴 丕賮乇丕丿 賳丕丨蹖賴鈥屰� 乇賵丿禺丕賳賴 乇丕 卮賳丕爻丕蹖蹖 讴乇丿 賵 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屰� 賲鬲賳丕爻亘 倬乇丿丕禺鬲. 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻卅賱賴 丕孬乇 賴賲噩賵丕乇蹖 (neighbourhood effect) 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 丿賵賱鬲 賵馗蹖賮賴 丿丕乇丿 丕蹖賳 賴夭蹖賳賴 乇丕 亘賴 賳賲丕蹖賳丿诏蹖 丕夭 賲乇丿賲 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 賳賲丕蹖丿. 爻丕禺鬲 賵 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 倬丕乇讴鈥屬囏й� 丿乇賵賳 卮賴乇蹖 賴賲 賳賵毓蹖 丕孬乇 賴賲噩賵丕乇蹖 賲孬亘鬲 丿丕乇丿 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕卮丿.
鈥� 丿賱丕蹖賱 倬丿乇賲丌亘丕賳賴:
丌夭丕丿蹖 賮賯胤 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏й� 賲爻卅賵賱 賴丿賮蹖 賯丕亘賱 丿賮丕毓 丕爻鬲. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丿蹖賵丕賳诏丕賳 賵 讴賵丿讴丕賳 讴賴 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 讴丕賲賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕毓賲丕賱卮丕賳 賳丿丕乇賳丿貙 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 丌夭丕丿蹖 讴丕賲賱蹖 賴賲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿. 丿乇 趩賳蹖賳 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 睾蹖乇 賲爻卅賵賱貙 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕蹖丿 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘乇毓賴丿賴 亘诏蹖乇丿. 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 讴賵丿讴丕賳 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 丕氐賱蹖 亘丕 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏ж池� 丕賲丕 賱丕夭賲 丕爻鬲 丿賵賱鬲 賲乇丕賯亘 亘丕卮丿 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏� 丨賯賵賯 丕賵賱蹖賴鈥屰� 讴賵丿讴 乇丕 夭蹖乇 倬丕 賳诏匕丕乇賳丿.
亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿賵賱鬲 賳亘丕蹖丿 丕賳噩丕賲 丿賴丿:
鈥� 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屬囏й� 丨賲丕蹖鬲蹖 讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖
鈥� 丕蹖噩丕丿 鬲毓乇賮賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕乇丿丕鬲 蹖丕 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 氐丕丿乇丕鬲
鈥� 讴賳鬲乇賱 賯蹖賲鬲 蹖丕 賯蹖賲鬲鈥屭柏ж臂� 丿爻鬲賵乇蹖
鈥� 讴賳鬲乇賱 丕噩丕乇賴鈥屫ㄙ囏�
鈥� 丿賵賱鬲蹖 讴乇丿賳 氐賳丕蹖毓
鈥� 賳馗丕乇鬲 亘乇 丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕鬲 賵 乇丕丿蹖賵 賵 鬲賱賵蹖夭蹖賵賳(禺胤乇 爻丕賳爻賵乇 賵 賳賯囟 丌夭丕丿蹖 亘蹖丕賳)
鈥� 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕賲蹖賳 賲爻讴賳 丿賵賱鬲蹖
鈥⒇池必ㄘж糙屫臂� 丕噩亘丕乇蹖 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 氐賱丨
賵...
賮氐賱 爻賵賲: 賳馗丕乇鬲 亘乇 倬賵賱
賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴鬲丕亘 芦禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 倬賵賱禄 丕孬乇 賴丕蹖讴 诏賮鬲賲貙 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丕夭 賲禺丕賱賮丕賳 丕蹖噩丕丿 倬賵賱 禺氐賵氐蹖 亘賵丿. 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 丿賵賱鬲 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 鬲兀賲蹖賳 賳馗丕賲 倬丕蹖丿丕乇 倬賵賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕爻鬲賯乇丕乇 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丌夭丕丿 乇丕 亘乇 毓賴丿賴 丿丕乇丿 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 倬賵賱蹖 賵 賲丕賱蹖 賵 亘賵丿噩賴鈥屫й� 亘乇 毓賴丿賴鈥屰� 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻鬲. 丕賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘賴 丿賱丕蹖賱蹖 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 讴賲亘賵丿 賲賳丕亘毓 胤賱丕貙 丕夭 賲禺丕賱賮丕賳 亘乇賯乇丕乇蹖 丕爻鬲丕賳丿丕乇丿 胤賱丕 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 丕賵 亘乇丕蹖 讴賳鬲乇賱 鬲賵乇賲貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 賯丕賳賵賳蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲丨丿賵丿 讴乇丿賳 趩丕倬 倬賵賱 鬲賵爻胤 亘丕賳讴 賲乇讴夭蹖 (丿乇 丌賲乇蹖讴丕: 賮丿乇丕賱 乇夭乇賵) 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 胤賵乇蹖 讴賴 亘丕賳讴 賲乇讴夭蹖 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 丕噩丕夭賴 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 亘蹖卮 丕夭 爻賴 鬲丕 倬賳噩 丿乇氐丿 丕夭 丨噩賲 倬賵賱 丿乇 爻丕賱貙 賳賯丿蹖賳诏蹖 乇丕 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 丿賴丿.
賮氐賱 趩賴丕乇賲: 鬲乇鬲蹖亘丕鬲 亘蹖賳鈥屫з勝呝勝勠� 賲丕賱蹖 賵 亘丕夭乇诏丕賳蹖
丿乇 丿賴賴鈥屰� 郾酃鄢郯 丿乇 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 胤賱丕 丕蹖噩丕丿 卮丿 讴賴 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 亘賴 卮丿鬲 亘丕 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賲蹖賲 賲禺丕賱賮鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘賴 乇丕賴鈥屫勨€屬囏й屰� 亘乇丕蹖 亘賴亘賵丿 鬲乇丕夭 鬲噩丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 丕夭 賯蹖賲鬲 卮賳丕賵乇 丕乇夭 丨賲丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 鬲毓乇賮賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕乇丿丕鬲貙 賴賲 亘賴 囟乇乇 氐丕丿乇讴賳賳丿賴 丕爻鬲 賴賲 賵丕乇丿丕鬲鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 鬲噩丕乇鬲 丌夭丕丿 亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 丿爻鬲賵乇 讴丕乇 賯乇丕乇 诏蹖乇丿.
賮氐賱 倬賳噩賲: 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賲丕賱蹖
丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 丿乇 鬲賯丕亘賱 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 芦讴蹖賳夭禄 丕爻鬲 賵 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 賵馗丕蹖賮 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 乇讴賵丿 蹖丕 鬲賵乇賲 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
賮氐賱 卮卮賲: 賳賯卮 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 丌賲賵夭卮 賵 倬乇賵乇卮
丿賵 賳賵毓 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 亘乇丕蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿: 郾) 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖 鄄) 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 鬲禺氐氐蹖
亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賮乇丕丿 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖賽 倬丕蹖賴 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮賳丿 賵 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 丿賵賱鬲 賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屰� 鬲丨氐蹖賱 丕賮乇丕丿 亘蹖鈥屫ㄘ敦ж关� 乇丕 亘倬乇丿丕夭賳丿.
亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 讴賳鬲乇賱 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 亘乇 賲丿丕乇爻 讴丕爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 鬲賲丕蹖賱 丿丕乇賳丿 丕蹖丿蹖賵賱賵跇蹖鈥屬囏й� 鬲亘賱蹖睾丕鬲蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賲丿丕乇爻 丿賵賱鬲蹖 丿乇 賲睾夭 讴賵丿讴丕賳 賮乇賵 讴賳賳丿.
亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲丨氐蹖賱 丿乇 睾丕賱亘 蹖丕乇丕賳賴 亘賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏й� 賮賯蹖乇 倬乇丿丕禺鬲 卮賵丿 賳賴 亘賴 賲丿丕乇爻 丿賵賱鬲蹖.
賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲賵丕賮賯 禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 丌賲賵夭卮 丕爻鬲 亘賴 卮乇胤蹖 讴賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏й� 賮賯蹖乇 賴賲 亘鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丿乇 賲丿丕乇爻 孬亘鬲鈥屬嗀з� 讴賳賳丿. 禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 丌賲賵夭卮 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘丕毓孬 亘賴亘賵丿 丨賯賵賯 賲毓賱賲丕賳 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿.
丿乇 囟賲賳 賲蹖夭丕賳 丨丿丕賯賱蹖 丕夭 賳馗丕乇鬲 亘乇 賲丿丕乇爻 賵 賲丐爻爻丕鬲 丌賲賵夭卮蹖 亘丕蹖丿 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 蹖毓賳蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 丨丿丕賯賱 賲賵丕夭蹖賳 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 卮丿賴鈥屰� 丌賲賵夭卮蹖 賲孬賱 爻賵丕丿 禺賵丕賳丿賳 賵 賳賵卮鬲賳 蹖丕 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲 倬丕蹖賴.
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 賵 鬲禺氐氐蹖 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 亘蹖卮鬲乇貙 倬乇丿丕禺鬲 蹖丕乇丕賳賴 亘賴 丕賮乇丕丿 賮賯蹖乇 亘賴 噩丕蹖 賲丐爻爻賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賲賵夭卮蹖 蹖丕 丕毓胤丕蹖 賵丕賲 鬲丨氐蹖賱蹖 亘丕 鬲毓賴丿 亘賴 讴丕乇 亘乇丕蹖 賲丐爻爻賴鈥屰� 丌賲賵夭卮蹖 丕爻鬲.
賮氐賱 賴賮鬲賲: 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵 鬲亘毓蹖囟
丿乇 胤賵賱 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕蹖賳 丕氐賵賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱 亘賵丿賴 讴賴 鬲亘毓蹖囟鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕夭 賲蹖丕賳 亘乇丿賴 丕爻鬲. 賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 诏賮鬲賴 卮丿貙 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賯賵賲蹖鬲貙 丿蹖賳 賵 乇賳诏 倬賵爻鬲 賯丕卅賱 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 賮賯胤 亘賴 讴丕乇丕蹖蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 丕賴賲蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丿乇毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲禺丕賱賮 鬲亘毓蹖囟賽 賲孬亘鬲 亘丕 賮卮丕乇 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 賳賮毓 丕賯賱蹖鬲鈥屬囏ж池� 趩賵賳 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 亘爻鬲賳 賯乇丕乇丿丕丿賴丕蹖 丿丕賵胤賱亘丕賳賴 乇丕 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
賮氐賱 賴卮鬲賲: 丕賳丨氐丕乇 賵 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 鬲噩丕乇鬲 讴丕乇
蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 亘賴 賳馗丕賲 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丕蹖賳 亘賵丿賴 讴賴 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й� 禺氐賵氐蹖 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 亘丕 爻賵亍丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲賽 禺賵丿 蹖丕 鬲亘丕賳蹖 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 丕賳丨氐丕乇 讴賳賳丿. 卮毓丕乇 賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏� 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丕蹖噩丕丿 亘丕夭丕乇賽 芦乇賯丕亘鬲蹖禄 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賵馗丕蹖賮 丿賵賱鬲 卮讴爻鬲賳 賴乇诏賵賳賴 丕賳丨氐丕乇 丿乇 亘丕夭丕乇 丕爻鬲 (亘賴 卮乇胤蹖 讴賴 禺賵丿 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕毓孬 丕蹖噩丕丿 丕賳丨氐丕乇 丿賵賱鬲蹖 賳卮賵丿)
賮氐賱 賳賴賲: 氐丿賵乇 噩賵丕夭 讴爻亘
丌蹖丕 賱丕夭賲 丕爻鬲 賲乇丿賲 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇卮丕賳 丕夭 丿賵賱鬲 賲噩賵夭 亘诏蹖乇賳丿 蹖丕 氐丿賵乇 噩賵丕夭 讴爻亘 毓賲賱蹖 亘蹖鈥屬佖й屫� 賵 賵爻蹖賱賴鈥屰� 夭賵乇诏蹖乇蹖 丿賵賱鬲 賵 诏爻鬲乇卮 亘乇賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲責
亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲賵丕賮賯 亘丕 孬亘鬲鈥屬嗀з� 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇賴丕 丿乇 爻丕賲丕賳賴鈥屬囏й� 丿賵賱鬲蹖 賵 丕毓胤丕蹖 诏賵丕賴蹖 禺丕氐 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲賴丕乇鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 賲孬賱 賲丿乇讴 鬲丨氐蹖賱蹖 蹖丕 賮賳蹖 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲貙 賵賱蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 丿賵賱鬲 噩賱賵蹖 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇賴丕 乇丕 亘丕 亘賴丕賳賴鈥屬囏й屰� 賲孬賱 毓丿賲 賲賴丕乇鬲 讴丕賮蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇 丿賵賱鬲 亘诏蹖乇丿 賲禺丕賱賮 丕爻鬲.
賮氐賱 丿賴賲: 鬲賵夭蹖毓 丿乇丌賲丿
卮丕蹖丿 亘夭乇诏鬲乇蹖賳 丕蹖乇丕丿蹖 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 賵 趩倬鈥屬囏� 丿乇 胤賵賱 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴 丕氐賵賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 丕蹖噩丕丿 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丿乇 孬乇賵鬲 丕爻鬲.
爻賵丕賱 丕蹖賳噩丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌蹖丕 乇賮毓 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 鬲賵噩蹖賴鈥屭┵嗁嗀団€屰� 丿禺丕賱鬲 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 丿乇丌賲丿 丕賮乇丕丿 丕爻鬲責 賵 丕孬乇 賵丕賯毓蹖 丕蹖賳 賲丿丕禺賱丕鬲 趩蹖爻鬲責
丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丿乇 孬乇賵鬲 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿睾丿睾賴鈥屰� 丕氐賱蹖 賲丕 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賱讴賴 賲賴賲 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丿乇 芦爻胤丨 夭賳丿诏蹖禄 丕爻鬲. 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘丕 讴丕賴卮 賮賯乇貙 孬乇賵鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 乇丕 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賲丨乇賵賲鈥屫臂屬� 丿賴讴鈥屬囏й� 噩丕賲毓賴 賴賲 丕夭 丨丿丕賯賱 丕爻鬲丕賳丿丕乇丿賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮賳丿. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 亘丕 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й屰� 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴丕賴卮鈥屫囐嗀団€屰� 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丿乇 爻胤丨 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕爻鬲.
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲禺丕賱賮 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 鬲氐丕毓丿蹖 丕爻鬲貙 趩賵賳 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屰� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屭柏ж臂� 乇丕 丿乇 氐丕丨亘丕賳 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 讴丕賴卮 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丕賵 胤乇賮丿丕乇 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 賳爻亘蹖 亘丕 賳乇禺 蹖讴賳賵丕禺鬲 丕爻鬲 (賲蹖夭丕賳 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 賲賵乇丿 倬匕蹖乇卮賽 丕賵 鄄鄢/鄣 丿乇氐丿 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲賴 丕爻鬲貙 亘賴 噩夭 丕賮乇丕丿 亘爻蹖丕乇 賮賯蹖乇 讴賴 賲卮賲賵賱 賲毓丕賮蹖鬲 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�)
丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丿乇丌賲丿 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲蹖 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賳乇禺賽 蹖讴賳賵丕禺鬲 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賳乇禺 鬲氐丕毓丿蹖 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 賴賲 禺賵丕賴丿 蹖丕賮鬲貙 趩賵賳 亘丕 讴丕賴卮 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲鈥屬囏� 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇 賵 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屭柏ж臂� 亘蹖卮鬲乇 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 乇卮丿 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿 賵 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賲蹖夭丕賳 禺丕賱氐 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲蹖 賴賲 亘丕 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 孬乇賵鬲 噩丕賲毓賴 乇卮丿 禺賵丕賴丿 賳賲賵丿.
賮氐賱 蹖丕夭丿賴賲: 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 乇賮丕賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖
賮乇蹖丿賲賳 亘丕 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 丕噩亘丕乇蹖 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 亘賴 亘賴丕賳賴鈥屰� 禺丿賲丕鬲 芦鬲兀賲蹖賳 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖禄 賲禺丕賱賮 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴鈥屰� 丕賵 亘蹖賲賴鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 亘丕蹖丿 禺氐賵氐蹖 卮賵賳丿 賵 丕賮乇丕丿 丨賯 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賳賵毓 亘蹖賲賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿.
丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 丨丿丕賯賱 丿爻鬲賲夭丿 鬲賵爻胤 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕毓孬 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 亘蹖讴丕乇蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿.
賮氐賱 丿賵丕夭丿賴賲: 鬲禺賮蹖賮 賮賯乇
趩胤賵乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賴 賯卮乇 賮賯蹖乇 讴賲讴 讴乇丿 賵 丕夭 賲卮讴賱丕鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 丌賳丕賳 讴丕爻鬲責 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 賲丐爻爻賴鈥屬囏й� 禺蹖乇蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 禺氐賵氐蹖 讴丕乇丕蹖蹖 亘賴鬲乇蹖 丿乇 讴賲讴 亘賴 賳蹖丕夭賲賳丿丕賳 丿丕乇賳丿. 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 丿賵賱鬲 亘乇丕蹖 讴賲讴 亘賴 賮賯乇丕 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 亘丕夭丕乇 丕禺鬲賱丕賱 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴賳丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賯蹖賲鬲鈥屭柏ж臂� 丿爻鬲賵乇蹖 蹖丕 爻賴賲蹖賴鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 讴丕賱丕賴丕 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 倬乇丿丕禺鬲 蹖丕乇丕賳賴鈥屰� 賳賯丿蹖 亘賴 賮賯乇丕 丕賯丿丕賲 賲賳丕爻亘鈥屫臂� 丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丕爻鬲.
丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲 賵 丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲
丕賳鬲賯丕丿 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲胤丕賱亘 讴鬲丕亘 讴丕賲賱丕 亘爻鬲诏蹖 亘賴 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖/爻蹖丕爻蹖賽 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 丿丕乇丿. 賲爻賱賲丕賸 趩倬鈥屬囏� 亘蹖卮鬲乇賽 賲胤丕賱亘 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 賳禺賵丕賴賳丿 倬爻賳丿蹖丿 賵 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱貙 卮丕禺賴鈥屬囏й� 乇丕丿蹖讴丕賱鈥屫� 丕夭 胤蹖賮 賱蹖亘乇鬲丕乇蹖賳 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 倬匕蹖乇卮 丿禺丕賱鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 丕夭 丿賵賱鬲 (賲禺氐賵氐丕 爻蹖丕爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 賲丕賱蹖 賵 倬賵賱蹖) 爻乇夭賳卮 禺賵丕賴賳丿 讴乇丿.
丕賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲蹖 賴賲 亘丿賵賳 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 賲胤乇丨 讴乇丿. 丕蹖乇丕丿 丕賵賱 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘禺卮 賯丕亘賱 鬲賵噩賴蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 賳賴丕丿賴丕貙 爻丕夭賲丕賳鈥屬囏� 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 丌賲乇蹖讴丕爻鬲 賵 卮丕蹖丿 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴鈥屰� 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮鈥屬囏� 讴爻賱鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 亘丕卮丿. 丕蹖乇丕丿 丿賵賲蹖 讴賴 亘賴 匕賴賳賲 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲鬲丿賵賱賵跇蹖 賲讴鬲亘 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 卮蹖讴丕诏賵 丕爻鬲.
卮蹖讴丕诏賵蹖蹖鈥屬囏� 亘賴 胤賵乇 讴賱蹖 胤乇賮丿丕乇 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 丌賲丕乇 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賵 賲丨丕爻亘丕鬲 乇蹖丕囟蹖 丿乇 賲爻丕卅賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺亘乇 趩賳丿丕賳蹖 丕夭 丌賲丕乇 賵 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲 賳蹖爻鬲.
亘丕 诏匕乇 丕夭 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴 賵 賳賵夭丿賴 亘賴 鬲丿乇蹖噩 賲毓賳丕 賵 賲賮賴賵賲 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 丿乇 睾乇亘 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 讴乇丿.
丕诏乇 丿乇 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴賲 賲鬲賮讴乇丕賳蹖 賴賲趩賵賳 丌丿丕賲 丕爻賲蹖鬲 賵 噩丕賳 賱丕讴 亘乇 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 丿禺丕賱鬲鈥屬囏й� 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮賴乇賵賳丿丕賳貙 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿貙 鬲賯賵蹖鬲 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 賵 丨丕讴賲蹖鬲 賯丕賳賵賳 鬲丕讴蹖丿 丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙 讴賲鈥屭┵� 丕蹖賳 丕氐賵賱 讴賲乇賳诏 卮丿賴 賵 噩丕蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 丕氐賵賱蹖 亘丕 丿禺丕賱鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賴賲趩賵賳 亘乇丕亘乇蹖 孬乇賵鬲貙 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 鬲氐丕毓丿蹖貙 丿禺丕賱鬲 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 鬲噩丕乇鬲 賵 亘丕夭丕乇 賵 丕蹖噩丕丿 丿賵賱鬲 乇賮丕賴 丿丕丿賳丿.
賲孬賱丕 丕诏乇 賴賲蹖賳 丕賲乇賵夭 賴賲 丿乇 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 (賴賲趩賵賳 亘毓囟蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丿賳蹖丕) 丕夭 诏乇賵賴鈥屬囏й� 芦賱蹖亘乇丕賱禄 氐丨亘鬲 讴賳蹖丿貙 丕夭 賳馗乇 鬲讴賮乇 丨丕讴賲 亘乇 噩丕賲毓賴 丕夭 丨夭亘 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲 蹖丕 诏乇賵賴鈥屬囏й� 趩倬鈥屫� 蹖丕 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 芦progressives禄 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呝嗀� 氐丨亘鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫й屫� 丨夭亘 賵 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 讴賴 丨丿丕賯賱 丿乇 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲賵丕囟毓 诏乇丕蹖卮 亘賴 趩倬 賵 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 讴丕賲賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 賯乇賳 賴噩丿賴賲 亘丕卮賳丿.
賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 亘乇禺蹖 亘诏賵蹖賳丿 丨夭亘 噩賲賴賵乇蹖鈥屫堌з� 讴賴 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 噩賳丕丨 乇丕爻鬲 丌賲乇蹖讴丕爻鬲 賵 賲毓賲賵賱丕賸 賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж� (conservatives) 禺賵丕賳丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 乇丕 亘丕蹖丿 賲毓丕丿賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱 賯乇賳 賳賵夭丿賴賲蹖 蹖丕 賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 亘賳丕賲蹖賲. 丕蹖賳 賴賲 鬲毓乇蹖賮 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賳蹖爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж臂� 賴賲 丿乇 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲賵丕乇丿 丿乇 鬲囟丕丿 亘丕 丕氐賵賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 丕爻鬲. (卮丕蹖丿 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴 亘賴 亘賴丕賳賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘 蹖丕 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鈥屫й� 丿蹖诏乇貙 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж臂� 賵 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賳賵蹖爻賲)
亘賴 賴乇丨丕賱 賲蹖賱鬲賵賳 賮乇蹖丿賲賳貙 丕爻鬲丕丿 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 賵 亘乇賳丿賴鈥屰� 賳賵亘賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿貙 亘丕 丌诏丕賴蹖 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 賲爻丕卅賱貙 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 讴賴 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 賲毓乇賵賮鈥屫臂屬� 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵爻鬲貙 鬲兀讴蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丕賵 胤亘賯 鬲毓乇蹖賮 夭賲丕賳賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿 賳賴 賱蹖亘乇丕賱賽 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж� 賵 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 芦賱蹖亘乇丕賱 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賴鈥屰� 丌賳禄 賳丕賲蹖丿賴 卮賵丿:
亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 丌賳 讴賴 賲丕蹖賱 賳蹖爻鬲賲 賵丕跇賴鈥屰� 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 亘賴 噩丕賳亘丿丕乇丕賳賽 賲鬲毓氐亘賽 丌賳 讴賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 乇丕 丕夭 亘蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ辟嗀� 賵丕诏匕丕乇 讴賳賲 賵 亘丿丕賳 噩賴鬲 讴賴 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 亘賴鬲乇蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж迟呚� 亘丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賵丕跇賴鈥屰� 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘賴 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賵賱蹖賴鈥屰� 丌賳 -蹖毓賳蹖 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳 丌夭丕丿- 丕蹖賳 賲卮讴賱 乇丕 丨賱 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
丕鬲乇蹖卮蹖鈥屬囏й� 賴賲趩賵賳 賲蹖夭爻 賵 賴丕蹖讴 賵 丌賲乇蹖讴丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 賴賲趩賵賳 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 讴賵卮蹖丿賳丿 亘賴 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 诏匕卮鬲賴鈥屰� 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘乇诏乇丿賳丿 賵 丕氐賵賱 丌賳 乇丕 丕丨蹖丕 讴賳賳丿貙 丕蹖賳 亘丕夭诏卮鬲賽 丿賵亘丕乇賴 乇丕 賯亘賱 丕夭 賴賲賴 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳賽 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賵 趩倬鈥屬囏� 芦賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲禄 賳丕賲蹖丿賳丿 賵 禺賵丿 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賳蹖夭 亘賴 鬲丿乇蹖噩 丕蹖賳 丕氐胤賱丕丨 乇丕 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲賳丿.
丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 鬲毓乇蹖賮 丿賯蹖賯 賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 賵 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屬囏й� 丌賳 亘丕 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 亘丨孬 賵 噩丿賱 賵 丨乇賮 賵 丨丿蹖孬 亘爻蹖丕乇 丕爻鬲 賵 丕鬲賮丕賯 賳馗乇 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貙 卮丕蹖丿 丿乇爻鬲鈥屫� 丕蹖賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 賴蹖趩 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 亘蹖賳 芦賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賱丕爻蹖讴禄 賵 丌賳趩賴 芦賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲禄 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 賯丕卅賱 賳卮賵蹖賲貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨丕賱 亘乇禺蹖 賲毓鬲賯丿賳丿 賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏� 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 倬蹖卮蹖賳蹖丕賳 讴賱丕爻蹖讴卮丕賳貙 鬲丕讴蹖丿 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 亘乇 讴賵趩讴鈥屫池ж槽� 丿賵賱鬲貙 禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽屫� 賵 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賳丿.
賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賵 賴賲讴丕乇丕賳卮 乇丕 睾賵賱鈥屬囏й� 賲讴鬲亘 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 卮蹖讴丕诏賵 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 賲毓鬲賯丿賳丿 賲讴鬲亘 卮蹖讴丕诏賵 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 賲讴鬲亘 丕鬲乇蹖卮蹖 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 鬲賲丕賲 毓蹖丕乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 趩蹖夭蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 芦賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲禄 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呝嗀�.
丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲噩賲賵毓賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖鈥屬囏й� 賲乇鬲亘 卮丿賴 賵 賵蹖乇丕蹖卮 卮丿賴鈥屰� 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖賱鬲賵賳 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丕夭 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴賱蹖丕鬲 賵 丕氐賵賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 禺賵丿丿丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賵丕乇丿 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 倬爻 卮丕蹖丿 亘丿 賳亘丕卮丿 丕诏乇 賯亘賱 丕夭 賲胤丕賱毓賴鈥屰� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 倬蹖卮鈥屫操呟屬嗁団€屫й� 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 丕氐賵賱 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖丿 (賲孬賱丕 讴鬲丕亘 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 賲蹖夭爻 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿賴 亘丕卮蹖丿)
亘蹖卮鬲乇賽 賲亘丕丨孬 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 蹖讴 賳馗丕賲 賱蹖亘乇丕賱 賳賯卮 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 賲爻丕卅賱 賲禺鬲賱賮 趩蹖爻鬲貙 蹖毓賳蹖 蹖讴 丿賵賱鬲賽 讴丕倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻鬲 趩賴 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 亘丕蹖丿 亘讴賳丿 賵 趩賴 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 賳讴賳丿. 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳貙 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵乇 睾賱胤 乇丕 丿乇 匕賴賳 賲禺丕胤亘丕賳 爻丕禺鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏й� 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 亘賴 讴賱蹖 丿賵賱鬲鈥屫池屫� 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐嗀� 亘丕 鬲囟毓蹖賮 丿賵賱鬲 賳賵毓蹖 芦丌賳丕乇卮蹖禄 乇丕 亘乇 噩丕賲毓賴 丨丕讴賲 讴賳賳丿 鬲丕 亘禺卮 禺氐賵氐蹖 丌夭丕丿蹖 賴乇 毓賲賱蹖 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿. 丕诏乇 趩賳蹖賳 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屫� 亘丕 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 睾丕賮賱诏蹖乇 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 卮丿. 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賳賯卮鈥屬囏й� 禺丕氐蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丿賵賱鬲 賯丕卅賱 丕爻鬲貙 賳賯卮鈥屬囏й屰� 丨鬲蹖 卮丕蹖丿 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賵 賵爻蹖毓鈥屫� 丕夭 丕鬲乇蹖卮蹖鈥屬囏�.
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 趩讴蹖丿賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賲亘丕丨孬 诏爻鬲乇丿賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫①堌辟�:
賮氐賱 丕賵賱: 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 亘丕 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖
爻蹖丕爻鬲 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 鬲賳诏丕鬲賳诏蹖 亘丕 賴賲 丿丕乇賳丿. 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳丕 讴賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 亘丿賵賳 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賳丕賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲. 丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 鬲囟賲蹖賳賽 丌夭丕丿蹖賽 賮乇丿蹖 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲 亘丕卮丿.
丌夭丕丿蹖 丿乇 賳馗丕賲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖貙 噩夭卅蹖 丕夭 賲賮賴賵賲 诏爻鬲乇丿賴鈥屰� 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲 賵 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丌夭丕丿蹖賽 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖貙 禺賵丿 蹖讴 賴丿賮 丕爻鬲. 丕夭 爻賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇貙 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 丕亘夭丕乇蹖 囟乇賵乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丿爻鬲蹖丕亘蹖 亘賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲.
丿乇 賴蹖趩 夭賲丕賳 賵 賲讴丕賳蹖 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 乇丕 爻乇丕睾 賳丿丕乇賲 讴賴 亘丿賵賳 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 爻丕夭賲丕賳丿賴蹖 亘禺卮 丕毓馗賲 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賽 禺賵丿 丕夭 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴賳丿貙 丕夭 丌夭丕丿蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賯丕亘賱 賲賱丕丨馗賴鈥屫й� 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮丿.
丕賯鬲氐丕丿賽 亘丕夭丕乇貙 丌賳 趩蹖夭蹖 乇丕 讴賴 賲乇丿賲 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇賳丿貙 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 賵 賳賴 丌賳趩賴 乇丕 讴賴 诏乇賵賴蹖 賲蹖鈥屬举嗀ж辟嗀� 亘丕蹖丿 賲賵乇丿 賳蹖丕夭 賲乇丿賲 亘丕卮丿.
亘丕夭丕乇 亘丕 亘乇丿丕卮鬲賳 讴賳鬲乇賱 賲乇噩毓 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丕夭 爻丕夭賲丕賳 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖貙 賲賳亘毓 丕蹖噩丕丿 丕噩亘丕乇 乇丕 丕夭 亘蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必� 賵 爻亘亘 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖貙 亘賴 噩丕蹖 丌賳讴賴 賳蹖乇賵蹖蹖 讴賲讴蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賴 丕亘夭丕乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴賳鬲乇賱 丌賳 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮賵丿.
亘丕夭丕乇賽 賲爻鬲賯賱 賵 亘蹖鈥屫坟辟佖� 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 乇丕 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴鈥屬囏й� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 噩丿丕 讴乇丿賴 賵 丕噩丕夭賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 禺賵丿 亘賴 丿賱丕蹖賱蹖 讴賴 乇亘胤蹖 亘賴 亘賴乇鈥屬団€屬堌臂� 丌賳丕賳 賳丿丕乇丿 賲賵乇丿 鬲亘毓蹖囟 賯乇丕乇 诏蹖乇賳丿. 禺賵丕賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱丕蹖賱 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 毓賯丕蹖丿 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丌賳丕賳 亘丕卮丿貙 禺賵丕賴 乇賳诏 倬賵爻鬲 丌賳鈥屬囏�.
丕賱诏賵蹖 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賽 賲賵乇丿 賯亘賵賱 丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳貙 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賲亘丕丿賱丕鬲 丌夭丕丿 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屭柏ж臂� 禺氐賵氐蹖 (爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 乇賯丕亘鬲蹖) 丕爻鬲. 丕賲丕 亘禺卮 禺氐賵氐蹖 賴賲 亘蹖鈥屫观屫� 賵 賳賯氐 賳蹖爻鬲. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 亘賴 賯賵丕賳蹖賳蹖 賳蹖丕夭 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 賵 丨賯賵賯 賲丿賳蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 丨賮馗 卮賵丿:
賱丕夭賲賴鈥屰� 丨賮馗 賳馗賲 賵 賯丕賳賵賳 亘乇丕蹖 噩賱賵诏蹖乇蹖 丕夭 丕噩亘丕乇 賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 賮乇丿 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賮乇丿 丿蹖诏乇 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 丕噩乇丕蹖 賯乇丕乇丿丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿丕賵胤賱亘丕賳賴 亘爻鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 亘丿蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 丕氐胤賱丕丨 芦禺氐賵氐蹖禄 鬲丨賯賯 蹖丕亘丿.
亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿 囟乇賵乇鬲 賵噩賵丿 丿賵賱鬲 乇丕 賳賮蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 亘乇毓讴爻貙 丿賵賱鬲 賴賲 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲乇噩毓賽 賵囟毓賽 芦賲賯乇乇丕鬲 亘丕夭蹖禄 賵 賴賲 亘賴 賲賳夭賱賴鈥屰� 丿丕賵乇蹖 讴賴 賲賯乇乇丕鬲 賵囟毓 卮丿賴 乇丕 鬲賮爻蹖乇 賵 丕噩乇丕 讴賳丿貙 丕爻丕爻丕賸 丿丕乇丕蹖 丕賴賲蹖鬲 丕爻鬲.
丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳貙 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿貙 禺賵丿 賳賵毓蹖 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕夭 賳賵毓 芦賳馗丕賲 賳賲丕蹖賳丿诏蹖 賳爻亘蹖禄 丕爻鬲. 賳馗丕賲蹖 讴賴 賴乇 賳賴丕丿 禺氐賵氐蹖貙 賳賲丕蹖賳丿賴鈥屰� 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 賲乇丿賲 丕爻鬲 賵 丨鬲蹖 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 丕賯賱蹖鬲 丿乇 丌賳 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 蹖丕 亘賴 毓亘丕乇鬲蹖 丕讴孬乇蹖鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賳馗乇卮 乇丕 亘賴 丕賯賱蹖鬲 鬲丨賲蹖賱 讴賳丿.
賮氐賱 丿賵賲: 賳賯卮 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 丌夭丕丿
丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賮乇蹖丿賲賳貙 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲爻丕卅賱 噩丕賲毓賴 乇丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 亘丕夭丕乇 丨賱 讴乇丿 蹖丕 亘賴丕蹖 丌賳 趩賳丕賳 夭蹖丕丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 丕夭 乇丕賴鈥屫� 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 卮賵丿.
丕賳噩丕賲 趩賳蹖賳 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 噩夭賵 賵馗丕蹖賮 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻鬲.
賲賴賲鬲乇蹖賳 讴丕乇賴丕蹖 讴賴 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕蹖丿 丕賳噩丕賲 丿賴丿:
鈥� 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 賳賯卮 賯丕賳賵賳鈥屭柏ж� 賵鈥� 丿丕賵乇: 丿賵賱鬲 賯賵丕毓丿 亘丕夭蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 亘丕夭丕乇 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 爻丕夭 賵 讴丕乇 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 亘賴 賳賲丕蹖賳丿诏蹖 丕夭 賲乇丿賲 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 亘乇 丕噩乇丕蹖 丿乇爻鬲 賯賵丕賳蹖賳 賳馗丕乇鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丌夭丕丿蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕賮乇丕丿 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 賲睾丕蹖乇 亘丕卮丿貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 亘丕蹖丿 丌夭丕丿蹖賽 蹖讴蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 丨賮馗 丌夭丕丿蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賲丨丿賵丿 讴乇丿.
賲丐爻爻丕鬲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 丕噩丕夭賴 賳丿丕乇賳丿 乇賯亘丕蹖卮丕賳 乇丕 丕夭 氐丨賳賴 亘蹖乇賵賳 讴賳賳丿貙 賲诏乇 亘丕 賮乇賵禺鬲賳 讴丕賱丕蹖蹖 亘賴鬲乇 亘丕 賯蹖賲鬲蹖 亘乇丕亘乇賽 讴丕賱丕蹖 乇賯亘丕蹖 禺賵丿貙 蹖丕 賮乇賵禺鬲賳 賴賲丕賳 讴丕賱丕 亘丕 賯蹖賲鬲蹖 倬丕蹖蹖賳鈥屫�.
鈥� 丕賳丨氐丕乇 賮賳蹖 賵 丌孬丕乇 賴賲噩賵丕乇蹖: 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲爻丕卅賱 亘賴 丿賱丕蹖賱 賮賳蹖 蹖丕 丿蹖乇亘丕夭丿賴 亘賵丿賳 亘丕夭诏卮鬲 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 鬲賵爻胤 亘禺卮 禺氐賵氐蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賲孬賱丕 爻丕禺鬲 乇丕賴鈥屫①囐� 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賳 亘丕乇 丿乇 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 丿丕賵胤賱亘 禺氐賵氐蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲 賵 丿賵賱鬲 賳賯卮 丌賳 乇丕 亘乇 毓賴丿賴 诏乇賮鬲 (丕讴賳賵賳 趩賳蹖賳 丕賳丨氐丕乇蹖 鬲賵噩蹖賴鈥屬矩佰屫� 賳蹖爻鬲)
亘乇禺蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 亘丕 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲卮丕賳 丌孬丕乇蹖 亘乇 丕賮乇丕丿 丿蹖诏乇 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж辟嗀� 讴賴 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丌賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇禺賵丕爻鬲 賴夭蹖賳賴 讴乇丿. 賲孬賱丕 蹖讴 讴丕乇禺丕賳賴 亘丕 丌賱賵丿賴 讴乇丿賳 蹖讴 乇賵丿禺丕賳賴 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 賳丕丨蹖賴 鬲兀孬蹖乇 賲賳賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 賵 亘丕蹖丿 賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屰� 丕蹖賳 丌賱賵丿诏蹖 乇丕 亘倬乇丿丕夭丿 賵賱蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 鬲讴 鬲讴 丕賮乇丕丿 賳丕丨蹖賴鈥屰� 乇賵丿禺丕賳賴 乇丕 卮賳丕爻丕蹖蹖 讴乇丿 賵 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屰� 賲鬲賳丕爻亘 倬乇丿丕禺鬲. 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻卅賱賴 丕孬乇 賴賲噩賵丕乇蹖 (neighbourhood effect) 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 丿賵賱鬲 賵馗蹖賮賴 丿丕乇丿 丕蹖賳 賴夭蹖賳賴 乇丕 亘賴 賳賲丕蹖賳丿诏蹖 丕夭 賲乇丿賲 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 賳賲丕蹖丿. 爻丕禺鬲 賵 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 倬丕乇讴鈥屬囏й� 丿乇賵賳 卮賴乇蹖 賴賲 賳賵毓蹖 丕孬乇 賴賲噩賵丕乇蹖 賲孬亘鬲 丿丕乇丿 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕卮丿.
鈥� 丿賱丕蹖賱 倬丿乇賲丌亘丕賳賴:
丌夭丕丿蹖 賮賯胤 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏й� 賲爻卅賵賱 賴丿賮蹖 賯丕亘賱 丿賮丕毓 丕爻鬲. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丿蹖賵丕賳诏丕賳 賵 讴賵丿讴丕賳 讴賴 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 讴丕賲賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕毓賲丕賱卮丕賳 賳丿丕乇賳丿貙 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 丌夭丕丿蹖 讴丕賲賱蹖 賴賲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿. 丿乇 趩賳蹖賳 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 睾蹖乇 賲爻卅賵賱貙 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕蹖丿 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘乇毓賴丿賴 亘诏蹖乇丿. 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 讴賵丿讴丕賳 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 丕氐賱蹖 亘丕 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏ж池� 丕賲丕 賱丕夭賲 丕爻鬲 丿賵賱鬲 賲乇丕賯亘 亘丕卮丿 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏� 丨賯賵賯 丕賵賱蹖賴鈥屰� 讴賵丿讴 乇丕 夭蹖乇 倬丕 賳诏匕丕乇賳丿.
亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿賵賱鬲 賳亘丕蹖丿 丕賳噩丕賲 丿賴丿:
鈥� 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屬囏й� 丨賲丕蹖鬲蹖 讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖
鈥� 丕蹖噩丕丿 鬲毓乇賮賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕乇丿丕鬲 蹖丕 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 氐丕丿乇丕鬲
鈥� 讴賳鬲乇賱 賯蹖賲鬲 蹖丕 賯蹖賲鬲鈥屭柏ж臂� 丿爻鬲賵乇蹖
鈥� 讴賳鬲乇賱 丕噩丕乇賴鈥屫ㄙ囏�
鈥� 丿賵賱鬲蹖 讴乇丿賳 氐賳丕蹖毓
鈥� 賳馗丕乇鬲 亘乇 丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕鬲 賵 乇丕丿蹖賵 賵 鬲賱賵蹖夭蹖賵賳(禺胤乇 爻丕賳爻賵乇 賵 賳賯囟 丌夭丕丿蹖 亘蹖丕賳)
鈥� 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕賲蹖賳 賲爻讴賳 丿賵賱鬲蹖
鈥⒇池必ㄘж糙屫臂� 丕噩亘丕乇蹖 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 氐賱丨
賵...
賮氐賱 爻賵賲: 賳馗丕乇鬲 亘乇 倬賵賱
賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴鬲丕亘 芦禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 倬賵賱禄 丕孬乇 賴丕蹖讴 诏賮鬲賲貙 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丕夭 賲禺丕賱賮丕賳 丕蹖噩丕丿 倬賵賱 禺氐賵氐蹖 亘賵丿. 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 丿賵賱鬲 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 鬲兀賲蹖賳 賳馗丕賲 倬丕蹖丿丕乇 倬賵賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕爻鬲賯乇丕乇 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丌夭丕丿 乇丕 亘乇 毓賴丿賴 丿丕乇丿 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 倬賵賱蹖 賵 賲丕賱蹖 賵 亘賵丿噩賴鈥屫й� 亘乇 毓賴丿賴鈥屰� 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻鬲. 丕賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘賴 丿賱丕蹖賱蹖 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 讴賲亘賵丿 賲賳丕亘毓 胤賱丕貙 丕夭 賲禺丕賱賮丕賳 亘乇賯乇丕乇蹖 丕爻鬲丕賳丿丕乇丿 胤賱丕 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 丕賵 亘乇丕蹖 讴賳鬲乇賱 鬲賵乇賲貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 賯丕賳賵賳蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲丨丿賵丿 讴乇丿賳 趩丕倬 倬賵賱 鬲賵爻胤 亘丕賳讴 賲乇讴夭蹖 (丿乇 丌賲乇蹖讴丕: 賮丿乇丕賱 乇夭乇賵) 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 胤賵乇蹖 讴賴 亘丕賳讴 賲乇讴夭蹖 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 丕噩丕夭賴 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 亘蹖卮 丕夭 爻賴 鬲丕 倬賳噩 丿乇氐丿 丕夭 丨噩賲 倬賵賱 丿乇 爻丕賱貙 賳賯丿蹖賳诏蹖 乇丕 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 丿賴丿.
賮氐賱 趩賴丕乇賲: 鬲乇鬲蹖亘丕鬲 亘蹖賳鈥屫з勝呝勝勠� 賲丕賱蹖 賵 亘丕夭乇诏丕賳蹖
丿乇 丿賴賴鈥屰� 郾酃鄢郯 丿乇 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲丕賱讴蹖鬲 禺氐賵氐蹖 胤賱丕 丕蹖噩丕丿 卮丿 讴賴 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 亘賴 卮丿鬲 亘丕 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賲蹖賲 賲禺丕賱賮鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘賴 乇丕賴鈥屫勨€屬囏й屰� 亘乇丕蹖 亘賴亘賵丿 鬲乇丕夭 鬲噩丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賵 丕夭 賯蹖賲鬲 卮賳丕賵乇 丕乇夭 丨賲丕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 鬲毓乇賮賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕乇丿丕鬲貙 賴賲 亘賴 囟乇乇 氐丕丿乇讴賳賳丿賴 丕爻鬲 賴賲 賵丕乇丿丕鬲鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 鬲噩丕乇鬲 丌夭丕丿 亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 丿爻鬲賵乇 讴丕乇 賯乇丕乇 诏蹖乇丿.
賮氐賱 倬賳噩賲: 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賲丕賱蹖
丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 丿乇 鬲賯丕亘賱 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 芦讴蹖賳夭禄 丕爻鬲 賵 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 賵馗丕蹖賮 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤 乇讴賵丿 蹖丕 鬲賵乇賲 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
賮氐賱 卮卮賲: 賳賯卮 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 丌賲賵夭卮 賵 倬乇賵乇卮
丿賵 賳賵毓 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 亘乇丕蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿: 郾) 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖 鄄) 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 鬲禺氐氐蹖
亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕賮乇丕丿 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖賽 倬丕蹖賴 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮賳丿 賵 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 丿賵賱鬲 賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屰� 鬲丨氐蹖賱 丕賮乇丕丿 亘蹖鈥屫ㄘ敦ж关� 乇丕 亘倬乇丿丕夭賳丿.
亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 讴賳鬲乇賱 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 亘乇 賲丿丕乇爻 讴丕爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 鬲賲丕蹖賱 丿丕乇賳丿 丕蹖丿蹖賵賱賵跇蹖鈥屬囏й� 鬲亘賱蹖睾丕鬲蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賲丿丕乇爻 丿賵賱鬲蹖 丿乇 賲睾夭 讴賵丿讴丕賳 賮乇賵 讴賳賳丿.
亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲丨氐蹖賱 丿乇 睾丕賱亘 蹖丕乇丕賳賴 亘賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏й� 賮賯蹖乇 倬乇丿丕禺鬲 卮賵丿 賳賴 亘賴 賲丿丕乇爻 丿賵賱鬲蹖.
賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲賵丕賮賯 禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 丌賲賵夭卮 丕爻鬲 亘賴 卮乇胤蹖 讴賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屬囏й� 賮賯蹖乇 賴賲 亘鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丿乇 賲丿丕乇爻 孬亘鬲鈥屬嗀з� 讴賳賳丿. 禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 丌賲賵夭卮 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘丕毓孬 亘賴亘賵丿 丨賯賵賯 賲毓賱賲丕賳 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿.
丿乇 囟賲賳 賲蹖夭丕賳 丨丿丕賯賱蹖 丕夭 賳馗丕乇鬲 亘乇 賲丿丕乇爻 賵 賲丐爻爻丕鬲 丌賲賵夭卮蹖 亘丕蹖丿 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 蹖毓賳蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 丨丿丕賯賱 賲賵丕夭蹖賳 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 卮丿賴鈥屰� 丌賲賵夭卮蹖 賲孬賱 爻賵丕丿 禺賵丕賳丿賳 賵 賳賵卮鬲賳 蹖丕 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲 倬丕蹖賴.
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲丨氐蹖賱丕鬲 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 賵 鬲禺氐氐蹖 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 禺氐賵氐蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 亘蹖卮鬲乇貙 倬乇丿丕禺鬲 蹖丕乇丕賳賴 亘賴 丕賮乇丕丿 賮賯蹖乇 亘賴 噩丕蹖 賲丐爻爻賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賲賵夭卮蹖 蹖丕 丕毓胤丕蹖 賵丕賲 鬲丨氐蹖賱蹖 亘丕 鬲毓賴丿 亘賴 讴丕乇 亘乇丕蹖 賲丐爻爻賴鈥屰� 丌賲賵夭卮蹖 丕爻鬲.
賮氐賱 賴賮鬲賲: 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵 鬲亘毓蹖囟
丿乇 胤賵賱 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕蹖賳 丕氐賵賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱 亘賵丿賴 讴賴 鬲亘毓蹖囟鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕夭 賲蹖丕賳 亘乇丿賴 丕爻鬲. 賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 诏賮鬲賴 卮丿貙 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賯賵賲蹖鬲貙 丿蹖賳 賵 乇賳诏 倬賵爻鬲 賯丕卅賱 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 賮賯胤 亘賴 讴丕乇丕蹖蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 丕賴賲蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丿乇毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲禺丕賱賮 鬲亘毓蹖囟賽 賲孬亘鬲 亘丕 賮卮丕乇 丿賵賱鬲 亘賴 賳賮毓 丕賯賱蹖鬲鈥屬囏ж池� 趩賵賳 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 亘爻鬲賳 賯乇丕乇丿丕丿賴丕蹖 丿丕賵胤賱亘丕賳賴 乇丕 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
賮氐賱 賴卮鬲賲: 丕賳丨氐丕乇 賵 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 鬲噩丕乇鬲 讴丕乇
蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 亘賴 賳馗丕賲 亘丕夭丕乇 丌夭丕丿 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丕蹖賳 亘賵丿賴 讴賴 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й� 禺氐賵氐蹖 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 亘丕 爻賵亍丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲賽 禺賵丿 蹖丕 鬲亘丕賳蹖 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 丕賳丨氐丕乇 讴賳賳丿. 卮毓丕乇 賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏� 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丕蹖噩丕丿 亘丕夭丕乇賽 芦乇賯丕亘鬲蹖禄 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賵馗丕蹖賮 丿賵賱鬲 卮讴爻鬲賳 賴乇诏賵賳賴 丕賳丨氐丕乇 丿乇 亘丕夭丕乇 丕爻鬲 (亘賴 卮乇胤蹖 讴賴 禺賵丿 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕毓孬 丕蹖噩丕丿 丕賳丨氐丕乇 丿賵賱鬲蹖 賳卮賵丿)
賮氐賱 賳賴賲: 氐丿賵乇 噩賵丕夭 讴爻亘
丌蹖丕 賱丕夭賲 丕爻鬲 賲乇丿賲 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇卮丕賳 丕夭 丿賵賱鬲 賲噩賵夭 亘诏蹖乇賳丿 蹖丕 氐丿賵乇 噩賵丕夭 讴爻亘 毓賲賱蹖 亘蹖鈥屬佖й屫� 賵 賵爻蹖賱賴鈥屰� 夭賵乇诏蹖乇蹖 丿賵賱鬲 賵 诏爻鬲乇卮 亘乇賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕爻鬲責
亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲賵丕賮賯 亘丕 孬亘鬲鈥屬嗀з� 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇賴丕 丿乇 爻丕賲丕賳賴鈥屬囏й� 丿賵賱鬲蹖 賵 丕毓胤丕蹖 诏賵丕賴蹖 禺丕氐 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲賴丕乇鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 賲孬賱 賲丿乇讴 鬲丨氐蹖賱蹖 蹖丕 賮賳蹖 丨乇賮賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲貙 賵賱蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 丿賵賱鬲 噩賱賵蹖 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇賴丕 乇丕 亘丕 亘賴丕賳賴鈥屬囏й屰� 賲孬賱 毓丿賲 賲賴丕乇鬲 讴丕賮蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇 丿賵賱鬲 亘诏蹖乇丿 賲禺丕賱賮 丕爻鬲.
賮氐賱 丿賴賲: 鬲賵夭蹖毓 丿乇丌賲丿
卮丕蹖丿 亘夭乇诏鬲乇蹖賳 丕蹖乇丕丿蹖 讴賴 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 賵 趩倬鈥屬囏� 丿乇 胤賵賱 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴 丕氐賵賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 丕蹖噩丕丿 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丿乇 孬乇賵鬲 丕爻鬲.
爻賵丕賱 丕蹖賳噩丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌蹖丕 乇賮毓 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 鬲賵噩蹖賴鈥屭┵嗁嗀団€屰� 丿禺丕賱鬲 丿賵賱鬲 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 丿乇丌賲丿 丕賮乇丕丿 丕爻鬲責 賵 丕孬乇 賵丕賯毓蹖 丕蹖賳 賲丿丕禺賱丕鬲 趩蹖爻鬲責
丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丿乇 孬乇賵鬲 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿睾丿睾賴鈥屰� 丕氐賱蹖 賲丕 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賱讴賴 賲賴賲 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丿乇 芦爻胤丨 夭賳丿诏蹖禄 丕爻鬲. 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘丕 讴丕賴卮 賮賯乇貙 孬乇賵鬲 毓賲賵賲蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 乇丕 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賲丨乇賵賲鈥屫臂屬� 丿賴讴鈥屬囏й� 噩丕賲毓賴 賴賲 丕夭 丨丿丕賯賱 丕爻鬲丕賳丿丕乇丿賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮賳丿. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 亘丕 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й屰� 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 讴丕賴卮鈥屫囐嗀団€屰� 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖 丿乇 爻胤丨 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕爻鬲.
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲禺丕賱賮 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 鬲氐丕毓丿蹖 丕爻鬲貙 趩賵賳 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屰� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屭柏ж臂� 乇丕 丿乇 氐丕丨亘丕賳 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 讴丕賴卮 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丕賵 胤乇賮丿丕乇 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 賳爻亘蹖 亘丕 賳乇禺 蹖讴賳賵丕禺鬲 丕爻鬲 (賲蹖夭丕賳 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 賲賵乇丿 倬匕蹖乇卮賽 丕賵 鄄鄢/鄣 丿乇氐丿 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲賴 丕爻鬲貙 亘賴 噩夭 丕賮乇丕丿 亘爻蹖丕乇 賮賯蹖乇 讴賴 賲卮賲賵賱 賲毓丕賮蹖鬲 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲蹖 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�)
丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丿乇丌賲丿 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲蹖 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賳乇禺賽 蹖讴賳賵丕禺鬲 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賳乇禺 鬲氐丕毓丿蹖 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 賴賲 禺賵丕賴丿 蹖丕賮鬲貙 趩賵賳 亘丕 讴丕賴卮 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲鈥屬囏� 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇 賵 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屭柏ж臂� 亘蹖卮鬲乇 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 乇卮丿 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿 賵 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 賲蹖夭丕賳 禺丕賱氐 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲蹖 賴賲 亘丕 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 孬乇賵鬲 噩丕賲毓賴 乇卮丿 禺賵丕賴丿 賳賲賵丿.
賮氐賱 蹖丕夭丿賴賲: 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 乇賮丕賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖
賮乇蹖丿賲賳 亘丕 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 丕噩亘丕乇蹖 賲丕賱蹖丕鬲 亘賴 亘賴丕賳賴鈥屰� 禺丿賲丕鬲 芦鬲兀賲蹖賳 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖禄 賲禺丕賱賮 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴鈥屰� 丕賵 亘蹖賲賴鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 亘丕蹖丿 禺氐賵氐蹖 卮賵賳丿 賵 丕賮乇丕丿 丨賯 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賳賵毓 亘蹖賲賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿.
丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 丨丿丕賯賱 丿爻鬲賲夭丿 鬲賵爻胤 丿賵賱鬲 亘丕毓孬 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 亘蹖讴丕乇蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿.
賮氐賱 丿賵丕夭丿賴賲: 鬲禺賮蹖賮 賮賯乇
趩胤賵乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賴 賯卮乇 賮賯蹖乇 讴賲讴 讴乇丿 賵 丕夭 賲卮讴賱丕鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 丌賳丕賳 讴丕爻鬲責 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 賲丐爻爻賴鈥屬囏й� 禺蹖乇蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 禺氐賵氐蹖 讴丕乇丕蹖蹖 亘賴鬲乇蹖 丿乇 讴賲讴 亘賴 賳蹖丕夭賲賳丿丕賳 丿丕乇賳丿. 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 丿賵賱鬲 亘乇丕蹖 讴賲讴 亘賴 賮賯乇丕 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 亘丕夭丕乇 丕禺鬲賱丕賱 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴賳丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 賯蹖賲鬲鈥屭柏ж臂� 丿爻鬲賵乇蹖 蹖丕 爻賴賲蹖賴鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 讴丕賱丕賴丕 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿. 倬乇丿丕禺鬲 蹖丕乇丕賳賴鈥屰� 賳賯丿蹖 亘賴 賮賯乇丕 丕賯丿丕賲 賲賳丕爻亘鈥屫臂� 丕夭 賳馗乇 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 丕爻鬲.
丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲 賵 丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲
丕賳鬲賯丕丿 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲胤丕賱亘 讴鬲丕亘 讴丕賲賱丕 亘爻鬲诏蹖 亘賴 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖/爻蹖丕爻蹖賽 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 丿丕乇丿. 賲爻賱賲丕賸 趩倬鈥屬囏� 亘蹖卮鬲乇賽 賲胤丕賱亘 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 賳禺賵丕賴賳丿 倬爻賳丿蹖丿 賵 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱貙 卮丕禺賴鈥屬囏й� 乇丕丿蹖讴丕賱鈥屫� 丕夭 胤蹖賮 賱蹖亘乇鬲丕乇蹖賳 賮乇蹖丿賲賳 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 倬匕蹖乇卮 丿禺丕賱鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 丕夭 丿賵賱鬲 (賲禺氐賵氐丕 爻蹖丕爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 賲丕賱蹖 賵 倬賵賱蹖) 爻乇夭賳卮 禺賵丕賴賳丿 讴乇丿.
丕賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲蹖 賴賲 亘丿賵賳 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 賲胤乇丨 讴乇丿. 丕蹖乇丕丿 丕賵賱 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘禺卮 賯丕亘賱 鬲賵噩賴蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 賳賴丕丿賴丕貙 爻丕夭賲丕賳鈥屬囏� 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 丌賲乇蹖讴丕爻鬲 賵 卮丕蹖丿 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴鈥屰� 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮鈥屬囏� 讴爻賱鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 亘丕卮丿. 丕蹖乇丕丿 丿賵賲蹖 讴賴 亘賴 匕賴賳賲 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲鬲丿賵賱賵跇蹖 賲讴鬲亘 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 卮蹖讴丕诏賵 丕爻鬲.
卮蹖讴丕诏賵蹖蹖鈥屬囏� 亘賴 胤賵乇 讴賱蹖 胤乇賮丿丕乇 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 丌賲丕乇 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賵 賲丨丕爻亘丕鬲 乇蹖丕囟蹖 丿乇 賲爻丕卅賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺亘乇 趩賳丿丕賳蹖 丕夭 丌賲丕乇 賵 乇蹖丕囟蹖丕鬲 賳蹖爻鬲.
February 8, 2019
I last read Capitalism and Freedom as a teenager. Rereading it I was surprised about how contemporary and undated it is, even if the lectures it is based on were delivered more than 60 years ago. The lack of being dated is partly because much of the world has not changed (e.g., we still have occupational licensing鈥攊n fact more of it鈥攁nd farm supports), Milton Friedman was prescient (e.g., the shift to floating exchange rates and lower top marginal tax rates), Friedman helped shape our thinking (see the previous), and many of the same often wrong ways of thinking and canards Friedman are still alive and well (e.g., a larger welfare state will make us unfree politically).
Friedman鈥檚 book is a combination of a normative worldview and a set of positive statements all applied to a variety of areas of economic policy. The normative worldview is one of 鈥渓iberalism鈥� in the classical sense, the idea that people should have maximum freedom from coercion by the state鈥攐r 鈥渘egative liberty鈥� to use Isaiah Berlin鈥檚 terminology (as compared to 鈥減ositive liberty鈥� which is more like the right to an education, healthcare and the like). He argues: 鈥淕overnment is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom.鈥�
Friedman argues that the genius of the market is to let everyone express their own views and tastes through what they purchase while government requires a majority to impose its views on all. The problem of government, her argues, is compounded by the lack of a mechanism to correct problems鈥攊t is hard to move cities, even harder to move states, and harder still to move countries鈥攁s compared to the market where you can simply stop buying the offending product.
Friedman makes two sets of positive claims. The first is quite broad: 鈥渁 system of economic freedom鈥� is a 鈥渘ecessary condition for political freedom.鈥� He is arguing that the more the government interferes with economic choices, the more likely it is to become like the Soviet Union without political freedoms. His two arguments for this proposition are: (1) a thought experiment about how if the government owns all of the means of production it is impossible for dissenters to, for example, hire a printer to print their dissenting newspaper and (2) a set of syllogisms of the form 鈥渢he Soviet Union is not a market economy, the Soviet Union is a dictatorship, therefore if you are not a market economy you are a dictatorship.鈥�
This broad claim may well be true in the limit, the situation that both the thought exercise and syllogism apply to. But sixty years of data have proven very unkind to it absent that limiting case. The National Health Service in the UK, for example, may be a good or a bad idea but by moving some fraction of the way to nationalization it has not exactly impeded freedom and liberty. The Scandanavian countries have much larger governments but also do not display systematically less freedom. There are arguments for and against larger state involvement in the economy but to say it is The Road to Serfdom (as Friedman, drawing on Friedrich Hayek, argues) is not helpful.
(Friedman鈥檚 views about the links between economic policies and political freedom reach an almost self parodying extreme when he argues that any form of exchange rate management is 鈥渢he most serious short-run threat to economic freedom鈥� and that 鈥渢he most effective way to convert a market economy into an authoritarian economic society is to start by imposing direct controls on foreign exchange.鈥�)
The second set of positive claims that Friedman makes are around a lot of specific economic policies arguing that in almost every case good intentions have perverse results and even judged by the moral standard he attributes to intellectuals (a sort of paternalistic, equal outcomes, interventionists mindset) they are failures. He argues this is true of countercyclical macroeconomic (it introduces instability and worsens the business cycle), anti-monopoly legislation (it can entrench monopolies), progressive taxation (in some ways it increases income inequality, housing projects (it destroys the housing supply), and the minimum wage (it increases unemployment and makes the poor worse off).
No doubt some of these are right, like housing projects where the emphasis of policy has appropriately shifted towards housing vouchers and reducing barriers that complain housing supply鈥攊deas that are along the lines of what Friedman is arguing. Some of these are almost certainly wrong, the increased stability of the macroeconomy鈥攊ncluding the fact that the Great Recession was much milder than the Great Recession鈥攊s thanks to the fact that policymakers, especially in Central Banks, have ignored Friedman鈥檚 mechanistic and disastrous proposal for monetary policy to simply increase the growth of the money stock with no regard to anything else in the economy.
What I find suspicious is that that contrary to the rigorous, hard-headed thinking Friedman claims to espouse much of this reads more like wishful thinking. Friedman essentially wants to have his cake (a classical liberal view of justice) and eat it to (if you follow his normative philosophy you鈥檒l get better outcomes even measured on your different normative philosophy). For example, progressive taxation isn鈥檛 just a violation of liberty, it also can make the distribution of income even worse. This is the type of too-good-to-be-true wishful thinking that he would rightfully decry in other circumstances. And it means he avoids some of the tough tradeoffs one would have to consider about whether one prioritizes liberalism as a philosophy or outcomes because they will not both line up.
In Friedman鈥檚 defense, he does have a reason鈥攐ther than pure coincidence鈥攖hat his normative and positive views line up so closely. Specifically, he argues that public policies are not done randomly or by wise policy mandarins but instead systematically shaped by self-interested parties. These policies can persist because they have a small number of highly visible winners and many invisible losers. He would argue the minimum wage has this feature, being pushed by labor unions to help their members, creating a bunch of visible winners receiving higher wages, and many more people without jobs who may not even realize it was because of the higher minimum wage. (I am not endorsing his view, just describing it鈥攖he evidence since his book has, at the very least, cast substantial doubt on this particular argument.)
All of that said, anyone who cares about public policy should think very hard about the imperfections of government, the distortions of rent seekers and regulatory capture, the role of incentives, and unintended consequences. You do not need to agree with Friedman鈥檚 every prescription to benefit from better understanding all of these issues and factoring them in to your evaluation of public policy going forward.
Friedman鈥檚 book is a combination of a normative worldview and a set of positive statements all applied to a variety of areas of economic policy. The normative worldview is one of 鈥渓iberalism鈥� in the classical sense, the idea that people should have maximum freedom from coercion by the state鈥攐r 鈥渘egative liberty鈥� to use Isaiah Berlin鈥檚 terminology (as compared to 鈥減ositive liberty鈥� which is more like the right to an education, healthcare and the like). He argues: 鈥淕overnment is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom.鈥�
Friedman argues that the genius of the market is to let everyone express their own views and tastes through what they purchase while government requires a majority to impose its views on all. The problem of government, her argues, is compounded by the lack of a mechanism to correct problems鈥攊t is hard to move cities, even harder to move states, and harder still to move countries鈥攁s compared to the market where you can simply stop buying the offending product.
Friedman makes two sets of positive claims. The first is quite broad: 鈥渁 system of economic freedom鈥� is a 鈥渘ecessary condition for political freedom.鈥� He is arguing that the more the government interferes with economic choices, the more likely it is to become like the Soviet Union without political freedoms. His two arguments for this proposition are: (1) a thought experiment about how if the government owns all of the means of production it is impossible for dissenters to, for example, hire a printer to print their dissenting newspaper and (2) a set of syllogisms of the form 鈥渢he Soviet Union is not a market economy, the Soviet Union is a dictatorship, therefore if you are not a market economy you are a dictatorship.鈥�
This broad claim may well be true in the limit, the situation that both the thought exercise and syllogism apply to. But sixty years of data have proven very unkind to it absent that limiting case. The National Health Service in the UK, for example, may be a good or a bad idea but by moving some fraction of the way to nationalization it has not exactly impeded freedom and liberty. The Scandanavian countries have much larger governments but also do not display systematically less freedom. There are arguments for and against larger state involvement in the economy but to say it is The Road to Serfdom (as Friedman, drawing on Friedrich Hayek, argues) is not helpful.
(Friedman鈥檚 views about the links between economic policies and political freedom reach an almost self parodying extreme when he argues that any form of exchange rate management is 鈥渢he most serious short-run threat to economic freedom鈥� and that 鈥渢he most effective way to convert a market economy into an authoritarian economic society is to start by imposing direct controls on foreign exchange.鈥�)
The second set of positive claims that Friedman makes are around a lot of specific economic policies arguing that in almost every case good intentions have perverse results and even judged by the moral standard he attributes to intellectuals (a sort of paternalistic, equal outcomes, interventionists mindset) they are failures. He argues this is true of countercyclical macroeconomic (it introduces instability and worsens the business cycle), anti-monopoly legislation (it can entrench monopolies), progressive taxation (in some ways it increases income inequality, housing projects (it destroys the housing supply), and the minimum wage (it increases unemployment and makes the poor worse off).
No doubt some of these are right, like housing projects where the emphasis of policy has appropriately shifted towards housing vouchers and reducing barriers that complain housing supply鈥攊deas that are along the lines of what Friedman is arguing. Some of these are almost certainly wrong, the increased stability of the macroeconomy鈥攊ncluding the fact that the Great Recession was much milder than the Great Recession鈥攊s thanks to the fact that policymakers, especially in Central Banks, have ignored Friedman鈥檚 mechanistic and disastrous proposal for monetary policy to simply increase the growth of the money stock with no regard to anything else in the economy.
What I find suspicious is that that contrary to the rigorous, hard-headed thinking Friedman claims to espouse much of this reads more like wishful thinking. Friedman essentially wants to have his cake (a classical liberal view of justice) and eat it to (if you follow his normative philosophy you鈥檒l get better outcomes even measured on your different normative philosophy). For example, progressive taxation isn鈥檛 just a violation of liberty, it also can make the distribution of income even worse. This is the type of too-good-to-be-true wishful thinking that he would rightfully decry in other circumstances. And it means he avoids some of the tough tradeoffs one would have to consider about whether one prioritizes liberalism as a philosophy or outcomes because they will not both line up.
In Friedman鈥檚 defense, he does have a reason鈥攐ther than pure coincidence鈥攖hat his normative and positive views line up so closely. Specifically, he argues that public policies are not done randomly or by wise policy mandarins but instead systematically shaped by self-interested parties. These policies can persist because they have a small number of highly visible winners and many invisible losers. He would argue the minimum wage has this feature, being pushed by labor unions to help their members, creating a bunch of visible winners receiving higher wages, and many more people without jobs who may not even realize it was because of the higher minimum wage. (I am not endorsing his view, just describing it鈥攖he evidence since his book has, at the very least, cast substantial doubt on this particular argument.)
All of that said, anyone who cares about public policy should think very hard about the imperfections of government, the distortions of rent seekers and regulatory capture, the role of incentives, and unintended consequences. You do not need to agree with Friedman鈥檚 every prescription to benefit from better understanding all of these issues and factoring them in to your evaluation of public policy going forward.
September 19, 2014
Friedman is definitely one of the most eloquent economists ever to have ventured into public discourse and also one of the most influential. And his arguments are powerful and almost impossible to argue against without stripping oneself of intellectual integrity. No doubts about that. But the imaginary debating partner cannot help but wonder if staking a claim to the moral high ground in an argument is not exactly the most liberal way of conducting one. Friedman puts a lot of stock into how true liberalism must be determined and the gist is that it is about letting people choose what is best for them. Now, having agreed with that, the imaginary debating partner would begin to feel slightly discomfited as Friedman begins to assert that given everything else his school has the right to define how this 'freedom' of expression should be exercised and defined.
This second definition feels discomfiting because the imaginary debater cannot quite get how Friedman can claim the authority to dictate that the natural tendency of all democracies towards being welfare states is not really in keeping with the best interests of people. The imaginary debater tries to argue that with universal franchise, surely we can allow the economic system to explore its welfare limits and see how it works, just as we have explored mercantile limits earlier. But Friedman takes no note and sticks to the stand that his school knows best what 'freedom' really is and how it is to be best expressed.
The imaginary debater makes one last attempt to try and point out that this is in contrast to Friedman's basic philosophy in life that underpins all his theories - a basic distrust of all authority.
Seeing the futility, the debate ends.
Disclaimer: The book is a great read (as reflected in the rating). The reviewer is not to be held responsible for random debates that ensues in the reading.
October 13, 2019
I have always opposed Communism because I have thought it worships an idea, and puts the idea before human life and the individual. I decided iwhen I was young. Lately I have come to the realization that libertarian neoliberal free market capitalist ideology does exactly the same. People like Ludwig von Mises , Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Yaron Brook. etc are not less fanatic and contemptuous of actual life than fanatics on the other end of the spectrum like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Honecker, Ceucescu etc.
It is no less doctrinaire , no less dogmatic , no less totally contemptuous of any life that gets in the way of the almighty market!
The results have caused immense suffering in all the countries neoliberal economics have been applied. But only to the lower rungs of society so the privileged oh so successful perfect ones would not care,
In Britain for example benefit cuts and super credit have destroyed countless lives. Also you cannot call yourself a real patriot if you are willing to sacrifice your nation's culture and traditions to the almighty dollar.
This is all nothing to do with freedom or respect for the individual. It is idolatory , worship of the golden calf of free market capitalism and Darwinian survival of the fittest. Hitler believe in survival of the racial ''fittest and the extermination of the racially inferior'. People like Von Mises , Rand and Friedman see survival of the economic fittest as the goal and extermination of the socially and economically weaker.
The older I get the more I realize how evil and cruel unfettered , rampant capitalism underpinned by extreme libertarian ideology is. It has no pity, and no respect for life. It has nothing to do with freedom and it as doctrinaire and uncompromising .
It is no less doctrinaire , no less dogmatic , no less totally contemptuous of any life that gets in the way of the almighty market!
The results have caused immense suffering in all the countries neoliberal economics have been applied. But only to the lower rungs of society so the privileged oh so successful perfect ones would not care,
In Britain for example benefit cuts and super credit have destroyed countless lives. Also you cannot call yourself a real patriot if you are willing to sacrifice your nation's culture and traditions to the almighty dollar.
This is all nothing to do with freedom or respect for the individual. It is idolatory , worship of the golden calf of free market capitalism and Darwinian survival of the fittest. Hitler believe in survival of the racial ''fittest and the extermination of the racially inferior'. People like Von Mises , Rand and Friedman see survival of the economic fittest as the goal and extermination of the socially and economically weaker.
The older I get the more I realize how evil and cruel unfettered , rampant capitalism underpinned by extreme libertarian ideology is. It has no pity, and no respect for life. It has nothing to do with freedom and it as doctrinaire and uncompromising .
January 12, 2022
The fairy tale that destroyed the world
I always wondered what my first one star review would be. I should've guessed it would be something by Milton Friedman. The audacious mix of arrogance and niavetee within these pages makes Capitalism and Freedom one of the most catastrophic books written in recent memory. I listened to the audiobook while driving in my car while mostly shouting obscenities and screaming a la Matthew McConaughey inside a black hole yelling at the business leaders in the 1970s to throw this book in the garbage where it belongs instead of implementing its ideologies.
Friedman believes a fairy tale. He believes so emphatically in the morality and infallibility of 鈥渇ree markets鈥� that he insists on abolition of government social programs, licensure, public schools and taxation amongst many others. He is a puritan who is so convinced of his own theories that anything contrary to them is ludicrous to even consider. Friedman is the father of neoliberalism: broad privatization, slash social programs, weaken the labor class and complete deregulation of business. The philosophy might even be sound when heard in a vacuum: trust the efficiency and innovation of the free market and more equity will follow. This is how freedom is defined by neoliberals: unfettered business practice. By moralizing this ideology, asserting that it would help abolish poverty, neoliberalism became a highly potent ideology primed to take over the political zeitgeist in the 1970s. We are now suffering the disastrous consequences 50 years later.
The promise of neoliberalism and TRICKle down economics has never been realized. Trusting in the myth of free markets has only resulted in vast wealth concentration. The last 40 years have only shown severe wage stagnation for the majority of Americans and the rise of multinationals and globalization鈥攂asically a competing form of government that is the antithesis of democracy. Friedman and Hayak鈥檚 ideas resulted in a corporate authoritarianism that has metastasized to state collusion resulting in consolidated power and complete subjugation of the labor class.
The mistake is believing in free markets to begin with. Free markets have never existed. They are always controlled. Whether state-controlled or corporatocracy, they are controlled and manipulated. If you are foolish enough to surrender freedom to the markets, it will always result in monopolization and consolidation of power. And we鈥檙e suffering today with this foolish and reckless ideology.
Friedman is proof that there is nothing more dangerous than an economist who is a puritan of ideology. The world is a worse place because of him and this book. You don't need to read this book.
I always wondered what my first one star review would be. I should've guessed it would be something by Milton Friedman. The audacious mix of arrogance and niavetee within these pages makes Capitalism and Freedom one of the most catastrophic books written in recent memory. I listened to the audiobook while driving in my car while mostly shouting obscenities and screaming a la Matthew McConaughey inside a black hole yelling at the business leaders in the 1970s to throw this book in the garbage where it belongs instead of implementing its ideologies.
Friedman believes a fairy tale. He believes so emphatically in the morality and infallibility of 鈥渇ree markets鈥� that he insists on abolition of government social programs, licensure, public schools and taxation amongst many others. He is a puritan who is so convinced of his own theories that anything contrary to them is ludicrous to even consider. Friedman is the father of neoliberalism: broad privatization, slash social programs, weaken the labor class and complete deregulation of business. The philosophy might even be sound when heard in a vacuum: trust the efficiency and innovation of the free market and more equity will follow. This is how freedom is defined by neoliberals: unfettered business practice. By moralizing this ideology, asserting that it would help abolish poverty, neoliberalism became a highly potent ideology primed to take over the political zeitgeist in the 1970s. We are now suffering the disastrous consequences 50 years later.
The promise of neoliberalism and TRICKle down economics has never been realized. Trusting in the myth of free markets has only resulted in vast wealth concentration. The last 40 years have only shown severe wage stagnation for the majority of Americans and the rise of multinationals and globalization鈥攂asically a competing form of government that is the antithesis of democracy. Friedman and Hayak鈥檚 ideas resulted in a corporate authoritarianism that has metastasized to state collusion resulting in consolidated power and complete subjugation of the labor class.
The mistake is believing in free markets to begin with. Free markets have never existed. They are always controlled. Whether state-controlled or corporatocracy, they are controlled and manipulated. If you are foolish enough to surrender freedom to the markets, it will always result in monopolization and consolidation of power. And we鈥檙e suffering today with this foolish and reckless ideology.
Friedman is proof that there is nothing more dangerous than an economist who is a puritan of ideology. The world is a worse place because of him and this book. You don't need to read this book.
February 1, 2024
Another Reread, 2/22. Reread 2/21 I have read this several times; first in grad school, and then as a text I have assigned in advanced public policy and political economy seminars. Why? If anything else, this is the 'bible' of neoliberal thinking, promoting an idealized version of the 'free market' as basically the solution to most if not all social woes. No one would really care today about Friedman's arguments except that most politicians in the USA seem to utilize it has their policy handbook. Hence, Friedman's attack on the expansion of the role of the government in economic life during and post New Deal eras has, over time, become something of a rationale behind contemporary public policy-- aka, Neoliberalism.
Let me be clear-- I really do not like this book, in fact, I really hate this book. Yet, given that it has become a 'bible' for neoliberal thinking, it is still an important book to struggle through.
The entire premise of his argument is predicted upon a few simple ideas. First, 'freedom' is a 'fragile flower' that needs to be nurtured where ever it arises. What is freedom for Friedman? Simply the freedom to choose without coercion. His ideal 'free market utopia' is also argued to be a necessary prerequisite for political freedom, e.g., democracy. Secondly, Friedman juxtaposes just two types of societies-- socialist (by which he constantly raises the flag of the USSR) versus 'capitalist' (by which he connotes his 'free market utopia'). Any 'infringements on capitalism involve some sort of coercion by definition, and, like Hayek, take us on the misguided road to serfdom.
One key flaw of his entire argument arises in how he defines capitalism-- a system of completely voluntary transactions. Market transactions are always free, never coerced, unlike anything the government does, which always involves some form of coercion. If you 'buy' that initial premise, you will love this book; if not, it will probably make you scream.
How does Friedman argue the market always involves voluntary transactions? Well, you are never forced into a transaction. What about needed income to survive in a market economy? After all, without money, people cannot buy what they need to live. Friedman 'solves' that by stating the following: "Since the household always has the alternative of producing directly for itself, it need not enter into any exchange unless it benefits from it. Hence, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit from it" (p13). What tripe! Give me any household in any modern economy that has the option of 'producing directly for itself' and can then thumb it nose at the marketplace. Yet, however insidious a statement, Friedman needs it here to further make his argument that the market is always voluntary; lose the 'produce for itself' and then the market becomes coercive, does it not? If you _have_ to, say, sell your labor power to earn the income you need to survive, you are not 'free to choose', you are forced to sell for any amount possible. His entire argument hinges on this point.
If, and that is a big if, you buy the above premise, that some of his supporting arguments logically follow, but by no means all. Here we start to dive into the 'free market optimist' or 'ideal' land where the market always provides ideal outcomes while state action always involves coercion, and, at least according to Friedman, fails in its policy agenda to boot. I am not going to go through this book blow by blow, but just provide a few examples of why the 'free market' always provides better outcomes than state coercion.
Worried about discrimination? Why, that just reflects the preferences of people in a given time and location. How can we rectify such an egregious practice? Let the market work. After all, if women can do the same job as men and as well, than _some_ enterprising capitalist will start hiring more women as they 'cost less' but produce the same, so our capitalist can undercut the competition on price. People do not care how the product was made after all, they just want the best price. Any old stuffy bigot who is running a firm will eventually be bankrupted by the competition or start hiring women! More people hiring women will push up their value! As long as women can do the same job as men _and_ work for less, they will be the ideal employees. You can substitute race for gender her and get the same result.
Each an every chapter concerns a hot topic-- income inequality, minimum wage laws, occupational licensure (e.g., certified doctors, lawyers, etc.), social welfare measures, fiscal and monetary policy. At least Friedman is consistent-- he finds no, and I mean no, case where any governmental action can outperform the 'free market'. The only role for the government comes down to enforcing contracts, law and order, and maybe some public goods like roads.
What is so disturbing about this book is how much of the democratic party has bought into such tripe while at the same time distancing themselves from the New Deal. The same could be said of the Labor party of England. Neoliberalism continues to thrive among policy makers will income inequality explodes and the richest nation in the history of the world cannot even manage to send relief checks to a population suffering dire effects from the pandemic. Any relief must be 'means tested' after all; cannot just give things away. Enough.
Let me be clear-- I really do not like this book, in fact, I really hate this book. Yet, given that it has become a 'bible' for neoliberal thinking, it is still an important book to struggle through.
The entire premise of his argument is predicted upon a few simple ideas. First, 'freedom' is a 'fragile flower' that needs to be nurtured where ever it arises. What is freedom for Friedman? Simply the freedom to choose without coercion. His ideal 'free market utopia' is also argued to be a necessary prerequisite for political freedom, e.g., democracy. Secondly, Friedman juxtaposes just two types of societies-- socialist (by which he constantly raises the flag of the USSR) versus 'capitalist' (by which he connotes his 'free market utopia'). Any 'infringements on capitalism involve some sort of coercion by definition, and, like Hayek, take us on the misguided road to serfdom.
One key flaw of his entire argument arises in how he defines capitalism-- a system of completely voluntary transactions. Market transactions are always free, never coerced, unlike anything the government does, which always involves some form of coercion. If you 'buy' that initial premise, you will love this book; if not, it will probably make you scream.
How does Friedman argue the market always involves voluntary transactions? Well, you are never forced into a transaction. What about needed income to survive in a market economy? After all, without money, people cannot buy what they need to live. Friedman 'solves' that by stating the following: "Since the household always has the alternative of producing directly for itself, it need not enter into any exchange unless it benefits from it. Hence, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit from it" (p13). What tripe! Give me any household in any modern economy that has the option of 'producing directly for itself' and can then thumb it nose at the marketplace. Yet, however insidious a statement, Friedman needs it here to further make his argument that the market is always voluntary; lose the 'produce for itself' and then the market becomes coercive, does it not? If you _have_ to, say, sell your labor power to earn the income you need to survive, you are not 'free to choose', you are forced to sell for any amount possible. His entire argument hinges on this point.
If, and that is a big if, you buy the above premise, that some of his supporting arguments logically follow, but by no means all. Here we start to dive into the 'free market optimist' or 'ideal' land where the market always provides ideal outcomes while state action always involves coercion, and, at least according to Friedman, fails in its policy agenda to boot. I am not going to go through this book blow by blow, but just provide a few examples of why the 'free market' always provides better outcomes than state coercion.
Worried about discrimination? Why, that just reflects the preferences of people in a given time and location. How can we rectify such an egregious practice? Let the market work. After all, if women can do the same job as men and as well, than _some_ enterprising capitalist will start hiring more women as they 'cost less' but produce the same, so our capitalist can undercut the competition on price. People do not care how the product was made after all, they just want the best price. Any old stuffy bigot who is running a firm will eventually be bankrupted by the competition or start hiring women! More people hiring women will push up their value! As long as women can do the same job as men _and_ work for less, they will be the ideal employees. You can substitute race for gender her and get the same result.
Each an every chapter concerns a hot topic-- income inequality, minimum wage laws, occupational licensure (e.g., certified doctors, lawyers, etc.), social welfare measures, fiscal and monetary policy. At least Friedman is consistent-- he finds no, and I mean no, case where any governmental action can outperform the 'free market'. The only role for the government comes down to enforcing contracts, law and order, and maybe some public goods like roads.
What is so disturbing about this book is how much of the democratic party has bought into such tripe while at the same time distancing themselves from the New Deal. The same could be said of the Labor party of England. Neoliberalism continues to thrive among policy makers will income inequality explodes and the richest nation in the history of the world cannot even manage to send relief checks to a population suffering dire effects from the pandemic. Any relief must be 'means tested' after all; cannot just give things away. Enough.
June 17, 2020
No longer using this website, but I'm leaving up old reviews. Fuck Jeff Bezos. Find me on LibraryThing:
I read this book as part of a class on Political Thought. I had food poisoning at the time that this book was assigned, but I would have been puking even if I hadn't had those undercooked pancakes that day. This book is so full of ruling class whitewash that it is truly difficult to read.
The text, essentialized, was as follows: Capitalism offers rich people choices. These choices can be redefined as freedom. Therefore Capitalism offers freedom.
Left out is what to do if you don't have the luxury of being able to buy choices. Left out is how these choices in fact necessitate others' oppression and their lack of freedom. Left out is any semblence of understanding of what it is to work for those choices to be available to some.
Actually, let me rephrase: Friedman mentions these points specifically on several occaisions. He then explains that it is not anyone's business how to answer these questions, all policy is to be made between stock holders and companies itself, no matter who else is affected.
When Milton Friedman died, I gave everyone I knew a high-five.
I read this book as part of a class on Political Thought. I had food poisoning at the time that this book was assigned, but I would have been puking even if I hadn't had those undercooked pancakes that day. This book is so full of ruling class whitewash that it is truly difficult to read.
The text, essentialized, was as follows: Capitalism offers rich people choices. These choices can be redefined as freedom. Therefore Capitalism offers freedom.
Left out is what to do if you don't have the luxury of being able to buy choices. Left out is how these choices in fact necessitate others' oppression and their lack of freedom. Left out is any semblence of understanding of what it is to work for those choices to be available to some.
Actually, let me rephrase: Friedman mentions these points specifically on several occaisions. He then explains that it is not anyone's business how to answer these questions, all policy is to be made between stock holders and companies itself, no matter who else is affected.
When Milton Friedman died, I gave everyone I knew a high-five.
April 14, 2017
Inequality is one of the most pressing issues facing the US today. Milton Friedman鈥檚 philosophy played a substantial role in creating the political environment that has allowed inequality to grow over the last four decades.
Friedman鈥檚 philosophy has currency to this day not because he was so smart or so right but because his ideas are so useful to those in power 鈥� those who have wealth and those who benefit from supporting those who have wealth.
My primary question as I read this book for the first time: Was Friedman explicit in his goal of helping the rich concentrate and consolidate more power and wealth for themselves? The answer is no, unfortunately he did not identify this as the ultimate goal of his philosophy. That would have made my job too easy.
However, just because he never said it doesn鈥檛 mean that consolidating power for the wealthy wasn鈥檛 part of the plan all along. Consider his support for a flat tax, his hatred for Social Security or public housing, or his passionate support for school vouchers 鈥� all supported by the reactionary rich to this day. The rich feel the same way about these things because they stand to profit by them.
There is one innovation that keeps Friedman relevant to this day: equating economic freedom with political freedom.
Economic freedom essentially means the ability to participate in the economy 鈥� to freely and fairly produce or trade or consume any good or service without coercion. Sounds good, right? I don鈥檛 think there are many who would say they have a problem with that. Fine.
What is a problem is economic freedom is not the same as political freedom 鈥� freedom of speech, freedom to vote, and so on. To recognize the distinction between these two concepts consider the difference between 鈥渙ne person one vote鈥� and 鈥渙ne dollar one vote.鈥� Freidman was an early advocate for what became known as maximizing shareholder value, so it鈥檚 natural that he might support one dollar one vote. In a publicly traded company every shareholder gets one vote for every share of stock they own.
With one dollar one vote the billionaire gets put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, to support the candidate of their choice. The US Supreme Court has essentially affirmed that this expression of freedom is valid with the Citizens United decision and Buckley/Valeo and others. But the corollary to one dollar one vote is *no* dollar *no* vote. We are all free to influence elections by spending however much money we want buying campaign ads and funding political action committees. But if you can鈥檛 afford to spend money in that game you don鈥檛 get to participate.
Contrast this to the political ideal of one person one vote, every citizen gets a single vote. In that case we are all equal on Election Day. My vote has the same value as yours and so on.
But Friedman recognizes no such distinction. The power of his argument lies in blurring these differences. By equating economic freedom with political freedom any move to infringe upon the marketplace becomes an attack on liberty itself. It鈥檚 a neat trick.
If there鈥檚 one thing Americans love it鈥檚 freedom. By wrapping the interests of those with money in the flag and declaring any challenge to laissez faire economics a challenge to freedom Friedman forged a powerful tool for the rich to use against the rest of us. Trade barriers to protect American workers? That is an attack on freedom. Social Security benefits for old people? By forcing people to save for retirement you take their freedom.
This moral philosophy is the lodestone upon which the entire neoliberal economic outlook is based. Because taking money or imposing regulations is tantamount to taking freedom, low taxation, deregulation, and privatization become a way to preserve freedom. I suppose we鈥檙e supposed to think it鈥檚 a coincidence that low taxation, deregulation, and privatization also heavily favor the rich.
Friedman鈥檚 justification for this viewpoint is the free market. By extending Adam Smith鈥檚 notion of the 鈥渋nvisible hand鈥� of the market, society gets maximum benefit when everyone acts in their own self-interest. His ideas build off Friedrich Hayek and others who argue that any government intervention into the economy is the road to serfdom. This logical slippery slope says that any intervention made for the social benefit of a nation by a government is a step towards totalitarianism 鈥� and the elimination of political freedom.
Friedman argues that the government has no role in society beyond acting as an impartial umpire that stands to the side so the magic of the market can do its work. The market always does a better job. Self-interest always provides the best social outcome. The individual is superior to the collective.
However this idea of pitting the individual against the collective is fundamentally undemocratic. In democratic government the people are the sovereign and majority rules. The public is supposed to have a say determining what is best for the society. To say that individual freedom is more important than the will of the public is anti-democratic.
Wealth and power go hand in hand. The wealthy don鈥檛 need special consideration or more freedom to get what they want. Articulating a philosophy that puts economic liberty - the power of wealth - in equal standing with political freedom is so wrong. Don鈥檛 fall for it.
Friedman鈥檚 philosophy has currency to this day not because he was so smart or so right but because his ideas are so useful to those in power 鈥� those who have wealth and those who benefit from supporting those who have wealth.
My primary question as I read this book for the first time: Was Friedman explicit in his goal of helping the rich concentrate and consolidate more power and wealth for themselves? The answer is no, unfortunately he did not identify this as the ultimate goal of his philosophy. That would have made my job too easy.
However, just because he never said it doesn鈥檛 mean that consolidating power for the wealthy wasn鈥檛 part of the plan all along. Consider his support for a flat tax, his hatred for Social Security or public housing, or his passionate support for school vouchers 鈥� all supported by the reactionary rich to this day. The rich feel the same way about these things because they stand to profit by them.
There is one innovation that keeps Friedman relevant to this day: equating economic freedom with political freedom.
Economic freedom essentially means the ability to participate in the economy 鈥� to freely and fairly produce or trade or consume any good or service without coercion. Sounds good, right? I don鈥檛 think there are many who would say they have a problem with that. Fine.
What is a problem is economic freedom is not the same as political freedom 鈥� freedom of speech, freedom to vote, and so on. To recognize the distinction between these two concepts consider the difference between 鈥渙ne person one vote鈥� and 鈥渙ne dollar one vote.鈥� Freidman was an early advocate for what became known as maximizing shareholder value, so it鈥檚 natural that he might support one dollar one vote. In a publicly traded company every shareholder gets one vote for every share of stock they own.
With one dollar one vote the billionaire gets put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, to support the candidate of their choice. The US Supreme Court has essentially affirmed that this expression of freedom is valid with the Citizens United decision and Buckley/Valeo and others. But the corollary to one dollar one vote is *no* dollar *no* vote. We are all free to influence elections by spending however much money we want buying campaign ads and funding political action committees. But if you can鈥檛 afford to spend money in that game you don鈥檛 get to participate.
Contrast this to the political ideal of one person one vote, every citizen gets a single vote. In that case we are all equal on Election Day. My vote has the same value as yours and so on.
But Friedman recognizes no such distinction. The power of his argument lies in blurring these differences. By equating economic freedom with political freedom any move to infringe upon the marketplace becomes an attack on liberty itself. It鈥檚 a neat trick.
If there鈥檚 one thing Americans love it鈥檚 freedom. By wrapping the interests of those with money in the flag and declaring any challenge to laissez faire economics a challenge to freedom Friedman forged a powerful tool for the rich to use against the rest of us. Trade barriers to protect American workers? That is an attack on freedom. Social Security benefits for old people? By forcing people to save for retirement you take their freedom.
This moral philosophy is the lodestone upon which the entire neoliberal economic outlook is based. Because taking money or imposing regulations is tantamount to taking freedom, low taxation, deregulation, and privatization become a way to preserve freedom. I suppose we鈥檙e supposed to think it鈥檚 a coincidence that low taxation, deregulation, and privatization also heavily favor the rich.
Friedman鈥檚 justification for this viewpoint is the free market. By extending Adam Smith鈥檚 notion of the 鈥渋nvisible hand鈥� of the market, society gets maximum benefit when everyone acts in their own self-interest. His ideas build off Friedrich Hayek and others who argue that any government intervention into the economy is the road to serfdom. This logical slippery slope says that any intervention made for the social benefit of a nation by a government is a step towards totalitarianism 鈥� and the elimination of political freedom.
Friedman argues that the government has no role in society beyond acting as an impartial umpire that stands to the side so the magic of the market can do its work. The market always does a better job. Self-interest always provides the best social outcome. The individual is superior to the collective.
However this idea of pitting the individual against the collective is fundamentally undemocratic. In democratic government the people are the sovereign and majority rules. The public is supposed to have a say determining what is best for the society. To say that individual freedom is more important than the will of the public is anti-democratic.
Wealth and power go hand in hand. The wealthy don鈥檛 need special consideration or more freedom to get what they want. Articulating a philosophy that puts economic liberty - the power of wealth - in equal standing with political freedom is so wrong. Don鈥檛 fall for it.
December 31, 2007
An important book to read for any student of economics - this is the basis of most American economic policy - but it's WRONG and I think Adam Smith would roll in his grave to hear how people like Friedman are using his theories to make their friends richer while the masses struggle.
February 13, 2018
Commonsensical capitalist rhetoric so deeply entrenched in itself that it not only misrepresents socialism, but betrays liberalism as well.
Freedom becomes a freedom from responsibility, from context, from existence itself. The individual becomes an autonomous abstraction, existing only to partake in fleeting and narrow economic exchanges. Damned be the social, cultural or environmental consequences, because it is only the individual that matters. How many sociologists, psychologists, evolutionary biologists and anthropologists have countered this?
Supposedly one is free from coercion, for one "always has the alternative of producing directly for [themselves], [they] need not enter into any exchange unless [they] benefits from it." Friedman is so detached from reality that it seems he has missed hundreds of years of history, whilst simultaneously becoming blind to the present. Who owns all the grain fields? Capitalism necessarily involves coercion for one must enter into a contract for mere subsistence. These are not contracts with other individuals; they are contracts with enterprises, vessels that subsume all productive output from the individual.
What Friedman advocates is a bourgeois utopia. A freedom for the corporates to do as they please, and a freedom for the majority to be exploited, or to starve.
Freedom becomes a freedom from responsibility, from context, from existence itself. The individual becomes an autonomous abstraction, existing only to partake in fleeting and narrow economic exchanges. Damned be the social, cultural or environmental consequences, because it is only the individual that matters. How many sociologists, psychologists, evolutionary biologists and anthropologists have countered this?
Supposedly one is free from coercion, for one "always has the alternative of producing directly for [themselves], [they] need not enter into any exchange unless [they] benefits from it." Friedman is so detached from reality that it seems he has missed hundreds of years of history, whilst simultaneously becoming blind to the present. Who owns all the grain fields? Capitalism necessarily involves coercion for one must enter into a contract for mere subsistence. These are not contracts with other individuals; they are contracts with enterprises, vessels that subsume all productive output from the individual.
What Friedman advocates is a bourgeois utopia. A freedom for the corporates to do as they please, and a freedom for the majority to be exploited, or to starve.
October 12, 2011
Capitalism and Freedom examines the ultimate pursuit of freedom and liberty through the absence of government interference in the market and politics. Although government is warranted in the market yet limited, the market will always prevail in the most efficient use of resources. In a free society, there is a fine line between economic and political freedom.
The role of government should be only limited to law and order, enforcing property rights, and maintaining the monetary system. Friedman is a staunch proponent of eliminating monopolies from government education, occupational licensure, business and labor unions. The tax structure must intake an extensive reform from a current graduated tax rate to a much more universal flat tax rate.
Overall, the book is excellent in logical and rational statements of criticizing government intervention, and Friedman clearly explains the view of the libertarianism, and it is the people who are responsible of preserving freedom and liberty and stray away from tyranny and repression.
The role of government should be only limited to law and order, enforcing property rights, and maintaining the monetary system. Friedman is a staunch proponent of eliminating monopolies from government education, occupational licensure, business and labor unions. The tax structure must intake an extensive reform from a current graduated tax rate to a much more universal flat tax rate.
Overall, the book is excellent in logical and rational statements of criticizing government intervention, and Friedman clearly explains the view of the libertarianism, and it is the people who are responsible of preserving freedom and liberty and stray away from tyranny and repression.
February 8, 2016
I read this after Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose as a text ancillary to those assigned for Dave Schweickart's course entitled "Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy" and found it less offensive and more thought provoking than that later text.
Personally, I share Friedman's libertarianism in the sense of favoring the freedom of everyone to do as they please so long as their so doing does not restrict the freedom of others. This is a political, not an ethical, claim amounting to the belief that governments should no more interfere with individual liberty than with individual religious preferences. Ethically, there are a whole lot of restrictions on behavior which I advocate and try to practice.
I do not share Friedman's sanguine attitude towards supposed rights of ownership. Some of my concern here is political, some ethical. Politically, a representative system such as ours is radically distorted by the fact that marketing, which costs money, counts more than votes, which don't, in elections. Clearly, this is a matter for law if the principle of free and fair elections is to be maintained. Similarly, other distorting externalities arising from significant differences between incomes and assets would require control. One of these, of course, is the matter of inheritance. Friedman seems to regard individual human organisms as the agents, not families or clans or nations, so it would seem to follow that inheritance should be heavily taxed.
Beyond such political considerations, I have strong ethical objections to two things Friedman advocates: alienated ownership and labor. By "alienated ownership" I mean the legal fictions which allow persons to own properties they don't use and products they don't produce. By "alienated labor" I mean the legal fictions which allow the products of an individual's labor to be owned by others who had nothing to do with its production. Friedman, as I recall after these many years, deals with this by advocating unions--an interesting, ostensible concession to the real world from one normally prone to utopian idealism.
This raises the matter, assuming fundamental values are agreed upon, of how to get from the real to the ideal world wherein such values are instantiated. Is this a proper role for government, or is it more properly a matter for moral exhortation?
Personally, I share Friedman's libertarianism in the sense of favoring the freedom of everyone to do as they please so long as their so doing does not restrict the freedom of others. This is a political, not an ethical, claim amounting to the belief that governments should no more interfere with individual liberty than with individual religious preferences. Ethically, there are a whole lot of restrictions on behavior which I advocate and try to practice.
I do not share Friedman's sanguine attitude towards supposed rights of ownership. Some of my concern here is political, some ethical. Politically, a representative system such as ours is radically distorted by the fact that marketing, which costs money, counts more than votes, which don't, in elections. Clearly, this is a matter for law if the principle of free and fair elections is to be maintained. Similarly, other distorting externalities arising from significant differences between incomes and assets would require control. One of these, of course, is the matter of inheritance. Friedman seems to regard individual human organisms as the agents, not families or clans or nations, so it would seem to follow that inheritance should be heavily taxed.
Beyond such political considerations, I have strong ethical objections to two things Friedman advocates: alienated ownership and labor. By "alienated ownership" I mean the legal fictions which allow persons to own properties they don't use and products they don't produce. By "alienated labor" I mean the legal fictions which allow the products of an individual's labor to be owned by others who had nothing to do with its production. Friedman, as I recall after these many years, deals with this by advocating unions--an interesting, ostensible concession to the real world from one normally prone to utopian idealism.
This raises the matter, assuming fundamental values are agreed upon, of how to get from the real to the ideal world wherein such values are instantiated. Is this a proper role for government, or is it more properly a matter for moral exhortation?
Read
May 7, 2012Reading this book is like looking at a mirror into your own beliefs: how you react to Milton Friedman's philosophy tells you more about yourself than about the validity of the system. Fault lies totally with MF, who does not offer enough evidence to support his worldview, which is to limit government and expand free market in order to maximize 19th-century liberalism (where everyone is free such that one person's freedom doesn't impinge upon another's.) The lack of concrete evidence completely distressed me, especially for a book intended for a lay audience. I'm not expecting a mathematical proof (although that would be nice), but I am expecting some sort of empirical evidence if I am to believe, as MF argues at one point, that we need to abolish licensing of physicians in the US.
To be fair, there are one or maybe two chapters that are well-argued. The one that sticks out in my mind is on education, in which Friedman argues IMO quite successfully, that government should not administer education, but offer vouchers for "approved" schools (n.b. this seems like a form of licensing that later MF argues against). Then there is also the point that people tend to spend less on housing and basic needs in capitalist countries than in non-capitalist ones. And there is the prescient argument that unless the government repeals deductions for corporate charitable giving, we will be led down a slippery slope to a time - now - when corporations are treated as individuals (which runs counter to 19th-century liberal ideals).
Unfortunately, good arguments are few and far between. Ad hominem attacks, such as calling the president a "country banker", replace what could have been great definitions of an exchange or a market, which is important since these ideas are central to Milton Friedman's philosophy. College freshman-style philosophical logic replaces measures readers can look at to evaluate both Friedman's and extant economic systems. And a very weak ethical argument on the ethics of income inequality (basically Milton Friedman claims he can't think of a good one) replaces what should be an attempt at a strong converse to capitalism: that is, an attempt to show that any other economic system, both real and imagined, is worse than capitalism in some way. Any way. I don't need an answer, but at least a good attempt.
I am startled at how little I learned in this book compared to "Thinking Fast and Slow", written by another Nobel-Prize winning economist, Daniel Kahneman (although intellectually he is a psychologist). That book, while also dense, is replete with facts, studies, and definitions, and changed how I viewed the world. "Capitalism and Freedom", on the other hand, made me want to write this letter:
Dear economists,
We are reading your book because we want to learn something. We are willing to struggle in order to understand your point of view, so please don't insult our intelligence by giving us no data or methodology so we can think for ourselves and evaluate your argument. When writing for a "lay" audience, please don't write a pamphlet, write a book.
Best,
Suman
To be fair, there are one or maybe two chapters that are well-argued. The one that sticks out in my mind is on education, in which Friedman argues IMO quite successfully, that government should not administer education, but offer vouchers for "approved" schools (n.b. this seems like a form of licensing that later MF argues against). Then there is also the point that people tend to spend less on housing and basic needs in capitalist countries than in non-capitalist ones. And there is the prescient argument that unless the government repeals deductions for corporate charitable giving, we will be led down a slippery slope to a time - now - when corporations are treated as individuals (which runs counter to 19th-century liberal ideals).
Unfortunately, good arguments are few and far between. Ad hominem attacks, such as calling the president a "country banker", replace what could have been great definitions of an exchange or a market, which is important since these ideas are central to Milton Friedman's philosophy. College freshman-style philosophical logic replaces measures readers can look at to evaluate both Friedman's and extant economic systems. And a very weak ethical argument on the ethics of income inequality (basically Milton Friedman claims he can't think of a good one) replaces what should be an attempt at a strong converse to capitalism: that is, an attempt to show that any other economic system, both real and imagined, is worse than capitalism in some way. Any way. I don't need an answer, but at least a good attempt.
I am startled at how little I learned in this book compared to "Thinking Fast and Slow", written by another Nobel-Prize winning economist, Daniel Kahneman (although intellectually he is a psychologist). That book, while also dense, is replete with facts, studies, and definitions, and changed how I viewed the world. "Capitalism and Freedom", on the other hand, made me want to write this letter:
Dear economists,
We are reading your book because we want to learn something. We are willing to struggle in order to understand your point of view, so please don't insult our intelligence by giving us no data or methodology so we can think for ourselves and evaluate your argument. When writing for a "lay" audience, please don't write a pamphlet, write a book.
Best,
Suman
January 4, 2011
Friedman is the essence of the Chicago school of conservative/libertarian economics, and some say his is the driving idea behind Reagan's supply side economics.
Whatever you think about Reagan, Friedman is man of no small insight, both into economics and into politics. Some of the rationales for his economic policies sound like they came straight out of the political discussions of The Federalist Papers. Friedman, like Hamilton and Madison before him, realized that any power given to the government would expand over time if unchecked. Why? Because small, focused groups always overcome large, unfocused groups in the long run. That is the reason interest groups wield so much influence. And Friedman really does demonstrate something I've been saying for a long time: capitalism IS freedom.
So, by and large, Friedman is an advocate of using government to enforce contracts, punish criminals, wage war, and prevent monopolies or collusion. The free market can handle everything else. In most ways, he is right. What Friedman did not foresee is how vast some of the forces, especially speculators, could become. So now we find ourselves in a period where speculators can fundamentally distort the functioning of the market according to supply and demand (just like the government can).
Friedman also assumed that every individual was a rational actor, or at least acted like one. In that case, I believe that he entirely underestimated the role of cultural influences, crowd effects, etc.
All in all, great book. I really enjoyed reading it. Many of the situations described in the book have not changed in the last 50 years: Social Security, education, medicine. We aren't making much progress.
The idea I wish we would interject into our current situation: the end of corporate taxes and the progressive tax! Let every dollar of profit be attributed to shareholders, and let them pay taxes on all profit instead of using corporations to shelter income and encourage ridiculous amounts of growth. Also, a flat (i.e., non progressive) tax system is simpler, easier to administer, and fairer than a progressive tax.
Whatever you think about Reagan, Friedman is man of no small insight, both into economics and into politics. Some of the rationales for his economic policies sound like they came straight out of the political discussions of The Federalist Papers. Friedman, like Hamilton and Madison before him, realized that any power given to the government would expand over time if unchecked. Why? Because small, focused groups always overcome large, unfocused groups in the long run. That is the reason interest groups wield so much influence. And Friedman really does demonstrate something I've been saying for a long time: capitalism IS freedom.
So, by and large, Friedman is an advocate of using government to enforce contracts, punish criminals, wage war, and prevent monopolies or collusion. The free market can handle everything else. In most ways, he is right. What Friedman did not foresee is how vast some of the forces, especially speculators, could become. So now we find ourselves in a period where speculators can fundamentally distort the functioning of the market according to supply and demand (just like the government can).
Friedman also assumed that every individual was a rational actor, or at least acted like one. In that case, I believe that he entirely underestimated the role of cultural influences, crowd effects, etc.
All in all, great book. I really enjoyed reading it. Many of the situations described in the book have not changed in the last 50 years: Social Security, education, medicine. We aren't making much progress.
The idea I wish we would interject into our current situation: the end of corporate taxes and the progressive tax! Let every dollar of profit be attributed to shareholders, and let them pay taxes on all profit instead of using corporations to shelter income and encourage ridiculous amounts of growth. Also, a flat (i.e., non progressive) tax system is simpler, easier to administer, and fairer than a progressive tax.
May 10, 2015
The best way to describe Milton Friedman's manifesto is that while it has a laudable goal, the spreading of economic freedom to all, the means by which he would achieve them would ultimately do the opposite and leave people in continual poverty. His first chapter on how important economic freedom is is very good, but all of his arguments employ either strongman arguments that can't be reasonably argued against or straw man arguments that are too easy to knock down. Not only that, but his chapter on how anti-discrimination laws in the workplace would be unnecessary if the free market were allowed to do its work is an appalling argument. Thank God that most of these arguments are falling out of favor due to the current economic hardships and the incompetence of the current administration. In summation, read chapter 1 and skip everything else.
April 20, 2009
Good, very good, but not great. Several important errors. Read Ludwig von Mises by comparison.
October 15, 2009
If you're looking for a dry and cerebral argument for why markets tend to be a social good, and in most case the option which gives choice, encourages enterprise, is the preferable one -- then this book, though dated, is still relevant and worth taking a look into. Someone who hasn't studied economics at all probably should seek different primers before delving deep into Friedman's zany free market world.
That being said, Friedman delivers a solid utilitarian argument for limited government and free enterprise. Without much talking about the ethical differences in doing things by voluntary economic means vs. coercive political means, Friedman makes a simple pragmatic argument for markets by comparing the actual results (without regard to ideal visions of either) of the market and of government action on creating wealth, prosperity and alleviating social ills - without looking at the motives or intentions of the parties involved. He does this by looking at all the major government initiatives goals to raise living standards for a group or to combat discrimination over the last century, and showing many metrics for their failures. On the other hand, he takes a look at how markets were able to successfully address things like discrimination, poverty, social welfare, etc.
In reading this book, I came away with feeling that having a mixed economy, by that I mean a mix of capitalism and government intervention, lends itself to corrupting almost every forwarded initiative. Powerful economic interests either promote their own economically destructive measures (destructive to society such as legal monopolies, legal barriers to entry, subsidies, etc -- but profitable to the interests) and pervert any kind of initiative the government otherwise put forward. Playing the blame game of is it the special interests of the corruptible bureaucrats who are to blame is not productive. Curbing the effect of economic influence over political action, or somehow making bureaucrats incorruptible seems futile to me - though I laud the efforts of campaign finance reformers who have been able to diagnose one of the symptoms of a state not acting in our best interests. Ultimately, I think that the only way to combat this misuse of power is to eliminate the concentration of power in the state.
In summary, a great read for anyone economically inclined with a good attention span.
That being said, Friedman delivers a solid utilitarian argument for limited government and free enterprise. Without much talking about the ethical differences in doing things by voluntary economic means vs. coercive political means, Friedman makes a simple pragmatic argument for markets by comparing the actual results (without regard to ideal visions of either) of the market and of government action on creating wealth, prosperity and alleviating social ills - without looking at the motives or intentions of the parties involved. He does this by looking at all the major government initiatives goals to raise living standards for a group or to combat discrimination over the last century, and showing many metrics for their failures. On the other hand, he takes a look at how markets were able to successfully address things like discrimination, poverty, social welfare, etc.
In reading this book, I came away with feeling that having a mixed economy, by that I mean a mix of capitalism and government intervention, lends itself to corrupting almost every forwarded initiative. Powerful economic interests either promote their own economically destructive measures (destructive to society such as legal monopolies, legal barriers to entry, subsidies, etc -- but profitable to the interests) and pervert any kind of initiative the government otherwise put forward. Playing the blame game of is it the special interests of the corruptible bureaucrats who are to blame is not productive. Curbing the effect of economic influence over political action, or somehow making bureaucrats incorruptible seems futile to me - though I laud the efforts of campaign finance reformers who have been able to diagnose one of the symptoms of a state not acting in our best interests. Ultimately, I think that the only way to combat this misuse of power is to eliminate the concentration of power in the state.
In summary, a great read for anyone economically inclined with a good attention span.
March 13, 2017
This is a brilliant book with a cold, cold heart. I read it this spring for a course on politics taught by Noam Chomsky and Marvin Waterstone at the University of Arizona. They used it to establish the neoliberal argument for the way the world works, or should work. Needless to say, Chomsky and Waterstone鈥檚 views collided with Friedman鈥檚 in almost every way.
Friedman, who taught at the University of Chicago and won the Nobel Prize for Economics, was an idealist, an advocate for free-market purity. And in the best of all possible worlds, he is absolutely right. Capitalism spurs and ensures freedom. As transactional capitalists, individuals prosper, and society does, too. The role of government, then, is limited: 鈥渢o protect our freedoms from both the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets.鈥� Occasionally, 鈥済overnment may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However,鈥� he warns, 鈥渁ny such use of government is fraught with danger.鈥�
Sound familiar? It鈥檚 the basis of the libertarian credo that motivated Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Vestiges of it still remain in the Republican Party.
In Friedman鈥檚 worldview, individuals engaging in voluntary free-market transactions check the powers of government, protecting our other freedoms--of speech, religion and thought.
If only we lived in such a pure state, one without externalities such as pollution and climate change, without white-collar crooks and scam artists, without monopolies and transnational corporations, without the disabled or the disadvantaged. Freidman offers up solutions for these issues but not in a way that convinces me they can work in the real world. Witness Chile after the 1973 coup. At the behest of General Pinochet, Friedman鈥檚 acolytes, known as the Chicago Boys, got free rein to apply their free-market policies to Chile鈥檚 broken economy. The economy surged, with the nation's wealth concentrating among the elite, until it nearly collapsed, causing extensive deprivation and suffering for the majority. The unhappy dictator removed the Chicago Boys almost as expeditiously as he eliminated Salvador Allende.
Friedman, who taught at the University of Chicago and won the Nobel Prize for Economics, was an idealist, an advocate for free-market purity. And in the best of all possible worlds, he is absolutely right. Capitalism spurs and ensures freedom. As transactional capitalists, individuals prosper, and society does, too. The role of government, then, is limited: 鈥渢o protect our freedoms from both the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets.鈥� Occasionally, 鈥済overnment may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However,鈥� he warns, 鈥渁ny such use of government is fraught with danger.鈥�
Sound familiar? It鈥檚 the basis of the libertarian credo that motivated Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Vestiges of it still remain in the Republican Party.
In Friedman鈥檚 worldview, individuals engaging in voluntary free-market transactions check the powers of government, protecting our other freedoms--of speech, religion and thought.
If only we lived in such a pure state, one without externalities such as pollution and climate change, without white-collar crooks and scam artists, without monopolies and transnational corporations, without the disabled or the disadvantaged. Freidman offers up solutions for these issues but not in a way that convinces me they can work in the real world. Witness Chile after the 1973 coup. At the behest of General Pinochet, Friedman鈥檚 acolytes, known as the Chicago Boys, got free rein to apply their free-market policies to Chile鈥檚 broken economy. The economy surged, with the nation's wealth concentrating among the elite, until it nearly collapsed, causing extensive deprivation and suffering for the majority. The unhappy dictator removed the Chicago Boys almost as expeditiously as he eliminated Salvador Allende.
January 24, 2008
A man with an enomorous intellect and education, yet little regard for human beings. He had a vision of a lasseiz faire society that he was only able to see attempted in places like Chile, Argentina etc. Probably the most influential economist save Smith or Keynes. In my opinion a very unfortunate fact.
August 15, 2020
The best outcome of the book: if you have less state, people have more choice. Ok ok...it鈥檚 no rocket science but I honestly think: I did not think that the book was written for an audience beside academia. And that鈥檚 a pity and I hope that the book can be translated in a way that a broader audience likes and understands it. Easily digested!
July 16, 2014
Audiobook (7 hours) this for yourself before even considering what I think is the atrocious (half read) Atlas Shrugged or condemning Milton and the Chicago school. Most Republicans are only cafeteria Friedmanists at best, which is a truly horrible mix. I'd like to think that I've mentally progressed since I first read most of this formative work for a class sophomore year in college so it was nice to find that it held up so well. That class was taught by my fav professor who would have then and ended up being an Obama voter when the time came. This is an infinitely discussable book/subject so I might as well stop here.
Also, please recommend books that are good rebuttals, The Shock Doctrine and some Krugman have already been digested and however good/great found wanting FYI. The Road to Serfdom is in the hole so it will be interesting to finally compare the two.
Also, please recommend books that are good rebuttals, The Shock Doctrine and some Krugman have already been digested and however good/great found wanting FYI. The Road to Serfdom is in the hole so it will be interesting to finally compare the two.
March 22, 2024
Given that this book has been the basis of the neo-liberal economic and social policy platform since the late 1970s, I was astonished to find two GAPING HOLES.
Viz.:
First, I think many of us agree that since the 1980s large and small companies moving manufacturing, servicing, accounting, type-setting, printing and design, basically anything they can move, to a lower cost country, has been hollowing out our economy since Reagan, a trend that Clinton, a Democrat, did nothing to stop. I was astonished to find that the Professor is FINE WITH THIS! And that is why the Republicans have also been fine with it. (Until Trump.)
Here he is in his chapter on International Trade Agreements:
It will be noted that this discussion says nothing about the level of living of the Japanese worker or the American worker. These are irrelevant. If the Japanese worker has a lower standard of living than the American, it is because he is less productive on average than the American, given the training he has, the amount of capital and land and so on that he has to work with.
And so, when the analysis is reversed, and Japan or China may becoming better off, to the disadvantage of the average Trump voter, this Chicago economist, says 鈥渘ever mind. It is IRRELEVENT鈥�.
Second, I think we should all be aware, that the trend of moving manufacturing and other high employment cost services to lower cost countries has been helped, rather than hindered, by the increase in size in conglomerate corporations and functional monopolies since a rule change at the start of the 1980s, again, a trend that the Democrats went along with. See, for example, Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism by Barry C. Lynn. Given that Mr. Friedman thinks FREEDOM is so central to a well-functioning economy, I was astonished to find that the good Professor has NOTHING TO SAY, about the problems of monopoly, which is antithetical to economic freedom of contract.
Here he is in his chapter on Monopoly:
The issues raised by monopoly are technical and cover a field in which I have no special competence. In consequence, this chapter is limited to a fairly cursory survey of some of the broader issues: the extent of monopoly, sources of monopoly, appropriate government policy, and the social responsibility of business and labor.
How can you advocate free trade and yet essentially avert your eyes while corporations hoover up all the advantages of free trade for themselves? That is a huge hole in his macro-economic analysis.
Apart from these points, he had what sound like reasonable arguments on school choice and regulation, which have been taken to their unreasonable extreme by the ultra-wealthy.
So this book has not aged well.
Viz.:
First, I think many of us agree that since the 1980s large and small companies moving manufacturing, servicing, accounting, type-setting, printing and design, basically anything they can move, to a lower cost country, has been hollowing out our economy since Reagan, a trend that Clinton, a Democrat, did nothing to stop. I was astonished to find that the Professor is FINE WITH THIS! And that is why the Republicans have also been fine with it. (Until Trump.)
Here he is in his chapter on International Trade Agreements:
It will be noted that this discussion says nothing about the level of living of the Japanese worker or the American worker. These are irrelevant. If the Japanese worker has a lower standard of living than the American, it is because he is less productive on average than the American, given the training he has, the amount of capital and land and so on that he has to work with.
And so, when the analysis is reversed, and Japan or China may becoming better off, to the disadvantage of the average Trump voter, this Chicago economist, says 鈥渘ever mind. It is IRRELEVENT鈥�.
Second, I think we should all be aware, that the trend of moving manufacturing and other high employment cost services to lower cost countries has been helped, rather than hindered, by the increase in size in conglomerate corporations and functional monopolies since a rule change at the start of the 1980s, again, a trend that the Democrats went along with. See, for example, Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism by Barry C. Lynn. Given that Mr. Friedman thinks FREEDOM is so central to a well-functioning economy, I was astonished to find that the good Professor has NOTHING TO SAY, about the problems of monopoly, which is antithetical to economic freedom of contract.
Here he is in his chapter on Monopoly:
The issues raised by monopoly are technical and cover a field in which I have no special competence. In consequence, this chapter is limited to a fairly cursory survey of some of the broader issues: the extent of monopoly, sources of monopoly, appropriate government policy, and the social responsibility of business and labor.
How can you advocate free trade and yet essentially avert your eyes while corporations hoover up all the advantages of free trade for themselves? That is a huge hole in his macro-economic analysis.
Apart from these points, he had what sound like reasonable arguments on school choice and regulation, which have been taken to their unreasonable extreme by the ultra-wealthy.
So this book has not aged well.
June 26, 2016
This is clear and short and full of dogma. Some of it I agree with and some of it I vigorously oppose (i.e. that the government should not at all be involved in enforcing anti-discrimination laws and that the market will figure it out). As the father of neoliberalism, this is a crucial read--even if some of you may hate-read it as I did in parts.
May 20, 2011
Friedman presents a simple, indeed often simplistic, argument in favor of an economic system characterized by the nearly unfettered operation of the free market coupled with a minimalist state apparatus. Though the book represented a radical position at the time it was written, many of Friedman's positions seem uncontroversial and common sensical today. It is a testament to Friedman's influence that this is so. In the forty or so years since Capitalism and Freedom first appeared, Friedman's thought has played a role in mainstream politics' drift in a direction far more congenial to his laissez faire beliefs than the New Deal Progressivism that still prevailed in the 1960s.
Although many of the specific arguments in the book deserve criticism, the most appalling is the argument against anti-discrimination laws. Friedman devotes a chapter to this topic and he begins it with an emphatic profession of his personal belief that racial discrimination is wrong. Nevertheless, Friedman grits his teeth and launches into a defense of the bigots right to remain a bigot. The defense follows from Friedman's foundational belief in individual rights and one gets the feeling that Friedman wishes he could break with his principles on just this one occasion but is far too stubborn and far too much of a committed ideologue to permit himself the indulgence. Because, for Friedman, individuals are free to do basically anything they want to do with the limited exception that they may not positively interfere with the freedom of other individuals, there is no justification for government to coerce bigots into associating with racial minorities and thus no justification for anti-discrimination in employment laws. Friedman believes that market forces can remedy the problem of racial discrimination in employment because bigoted employers will incur higher costs since they may be unable to hire the most productive employees if those employees happen to be racial minorities. Their bigotry makes them inefficient and their inefficiency will force them out of a competitive market. This view is remarkably naive given the long history of deeply entrenched bigotry in the United States, but Friedman's naivet茅 could be forgiven as simply that had he rested his opposition to anti-discrimination laws solely on his belief that a free market approach was a more efficient way to end racial discrimination.
Unfortunately, Friedman went a step beyond and argued that there is no principled distinction between the government's power to prohibit discrimination and the government's power to mandate discrimination and thus there is no principled difference between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the one hand and the Nuremberg Laws and the Black Codes on the other hand. Friedman is correct that both types of laws presuppose the power of government to infringe on the freedom of individuals to structure their dealings with racial minorities according to their own beliefs, but by conflating the two types of laws he creates a noxious false equivalency between laws that infringe on individual freedom in the service of greater overall freedom and laws that infringe on individual freedom in the service of greater oppression. The Civil Rights Act deprives individual employers of the freedom to make employment decisions on the basis of race, but it does so to increase the overall amount of freedom in American society in general by extending equality of opportunity to millions of racial minorities who would otherwise be relegated to permanent second class citizenship. The Nuremberg Laws and the Black Codes on the contrary deprived individuals of the freedom to treat racial minorities as they saw fit in order to take away even the possibility of freedom for racial minorities. The two things could not be more different and Friedman's failure to recognize that is perhaps the greatest failing of Capitalism and Freedom.
Although many of the specific arguments in the book deserve criticism, the most appalling is the argument against anti-discrimination laws. Friedman devotes a chapter to this topic and he begins it with an emphatic profession of his personal belief that racial discrimination is wrong. Nevertheless, Friedman grits his teeth and launches into a defense of the bigots right to remain a bigot. The defense follows from Friedman's foundational belief in individual rights and one gets the feeling that Friedman wishes he could break with his principles on just this one occasion but is far too stubborn and far too much of a committed ideologue to permit himself the indulgence. Because, for Friedman, individuals are free to do basically anything they want to do with the limited exception that they may not positively interfere with the freedom of other individuals, there is no justification for government to coerce bigots into associating with racial minorities and thus no justification for anti-discrimination in employment laws. Friedman believes that market forces can remedy the problem of racial discrimination in employment because bigoted employers will incur higher costs since they may be unable to hire the most productive employees if those employees happen to be racial minorities. Their bigotry makes them inefficient and their inefficiency will force them out of a competitive market. This view is remarkably naive given the long history of deeply entrenched bigotry in the United States, but Friedman's naivet茅 could be forgiven as simply that had he rested his opposition to anti-discrimination laws solely on his belief that a free market approach was a more efficient way to end racial discrimination.
Unfortunately, Friedman went a step beyond and argued that there is no principled distinction between the government's power to prohibit discrimination and the government's power to mandate discrimination and thus there is no principled difference between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the one hand and the Nuremberg Laws and the Black Codes on the other hand. Friedman is correct that both types of laws presuppose the power of government to infringe on the freedom of individuals to structure their dealings with racial minorities according to their own beliefs, but by conflating the two types of laws he creates a noxious false equivalency between laws that infringe on individual freedom in the service of greater overall freedom and laws that infringe on individual freedom in the service of greater oppression. The Civil Rights Act deprives individual employers of the freedom to make employment decisions on the basis of race, but it does so to increase the overall amount of freedom in American society in general by extending equality of opportunity to millions of racial minorities who would otherwise be relegated to permanent second class citizenship. The Nuremberg Laws and the Black Codes on the contrary deprived individuals of the freedom to treat racial minorities as they saw fit in order to take away even the possibility of freedom for racial minorities. The two things could not be more different and Friedman's failure to recognize that is perhaps the greatest failing of Capitalism and Freedom.
September 25, 2016
Milton Friedman 茅 amado ou odiado pelas mais diversas raz玫es. Foi um economista prestigiado que ganhou um pr茅mio Nobel e foi um excelente comunicador: a s茅rie de TV foi vista em todo o mundo e os seus livros venderam milh玫es de exemplares. Mas tamb茅m ficou muito negativamente associado 脿s pol铆ticas econ贸micas do sanguin谩rio ditador chileno Pinochet, e dos conservadores Margaret Thatcher e Ronald Reagan ("If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.")
Hoje em dia, em Portugal, quando estamos superlativamente endividados, quando o Estado parece incapaz de equilibrar as suas contas apesar dos sucessivos aumentos de impostos, quando os casos de corrup莽茫o e m谩-gest茫o se sucedem nos notici谩rios sem que a Justi莽a consiga condenar os respons谩veis, seria bom deixar as emo莽玫es de lado e ler as palavras de Friedman apenas pelo que valem, sem os estigmas dos r贸tulos que lhe queiram colar, para tentar compreender as ideias do acad茅mico inteligente, racional e coerente que ele foi.
E muitas das ideias de Friedman, ou muitas das ideias de que ele fala em "Capitalism and Freedom", s茫o ideias importantes: que a Liberdade 茅 um valor fundamental, que n茫o existe liberdade pol铆tica sem liberdade econ贸mica, que devemos optar por sistemas fiscais simples, transparentes e previs铆veis, que para haver unanimidade n茫o 茅 necess谩rio haver conformidade, que as barreiras 脿 circula莽茫o de pessoas e bens s茫o prejudiciais, e muito mais.
Hoje em dia, em Portugal, precisamos de reduzir drasticamente a corrup莽茫o, precisamos de reduzir drasticamente a nossa d铆vida externa, precisamos de reduzir drasticamente os impostos, precisamos de gerir melhor os nossos recursos, de reduzir drasticamente a pobreza, precisamos de "sonhar" com um pa铆s melhor, um pa铆s que seja um exemplo e um farol de liberdade, democracia, justi莽a e toler芒ncia para todo o mundo, um pa铆s de que nos orgulhemos.
E se as ideias das for莽as pol铆ticas que t锚m dominado os nossos destinos n茫o servirem para materializar esse "sonho", ent茫o precisaremos de um novo cocktail de ideias, de objetivos, de estrat茅gias e de l铆deres, e n茫o nos podemos dar ao luxo de rejeitar ideias diferentes sem as avaliar desapaixonadamente, para tentar compreender de que forma nos poder茫o ajudar a vencer os nossos desafios.
Hoje em dia, em Portugal, quando estamos superlativamente endividados, quando o Estado parece incapaz de equilibrar as suas contas apesar dos sucessivos aumentos de impostos, quando os casos de corrup莽茫o e m谩-gest茫o se sucedem nos notici谩rios sem que a Justi莽a consiga condenar os respons谩veis, seria bom deixar as emo莽玫es de lado e ler as palavras de Friedman apenas pelo que valem, sem os estigmas dos r贸tulos que lhe queiram colar, para tentar compreender as ideias do acad茅mico inteligente, racional e coerente que ele foi.
E muitas das ideias de Friedman, ou muitas das ideias de que ele fala em "Capitalism and Freedom", s茫o ideias importantes: que a Liberdade 茅 um valor fundamental, que n茫o existe liberdade pol铆tica sem liberdade econ贸mica, que devemos optar por sistemas fiscais simples, transparentes e previs铆veis, que para haver unanimidade n茫o 茅 necess谩rio haver conformidade, que as barreiras 脿 circula莽茫o de pessoas e bens s茫o prejudiciais, e muito mais.
Hoje em dia, em Portugal, precisamos de reduzir drasticamente a corrup莽茫o, precisamos de reduzir drasticamente a nossa d铆vida externa, precisamos de reduzir drasticamente os impostos, precisamos de gerir melhor os nossos recursos, de reduzir drasticamente a pobreza, precisamos de "sonhar" com um pa铆s melhor, um pa铆s que seja um exemplo e um farol de liberdade, democracia, justi莽a e toler芒ncia para todo o mundo, um pa铆s de que nos orgulhemos.
E se as ideias das for莽as pol铆ticas que t锚m dominado os nossos destinos n茫o servirem para materializar esse "sonho", ent茫o precisaremos de um novo cocktail de ideias, de objetivos, de estrat茅gias e de l铆deres, e n茫o nos podemos dar ao luxo de rejeitar ideias diferentes sem as avaliar desapaixonadamente, para tentar compreender de que forma nos poder茫o ajudar a vencer os nossos desafios.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 967 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.