Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, and the Fed

[mjkidd]

I've been watching all the Milton Friedman videos I can find lately. He was a wonderful old man (even in the ancient grainy black and white videos made 40 years ago he's an old man), and one of the fathers of the free market libertarian movement. This is the man who showed the world what sort of harm central banks can do in his "Monetary History of the United States," clearly demonstrating that the Fed deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. He later said that "I think we should abolish the Fed and replace it with a computer."

In this ancient video, he lays out the case for freedom and voluntarism in a rather spectacular fashion. It is literally the best case for libertarianism/ACism etc that I have ever seen. In my mind, Ron Paul would not disagree with a single point that he makes.

In this 2005 interview with Charlie Rose, his viewpoints on freedom and the free market have not changed, but he speaks glowingly of the Fed and particularly the actions of Alan Greenspan. Both videos are long, but quite worth watching, in my opinion. The bit on the Fed and the economy starts about 17 minutes into the Rose interview.

I admire both Ron Paul and his message, and Milton Friedman and his message, but it seems that Paul's and Friedman's views on the economy are irreconcilable. Paul seems to think that the Fed -- even the Fed under Greenspan -- is incompatible with a truly free society. Friedman
seems to think that a well-managed Fed is beneficial to America. And both men have identical views on freedom and the free market in pretty much all other respects.

I like Ron Paul, but I have an enormous amount of respect for Milton Friedman. Why is Ron Paul right on Greenspan's Fed and Friedman wrong? Given that Friedman is an economic giant and Paul is an obstetrician, I think the burden is on Paul to show that Friedman is wrong.

edited; I linked to the wrong video in my first link

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I like Ron Paul, but I have an enormous amount of respect for Milton Friedman. Why is Ron Paul right on Greenspan's Fed and Friedman wrong? Given that Friedman is an economic giant and Paul is an obstetrician, I think the burden is on Paul to show that Friedman is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never been able to understand Friedman, its like he has a mental block against following his work to its logical conclusion. Oh well. as for Greenspan his monetary policy led to the tech bubble in 2000 and the current housing bubble (how bad this gets will be interesting) in 20 years of managing the fed. Two massive economic distortions that will end up wasting billions and still he gets lauded, very strange.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the burden is on Paul to show that Friedman is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


No.

The burder is on YOU to show why violent coercion is justified.

[mjkidd]

Nielsio,

I am sympathetic to ACism and voluntarism, but for this thread I would like to not argue about the whether or not a coercive government is acceptable or not. Both Paul and Friedman support a limited coercive government, and I would like to focus on the substance of their disagreement, if possible.

[Borodog]

The Austrians all consider Friedman to have been terrible on money (he was).

This is only tengentially related, but I was relistening to this lecture by Hoppe today on money and international politics. Dynamite stuff. Hoppe is so [censored] awesome:

http://www.hanshoppe.com/publication...y-Politics.pdf

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio,

I am sympathetic to ACism and voluntarism, but for this thread I would like to not argue about the whether or not a coercive government is acceptable or not. Both Paul and Friedman support a limited coercive government, and I would like to focus on the substance of their disagreement, if possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


Clearly, the FED is MORE intervention rather than less. So I don't see how you could possibly think that's a good thing, coming from a classical liberalism background.

[mjkidd]

Would the Austrians consider anyone who thinks fiat money is acceptable to be "terrible on money"? What is the fundamental disagreement between the Austrians and Friedman? They seem to be so similar in all other respects.

[Nielsio]

Do you really think massive state intervention/cartellization/currency monopoly is reconcilable with Austrian - free market - economics?

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio,

I am sympathetic to ACism and voluntarism, but for this thread I would like to not argue about the whether or not a coercive government is acceptable or not. Both Paul and Friedman support a limited coercive government, and I would like to focus on the substance of their disagreement, if possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


Clearly, the FED is MORE intervention rather than less. So I don't see how you could possibly think that's a good thing, coming from a classical liberalism background.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not trying to argue that the Fed is good. I'm hoping someone can answer my question. My confusion stems from the fact that Milton Friedman, a very intelligent man who strongly supports limited government and economic freedom, just as strongly supports Greenspan's Fed. I want to know what a man like Ron Paul's argument against Friedman's positive view of the Fed is.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think massive state intervention/cartellization/currency monopoly is reconcilable with Austrian - free market - economics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Friedman thought so, minus the Austrian part. This is the crux of my question.