Friedman: There seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed. P. 16
Note: I strongly disagree. When we observe new challenges and issues, we need to determine if political responses are required. This is happening today particularly with environmental issues.
Friedman: The Hollywood blacklist " didn't work precisely because the market made it costly for people to preserve the blacklist. P. 20
Note: The general argument is that having a free market preserves our freedoms. Again, we have many, many examples to the contrary.
Friedman: I conjecture that if entry into the mail-carrying business were open to all, there would be a large number of firms entering it and this archaic industry would become revolutionized in short order. P. 30
Note: This change has been allowed, with very different results. Private carriers have chased the most profitable categories of the business, leaving the least profitable to the government.
Friedman: I cannot myself conjure up any neighborhood effects or important monopoly effects that would justify governmental activity in this area. [Having a national park system] P. 31
Note: Wow! I support one of the original justifications, which I believe was that unique natural wonders should remain as they are without commercial alteration, and open to all visitors on an equal footing.
Friedman: [Critique of the Keynesian view that] an increase in government expenditures relative to tax-receipts is necessarily expansionary and a decrease contractionary. P. 79
Note: Friedman's lengthy argument seems to me to be riddled with illogic. His repeated preference for the example of a private park charging fees versus a "free" park operated with tax funding does not address myriad cases like highways that cannot be effectively built by private individuals and that also promote economic development by reducing the cost of transportation.
Friedman: " the government's borrowing to spend does not alter the amount of money in private hands. P. 81
Note: This entire analysis does not consider the case of the government borrowing from foreign sources.
Friedman: [Abandoning public schools and giving vouchers for private schools] " existing premises and equipment could be sold to private enterprises that wanted to enter the field. Thus there would be no waste of capital in the transition. Since governmental units, at least in some areas, would continue to administer schools, the transition would be gradual and easy. P. 97
Note: No waste of capital? Gradual and easy? Right! And I'm the Queen of England!
Friedman: For higher schooling, the case for nationalization " is even weaker. P. 98
Note: The issue of curriculum content seems to me to be unrelated to funding source. His argument is very illogical and confused. Also, recent reports indicate that private funding from grants and donors has been completely mis-managed at Harvard, our oldest and still one of our greatest educational institutions. Nobody knows how much money is available, earmarked for what purposes, and how much has been lost because investments have shrunk in the recent economic disaster. Being a private institution seems to be no guarantee of being well run or efficient.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
