Why can't we ABIDE BY the debt ceiling instead of always raising it?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

WUT?


this book’s 1984 essay “Freezing High-Powered Money” shows, the later Friedman was as radical as Ron Paul in his opposition to the Fed. Friedman called for elimination of the Federal Reserve’s role in “determining the quantity of money” and says its regulatory and service role to the banking system “could, if desired, be continued, preferably by combining it with the similar roles of the FDIC.” In other words, End the Fed!

.

That's not an accurate summation of his position at all. Simply giving the Fed's powers to the FDIC is nothing like Ron Paul's position, and hardly qualifies as calling for the end of central banking.

Milton Friedman:

END THE FED

Friedman was opposed to the very existence of the Fed:

“Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes ‑‑ excusable or not ‑‑ can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic ‑‑ this is the key political argument against an independent central bank. . .To paraphrase Clemenceau: money is much too serious a matter to be left to the Central Bankers.”

Friedman was in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve System and replacing it with a mathematical model that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate, issued directly by the government (Treasury) and ending fractional reserve banking powers for the banks, which is why he supported our Monetary Reform Act. He said he actually would “like to abolish the Fed“, and pointed out that when he wrote about reforming the Fed it was simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists."

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg]Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy - YouTube[/ame]

But I think it is also very clear that you don't have to be an expert on Friedman's writings to realize that Milton is in favor of the absolute control of the money supply by the state, that he is in favor of a 3 or 4 per cent increase in the money supply (the numbers keep changing all the time) by the state every year, that he favors a negative income tax which is essentially a guaranteed annual income by the state, and that he favors a voucher plan which would leave the state solidly in control of the educational system. These things are quite blatant; there is no secret about it. I think it is pretty clear that Friedman is a statist. I mean, if you are in favor of the state having control of the money supply, control of the education system, and a guaranteed annual income, that's it. There is not much more that can be said. The fact that the Friedmanites are against price control is all very well, and I hail that, but the fundamental aspects of the state remain. The state still commands the highposts of the economy.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Murray Rothbard on Milton Friedman

You seem to think that Friedman's position that he would rather a different organization, the FDIC, have the powers of the Federal Reserve, and that he would rather the money supply grow at a static rate annually, is somehow the same as the Austrian position of returning these "powers" to the market itself, which is complete nonsense. Ending the Fed is nice, but it has no meaning if you simply give a different group of cronies the same powers. Friedman had his issues with the Federal Reserve in practice, but he had no problem with central banking in and of itself.

 

[Contumacious]

That's not an accurate summation of his position at all. Simply giving the Fed's powers to the FDIC is nothing like Ron Paul's position, and hardly qualifies as calling for the end of central banking.

Milton Friedman:

END THE FED

Friedman was opposed to the very existence of the Fed:

“Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes ‑‑ excusable or not ‑‑ can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic ‑‑ this is the key political argument against an independent central bank. . .To paraphrase Clemenceau: money is much too serious a matter to be left to the Central Bankers.”

Friedman was in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve System and replacing it with a mathematical model that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate, issued directly by the government (Treasury) and ending fractional reserve banking powers for the banks, which is why he supported our Monetary Reform Act. He said he actually would “like to abolish the Fed“, and pointed out that when he wrote about reforming the Fed it was simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists."

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg]Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy - YouTube[/ame]

But I think it is also very clear that you don't have to be an expert on Friedman's writings to realize that Milton is in favor of the absolute control of the money supply by the state, that he is in favor of a 3 or 4 per cent increase in the money supply (the numbers keep changing all the time) by the state every year, that he favors a negative income tax which is essentially a guaranteed annual income by the state, and that he favors a voucher plan which would leave the state solidly in control of the educational system. These things are quite blatant; there is no secret about it. I think it is pretty clear that Friedman is a statist. I mean, if you are in favor of the state having control of the money supply, control of the education system, and a guaranteed annual income, that's it. There is not much more that can be said. The fact that the Friedmanites are against price control is all very well, and I hail that, but the fundamental aspects of the state remain. The state still commands the highposts of the economy.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Murray Rothbard on Milton Friedman

You seem to think that Friedman's position that he would rather a different organization, the FDIC, have the powers of the Federal Reserve, and that he would rather the money supply grow at a static rate annually, is somehow the same as the Austrian position of returning these "powers" to the market itself, which is complete nonsense. Ending the Fed is nice, but it has no meaning if you simply give a different group of cronies the same powers. Friedman had his issues with the Federal Reserve in practice, but he had no problem with central banking in and of itself.

An Interview with Milton Friedman

I [Russell Roberts ]recently sat down with Milton Friedman, a few days before his 94th birthday, to discuss the impact of two of his most important contributions to economics and liberty: A Monetary History of the United States, 1870-1960 [co-written] with Anna Schwartz, and Capitalism and Freedom. The ideas in both books had tremendous influence on the economic and intellectual landscape.

Milton Friedman: I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate"


'nuff said

.

 

[bendog]

Actually, it's not since he also said that in deflation we could always drop money from a helicopter, or something like that.

However, Friedman was opposed to tying the value of currency to any commodity. That is for certain.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Milton Friedman:

END THE FED

Friedman was opposed to the very existence of the Fed:

“Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes ‑‑ excusable or not ‑‑ can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic ‑‑ this is the key political argument against an independent central bank. . .To paraphrase Clemenceau: money is much too serious a matter to be left to the Central Bankers.”

Friedman was in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve System and replacing it with a mathematical model that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate, issued directly by the government (Treasury) and ending fractional reserve banking powers for the banks, which is why he supported our Monetary Reform Act. He said he actually would “like to abolish the Fed“, and pointed out that when he wrote about reforming the Fed it was simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists."

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg]Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy - YouTube[/ame]

But I think it is also very clear that you don't have to be an expert on Friedman's writings to realize that Milton is in favor of the absolute control of the money supply by the state, that he is in favor of a 3 or 4 per cent increase in the money supply (the numbers keep changing all the time) by the state every year, that he favors a negative income tax which is essentially a guaranteed annual income by the state, and that he favors a voucher plan which would leave the state solidly in control of the educational system. These things are quite blatant; there is no secret about it. I think it is pretty clear that Friedman is a statist. I mean, if you are in favor of the state having control of the money supply, control of the education system, and a guaranteed annual income, that's it. There is not much more that can be said. The fact that the Friedmanites are against price control is all very well, and I hail that, but the fundamental aspects of the state remain. The state still commands the highposts of the economy.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Murray Rothbard on Milton Friedman

You seem to think that Friedman's position that he would rather a different organization, the FDIC, have the powers of the Federal Reserve, and that he would rather the money supply grow at a static rate annually, is somehow the same as the Austrian position of returning these "powers" to the market itself, which is complete nonsense. Ending the Fed is nice, but it has no meaning if you simply give a different group of cronies the same powers. Friedman had his issues with the Federal Reserve in practice, but he had no problem with central banking in and of itself.

An Interview with Milton Friedman

I [Russell Roberts ]recently sat down with Milton Friedman, a few days before his 94th birthday, to discuss the impact of two of his most important contributions to economics and liberty: A Monetary History of the United States, 1870-1960 [co-written] with Anna Schwartz, and Capitalism and Freedom. The ideas in both books had tremendous influence on the economic and intellectual landscape.

Milton Friedman: I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate"


'nuff said

.

Simply repeating the same thing over and over without responding to what anybody else says doesn't prove your point.

 

[Contumacious]

Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy - YouTube



EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Murray Rothbard on Milton Friedman

You seem to think that Friedman's position that he would rather a different organization, the FDIC, have the powers of the Federal Reserve, and that he would rather the money supply grow at a static rate annually, is somehow the same as the Austrian position of returning these "powers" to the market itself, which is complete nonsense. Ending the Fed is nice, but it has no meaning if you simply give a different group of cronies the same powers. Friedman had his issues with the Federal Reserve in practice, but he had no problem with central banking in and of itself.

An Interview with Milton Friedman

I [Russell Roberts ]recently sat down with Milton Friedman, a few days before his 94th birthday, to discuss the impact of two of his most important contributions to economics and liberty: A Monetary History of the United States, 1870-1960 [co-written] with Anna Schwartz, and Capitalism and Freedom. The ideas in both books had tremendous influence on the economic and intellectual landscape.

Milton Friedman: I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate"


'nuff said

.

Simply repeating the same thing over and over without responding to what anybody else says doesn't prove your point.

Res ipsa loquitur.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

An Interview with Milton Friedman

I [Russell Roberts ]recently sat down with Milton Friedman, a few days before his 94th birthday, to discuss the impact of two of his most important contributions to economics and liberty: A Monetary History of the United States, 1870-1960 [co-written] with Anna Schwartz, and Capitalism and Freedom. The ideas in both books had tremendous influence on the economic and intellectual landscape.

Milton Friedman: I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate"


'nuff said

.

Simply repeating the same thing over and over without responding to what anybody else says doesn't prove your point.

Res ipsa loquitur.

.

Bibbidi bobbidi boo.

You've had the nuances of Friedman's views explained to you several times, and yet you ignore those explanations and simply take his quotes out of context repeatedly. It would seem you have some attachment to the idea of Friedman agreeing with you that makes you ignore the reality of his views.