pssst.... LJ... marichiko's a girl...

details.

So Radar, point out how exactly I am wrong then. By me I mean me, every Central Banker on earth, mainstream economics and Freidman himself of course.

I'm curious, lets have a bit of discourse in detail here, how exactly is it that the unpredictable nature of velocity of circulation doesn't mess with monetarism?

The cornerstone here is MV = PT (the Fisher equation) where where M is the stock of money, V is velocity of circulation, P is the average price level and T is transactions in the economy. I assume, since you have a superior understanding to every economist on earth that you're familiar with all these concepts. Now, it's fairly obvious for this to work that V and T are both constant, correct? At least in the short term. Thus any change in M leads to a direct change in P. That is the backbone Quantity Theory of Money on whose shoulders monetarism rests.

The first challenge to this came, unsurprisingly from Keynes: Increases in the money supply seem to lead to a fall in the velocity of circulation and increases in real income, which threw things a little out of wack. Friedman's response was that they only moved in stable, predictable ways. Of course when it actually came time to put these ideas into practice, they failed, miserably and Freidman conceded the theory was a failure.

Rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'nanananyou'rewrongandi'mright' how about engaging me here, no, really, explain how Friedman, Nobel prize winner and all is wrong about his own theory.


I love the way Radar is so sure he's right he's willing to go against the will of the people (and cause many deaths) to impose his ridiculous 'state' on them. Maybe your government should stop spending money to fingerprint Swiss tourists and spend a little more keeping an eye on their home-grown nutters.

Yeah, I know. Guess I should pick on somebody my own size. Didn't mean to intimidate you, Radar.;)

I'm still waiting for my historical citation of how the disabled were better off before Social Security Disability and Medicare...

Step in line, Patirck. I think you are right in place between Jaguar waiting for a response to his questions on economics and me wanting to hear about literacy rates and personal freedoms in the 19th century. Radar appears to be great at threats and rather short on logic. I'd prepare myself for a long wait if I were you.

But when it comes to random insubstantiated insults, well, if elected we could run the whole economy on hot air.

You know Marichiko, sometimes Radars zeal annoys me. And I disagree with many of his conclusions. However, your tagline suggests that you're on the fringe yourself, or just enjoy 'stirring things up'.

So I'll let you children play and see if anything pops up that we adults might find useful.

Hey, I'm glad someone's awake around here. Of course I've been enjoying "stirring things up." Radar and his ilk make for such irresistable targets. I'll grant that he has not been much of a mental challenge. In fact I'll probably leave this debate to be carried on by others because I'm becoming bored with the lack of effective response.

Milton Friedman believes we need to go back to a fiat based currency and we should never have left the gold standard. He believes inflation needs to be eliminated, not regulated. And all of the Nobel prize winning economists I mentioned know that the market regulates itself without any government intervention. Try again.

The most ignorant the person the more likely they are to vote for government funded (theft) social programs. And since they'll also have a better education, they will laugh at you like I, and all of your intellectual superiors (the vast majority of the planet), do.

Before social security disability and medicare, an average family could afford to go to a doctor, doctors actually made housecalls, and doctors weren't paid with stolen money from resentful people. Government meddling has raised the cost of healthcare through the roof and made it unaffordable. Medical advances (which are due to private enterprise not because of government) have made healthcare superior now, but unaffordable for the elderly and disabled. If we take government out of the system the cost of healthcare for these people would be a fraction of what it currently costs. Here's a couple of articles for you.


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22171

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28477

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28393

I have answered the economics questions, and literacy rates among those who attended schools in the 19th century were FAR higher than those of today's children educated in public schools. The problem is some people want to force people to attend school even though not all children should attend schools. You can not force a person to learn something as is evident from the huge number of kids who graduate and are still illiterate.

If you want to know about personal freedoms (civil rights for women and minorities aside because those were not brought about by government but by the people), even into the 20th century, in 1912 you could send your 10 year old daughter to the store to get you some heroin. The streets weren't filled with criminals as they are now. People weren't getting murdered in a hail of bullets by drug dealers. People pretty much lived their lives they way they wanted and allowed others to do the same (except for a few insane religious zealots called the temperance movement who put "god" on our money, in our oaths, and created organized crime in America by pushing for alcohol prohibition).

In short, people had better healthcare (in terms of service, not technology) at lower costs, superior education, and far more personal freedoms.

This from someone who has failed every mental challenge. Nice approach though. You're using the "I claim to win no matter how many times you defeat me with cold hard facts so you are a loser" technique. I'm sure that works well among the others who are doped up beyond rational thought, but it doesn't work too well here among those who don't know whether to laugh at your ignorance because you are a clown, or cry because they pity your unbelievable stupidity.

OK, I’ll answer my own question. In 1895, the percentage of children 5-19 attending school was .62. In 1920, it was .68 and in 1945, it was .76 – an increase of 14% from before income taxes to after. The percentage of the population who voted were 18.4%, 25.1%, and 37.8% respectively for those same years. The facts speak for themselves. You can’t site facts or data to back your position, I’ve have no further interest in arguing it with you.

The number attending school is irrelevant. The number who attended school were far more literate than those who attend public schools now. The only relevant measure is in how many who did attend school graduated with a decent education, not in the number who put their butts in seats.

Voting is another red herring. Nice try, but this isn't high school debte. Even there you'd be beaten by the kids on the short bus. Statistics don't prove anything because anyone can find statistics to try to prove their point and most of them are made up. You have brought up irrelevant ones that have nothing at all to do with our discussion.

The FACTS show that people had more freedom, superior education, and better service in healthcare.

You have no interest in debating with me because you keep losing. Run along child.

I second that! Maybe he should be considered a...I believe it's called: "a person of interest"? The new "axis of evil" perhaps? ;)

HERE! HEAR!:thumb:

Oh right. The FACTS. Consider us all convinced by FACTS. The ones you arbirattily spout on the spot.

You just refuse to actually get into the guts of any of your facile arguements, refuse to present detailed analysis, references, quotations or statistics to back of any of what you say. I'm not debating what Friedman thinks, I'm merely stating monearism is dead, a failure and disowned by Friedman himself.

What the hell is yout point? Explain, please, in some detail, how monetarism is not deeply flawed and having been tested, shown to be a failure, or, failing that, how you are in fact (despite ample evidence to the contorary) advocating something else (Mercantilism wouldn't shock me)?