TheAgitator.com
Rose Friedman, RIP
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009The remaining half of America’s great freedom-loving couple has passed away.
We’d all be so lucky to find a partnership like Milton and Rose had.
Rest in peace.
14 Responses to “Rose Friedman, RIP”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
But what about Pinochet?!?
OK, just wanted to get that stupid-ass comment out of the way so we can move on.
RIP, Rose. It’s moments like these when I wish I had the faith to believe she would be joining Mr. Friedman on a puffy cloud somewhere.
How long before Naomi Klein comes along and pisses on her grave?
Taktix — I’d give it until the end of the week.
No. Don’t “Rest In Peace”, Rose. Catch up with Milton and keep giving ‘em hell in the name of liberty! Sounds to me like this whole God and St. Peter thing could use a bit of shaking up.
there was a disturbance in the force today…
(sorry – just finished watching the star wars trilogy – couldn’t resist)
First off, I don’t mean to be petty and combative, especially in the face of the sobering event of somebody’s death, but I am young and confused and still trying to figure out my place in this great big swerving world of libertarians and progressives and conservatives, and I have what I think is a legitimate question about Mr. Libertarian (which makes me that much more of an internet etiquette delinquent, as this post is about the Missus. Sorry about that).
Here’s a video of Milton Friedman talking about the Federal Reserve. In it, he claims that the Great Depression could have been avoided had the Federal reserve intervened quicker and more aggressively. He says (around 2:10), “Once the runs started, the Federal Reserve could have prevented them from having the disastrous consequences they did, by stepping in and providing the banking system in general – through creating new money – with the cash it needed to meet the demands of depositors.”
He continues: “If the Federal Reserve had stepped in, bought government securities on the large scale, provided the cash [for depositors making a run on a bank], the depositors would have found that they could get their money, and they would have stopped asking for it!”
Here’s the question, then: In what way is this advice different from the fundamental assumptions held by Obama, Bernanke, et al., in their approach towards our present crisis? If Friedman were alive in 2008, would he have advocated the government capitalization of Goldman Sachs, et al.? Or, in the spirit of generosity, is this an area where the present libertarian movement has learned and grown past the failed ideas of the past libertarian movement, this being an example?
I ask because I don’t want to dislike Cato and Reason and Friedman. I do like them! But, on this specific issue, I think I lean more towards the Rothbardian view, and I’m having an existential crisis resolving my loyalties.
damn that was a long comment
Walker, there’s nothing petty or combative about your post, and I bet Rose herself wouldn’t mind if her death inspired questions about the Friedmans’ philosophies.
It’s a good question and I’ll take a fairly ignorant stab at it. It seems that what Friedman was proposing was appropriate for the environment at the time. There wasn’t an FDIC, if I remember correctly, so individuals lost everything, which I don’t think would have been the case this go-round.
I could be wrong (the chances are great), but I’m sure someone here will correct me.
That said, I think the only “failed ideas” of past libertarian movements have been political, not practical, since very few, if any, libertarian ideas have been in effect since the 20′s. And even if you disagree with Cato and Reason and Friedman, there’s no reason to dislike them, because I think that they usually argue in good faith, not out of a political loyalty (usually, that is). This is especially true of Friedman.
Speaking of loyalties, I honestly believe that loyalty is highly overrated. Honesty and objectivity always trump loyalty.
Anyway, I’ve found them all to be very enlightening, even when I do disagree with them.
Walker: You have to bear in mind that Milton Friedman wasn’t an “Austrian” by any stretch, so his views of economics were fundamentally flawed (though often correct).
IMHO, one of the causes of the Great Depression was the money that was taken out of the system. While rich people have more money to lose (individually), the money that middle class, working class, and poor people have to lose is more vital to their survival. In addition, there actually is more of it.
When people are worried that they may loss their job, and that their bank may fail, then they take all of their money out of the bank and bury it in their back yard. This is a rational decision for the individual, but it has an effect on the economy as a whole. Money under the mattress isn’t available to loan out to others. It has a (negative) multiply effect on the economy.
Timely intervention during the Great Depression might have re-assured depositors and investors and prevented a series of cascading failures.
One of the good things to come out of the Great Depression was FDIC. By insuring banks, the government helped to re-assure the depositors that they would (eventually) get their money, so they should leave most of it in the bank. However, the government does not have an infinite amount of money. And the government has recently been taking on more debt.
Recently, I might have taken a few thousand dollars out of the bank (and hid it).
I’m just one person.
Brian
Great Depression: Not A Single Canadian Bank Failed
Money under the mattress isn’t available to loan out to others. It has a (negative) multiply effect on the economy.
Keynesian drivel. See http://mises.org/story/1889 for example.
RIP, Rose. It’s moments like these when I wish I had the faith to believe she would be joining Mr. Friedman on a puffy cloud somewhere.
Or, stop to smell the roses and wish you believed in reincarnation.
Hi Walker,
I can’t speak for Friedman either but the current reaction was, dare I say, smarter today than it was during the depression. But before I get trampled for supporting the Fed let me explain:
The government can only do two real things: Sell government securities and take cash out of the marketplace or buy government securities in the marketplace and pay cash, to decrease or increase the amount of money in the system respectively. In this case, Friedman noted that the government should buy more securities increasing the amount of available cash within the system. The idea is that the banks would then have cash to handle the bank runs instead of being stuck with government securities and no cash.
The second problem, that is highly debated, is the impact of the bank holidays imposed during the Great Depression. The Federal government forced banks to go on ‘bank holidays’ which only furthered the problem according to some. Yes, weasel words, but I’m not professing to be an expert and the Great Depression is a much deeper topic than a comments section can hold.
Where the Fed Reserve diverged from what Friedman wrote is that they went into a direct-lending mode that wasn’t confined to the banking system. Much of the Fed’s role expanded as Congress demanded more money doled out to more industries outside of the banking industry. So now you have the Federal reserve, a consortium of banks and bank owners and a lender of last resort, acting as if it were just any other bank.
Also – remember the video you are citing was made long before the deregulation between banks and investment houses was removed. While I agree with the deregulation of the markets in general, this was somehow translated by someone to mean the Fed’s role was extended to act as the last resort for both traditional banks and investment companies that turned themselves into holding companies. I’m not sure how to put it a better way but I’m sure there is a better way to say it.
So now Rose AND Milton can spin in their graves over what is (and will be) happening to the free market, liberty, and freedom in America.