Milton Friedman has died at the age of 94. He won the Nobel Prize in
Economics in 1976 and was a strong advocate of Capitalism and limited
government.

Too bad Bush with his Harvard MBA never read his books.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..
Milton Friedman has died at the age of 94. He won the Nobel Prize in
Economics in 1976 and was a strong advocate of Capitalism and limited
government.

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..
Milton Friedman has died at the age of 94. He won the Nobel Prize in
Economics in 1976 and was a strong advocate of Capitalism and limited
government.

Friedman was a good man. His brand of economic sensibility is missing in
most circles today.

Max

Milton Friedman has died at the age of 94. He won the Nobel Prize in
Economics in 1976 and was a strong advocate of Capitalism and limited
government.


Actually he was a strong advocate of de-politicized monetary
policy.

Maxprop wrote:
Friedman was a good man. His brand of economic sensibility is missing in
most circles today.


And his economic principles are totally missing from the
practices of those who most loudly advocate his wisdom.

DSK

DSK wrote:
Maxprop wrote:

Friedman was a good man. His brand of economic sensibility is missing
in most circles today.

And his economic principles are totally missing from the practices of
those who most loudly advocate his wisdom.

You mean you're supposed to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk?

Man, you're harsh. I bet you believe in accountability too. Why are you
such a hard ass when we know the debt fairy is coming along any day now?

//Walk

"Walt" wrote in


the debt fairy is coming along any day now?



Why is borrowing money at historically low interest rates so bad?

Especially if followed by a growth in the money supply that exceeds the
increase in the GNP?

"Walt" wrote
the debt fairy is coming along any day now?


The bad news, he's engaged to the foreign-policy fairy.


Gilligan wrote:
Why is borrowing money at historically low interest rates so bad?


It wouldn't be so bad, if the money were spent on something
constructive that offered future returns.


Especially if followed by a growth in the money supply that exceeds the
increase in the GNP?


??? Increasing the gov't debt has very little to do with
increasing the money supply. And the increases in GNP have
rather paltry, lately. And this is after starting a war,
traditionally a great way to goose a national economy; and
eliminating all those pesky environmental regulations, which
should also give a boost. What's up with that?

Besides, everybody knows that those darn libby-rull
Democrats are the ones who don't know beans about the
economy. Now that they're in charge, just LOOK at the deficit!

This thread got side tracked somehow. What I started out to
say, for 1 ASA/economist point, can anybody answer what
economic theory did Friedman produce? 2 points if you can
explain it.

DSK