Is Friedman Right?

[Sefarst]

In an email debate I'm having right now, I was sent the following youtube clips as evidence AGAINST Friedman and my own side (I've been asked to defend certain aspects of libertarian philosophy). To me, these videos SUPPORT Friedman's arguments, but for some reason my opponent refuses to agree with me and views these videos as the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.

This particular strain of our debate coincided with a couple other debates I've been having around here, such as the one with Francesca in the "Obama wants to end the Bear/Bull Cycle" thread, so I decided to run it past the rest of you and see what your opinions are.

Do you agree with the guy in the audience asking the question or do you agree with Friedman? Why?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ev_Uph_TLLo&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iPqdRqacpFk&feature=related

Thanks.

[mrbaracuda]

Can you provide some background about Friedman for the foreigners please?

[Sefarst]

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

Can you provide some background about Friedman for the foreigners please?

He was considered the leading "right-wing" economist in the US until his death in 2006. He won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on market elasticities and was a staunch advocate of free trade and free markets. He described himself as "Republican with a capital 'R' and libertarian with a lower case 'l'." He also wrote several books about Capitalism and his belief that the more government is involved the less freedom we have.

[Ziggurat]

If they think that about Friedman, there's no point talking to them. It's one thing to disagree about the consequences of various policies, or even about priorities (freedom versus equality, for example). But when you cast your opponents as motivated by evil, well, there's just no conversation to be had.

[JoeEllison]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

At least that seems to invalidate what the poster above you said!!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions?

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by Sefarst

He was considered the leading "right-wing" economist in the US until his death in 2006. He won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on market elasticities and was a staunch advocate of free trade and free markets. He described himself as "Republican with a capital 'R' and libertarian with a lower case 'l'." He also wrote several books about Capitalism and his belief that the more government is involved the less freedom we have.

Thanks! Ever heard of a guy who's last name is "von Miese"? The description sounds like him, although I don't know much about von Miese either.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions?

I think his.. let's just call it disapproval of certain things on the right are influencing his answers greatly.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Marx himself did not associate himself with dictators, Friedman OTOH...

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions?

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

[Cain]

Quote:

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

This is a terrible argument.

Originally Posted by brodski

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

And Friedman compared himself to a doctor advising someone on how to cure a sick patient. Monetarists and rational expectationists nearly drove Keynesians out with their mat and models in the 70s and 80s. When their policies were actually implemented (and did succeed as planned) reality came crashing down again. The problem with Milton Friedman is that people tread on his academic credentials in order to support capitalism in general when his popular writings and lectures are much more basic. "I'm not a conservative; I'm a believer in freedom!"

Friedman's academic work/predictions are captured in the old joke about the seven economists lost in the mountains. One of them takes out a map, checks the compass, looks at the sun, and finally declares "I know where we are!" They others excitedly ask him to explain. He points and says, "You see that mountain over there? According to my calculations, we're on top of it."

Most of his fans (and the first clip-- I did not bother to check out the second one) do not care about what he has to say about M1, M2 blah blah blah. Instead they're more interested in the interaction between his moral arguments (absence of interference) and his view of human nature (rational self-interest), and how these come together to support a regime of strong private property rights with a lot of talk about incentives thrown in.

I do think personality wise libertarians naturally tend to side with the overdog, but there are a few hard-core, populist free-market types who actually care about the poor, lower-middle class, will take the initiative to criticize corporations, dropping bombs, and so on. Most of these, in my experience, tend to be Georgists (or geo-libertarians), however.

And its' Von Mises.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But when you cast your opponents as motivated by evil, well, there's just no conversation to be had.

What are the motivations attributed to Friedman that you consider evil?

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by egslim

What are the motivations attributed to Friedman that you consider evil?

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position.

I don't see how self-interest translates into keeping down the lower classes and corrupting society. Help me with that one please?

From my POV, one can have self interest and not care if the lower classes advance or whether or not society is corrupt.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by brodski

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

Why? Are dictators not to be talked to under any circumstance? If it could improve the lives of the Chilean people would it not be immoral not to talk to Pinochet?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by brodski

Marx himself did not associate himself with dictators, Friedman OTOH...

You are literally making a guilty by association fallacy. Is there any evidence that Friedman was indifferent to the suffering caused by the dictators? Was he personal friends with the dictators or was his association more professional?

BTW, this is also ad hominem poisoning the well. Freidman may very well have been an evil friend of dictators but that does not invalidate his contributions to economics that one him the Nobel Prize.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I don't see how self-interest translates into keeping down the lower classes and corrupting society. Help me with that one please?

Corruption benefits a few, at the expense of the rest of society. For those who benefit it is obviously in their self-interest to maintain or expand such corruption.

Similarly, it is in the self-interest of the upper class to maintain or improve their position. And many of the ways to do so are by keeping down the lower classes. Examples include taxation that burdens the lower incomes (income tax, as opposed to capital gains tax), stopping government expenditure that benefits the poor (like free education), and often maintaining government corruption - because the upper class has the financial means to practice and hence benefit from it.

Basically I expect the upper classes to use their superior financial means and economic position to advance their position as much as possible within the legal limits, regardless of any detrimental effects on society as a whole. Which is why I support an elaborate regulatory system to prevent such detriments, with measures in place to punish those who cross it. And that's the opposite of the libertarian position.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by egslim

Corruption benefits a few, at the expense of the rest of society. For those who benefit it is obviously in their self-interest to maintain or expand such corruption.

Similarly, it is in the self-interest of the upper class to maintain or improve their position. And many of the ways to do so are by keeping down the lower classes. Examples include taxation that burdens the lower incomes (income tax, as opposed to capital gains tax), stopping government expenditure that benefits the poor (like free education), and often maintaining government corruption - because the upper class has the financial means to practice and hence benefit from it.

Basically I expect the upper classes to use their superior financial means and economic position to advance their position as much as possible within the legal limits, regardless of any detrimental effects on society as a whole. Which is why I support an elaborate regulatory system to prevent such detriments, with measures in place to punish those who cross it. And that's the opposite of the libertarian position.

By definition, it is in the self-interest of *EVERYONE* to maintain or improve their position. Unless you think economics is a zero-sum-game, none of the rest of that nonsense follows.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by egslim

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position.

That is no more just rational self-interest than murdering old ladies and stealing their wallets is.

[Sefarst]

For those who want to criticize Friedman, please be specific. If there's something in the video your don't agree with or something in Friedman's theories and writings you don't like, point it out. Otherwise I'll assume you're just full of a bunch of hot air.

On the subject of Pinochet, Friedman said, "Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system." He was invited by a private foundation to visit Chile and lecture on the principles of economics. At no point was he an advisor to Pinochet.

American economists have also been invited to countries like Zimbabwe, Russia, China, etc. to lecture and to advise on improving the economy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by brodski

Marx himself did not associate himself with dictators, Friedman OTOH...

Marx merely spawned history's biggest mass murderers.

Did Friedman encourage Pinochet's political repressions? Nope. Did he help him gain power? Nope. All he did was encourage free-market policies. Which faired much better for the people than dictatorships which adopt command economies. And which arguably helped create Chile's peaceful transformation out of that dictatorship. What a criminal he must be.

Your smear attempt reveals more about you than Friedman.

[Sefarst]

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

Thanks! Ever heard of a guy who's last name is "von Miese"? The description sounds like him, although I don't know much about von Miese either.

Absolutely, one of the brainchildren behind the Austrian School of Economics.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

Please elucidate the false premises, and the inaccuracies of his worldview.

A quick tour around the world, and through history, shows a strong correlation between economic freedom (not anarchy) and general prosperity.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by balrog666

By definition, it is in the self-interest of *EVERYONE* to maintain or improve their position.

Sure. The difference between lower and upper classes is that the latter by definition have superior means to do so.

Quote:

Unless you think economics is a zero-sum-game, none of the rest of that nonsense follows.

Economics can be a negative, zero or positive-sum game.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That is no more just rational self-interest than murdering old ladies and stealing their wallets is.

Free market theory assumes rational self-interest, as far as I know it makes no mention of justice whatsoever. Which is the point, rational self-interest for one person can result in tremendous injustice to others.

To their credit, libertarians do oppose murder and support property rights. I'm not allowed to take your posessions without your permission. That is good, but insufficient.

Suppose I create a pension fund. People put their money in, I invest it and pay myself a handsome wage plus a bonus proportional to the yearly gain. That encourages me to take high risks, increasing my bonus. Unfortunately, because of the high risk the fund went bust during the credit crunch. Fortunately (for me), I still have much of the money I made.

No murder was commited, and the people who put their money in did so voluntarily. Too bad they lost everything, including their pensions. The point is that one has to commit neither murder nor theft to rob old ladies. Without comprehensive regulation it can be done legally in a libertarian society. And without the prospect of punishment it would be in my rational self-interest to do so, regardless of how immoral it is.

[Sefarst]

Originally Posted by egslim

Free market theory assumes rational self-interest, as far as I know it makes no mention of justice whatsoever. Which is the point, rational self-interest for one person can result in tremendous injustice to others.

To their credit, libertarians do oppose murder and support property rights. I'm not allowed to take your posessions without your permission. That is good, but insufficient.

Suppose I create a pension fund. People put their money in, I invest it and pay myself a handsome wage plus a bonus proportional to the yearly gain. That encourages me to take high risks, increasing my bonus. Unfortunately, because of the high risk the fund went bust during the credit crunch. Fortunately (for me), I still have much of the money I made.

No murder was commited, and the people who put their money in did so voluntarily. Too bad they lost everything, including their pensions. The point is that one has to commit neither murder nor theft to rob old ladies. Without comprehensive regulation it can be done legally in a libertarian society. And without the prospect of punishment it would be in my rational self-interest to do so, regardless of how immoral it is.

The interesting part is that just the OPPOSITE is happening right now. The wealthy bankers and member of the upper class loaned money to members of the lower class who took risks with it and were unable to pay it back. As a result, those banks and upper class individuals are losing A LOT of their money.

In the case of your pension fund example, it's the responsibilities of the two parties engaged in the fund to outline acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk. Should your pension fund manager violate that contract, he will quickly lose all the money he made. Part of investing means taking on risk. Sometimes things don't go your way and you seem to be advocating that we protect people from their own bad decisions.

Now, to those who were attacking Friedman earlier, I'm still waiting to hear a specific argument.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by egslim

Free market theory assumes rational self-interest, as far as I know it makes no mention of justice whatsoever.

That's fine. Except you're still left with the attribution of evil motives to Friedman. That "free market theory" does not concern itself directly with the notion of justice or evil does not mean you and I should not. The accusation against him is more than just that his policies will inadvertently lead to harm: the accusation is that he intends harm. Claiming that libertarianism doesn't address the issue of social justice doesn't solve the problem with the accusation against him. How can you not recognize this?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by egslim

Economics can be a negative, zero or positive-sum game.

Sure. And the best way to get filthy stinking rich in a free market is to engage in lots of positive-sum transactions.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Marx merely spawned history's biggest mass murderers.

really, and do you blame Nietzsche for the Holocaust too?

Quote:

Did Friedman encourage Pinochet's political repressions? Nope. Did he help him gain power? Nope.

tell me, how did Marx do these things, in regimes which weren't even dreamed of until decades after his death?

Quote:

All he did was encourage free-market policies. Which faired much better for the people than dictatorships which adopt command economies. And which arguably helped create Chile's peaceful transformation out of that dictatorship. What a criminal he must be.[


Your smear attempt reveals more about you than Friedman.

It is not a smear attempt, its a simple statement of fact, Friedman preached that economic freedom and personal/political freedom where inseparable, when this theory was put to the test he chose political repression and economic liberty over Democracy, and his principles be damned. For someone who tried to paint economics as a moral choice, that seems, odd, at best.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by brodski

tell me, how did Marx do these things, in regimes which weren't even dreamed of until decades after his death?

Ideology has consequences in the real world. Marx created the ideology that was used to excuse and justify more deaths in the 20th century than any other ideology. And it has produced disaster and misery every single time it has been tried. I make no claim that Marx intended these results. But that's still what his works produced.

Quote:

It is not a smear attempt, its a simple statement of fact, Friedman preached that economic freedom and personal/political freedom where inseparable, when this theory was put to the test he chose political repression and economic liberty over Democracy, and his principles be damned.

How so? Did he help Pinochet become a dictator? No, he did not. He did not choose political repression over democracy, because that was never the choice available to him. He chose the lesser of the evils which were available: dictatorship with economic freedom over dictatorship without economic freedom. And that is the right choice, and it is the moral choice, given the constraints he could not change. He never claimed that it was optimal, quite the reverse.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Ideology has consequences in the real world. Marx created the ideology that was used to excuse and justify more deaths in the 20th century than any other ideology. And it has produced disaster and misery every single time it has been tried. I make no claim that Marx intended these results. But that's still what his works produced.



How so? Did he help Pinochet become a dictator? No, he did not. He did not choose political repression over democracy, because that was never the choice available to him. He chose the lesser of the evils which were available: dictatorship with economic freedom over dictatorship without economic freedom. And that is the right choice, and it is the moral choice, given the constraints he could not change. He never claimed that it was optimal, quite the reverse.

I think the point there about intentions versus consequences is key.
And I would normally think that, to rationalists, intentions are irrelevant when one understand consequences.

And this discussion of Pinochet is ridiculous. Does any one here not think that, in general, the application and exercise of economic freedom necessarily produces political freedom?

[Sefarst]

Originally Posted by brodski

really, and do you blame Nietzsche for the Holocaust too?

I am an avid reader of Nietzsche's and a fan of his work, but I DO think he holds a small amount of responsibility when it comes to the Holocaust. He did, however, warn the Germans in his writings that the political climate of the day was ripe for tyrants.

Quote:

tell me, how did Marx do these things, in regimes which weren't even dreamed of until decades after his death?

To defend Marx to a degree, I don't hold him responsible for the outcomes of communism. Many Communists I speak with, though, tell me that there has never been a true Communist society (though one pointed to hippy communes as a possibly "pure" communist society).

Quote:

It is not a smear attempt, its a simple statement of fact, Friedman preached that economic freedom and personal/political freedom where inseparable, when this theory was put to the test he chose political repression and economic liberty over Democracy, and his principles be damned. For someone who tried to paint economics as a moral choice, that seems, odd, at best.

This is ridiculous. He chose nothing of the sort. The Phil Harmonic Orchestra recently played in North Korea, is that an endorsement of Kim Jong Il and his Communist dictatorship? I would say certainly not. They are musicians and they felt they were doing something positive and performing basically a goodwill mission. The same can easily be said for Friedman who, as an economist, gave a lecture in Chile about economics. He said he did not condone Pinochet's regime and believed the military junta should end, but his purpose for being there was a very simple one: to spread knowledge about economics.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Much as some people here are critics of Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine", I think she does make a case, in spite the hype she surrounds it with, that Milton Friedman's ideas result in a pretty crappy world when put into practice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Communism is clearly a failed economic system. I think both laissez-faire capitalism and communist economics are not well fit with human nature. Regulated capitalism is.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Much as some people here are critics of Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine", I think she does make a case, in spite the hype she surrounds it with, that Milton Friedman's ideas result in a pretty crappy world when put into practice.

That's like a creationist blaming Darwin for Nazi Germany.

ETA: although the same can be said about those who compare Marx with what happened with communism.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Sefarst

To me, these videos SUPPORT Friedman's arguments, but for some reason my opponent refuses to agree with me and views these videos as the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.

Insofar as Friedman being right:

Kinky Friedman was right.

Milton Friedman is now a self serving sharpshooter who is no longer accountable for what he does or says.

Kinky for President 2008, why the hell not? Write in is an option.

DR

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Insofar as Friedman being right:

Kinky Friedman was right.

Milton Friedman is now a self serving sharpshooter who is no longer accountable for what he does or says.

Kinky for President 2008, why the hell not? Write in is an option.

DR

Kinky has my vote.
Unless I run out of beer before the election.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

That's like a creationist blaming Darwin for Nazi Germany.

ETA: although the same can be said about those who compare Marx with what happened with communism.

Nonsense. What the heck does Darwinism have to do with fascism? That is just the Bible apologists trying to justify their claim evolution theory would result in X but we have Y so evolution is false. It's totally a straw man.

[admitted oversimplification] But put Libertarian views into practice and you actually get greedy people acting to defraud others if there is no regulation to stop them. Because there are enough people with a greedy nature that the Libertarian model fails. For example, the market forces are distorted by advertising. You don't get the best product as long as the people selling the crummy product can get people to buy stuff based on false or misleading advertising. So how does the Libertarian model deal with that? Not well.

Shermer argues in his latest book along with a few other Libertarians that monopolies are inefficient and the market forces will take care of them on their own. But what that leaves out of the equation is concentration of wealth. That is not the same as monopolies. The way the 'market forces' correct concentrated wealth is with violent overthrow. That is what has happened time and time again in history.

Concentrated wealth also leads to concentrated political power and that leads to corruption and cronyism. Again, that is what we see in practice. Fascism is not what we see when we plug evolution theory into a computer simulation model.

Why does the communist economic system fail? One, because it requires a lot of control and human nature again is that power corrupts. Another reason is human nature is less motivated with the reward system of 'to each according to need'. [/admitted oversimplification]

So your analogy isn't even close.

[Sefarst]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Nonsense. What the heck does Darwinism have to do with fascism? That is just the Bible apologists trying to justify their claim evolution theory would result in X but we have Y so evolution is false. It's totally a straw man.

Darwinism was bastardized by the Nazis (modern neo-Nazis included) as a justification for the wholesale slaughter of what they considered to be "lesser" races, i.e. those less fit to survive.

Quote:

[admitted oversimplification] But put Libertarian views into practice and you actually get greedy people acting to defraud others if there is no regulation to stop them. Because there are enough people with a greedy nature that the Libertarian model fails.

Enough people? Everyone is greedy. Think about how many times per day you have to defraud people. How often do you do it? You would be surprised by the amount of business transactions that occur without contracts, the operate purely on the trust of the other party because everyone recognizes that goodwill is very valuable. People will do what's in their self-interest though, the secret is that most people realize its not in their best interests to screw people over all the time.

Quote:

For example, the market forces are distorted by advertising. You don't get the best product as long as the people selling the crummy product can get people to buy stuff based on false or misleading advertising. So how does the Libertarian model deal with that? Not well.

The Libertarian model doesn't say that there shouldn't be anyone verifying the claims of companies, they just think that it doesn't need to be the government doing it. There are plenty of consumer advocacy groups in this country.

Quote:

Shermer argues in his latest book along with a few other Libertarians that monopolies are inefficient and the market forces will take care of them on their own.

Monopolies actually are inefficient, should you look at the graphs a monopolistic market. Its impossible for a monopoly to operate without creating deadweight loss. A good example of market forces breaking up a monopoly is US Steel which controlled over 2/3 of the market in 1911 when the government tried to break it up, claiming it violated Anti-Trust law for being a monopoly. US Steel won the case, but were eventually out-competed. Today they produce less than 10% of the steel in this country.

But if you look around today, you see that the only true monopolies in place are those put into place BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Quote:

But what that leaves out of the equation is concentration of wealth. That is not the same as monopolies. The way the 'market forces' correct concentrated wealth is with violent overthrow. That is what has happened time and time again in history.

This is ridiculous. It's not the having of wealth that matters, its how you got it that can lead to violent overthrow. If you're a hereditary monarch who taxes working people to death so you can build palaces for yourself, you're going to cause resentment.

Quote:

Why does the communist economic system fail? One, because it requires a lot of control and human nature again is that power corrupts. Another reason is human nature is less motivated with the reward system of 'to each according to need'. [/admitted oversimplification]

Partially. I think mostly it has to do with the fact that it leads to dictators in the large scale for a very simple reason. When you concentrate the needs of a large group of people into the hands of the few, when you tell them a small group of people at the national level can take care of providing them with food, electricity, water, transportation, medicine, education and every other individual need, you have centralized power. If you're an individual sitting at the head of this government and you have control over what the people need to survive, that's a level of power that's very hard to walk away from.

[Sefarst]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Milton Friedman is now a self serving sharpshooter who is no longer accountable for what he does or says.

He's also dead, so I'm not sure how self-serving he is.