He doesn't mention the violence, but you're a man of the world, have you ever heard of an unregulated free market economy that doesn't end in repression?

Have you ever heard of a command economy that doesn't end in the Gulag?

It goes back to the imperfection of man. Nothing is going to be truly utopian, but the best system is that which is corrupted least. And distribution of power is the way to assure the least corruption. That is why Monopolies are the worst, oligopolies next, and competitive markets the best. Command economies are monopolies. Free Markets are competitive since no one controls them.

I think a free market with certain government interventions is best. We need the government to promote the common good of all people over the common good of an individual, and to realize economies of scale in certain industries where an individual's resources are not enough on one's own to do whatever it is that needs to be done. I suppose in a truly free market situation that a corporation could be formed instead of the government, but in the area of actual human necessities (food, water, shelter) that could lead to profiteering and repression, whereas if the government regulates it, everyone gets what they need with those with much able to have the option of buying more or better food, water, or shelter.

You could make the argument that the government is a corporation that has the unique ability to wield lethal force in order to enforce its policies, and that the citizens are shareholders who vote for new CEO's and board members every couple of years!

Exactly, you need a balance. Friedman has some interesting ideas, but I'd hate to see them made a reality.

Free markets result in the most efficient outcome that maximises the net benefit of society (assuming an absence of imperfections+failures). The case of market imperfections+failures there can be a case for government intervention to correct them, and result in the most efficient outcome being chosen, but the markets are still needed to achieve this.

The alternative extreme, that is completely state controlled markets (i.e. communism) is terribly inefficient and destined to failure.

 

At great risk of repeating myself, Clinton opened the markets considerably in 1992 on the advise of several Economisits, remember the whole 'Big Govermer era is over'?

If you think the world or you economoy was the same before 1992, then it is you my friend that is in need of a 'reality bath'.

Actually it was later (as he was not president in 92) and I dont think NAFTA is the world.

1996 he gave the big goverment speech, it was before he was even offically sworn into goverment that he was encouraged to start the ball rolling.

I've not got around to finishing the article yet because the weather where i am, rather bizzarely, is quite nice .

I have heard that said about England.

Perhaps they should hire the mythical Chinese who giveth the rain and also taketh away, though right now they're busy controlling the weather for the Olympics.