Friedman is the Father of modern "Take all" economics.. the Randian throngs bow to its might...Why Is That?
Milton Friedman was a nobel winning economist and acclaimed in the corporate media as a genius and yet most if not all the countries in which his economic polices were put into practice experienced one degree or other of disaster economically.
In Chile', after the dictator Pinochet (For someone who talked so much about "Freedom" his policies were surprisingly popular with authoritarian regimes) imposed Friedman's ideas the economy promptly went down the toilet, then revived in the early 1980's only to plummet again even further.
When the former USSR collapsed Friedman's ideas were applied there in "free-market shock therapy" and the country went into severe economic depression. The U.S. lost 20% of its wealth during our great depression, the USSR under Friedman's policies lost 40% of it's wealth.
The IMF forced Friedman's ideas on many nations by withholding loans needed by developing countries unless they enacted "structural adjustment" which were based on Friedman's ideas. One example is Argentina, The IMF forced Friedman-omics on them through the 80's and 90's and a few years later Argentina's economy collapsed entirely.
Reagan with his "Trickle Down" approach, was fostering Friedman-omic principle on the nation and its caused a reduction in general prosperity, and a flattening of wages while corporate profits have soared, even the corporate media which were big boosters of Friedman's economic ideas carry stories today about the shrinking middle class, negative savings rates, and skyrocketing family debt.
Friedman's ideas are recycled Laize Faire, the economic regime pushed by imperial Britain in the late 1800's, and associated with a lavishly wealthy aristocratic class, a relatively small middle class and the majority of working class people having a hard time financially or in abject poverty.
And its been going that way ever since, things are still going in that direction back from our peak GENERAL prosperity in the 1960's and early 1970's.
Friedman like Reagan did have one huge "success" though that explains his high stature in the corporate media and among corporate politicians, ....he's made very wealthy people MUCH wealthier.
So why is it that supposed constitutional followers are so eager to recreate and sustain a new Aristocracy... The top 400 American Tax payers have more liquid wealth than the Bottom 40 countries on earth including their billions of people.
IS THIS SUSTAINABLE?
Kentucky... Well you must just be in a fir then over all of this budgetary tightening of the proverbial belt...yes? I mean if you're so "pro" Reagan, you must then also be pro Debt because Ronnie took us from 700 billion to 3 trillion in Debts.. his initial lowering of oil prices was almost immediately set off by the increase in Market demand, and the price fixing that has gone along with it.. interesting also that you're quoting post "Recession" era oil prices at the beginning of Reagans term and the drop at the end.. Glad you credited Reagan with that.. interesting, well then you must also applaud Carters Job creation in that case because if you split Reagan's 16.8 over 8 years you'll see the bulk of that hiring was in his second term, his first term employment numbers were on par with George W Bush's..abysmal!.. but interesting that Carter in only one term added 9 million jobs.. but then I'm sure none of this will quell your "Reagan&q
Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.
Job creation data for each president since 1960, courtesy Wikipedia:
Kennedy-Johnson Administration: 5.9 million
LBJ administration: 9.9 million
Nixon's first term: 6.2 million
Nixon-Ford administration: 5.1 million
Carter administration: 10.3 million
Reagan administration (both terms): 16.1 million
Bush 41 administration: 2.6 million
Clinton administration (both terms): 22.7 million
Bush 43 administration: 1.95 million
Or put another way: From 1980 to the end of the Bush 43 administration, all three Republican presidents combined produced, over a period of 20 years, two million fewer jobs than Bill Clinton managed to eke out in eight. Kennedy and Johnson managed to produce 50 percent more jobs in four years than the Bushes did in twelve. (In Bush 43's first term he produced ten thousand jobs.) And as for Carter...the Republicans portray him as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four
years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan. Even Eisenhower, one of the few Republican presidents I happen to like, was no good at job creation. His 3.5 million jobs created over eight years were far fewer than the 5.5 million Democrat Harry Truman produced in four. In percentage of increase, Eisenhower's record is similar to Reagan's first term.
Translation: Republicans really don't do this "job creation" thing very well.
If you want to go at it by percent of increase, the president with the best job creation rate in the last 40 years is the last guy you'd ever expect: Jimmy Carter, at 3.1 percent. He beat everyone on the list. He's in second place on the overall list--since they started keeping records in the Hoover administration, only FDR in his first term and FDR in his third term (FDR's second term is right up there with Kennedy and Clinton--not bad, but not over five perce
percent like FDR did in his first and third terms) beat Carter.
- ?Lv 68 years agoFavorite Answer
•Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
•Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
•16.8 million new jobs were added to the economy during the Reagan presidency.
•The Misery index(Unemployment rate + Inflation rate) went from 20.76% in 1980 to 9.57% in 1988. That is a ten point drop that no president has ever achieved before or after Reagan.
•Oil prices went from $35.75 a barrel in 1980 to $14.87 a barrel in 1988. This was because Reagan ended price controls and the windfall profits tax when he came into office.Source(s): USN MT(SS)
- Taylor GLv 48 years ago
Friedman's monetarist approach and use of central banking was hardly lassiez-faire.
- McNamaraLv 78 years ago
None of that crap is even true. Your history teacher (assuming you didn't drop out before meeting one) should be fired.