Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
herk--you have got to be joking. while it's the case that friedman's most influential document is an article in the ny sunday times, it is nonetheless the case that the bulk of his non-specialist writing is an extended argument for the separation of profit generation from any and all ethical frameworks, the assumption that profit generation IS an ethics...the argument from specialization is weak, the separations at the base of his conceptions untenable. but the main thing is that friedman is at the source of neoliberalism, which is an IDEOLOGY within capitalism and not capitalism itself. to argue as you do is like actually believing some evangelical protestant group which claims that it and it alone IS christianity. it's stupid, self-serving nonsense.
|
I read back through what I said over and over again, and I do not see myself equating neo-liberalism to capitalism. I mean to distinguish between the two. You can have the rhombus without a square. That is the point. There is a lot more to capitalism than regulation vs. deregulation. I certainly don't mean to offend people or support deregulation. Either way, he makes a some points that I think are intelligent. I can understand why you call me stupid, I suppose, but self-serving... I guess I don't understand.
I'd rather not continue this because it does force me into a bit of a corner. I yield.