Milton Friedman says that because he's a policy advisor of countries that benefit from others dropping their protectionist policies.
At a certain state of development (and when you are not yet top dog to dictate what "free" trade means to other countries), you need some well balanced protectionist policies. The US itself rose thanks to its protectionist policies. Britain too -- as did all others major powers when it served them well.
"Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism"
Same with copying from others. Germany was famous for cheap, bad knock-offs of British products in the 19th century. That's the origin of "Made in Germany". And it seems China follows the exact same path. First the knock-offs were bad and people laughed. Then they got comparable in quality for a cheaper price, people started using them and companies grumbled. And then China started to lead in some areas and now the "established" players are in full panic mode and try to block Chinese companies (e.g. Huawei).
Before "Made in Japan" became a sign of pride, Japanese products (including cars) were ridiculed as cheap imitations and rip-offs of western inventions. This changed in the 70s.
When the US administration gets into a tradewar that makes Chinese commodities more expensive and stops American farmers from selling soybeans, how exactly is this to the benefit of anyone?
The answer is clearly that the narrative is purely political and not economical. Playing up China as an economic enemy rather than a partner resonates with a relatively small, but vocal minority of the voterbase, who for ideological reasons seeks conflict with China.
The US "is the most advanced country on the planet" because it constantly uses "industry protection". Besides tariffs and subsidies, the whole power of the US state and military is constantly used to further US trade and resource interests, enforce favorable trade rules, ignore this or that treaty that doesn't benefit the US industry (e.g. environment or child labor laws), and so on.
>When the US administration gets into a tradewar that makes Chinese commodities more expensive and stops American farmers from selling soybeans, how exactly is this to the benefit of anyone?
For one, it's of benefit of those making (and/or) selling commodities of their own.
Heck, even American workers, who might have to pay more for Chinese-made commodities, but they also get jobs again to make similar commodities in the US. A paycheck + more expensive goods trumps being unemployed + the availability of cheapo Chinese goods.
--> The US is the most advanced country on the planet, therefore it logically follows that they do not need industry protection.
This doesn't seem quite right to me. Are you seeing a perspective that I'm overlooking? Have I perhaps mischaracterized you?
> The answer is clearly that the narrative is purely political and not economical.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that "Playing up China as an economic enemy..." is completely true, do you consider that a complete proof of the above assertion?
This has only been true since about the mid 20th century and is by no means guaranteed to continue. Other countries are also populated by clever humans who would love to overtake us.
As an American I'm inclined to be supportive of measures taken by my government to keep the US in the top spot.
Friedman has been called many things but inconsistent or unprincipled were not among them. He advocated for free trade for the same reasons free trade is the overwhelming consensus of economists; it works and they can explain why whether you want the verbal or mathematical explanation.
Well balanced protectionist polices may be worth it theoretically but all a nation is really doing that way is increasing the variance of their economic growth. It’s a gamble. It could be a costly failure that retards growth for decades before being dismantled as in Ireland, India and Argentina or it could work, as in South Korea or Japan. Note that protectionist policies are not necessary for export lead growth. Hong Kong did just fine with unilateral free trade.
Actually in good-old Europe, "unprincipled" is upon Friedman's more common monickers.
Not that America is that behind:
"It must be said that there were some serious questions about his [Friedman's] intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public." (Paul Krugman)
Or how about:
http://professorfekete.com/articles/AEFWhereFriedmanWentWron...
Paul Krugman's Hypocrisy: Now The Deficit Matters
https://www.dailywire.com/news/12299/paul-krugman-how-ive-co...
Hypocrite Krugman: ‘Awful’ 2017 McCain Now ‘Genuine Hero’, Again Claims GOP ‘Authoritarian'
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2018/11/13/...
Yes they were, for example Friedman said that free market policies enable 'freedom' and socialist ones do lend themselves to authoritarianism, while conveniently ignoring the fact that in almost all places where his vision was put as fully into motion as possible, (70/80s Latin America), it had to be accompanied by severe state oppression. His policies could not be enacted via truly democratic means and in that sense they were no different than the 'socialist' ones he was so critical of.
He even admitted this later, essentially saying that you need a huge crisis of some sort, so that an economic 'shock therapy' could be enacted in order to bring about his vision of free markets.
Consider another great economist, Joan Robinson. She supported Mao and the Cultural Revolution to her dying day[1]. That’s principle. When you look on morality and abandon it because your politics are more important you’re showing your principles. That’s consistency.
Regarding the “shock doctrine”, a phrase that appears nowhere in Friedman’s voluminous writings others have covered this ground at length.
> The Klein Doctrine The Rise of Disaster Polemics
> Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine purports to be an exposé of the ruthless nature of free-market capitalism and its chief recent exponent, Milton Friedman. Klein argues that capitalism goes hand in hand with dictatorship and brutality and that dictators and other unscrupulous political fig- ures take advantage of “shocks”—catastrophes real or manufactured—to consolidate their power and implement unpopular market reforms. Klein cites Chile under General Augusto Pinochet, Britain under Margaret Thatcher, China during the Tiananmen Square crisis, and the ongoing war in Iraq as examples of this process. Klein’s analysis is hopelessly flawed at virtually every level. Friedman’s own words reveal him to be an advocate of peace, democracy, and individual rights. He argued that gradual economic reforms were often preferable to swift ones and that the public should be fully informed about them, the better to prepare themselves in advance. Further, Friedman condemned the Pinochet regime and opposed the war in Iraq. Klein’s historical examples also fall apart under scrutiny. For example, Klein alleges that the Tiananmen Square crackdown was intended to crush opposition to pro-market reforms, when in fact it caused liberalization to stall for years. She also argues that Thatcher used the Falklands War as cover for her unpopular economic policies, when actually those economic policies and their results enjoyed strong public support. Klein’s broader empirical claims fare no better. Surveys of political and economic freedom reveal that the less politically free regimes tend to resist market liberalization, while those states with greater political freedom tend to pursue economic freedom as well.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102....
[1]https://chinachannel.org/2017/12/13/fellow-travellers-tale/
Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment.
> Noam Chomsky is deeply principled. If someone opposes the US he’ll support them, whether they’re the Khmer Rouge or the Serbs in the Yugoslav Civil War.
Think of Chomsky what you want, but this is a tragically misguided interpretation of his stance. He doesn't want the U.S. meddling in other countries, as the U.S. does not really do it for humanitarian reasons, but for geopolitical and resource exploitative reasons, (I mean just the existence of the term 'colliteral damage', or 'double tap' and the fact that drone strikes kill over 90% civilians should tell you enough). The notion that the U.S. cares about human rights, while being allied with Egypt, KSA etc. shows this clearly.
The U.S. has melted down over stupid Russian Facebook memes, calling it 'meddling', while actively supporting an illegal coup in Venezuela in the same breath.
His point is also that he criticizes the U.S because he's a CITIZEN, while he's not a citizen of all of the other places. So he puts an emphasis on where he lives, because there he has the biggest chance of innacting some change, as opposed to somewhere where he has no say whatsoever. I mean that'll be easy to do, because you don't really threaten anyone in power, but it also means you're doing little more than posturing.
As for my personal belief, I am actually not against markets or whatever. They serve a useful purpose for games, books, smartphones etc. But I do believe that they also serve a catastrophically unethical purpose when applied to healthcare for example, so that put's me squarely in a social democratic camp, but that doesn't really change the fact that MF has seen one extreme, so he went the exact opposite extreme.
And extremes, including free market ones, cannot be innacted peacefully, as has been demonstrated every time his vision was innacted, most notably by the Chicago Boys.
> Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment.
If your interpretation of someone’s writing makes no sense try rereading it to see if there’s a sensible interpretation. No one who supports Milton Friedman is going to be unaware he’s widely hated. I said he was principled and consistent and acknowledged to be so. That was wrong. He was principled and consistent and plenty of people disagreed with that truth.
I never said or implied he didn’t receive criticism, anywhere.
This is what you said. People have thoroughly proven you wrong.
Absorbing global manufacturing has made Americans the richest people with the highest purchasing power on the planet, has subjected American companies to competition that no other country has experienced, and has made them more productive as a result. Why would any American want their government to give in to the same mercantilism that China practises, at the expense of their own people? To maintain jobs that pollute the local environment and are largely going to be automated away anyway?
The central issue which makes this call for retaliation so intuitive (but mistaken) is that the plight of people who lose their jobs to trade is tangible. The steel worker is a person we can picture. But the collective welfare we all gain by the cheap imports from a country like China is invisible. Industries have lobbies, consumers don't.