It's so perfectly solid in its logic, I am having a hard time thinking of a counter-argument.
Friedman says that even the biggest beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve and the biggest supporters of the Federal Reserve will push for its abolition or complete change if they find it very costly to not do so.
"The way you solve things is to have the wrong people make the right decisions."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w
But somewhere, somehow, I just don't feel it is right, even though I know it's a good argument. Entire public opinion could probably turn against a central bank, without the powers that be feeling a single desire to pull support.
well i can see his point if i supported democracy...but democracy sucks
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Friedman is assuming that public opinion is a 'cause' and the actions of politicians are an 'effect'. It's no where near that simple. It's just as plausiable to imagine that politicians and the media are the cause of the public agenda and therefore having the 'wrong people' will of course be disastrous. I would say that the reality is that it works both ways, and it's some kind of feedback loop.
Prateek Sanjay: "The way you solve things is to have the wrong people make the right decisions."
There is nothing wrong with it per se, but it ignores the cost and likelihood of getting the wrong people to make these right decisions. Barack Obama pulling our troops out of the Middle East (and anywhere else) would be the right decision made by someone I have to imagine Friedman would refer to as a "wrong person". The CIA deciding not to assassinate him for doing so would also be a right decision made by wrong people. But what are the odds of this happening?
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken