Now I'm confused. Nothing new there but how is this relevant? Who on this list is not aware of the horrors of Pinochet's Chile?
I am slowly getting used to the idea that if I ever post anything critical of religion I must also post some token comment to the effect that the Sistine Chapel is beautiful or else someone will inevitably post a reply inquiring how I could possibly deny that religious inspiration has created beauty. The inevitable reply will of course have nothing to do with whatever comments I have made but that seems irrelevant to whoever makes such a reply.
Now I am to take it that if anyone posts anything positive said by Milton Friedman they too must add that they hate Pinochet? If I discuss Milton's negative income tax with a positive tone I must denounce Pinochet somewhere in that post? If I discuss Milton's natural rate of unemployment I must denounce Pinochet or I am suspected of secretly supporting the Chicago School's Chile experiment?
Get a grip folks. Maybe I'm just getting more curmudgeonly but the number of these types of replies seems to be growing. Is it my imagination or a real trend?
When the concept of full employment is discussed Friedman's ideas on the subject are germane. Also germane is his concept of a natural rate of unemployment since it seems to contradict his idea of a right to employment. The horrors of Chile after 1973 seem not related to a discussion of full employment and/or a natural rate of unemployment or even liberalism in general so why during such a discussion we should all need to be reminded of Chile is not at all clear to me.
If this post makes me seem pedantic and grumpy so be it.
John Thornton