I have read some really interesting books on economics lately. It seems that my economic theories have been fleshed out completely and in rigorous fashion by great thinkers of the past. More importantly, however, I feel fully vindicated in my thoughts on Milton Friedman. His theories are complete horseshit. They are shoveled largely from the same dungheap as those of Friedrich Hayek. What, one might ask, makes them horseshit? I’m glad you hypothetically asked.

Back in the old days, brilliant moral philosopher Adam Smith almost singlehandedly developed what would become the basis of modern economic thought. He understood the limitations of his theories. Friedman did not. Friedman took the basic theory and ran with it. Under his stewardship, Smith’s “invisible hand” was allowed to fester in a cesspool of wrongness. It was infused with a greed rarely seen outside of cartoon villains. The putrid flesh became a grave wax capable of being molded to support any policy, so long as that policy resulted in a net flow of wealth from the peasants to the oligarchs. I am saddened that so many authors tell of a respect they have for Friedman despite the fact that his influence lent itself handily to the murderous regime of Pinochet and the general promotion of plutocracy in the West culminating in the legalization of bribery in the form of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

Forget for a moment that Milton Friedman was a vile monster. Someone should notice that he was spectacularly and horrifyingly wrong. Why is it that this is forgotten? Not only have his misanthropic ideals been proven terrible empirically, but more importantly, they should appear obviously implausible to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of human nature. The most basic premise? Everyone plays fair. There are two things that could convince someone of the veracity of that statement: a traumatic head injury, or a powerful hallucinogen. I don’t mean just sociopaths like Friedman, either. A reasonable human, endowed with empathy and decency, will press the advantage. The concept of “enlightened self interest” depends critically on the “enlightened” part. History has show, rather clearly, that that part is somewhat elusive.