We Have Lost One of Our Giants - Milton Friedman Has Died

A sad day. We've lost a monumental economic thinker.

 

Unfortunately for Dr. Friedman, since he was not a Christian, he is in hell now. Mark 8:36 - "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

I Cor. 1:26 - "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called."

 

Let's pray he accepted the Lord before his dying breath...

 

What good could that possibly do, considering I John 5:16?

 

I second the question.

 

1 John 5:16 says :

now, how could this Scripture possibly have anything to do with the death of a noted economist ?
I believe KenH was referring to the deceased's secular position in life, not his faith, belief, or Christianity.

 

Because I have known who Milton Friedman is since 1980, when Ronald Reagan ran for President, and "Free to Choose" was a popular book, and I know that Milton Friedman was a Jew.

 

My response was to the comment: "Let's pray he accepted the Lord before his dying breath..."

So-- if he had not done that, then what good could it possibly do to pray that he did? If, in fact, he did, prayer is also useless in that it can have no effect on his eternal destiny. IOW prayer is now beside the point, no matter what.

 

Well, I do see that you were replying to that post, and I guess my comment was to both of you. Why bring up the matter of the subject's eternal destiny. I don't think that was the direction KenH's post was heading.

Maybe somebody knows of a better economist ?

I don't know the deceased, nor have I read any of his books as an economist, but, in my "former third world rebel"s opinion, a western trained economist, even if he were of the same skin color as mine and born in the same country and region as mine, speaks of his hemisphere's progress and benefits whenever he speaks of 'free enterprise'.

Free enterprise, western concept, does not and will not work for struggling nations, if free enterprise means opening up markets bilaterally, because "bilateral" really translates to unilateral.

For example, banana republic A opens up his market to Western Hempishere countries, and the other supposedly does the same. How can a small economy compete and trade with a big, booming, old money one ? Banana republic A will end up dominated by the goods and advertising of the Western Hemisphere country.

Not that I'm saying it doesn't work. It does, yes, but only to equals.

Banana Republic A will be better off legislating to the benefits of its local businessmen, developing its natural resources and limiting entrepreneurship of the same to its citizens, and allowing Western Hemispheres dominance over those technologies and markets it cannot at the moment handle on its own with the clause for future transfer of technology and semi-nationalization in its laws.

In other words, developing its own internal economy and settling its own internal debts first before hoping to join the "free market" arena of the giants.

Try sending a skinny bareknuckle fighter into the ring with fighters the size of tree trunks and see if the skinny guy stands even a ghost of a chance.

My one-cents non-economists' thoughts.