Life on Hannan World (Part 9)

The occasion of Milton Friedman’s 101st birthday…no, he’s still dead, I just checked… has moved the Lyin’ King to pen this gushing tribute to the man whose economic theories have quite literally turned the world into a toilet. Dan opines:

Today would have been Milton Friedman’s hundred-and-first birthday. The Chicago economist, who died in 2006, is already acquiring that almost Homeric status that normally comes only decades after a man’s life.  Perhaps social media have speeded up the process, or perhaps it’s the fact that Friedman’s strongest enthusiasts are often students with no direct memory of their hero.

Friedman, darling of neoliberals everywhere and supporter of Pinochet’s Chile, where his theories were rammed down people’s throats, is given the airbrush treatment… well, that’s not quite true. Friedman’s supporters refuse to see any flaws in the man. In their eyes, he was the very model of economic perfection. So no need for the airbrush.

Yet for someone who talked so movingly about ‘freedom’, Friedman was capable of turning a blind eye to political repression. For him, all that mattered was the functioning of the free market with its insistence that social relations be reduced to financial transactions between actors. Friedman was also fervently against any form of regulation, so in a pure Friedmanite dystopia, surgeons can practice without proper qualifications and driving licenses would be banned. Can you see the dangers? Yes? Well, Dan can’t.

Here, Hannan tells us:

Friedman did not limit himself to academic theories; he had a keen sense of how to translate ideas into action. He understood politics very well, and used to say that his aim was not to get the right people elected, but to create a climate where even the wrong people would do the right thing. Every year I spend in politics I find that insight more brilliant.

Yes, Friedman understood politics so well that in his perfect world, certain kinds of political activity would have been outlawed because they didn’t fit into his perfect model of a rampant capitalist society.

Here we get to the core of the blog:

What mattered to him most of all? Oddly enough, it was nothing to do with monetary policy, or indeed with economics at all. He believed that the single measure that would do most to ameliorate society was school vouchers.

School vouchers, loved by Pinochet’s Chicago Boys and loathed by those who have had to put up with a substandard education, have become a sort of gold standard in the eyes of the Right.  Higher education, too, has moved backwards. For the last few years, students have been protesting over the inequalities of the education system. Dan simply ignores this.

He had first suggested the idea as early as 1955 – in an intellectual climate so unfriendly that he might as well have been proposing that children be cooked and eaten.

You can see where this is heading and predictably enough, Dan tells us:

But the climate shifted, not least through Friedman’s own interventions and, by the end of his life, a few places were prepared to give his idea a go. Chile had led the way in the 1980s, followed by Sweden in the early 1990s. Milwaukee became the first city in the US to adopt vouchers 23 years ago, and around a quarter of a million American pupils are now benefiting.

“Chile had led the way in the 1980s” he says. No mention of the oppressive weight of the Chilean ‘small state’ crushing those below. No mention of the thousands rounded up, tortured and executed. No mention of the oligarchical free-for-all ushered in by Pinochet’s ‘hands off’ approach to the economy and its disastrous consequences for ordinary Chileans. He continues:

Though Britain has stopped short of full-blown vouchers, Michael Gove has plainly embraced the idea that governments can fund schools without running them, and the free schools programme is one of the greatest of the Coalition’s achievements.

The truth of the matter is that the Tories have been historically opposed to the state school system and have spent the better part of 60 years talking it down when they’re out of power and running it into the ground when they’re in government.  The unspoken dictum here is “some state schools are bad, therefore the state education system is bad”.

The Cat believes that the Tories would prefer it if everyone paid for their schooling and if you can’t find the money, that’s tough. You will die illiterate and ignorant. Why? Because it’s God’s will. That’s why.

Finally Dan tells us:

With his wife, he established the Milton Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which has helped thousands of students, especially poor students, to get a decent education.

“Choice” has been used as a battering ram since the 1980s. But choice is neither here nor there. You can only have what is available. The Tories believe that if you don’t live in the catchment area of a school that you’ve fetishised, then you should be able to bypass the rules and send your kid there anyway. Better still, set up your own free school where you can be free to inculcate children in any superstitious tosh that occupies your thoughts.

While 75% of free schools were found to be “good” or “outstanding” by OFSTED inspectors, 25% were not. This article from The Guardian says:

One of the first free schools to open has been placed on special measures and given an inadequate rating by Ofsted inspectors, in an untimely blow to the government’s flagship education policy.


Inspectors were severe on the primary school’s leadership, saying its governors failed to grasp the school’s “serious shortcomings”, while school leaders “believe the school is far better than it is”.

The inspection team gave the school the lowest grade, of “inadequate”, in three of four categories, for pupil achievement, quality of teaching, leadership and management. “Too many pupils are in danger of leaving the school without being able to read and write properly,” inspectors concluded. “Unless this is put right quickly, pupils are unlikely to flourish in their secondary schools and future lives.”

To borrow from the Tories’ lexicon of smears, I could say that “some free schools are poor, therefore all free schools are poor”. But unlike Dan,  I’m not that petty.


Filed under Conservative Party, Education, Government & politics, Neoliberalism, Society & culture

6 responses to “Life on Hannan World (Part 9)

  1. Gregg Hill

    And he spent his entire career in the public sector not, as the right likes to call it, the “real world” of the private sector. Reminds of how Wm. F. Buckley could only cut it on public television. Hypocrites both.

    • Yep and the right conveniently forgets this.

      • Gregg Hill

        As you know they conveniently forget a lot of things. I don’t know if you watch “The Daily Show” but that show does a great job of refuting US right wing statements with old (usu. not that old) TV clips. Just this past week they smashed the claim by commentators that J P Morgan-Chase was forced by the feds to buy Bear Stearns by showing some of those same commentators saying what a brilliant move it was by Jamie Dimon to do it. Do you have anything like “The Daily Show” in the UK?

  2. They used to show ‘The Daily Show’ on More 4 here but I they stopped it in 2009.

    There is no British equivalent and when they have something vaguely satirical on television, it’s short-lived. The first satirical show on British television was ‘That Was The Week That Was’ (BBC), which was aired between 1962 and 1963 and was suddenly cancelled after running for a little over a year. The reason? There was a forthcoming general election and the Tories complained that the show would sway voters to vote against them. The thing is, they were already trailing in the polls after the Profumo scandal broke and even the change in leadership from Macmillan to Home couldn’t help them either.

    Channel 4 commissioned something called ’10 O’clock Live’ in its place and this appeared to pay homage to TW3, but has failed to make any real impact… it just isn’t as funny or as incisive as ‘The Daily Show’. It’s a pretty depressing picture. 😦

    • Gregg Hill

      Perhaps I’m deluded but as a regular BBC viewer and Guardian reader I would say that from a strictly non-comedic perspective a Daily Show-type show isn’t needed nearly as badly in the UK as it is in the US. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are important not just because they are so funny but also because they compensate for the wretched general state of public affairs reporting in the US. Back when Colbert was still on The Daily Show he described to Jon Stewart his approach to political reporting (I’m paraphrasing): “I talk to one politician and they give me an opinion and then I talk to another politician and they give me their opinion, that’s called objectivity Jon”. And that’s also, as they both knew and we know, the way political journalism on US TV is done, no investigative or critical questions, just the soliciting of opinion, and very little digging (investigative reporting budgets having been slashed). Or it’s the pundit host or pundit battles where opinion is allowed but only as commentary not, with some exceptions, as engagement with public figures (usually other pundits). So the US MSM is either a case of reporters not being allowed to ask critical much less inquisitorial questions or of pundits being able to say, or scream, the most extreme things (on the right that is) without evidence. My impression is that in Britain journalists are still allowed to work between those two extremes. Can you imagine a show like “HARDTalk” in the US (or my country for that matter) or journalists like Jeremy Paxman being able to find employment while still doing what they fortunately do in Britain?

      • Seriously, the BBC isn’t as good as you think it is. Since the Tories got into power, the BBC has been pushing its agenda. There was no mention of the government’s plans to privatize the NHS and news programs regularly invite right-wing commentators into the studio without providing any balance. Newsnight is a case in point. This used to be a really good news program with investigative reports and decent analysis but since Savile/McAlpine scandal last year, it’s gone downhill and presents the government point of view.

        Then the are the attacks on benefit (welfare) claimants, many of whom are actually working but get paid such poor wages that they have no choice but to claim benefits.

        Here’s a blog I wrote about this kind of thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s