Ethical Differences Of M Friedman And J. M. Keynes

691 Words2 Pages

M. Friedman and J.M. Keynes were the most influential economists of the 20th century. Since Friedman spent much of his intellectual energy attacking the legacy of Keynes it is natural to consider them opposites. Their differences were certainly thoughtful and so was what they shared. The interesting part was that they neither won nor neither lost. Today's policy conventions are a mixture of their two approaches. Yet both have won in the most important sense. Over the past two decades a world of fiat money has supplied diffident inflation and supported stable growth.
Keynes concluded from the great depression that the free market had failed Friedman decided instead that the Federal Reserve had failed. Keynes trusted in will for cultured officials like him Friedman believed the only safe government was one bound by tight rules. Keynes thought that capitalism needed to be in chains Friedman thought it would behave if left alone. These differences are self-plain. Yet no less so are the similarities. Both were brilliant journalists, debaters and promoters of their own ideas both saw the great depression as at bottom a disaster of insufficient combined demand both wrote in favor of floating exchange rates and so of fiat money and both were on the side of freedom in the great ethical struggle of the 20th century.
J.M. Keynes context is based on spending and demand the causes of the components of spending, the liquidity preference theory of short run interest rates, and the requirement that government make strategic but powerful interventions in the economy to keep it on an even keel and avoid extremes of depression and overexcited excess. His theory was one of employment, interest and money. Keynes saw himself as the enemy of laissez f...

... middle of paper ...

...and other things they need it for.
The FCPA applies to any person who has a certain degree of connection to the United States and involves in foreign corrupt practices. The Act also applies to any act by U.S. businesses, foreign corporations trading securities in the United States, American nationals, citizens, and residents acting in furtherance of a foreign corrupt practice whether or not they are physically present in the United States. In the case of foreign natural and legal persons the Act covers their actions if they are in the United States at the time of the corrupt conduct. The Act governs not only payments to foreign officials, candidates, and parties, but any other receiver if part of the bribe is ultimately attributable to a foreign official, candidate, or party. These payments are not restricted to just monetary forms and may include anything of value.

Open Document