As written in the article(one of the few parts that is based on facts): his ideas were not applied... (no surprise, since the ones responsable for applying it are government officials a.k.a. idiots). And the ones who were "tried" were distorted to the point that he rejected what was actually put to effect. So, again, the point is: these ideas are based on facts and logic, which I showed on the answer to thalidomide, which you still haven't counter-argued. This is what matters.
This is the guy who would not have intervened when the Thalidomide problem surfaced; he would have waited for the company that made it to go bankrupt. You know, the Invisible Handjob.
Monetarism was never applied... He proposed a steady increase in the supply of money in a fixed % related to the GDP, he also proposed to limit by law government spending. None of this was ever put to practice... QE's "packages" and constant approval by government of increases in "debt ceiling" are not the proof that the idea failed, but another proof that they were never applied.
And again: fuck the guy. Your personal attack towards him didn't counter-argue his idea on the thalidomide/FDA subject.
I don't know... https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/01/17/monetarism-is-dead-finally.html
I can just as easily present to you the same arguments and facts that he used that prove that printing money is the real source of inflation. Here is were he shows it(not a matter of opinion, it is all backed up by data): In the long run, the quantity of money simply adjusts itself to the quantity of goods and services. The problem is basically surges of money printing which make prices artificially go up, which in turn stimulates business investment and when the lack of real demand is perceived, recession and instability kick in. This, in turn, calls for another money printing spree and the process renews itself. Not to mention the descrease of lack of buying power of the population, considering that salaries take very long or not even are adjusted to compensate the increase in the quantity of money. Brazil's example during the military regime, which he mentions on the video is a great example of that. The government printed tons of money for "faraonic projects" such as Itaipu and Transamazonica, which made such a steep increase in inflation. In other words, the quantity of money per se is not as important as the speed. Furthermore, interventionist policies are not reduced to money printing. This takes us to the argument of the 2008 crisis, in which, as the crisis of 1929, the "role of savior" from government is well spoken of, but the fact that government was the cause of it is not mentioned in mainstream media. The manipulation of interest by the FED is the main reason for the housing bubble... Had the market been free to adjust the interest rate, such a situation would never have happened in such proportion. All of this is, again, quite well documented in "A monetary history of the United States", which again, makes this arguments backed up by data. AND HOW ABOUT COUNTER-ARGUEING my thalidomide/FDA answer to your post with actual facts and logic? I'm still waiting for it, even though I commented it on every post since then.
I'm a classical libertarian. Chances are you have what may be termed anarcho-capitalism associated with the current use of the term "libertarian" in the U.S. I am more, I guess you could say, a Bill Weld Libertarian than a Gary Johnson Libertarian. Perhaps if you did some reading you could sort these things out for yourself. Communism is something else entirely. You might profit from reading up on that as well. If you want to understand the classical libertarian viewpoint, I can't think of a better source than Noam Chomsky, who has spoken widely on this topic. In fact the expression anarcho-capitalist is his term for some of those in the U.S. who are wrongly describing their views as "Libertarian".
I think you're obsessed with the term "counterargument." Friedman was an ideologue. His own words bury him, saving me the trouble. As it is some pharmaceutical companies are fast and loose with their research. And now you want to do without the FDA? Pound sand.