I'm a fan of Minford because he was a passionate advocate of economic liberalism, which is something I firmly believe in, at a time when it was very much a minority view when I was doing my degree. But no economist has ever been 100% right.
Economic liberalism gave us much of the prosperity and freedom we enjoy today but it brought its own problems as well. The 2008 crash probably wouldn't have happened without it but neither would widespread property ownership, global trade and investment and other things seen as beneficial. 2008 was really a failure of regulation and prudence, not of economic theory.
The EU, in my view, restricts economic liberalism as it denies members of the Eurozone freedom over crucial fiscal policy tools such as exchange rates, interest rates and government debt. I'm not averse to free trade in any way or even a general framework of economic convergence/standardisation but the EU has gone a step or two to far. Sovereign nations have to have freedom of action.
Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
"So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."
.........................
Oh, by the way....
2008 was really a failure of regulation and prudence, not of economic theory.
That's akin to blaming cops for crime.
