As is often the case, people look at the intentions of laws not the outcomes. Some do gooders really have the best of intentions, unfortunately they are so blinded by intentions they cannot see the obvious unintended consequences of the laws they support. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act had nobles intention, making it possible for people to get mortgages that otherwise would not have qualified. How could that not see that if you lower lending standards foreclosure rates would go up.
Safe driving laws are not what trucking regulation was all about. You need to educate yourself.
As for the other regulations stated, Like all other government regulations they had some good effects and some unforeseen negative effects. Regulation may be necessary, But the sheer volume that we have now is unnecessary.
Trucking should NOT be deregulated? What a jerk!. Then, let drivers drive 12 hours and sleep 4. The Railroad is having trouble from crewmen not getting enough sleep. Airlines are having the same problem with pilots.
@mikerotcherson Yes, that's what they want, but they are unable to do so in a system free of government intervention. Where unions stand on their own, as well as businesses, the two are just as dependent on each other, and will reach a healthy consensus on labor terms and conditions. No need for truck laws, no need for minimum wages, no need for lunch breaks.
@jrwel14 Exactly. If the government doesn't intervene in the business of either employer and union, we'll get a balanca of power, as the employer is just as dependent on the employee as the employee is on the employer. The two will reach a consensus that'll satisfy both. Therefore, federal truck law is redundant - in fact it only limits us.
Friedman seems to believe all good intentions always have bad outcomes. But what about all the times they have good outcomes? What about regulation such as the Glass-Steagall? The Clean Water Act? The Child Labor act? Did those also have bad outcomes?
@MrPaevo Most people when they mention the Great Society, they usually mean welfare payments with virtually no restrictions. In that case, I do agree that that was a hideously stupid error of judgment.
@WideWorldOfWisdom long winded arguments containing mere verbal virtuosity are often evasions of thought hoping that the reader will be caught up in things such as words and cadence forgetting content and facts are what matter.
@diogotomediogo It was a yes/no question. Why should he elaborate when the question: a) is so muddled in its thinking, and b) doesn't ask for more than a one-word reply?
@waynie11 Child labor laws were created to prevent children from working in dangerous conditions in factories. Many children died decades ago! Never seen any child get in trouble for having a lemonade stand.
@iCookie1 Friedman did not believe all good intentions have bad outcomes, and if you think he believed that, you should listen more closely. As to the three specifics you list, yes, all did far more harm than good. Regarding child labor specifically, you really should read Friedman's book Free to Chose, or Walter WIlliams' book The State Against Blacks.
@iCookie1 Glass-Steagall ramped inflation, and raped the interest rate. Clean Water act cost businesses billions of dollars and millions more in frivolous lawsuits. Child labor act ruined the welfare of children by putting them in a state of dormancy, rather than working hard and being productive. Don't get me wrong, they should have treated the children much better than they did, BUT the way to do it wasn't by forcing them to hire adults who need more pay.
@iCookie1 First, he doesn't say anything like that 'good intentions always have bad outcomes'. He says that those who affect to trade for the benefit of others are either lying or mislead and that such people are invariably working against the public interest. It is quite possible to have good intentions, to act openly in one's own interests, and in so doing contribute to society - in fact it's the only way to do so.
@iCookie1 You should look at the side effects of child labor laws in the United States that banned doing business with foreign corporations that used child labor.
So they laid off all of the child laborers. The child laborers went to making even less money in the sex trade. So instead of making soccer balls, they were sucking cock for even less money.
@voogru Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@iCookie1 Please read the fine print on a bill before you say its a good thing. Like the CPSIA banning lead in toys and requiring testing. To make a children's toy in America, you now need $30,000 of testing. Even if you make it from components that have already been tested. The problem is that the bill was written by big toy companies who gain from putting smaller ones out of business. The politicians get a law that sells well to voters but the public are the ones that lose in the end.
This is what all the liberals calling for more regulations need to realize. More regulation leads to more opportunities for corruption & back room deals. If nobody stands to benefit from enforcing a regulation, or granting an exception the system can't be artificially manipulated as easily.
If someone could help me understand this: why would GM benefit with the trucking industry being regulated by the government? I would assume GM wouldn't want it regulated. THanks for any help.
@jorgekluney because it BENEFITED THEM by having a larger control against competition (rail) They sold out most of their subsidiaries in the rail industry for trucking. get it? Rail sure as hell can haul frieght far cheaper than trucking. Damn that was a smart move they played back then. But only to benefit themselves.
@1963danno I was referring to min wage btw. Goverment made unions LEGAL. So U are not negotiating anything & its U who are being exploited by ur union. U must have had your head under a rock if you think that companies are just NOW bitching about FORCED wages. You should be ANGRY that you make the same wage as some jag off who doesnt work as hard as you, The Working man would be better paid if they were paid on PRODUCTIVITY and QUALITY of work rather than being guarnteed a wgae just to show up
@1963danno Agreed! I was replying to the guy who said corporations exploit workers. So I ask: Then why do politicians victimize the workers all the time? Seems to me, most workers WANT to work and everytime the goverment gets involved and tries to "help" more jobs are destroyed and more go overseas.
@1963danno typical response....anyways, maybe if that company didnt have to pay outragous property taxes, permit fees, extra fees, 36% income taxes, state income tax,gas tax, govt compliance employees, they could offer more pay to the workers. Many people believe in unions, which pay lazy people in union the same wage as the most productive workers...is that FAIR? Because govt has FORCED high pay , that company can hire less people and less people have opportunity for on job training.
@1963danno those workers should go out and start thier own company then and pool their resources to capiliaze that business. Oh yeah, the "do gooders" have already regulated all industry so much, that the little guy cannot get in with out HUGE amounts of $.
PS; if a profit doesnt exist for the corp, then those jobs don't exist
I don't understand why can't people grasp these concepts. They are so simple yet people are still making these mistakes believing they can help people by intervening in the market, when the market alone would do a better job in helping people
I think the most twisted and misunderstood way that big business uses big government for their favor is exactly what Friedman is talking about here: "Regulations" which are usually written by the "regulated" companies themselves or at least eventually taken over by those companies and used to keep out their competition. The most numbing thing is the people who KNOW this and still call for more regulation to solve the problem and "even the playing field".
@EconTruth Exactly, however people are so blinded by hatred of capitalism that they can't see the branches for the trees. They think when government regulates an industry it is for their benefits however, they end up hurting themselves. Its freaking pervasive
@moderatecanuck haha people change. Moving to conservatism is a journey for some people. There are two processes at play within the journey: Learning and Unlearning.
The only people who can dumb down America are schools. Private Schools are held accountable if they don't teach. Therefore, the blame goes to corrupt public schools.
Milton Friedman was the full-throttle embodiment of yet another real-life-fairy-man manifestation and as(s)pect of the stalwart Zionist Neo-Con-Artist Snow-Job Blow-Job New World Order perp-prep-team: branding blatant fallacies masquerades -- in league with that other nutter Ayn Ryan ... Ludwig von Mises -- honing pseudo-macho-buffalo-stance street-corner Crony-Capitalism-thuggery: they were foundational to the current realities: GOLD THEFT; SLAVERY: anesthetized annihilation: via Jacob Schiff
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Milton Friedman was a wonderful snake oil salesman. Milt really knew how to "catapult the propaganda" as the great George W. Bush said, lol. The almost perfect guy with the almost perfect line of utter BS for that historical moment in 1980. What an accomplished con man! And his lasting influence can be seen in the comments of many here, with the morons who believe in him and his BS as though he was a religious figure, lmao. Excellent job, Milt! You fooled the fools good! LMAO
his description is exactly that of 'medallions' given to taxi cab drivers in major cities to limit the number of cabs. Currently in san fran they are worth about $150k each and yet the government prints them for free. Who suffers? Well, try to get a cab anywhere other than downtown in this city... the cab drivers always have fares but sometimes patrons wait for an hour or more (if its raining). Consumers lose in regulated systems. Look at public transportation here, even worse.
i'm a leftist and i am extremely impressed with milton friedman and thomas sowell. i would love to have talked with either of them. although i hold to the somewhat empirical belief that government can function for the people, i recognize that there are conservative solutions that can benefit everyone.
The problem is your empirical belief is not empirical fact. If anything, the empirical evidence has shown the exact opposite...that government CANNOT function for the people overall. Human beings are not perfect and they are self-interested. You will never be able to design a system in which some people are allowed to take things from others against their will, and expect that everyone will be made better off in that system.
Some have made the point that the building of highways in the 1950's and beyond was a huge subsidy plan that benefitted the trucking industry at the expense of the taxpayer and resulted in an unfair competitive advantage to trucking. I think that is a good point. But with Nafta we now have a healthy rail system and healthy trucking. With that comes a pipeline of good from China into Mexico by ship then trucked into the US with no border checks up into Kansas City then railed northward....
@KidSheIeen .....All created by government intervention. Now we cannot find meaning work but we can buy cheap shit from China. Are we better off with that? With continual govt intervention?
Dogooders are interfering busybodies who try to restrict what you say do and think to ruin things and are killjoys and spoilsports to the cause as well.
@EastCoastDude How exactly does the free market "dumb down" people. The only people who can do that are schools, which means they must be failing. The only schools that are actually held accountable for anything are private schools which means PUBLIC schools are failing.
The only people who can dumb down America are schools. Private Schools are held accountable if they don't teach. Therefore, the blame goes to corrupt public schools.
To me "Do Gooders" are people who want to take care of the Less Fortunate with the money of the Self Sufficient. And have this approach, don't worry your problems are over, because we'll take care of you don't worry. Instead of having an approach that empowers the Less Fortunate to become Self Sufficient so they can take care of themselves.
@shone1178 if you set up the private sector properly and you create enough competition, you dont get private sector tyrannies. instead of recognizing this and enacting policies to promote competition, we stifle it and go your route of concentrating decision-making power to a small number of individuals that we "trust". havings millions of separate interests acting in their own self interest wtih minimal individual influencei is better than trusting anyone in government to "be accountable"
How many homeless people do you think there are in the U.S.? Just give me a number. And give me the number for some year in the 80s. That's all I'm asking.
Well, yeah, it kind of IS important...as that's what ur basing your entire postition on...the belief that a certain number of people r homeless now, & that number is significantly higher than it was in the 80s. And I think you've illustrated quite sufficiently that u don't have the first clue of what ur talking about and everything you've said is based in nothing more than what you'd like to believe.
Ever heard of facts? U should learn some of those.
What statement is this you keep "referring" me to? The one based in nothing other than your personal opinion, or the one based in absolutely nothing? You have a very strange concept of how intellectual discourse works.
I refer YOU to my statement. Go read a book and come back when you have some facts to share, because your baseless opinions are not of any use to anyone.
lol. So now that someone else did your homework for you and proved you utterly wrong, you're going to claim the data are inaccurate and play semantics. Basically as long as you don't have your name on a title to a residential house you're "homeless".
It never ceases to entertain me the length that people like you will go to contort reality to fit into your personal worldview.
It's worth noting that bddc's original post took issue with the statement made by Kavalere that all had done well under Reagan.
While his "millions" figure was a gross over-estimate, the general idea is supported by the site I ref'd for the 80s figures. In fact, the essay says that as a result of actions by Reagan, homelessness "had swollen to 600,000;" indicating it had been less but I couldn't put a figure on it.
I like your style. You don't seem to live up to your name. Be that as it may, regardless of the recklessness of Kavalere's statement, bddc201's statements aren't any better. In fact his initial response wasn't even a relevant one.
Read the two comments again. 1st guy says everyone had an increase in their standards during Reagan administration. 2nd guy comes in and says "even people today?"
Last time I checked, Ronald Regan isn't President.
@bddc201 Failure? Was it tried? Am I hallucinating or was "affordable housing" not a mantra used by Bush, Clinton and Bush again? Did we have a free market in housing? If so, what does the "F" in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stand for? It looks to me like the government screwed with the housing market again, and it had exactly the results Friedman predicted, disaster. I suspect you don't know what you're talking about, but if you do please provide more evidence.
@bddc201 So let me get this straight. People do the opposite of what Friedman recommends for housing. Disaster results. Therefore Friedman is an idiot.
And point two. Friedman takes a position X. For no other reason, Friedman is an idiot.
You have a lot to learn about arguing. By the way, the hidden assumptions in your argument are: 1) licensing prevents bad doctors from working, 2) bad doctors working is worse than having fewer doctors. If either of those are false, you lose.
@bddc201 I would get on board... My girlfriend drove me to work today and she's "unlicensed." I don't trust pieces of paper with my safety. I trust greedy airline executives to not want to lose money when their pilots crash. I trust pilots not to want to blow themselves up. I trust co-pilots to not want to crash and burn. I trust journalists to report when pilots crash and I remember who hired them.
And for what reason did Friedman "con" us? He secretly wanted to die in a fire?
@bddc201 Airline executives responsible for 9/11? That's a new one.
Executives DO lose money when they kill someone and their product is abandoned by the market in favor of others. They often lose their jobs as well. You think the BP CEO is happy that he was fired?
Tell you what, why don't we make licensing voluntary. Then you can go on the expensive flight with the good pilot. And I'll fly the "deathtrap" piloted by the unlicensed one. And then we can all be happy? You know...freedom.
WHAAA?? You want to go on a flight with an UNLICENSED pilot? That's not freedom! That's insanity! We can't have people going around thinking for themselves and making their own choices! That's just anarchy! You want total chaos! If you had half a brain you'd know that people need to be protected from themselves. In fact, you're a great example of that...you want to go fly on a deathtrap.
People like you are the reason we need wise overlords to tell us how to live.
So lemme get this straight. You make outrageous claims, present no facts, present no sources, present absolutely nothing to support your claims, a third party comes in and presents facts that directly refute what you've said, you claim those facts don't count, and then it's on someone else to prove whatever you said is wrong?
As I said, you truly do have a very strange concept of how intellectual discourse works. The burden is on YOU to prove your claims.
I'M emotionally invested? All I did was ask u to provide proof of one thing u said. It's u who keeps insisting everything u claim is true even in the face of refuting facts. U make assertions, provide nothing to support them, then when evidence is presented, it directly contradicts what u said, and u automatically claim the evidence isn't accurate (because it doesn't go along with what u claim).
Then u try to say that you just don't want to present any facts because I'd simply disregard them...when in actuality that's exactly what YOU'VE done.
So you make heated claims without support, won't provide any support, and when facts are provided that refute what you say, you claim they're inaccurate, again without any evidence.
Awww. Too emotionally invested and not enough facts and reality to back up all your claims? Okay. Have a nice day. Don't let that tail get too dirty from being so far up between your legs :-) Bye!
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Removing all your comments? And I'M emotionally invested? You are too hilarious. You know I even got a private message from someone telling me you did the same thing in at least one other conversation. Said you got your panties in a twist and removed all your comments. I didn't actually expect you to go THAT far, but here we have it! :)
@mikerotcherson Show a little decorum, Mike. It's possible that he learned from his mistake and decided not to have erroneous comments next to his name forever. It's a rare event, but sometimes when you win an argument you actually change the other person's mind.
Somehow I doubt that. I mean, call me crazy, but I find it hard to believe a guy who spent a dozen posts on a youtube video, over the course of a few days, arguing that there are "millions more homeless" in the U.S. than in the 80s thanks to Milton Friedman, got his mind changed because a guy whose youtube handle sounds like "my crotch" showed him how much of an ignoramus he is and made him look like an ass.
Especially not when I got a PM telling me he's done all this before.
@Lamboragon I buy you books, I buy you books and all you do is eat the covers! Last time I am going to educate you, but you should learn this next year in the 5th grade. Reagan's policies created 21 million jobs, over 4 million in the following 20 months post recession, obama has created 22,000 jobs with his policies in the 20 months post recession, his policies are the exact opposite that of Reagan.I showed you proof ,now you show me proof of obama's policies ever working in the worlds history!
@quinnrasta Reagan deregulated Wall ST and allowed real middle class American wealth to be dissolved for Wall ST profit. He also got rid of the fairness in broadcasting doctrine. I see where this world government is headed. More rights for the corporation while more people enter poverty. Republicans are not republicans. They are fascists.
@sLdGlD Deregulation is what is needed today.In a true free market society, you would not give money to big corporations when they fail you let them fail! If you are mistaken me for a republican, you are very much mistaken. Wall ST needs to be held accountable for their actions, but by putting massive regulations in place it does the opposite. Should Wall st bet wrong they need to lose their money, should they commit fraud they need to go to jail. "TRUE" free markets would fix that.
Fascism: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, CENTRALIZED CONTROL of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
Fascism is what the obama policies are right now. When a "PRIVATE" company cannot move to another state because of politician's lobbyist such as the AFL-CIO and SEIU that is fascism. When government gets involved to give a PRIVATE car company to the UAW while by passing bond holders, that is fascism.
@Lamboragon The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.
@Lamboragon The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.
@Lamboragon President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period. The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. Sorry son you are just need to be educated!
@Lamboragon When you finally become a teenager and take off you NIN shirt you might start comprehending real life situations! Good luck man, I really mean that!
Thomas Sowell is one of my most admired economists and is "BLACK!" What are you talking about "WE" won... now thats racist! Blacks are far worse off in the cities ran by democrats! Blacks do much better in conservative cities and states like my great state of TEXAS! Why do you vote for people that count on blacks being poor, they keep you poor and say it you NEED them because you are black! Who is the racist, 64% of dems voted against civil rights legislation with 80% of repubs voting for it!
@Lamboragon these countries are all running on socialist policies, just like cali, nj, ny, il, etc.. they are all in the same boat, they all have the same common denominator...liberal/ progressive/socialist policies! Where are taxes highest in this country? in the same european countries and in the same American states mentioned above. You liberals can never talk specifics, just broad generalizations that do not add up. I say Bush spent way too much, but obama will pass him in one 4 yr term!
@Lamboragon We have not had a free market system in a hundred years, what Bush policy in specific caused the recession. If I recall the CRA was enacted under jimmy carter and under clinton HUD lowered borrowing standards to get everyone in a home did it again in 1995 and again in 1999. The housing crisis started this mess not Bush policies! Cali, NJ,NY, Illinois Michigan all have liberal policies and all have massive debt and unemployment! Did Bush cause greece, portugal, spain to fall as well?
@Lamboragon Had Bush followed this "dope" HUD FHA FANNIE & FREDDIE would have never received another dime to put people in houses they couldn't afford. Liberals like jimmy carter have been collecting a poor demographic for their constituency for the last 70 years, they tried to legislate ownership of property. We are now paying for the past mistakes of these liberals putting policies that steal wealth redistribute wealth instead of creating it. Look at liberal cities & states ... poor!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis
@wacollier but I don't think this applies to the welfare state and lot of what the left wants- because the victims aren't the ones who being benefited.
@wacollier I agree I believe in a secular state and free enterprise and a democratic republic. Listen though pal, democracy is an ideal that greed can't comprehend. Capitalism is profit driven to the point that it destroys a democracy and a republic and seeks to impose Totalitarianism. A status Quo of elites that suit themselves. What we need is our constitution to work with its inherent checks and balances...and get rid of all this secret society crap.
@wacollier So basically far right Christianity need to shut up since they are the omnipotent moral busybody.
However I don't feel like living in a Corporatocracy. Corporations have long surpassed the robber barons.
Actually if we learned anything from the last 100 years is that some Corporations are never satisfied. They grow till they are too large, then they destroy everything around them like cancer.
This C.S Lewis quotes did not survive the test of time and changes. Nice quote though.
@Neosaigo Corporatocracy (FYI, the grown ups are calling it corporatism or crony capitalism) is a bi-product of govt intervention. The Robber Barons were aided by the govt through a lack of prosecutions for the bad things they did; however, the good they did far exceeded the bad.
As for corporatism, corporatism is a form of economic fascism. FASCISM is govt sanctioned.
And corporations are just made of people. Stop acting like they're monsters. Grow up. This ain't a Michael Bay movie.
@wacollier The robber barons of today think that they are helping people by giving us jobs, and then taking our money and investing it overseas or in labor-replacing technologies, so this quote of Lewis' isn't really quite as perceptive as you (he) think(s). Quotes are of very little value. CEOs think their "tyrranies" are exercised for the good of their "victims."
@Lamboragon I don't know if you're just completely misinformed or are making that up on purpose, but that's completely inaccurate. To even suggest that "anything passed" in an entire decade was the policy of one man is so ridiculous it doesn't even really require refutation. And on top of that, we're supposed to consider the 80's a failure?
Friedman never claimed that markets were perfect. He always iterated that governments and markets were made up of PEOPLE who are indeed fallible.
@Lamboragon Obama has a "peace prize" for whatever he did in the first 19 or so days he was President. (A lot of merit there for the Peace Prize committee). Obama does NOT have a PhD. You just made that one up. Friedman never ran for President. And "his book sold more"? That's the best you could do? Sold more than what? Friedman's 3rd grade paper? Troll somewhere else.
As is often the case, people look at the intentions of laws not the outcomes. Some do gooders really have the best of intentions, unfortunately they are so blinded by intentions they cannot see the obvious unintended consequences of the laws they support. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act had nobles intention, making it possible for people to get mortgages that otherwise would not have qualified. How could that not see that if you lower lending standards foreclosure rates would go up.
gcfoneman 2 weeks ago
You should rename the title: Do Gooders Who Do Good Harm. ha ha
MrSuperCollider 3 weeks ago
Safe driving laws are not what trucking regulation was all about. You need to educate yourself.
As for the other regulations stated, Like all other government regulations they had some good effects and some unforeseen negative effects. Regulation may be necessary, But the sheer volume that we have now is unnecessary.
knearhood8 3 weeks ago
Trucking should NOT be deregulated? What a jerk!. Then, let drivers drive 12 hours and sleep 4. The Railroad is having trouble from crewmen not getting enough sleep. Airlines are having the same problem with pilots.
jrwel14 4 weeks ago
@jrwel14 Guess what unions are for.
ohedd 3 weeks ago
@ohedd
...using the force of government to loot employers and the general public?
mikerotcherson 3 weeks ago
@mikerotcherson Yes, that's what they want, but they are unable to do so in a system free of government intervention. Where unions stand on their own, as well as businesses, the two are just as dependent on each other, and will reach a healthy consensus on labor terms and conditions. No need for truck laws, no need for minimum wages, no need for lunch breaks.
ohedd 3 weeks ago
@ohedd What Reagan said, "When free Unions and Collective bargaining is forbidden. Then, Freedom is lost."
jrwel14 3 weeks ago
@jrwel14 Exactly. If the government doesn't intervene in the business of either employer and union, we'll get a balanca of power, as the employer is just as dependent on the employee as the employee is on the employer. The two will reach a consensus that'll satisfy both. Therefore, federal truck law is redundant - in fact it only limits us.
ohedd 3 weeks ago
Watch out Occupiers! You may end up being the frontmen for special interests.
hugdeez 1 month ago
there are times regulations are needed, and then there are times less regulation is needed.
you cannot run something with just one set of rules. it will become stale.
rules have to be changed, abandoned and rewritten. it's a process.
Those countries that have a system that allows best to adapt, will come out ahead of other countries.
ultraverydeepfield 1 month ago
Friedman seems to believe all good intentions always have bad outcomes. But what about all the times they have good outcomes? What about regulation such as the Glass-Steagall? The Clean Water Act? The Child Labor act? Did those also have bad outcomes?
iCookie1 1 month ago
@iCookie1
Yes.
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 month ago 47
@WideWorldOfWisdom What are the bad outcomes?
AliceNchainz011 1 month ago
@AliceNchainz011 Ever hear of LGJ's "Great Society"? Case in point...
MrPaevo 1 month ago
@MrPaevo Most people when they mention the Great Society, they usually mean welfare payments with virtually no restrictions. In that case, I do agree that that was a hideously stupid error of judgment.
AliceNchainz011 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@WideWorldOfWisdom such a long answer. proves how much thought you've taken into it. asshole
diogotomediogo 1 month ago
@diogotomediogo
I'm sorry you feel the need to call people names. I will tell you that long-winded responses do not automatically mean thought has been included.
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 month ago 30
@WideWorldOfWisdom long winded arguments containing mere verbal virtuosity are often evasions of thought hoping that the reader will be caught up in things such as words and cadence forgetting content and facts are what matter.
aussieconservative 1 week ago
@aussieconservative an intelligent debater would use my above comment against me i guess.
aussieconservative 1 week ago
@diogotomediogo It was a yes/no question. Why should he elaborate when the question: a) is so muddled in its thinking, and b) doesn't ask for more than a one-word reply?
WalterLiddy 1 week ago
@WideWorldOfWisdom NO!
jrwel14 4 weeks ago
@WideWorldOfWisdom :such a long answer. Proves how much thought you've put into it, asshole!
CosmicFork 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
waynie11 1 month ago
@iCookie1
child labor laws were a bad idea. it is illegal for a child to run a lemonade stand!
waynie11 1 month ago
@waynie11 It was also illegal for me to shovel driveways and mow lawns too when I was a child, but I did it anyway. :P
Jeff55369 1 month ago
@waynie11 Child labor laws were created to prevent children from working in dangerous conditions in factories. Many children died decades ago! Never seen any child get in trouble for having a lemonade stand.
jrwel14 4 weeks ago
@iCookie1 They had good and bad outcomes.
1987King100 1 month ago
@iCookie1 yep :D
xsumuhdihx 1 month ago
@iCookie1 Yes
gabon8tor 4 weeks ago
@iCookie1 Friedman did not believe all good intentions have bad outcomes, and if you think he believed that, you should listen more closely. As to the three specifics you list, yes, all did far more harm than good. Regarding child labor specifically, you really should read Friedman's book Free to Chose, or Walter WIlliams' book The State Against Blacks.
jesbeard 2 weeks ago
@iCookie1 Glass-Steagall ramped inflation, and raped the interest rate. Clean Water act cost businesses billions of dollars and millions more in frivolous lawsuits. Child labor act ruined the welfare of children by putting them in a state of dormancy, rather than working hard and being productive. Don't get me wrong, they should have treated the children much better than they did, BUT the way to do it wasn't by forcing them to hire adults who need more pay.
WesOKelly 2 weeks ago
@iCookie1 First, he doesn't say anything like that 'good intentions always have bad outcomes'. He says that those who affect to trade for the benefit of others are either lying or mislead and that such people are invariably working against the public interest. It is quite possible to have good intentions, to act openly in one's own interests, and in so doing contribute to society - in fact it's the only way to do so.
WalterLiddy 1 week ago
@iCookie1 You should look at the side effects of child labor laws in the United States that banned doing business with foreign corporations that used child labor.
So they laid off all of the child laborers. The child laborers went to making even less money in the sex trade. So instead of making soccer balls, they were sucking cock for even less money.
Way to go, jackass.
voogru 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@voogru Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 4 days ago
@iCookie1 Please read the fine print on a bill before you say its a good thing. Like the CPSIA banning lead in toys and requiring testing. To make a children's toy in America, you now need $30,000 of testing. Even if you make it from components that have already been tested. The problem is that the bill was written by big toy companies who gain from putting smaller ones out of business. The politicians get a law that sells well to voters but the public are the ones that lose in the end.
cdoftx 3 days ago
This is what all the liberals calling for more regulations need to realize. More regulation leads to more opportunities for corruption & back room deals. If nobody stands to benefit from enforcing a regulation, or granting an exception the system can't be artificially manipulated as easily.
shananagans5 1 month ago
milton friedman = god
hmt741 2 months ago
This makes entirely too much sense.
eskyguard 2 months ago
2:27 - 3:15 , A fine ricardian explanation.
GalacticMuppet 2 months ago
If someone could help me understand this: why would GM benefit with the trucking industry being regulated by the government? I would assume GM wouldn't want it regulated. THanks for any help.
jorgekluney 2 months ago
@jorgekluney because it BENEFITED THEM by having a larger control against competition (rail) They sold out most of their subsidiaries in the rail industry for trucking. get it? Rail sure as hell can haul frieght far cheaper than trucking. Damn that was a smart move they played back then. But only to benefit themselves.
tehatemachine 2 months ago
@1963danno I was referring to min wage btw. Goverment made unions LEGAL. So U are not negotiating anything & its U who are being exploited by ur union. U must have had your head under a rock if you think that companies are just NOW bitching about FORCED wages. You should be ANGRY that you make the same wage as some jag off who doesnt work as hard as you, The Working man would be better paid if they were paid on PRODUCTIVITY and QUALITY of work rather than being guarnteed a wgae just to show up
pmango1000 2 months ago
@1963danno Agreed! I was replying to the guy who said corporations exploit workers. So I ask: Then why do politicians victimize the workers all the time? Seems to me, most workers WANT to work and everytime the goverment gets involved and tries to "help" more jobs are destroyed and more go overseas.
pmango1000 2 months ago
@1963danno typical response....anyways, maybe if that company didnt have to pay outragous property taxes, permit fees, extra fees, 36% income taxes, state income tax,gas tax, govt compliance employees, they could offer more pay to the workers. Many people believe in unions, which pay lazy people in union the same wage as the most productive workers...is that FAIR? Because govt has FORCED high pay , that company can hire less people and less people have opportunity for on job training.
pmango1000 2 months ago
@1963danno those workers should go out and start thier own company then and pool their resources to capiliaze that business. Oh yeah, the "do gooders" have already regulated all industry so much, that the little guy cannot get in with out HUGE amounts of $.
PS; if a profit doesnt exist for the corp, then those jobs don't exist
pmango1000 2 months ago
I don't understand why can't people grasp these concepts. They are so simple yet people are still making these mistakes believing they can help people by intervening in the market, when the market alone would do a better job in helping people
moderatecanuck 3 months ago
I think the most twisted and misunderstood way that big business uses big government for their favor is exactly what Friedman is talking about here: "Regulations" which are usually written by the "regulated" companies themselves or at least eventually taken over by those companies and used to keep out their competition. The most numbing thing is the people who KNOW this and still call for more regulation to solve the problem and "even the playing field".
EconTruth 4 months ago
@EconTruth Exactly, however people are so blinded by hatred of capitalism that they can't see the branches for the trees. They think when government regulates an industry it is for their benefits however, they end up hurting themselves. Its freaking pervasive
moderatecanuck 3 months ago
@moderatecanuck haha people change. Moving to conservatism is a journey for some people. There are two processes at play within the journey: Learning and Unlearning.
testmark1 3 months ago
Comment removed
SirCosmicMichael 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only people who can dumb down America are schools. Private Schools are held accountable if they don't teach. Therefore, the blame goes to corrupt public schools.
billygotgrove 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Milton Friedman was the full-throttle embodiment of yet another real-life-fairy-man manifestation and as(s)pect of the stalwart Zionist Neo-Con-Artist Snow-Job Blow-Job New World Order perp-prep-team: branding blatant fallacies masquerades -- in league with that other nutter Ayn Ryan ... Ludwig von Mises -- honing pseudo-macho-buffalo-stance street-corner Crony-Capitalism-thuggery: they were foundational to the current realities: GOLD THEFT; SLAVERY: anesthetized annihilation: via Jacob Schiff
CarCriticAssessor 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Milton Friedman was a wonderful snake oil salesman. Milt really knew how to "catapult the propaganda" as the great George W. Bush said, lol. The almost perfect guy with the almost perfect line of utter BS for that historical moment in 1980. What an accomplished con man! And his lasting influence can be seen in the comments of many here, with the morons who believe in him and his BS as though he was a religious figure, lmao. Excellent job, Milt! You fooled the fools good! LMAO
EastCoastDude 5 months ago
@EastCoastDude
What the hell are you talking about? You just wrote a paragraph yet said absolutely nothing. Lol
Can you be a little more specific?
drshlotzkin 5 months ago
@drshlotzkin
I wouldn't hold my breath.
mikerotcherson 5 months ago
@EastCoastDude hahahahahaha, you a socialist?
yelloyo 5 months ago
@EastCoastDude congratulations on not refuting any of Friedman's points.
zeppelin2224 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it doesn't work. Now we have all this debt."
-FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, commenting on the New Deal, May 9, 1939
46spoony 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it doesn't work,"
-FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, commenting on the New Deal, May 9, 1939
46spoony 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it doesn't work,"
-FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, commenting on the New Deal, May 9, 1939
46spoony 5 months ago
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it doesn't work,"
-FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, commenting on the New Deal, May 9, 1939
46spoony 5 months ago
his description is exactly that of 'medallions' given to taxi cab drivers in major cities to limit the number of cabs. Currently in san fran they are worth about $150k each and yet the government prints them for free. Who suffers? Well, try to get a cab anywhere other than downtown in this city... the cab drivers always have fares but sometimes patrons wait for an hour or more (if its raining). Consumers lose in regulated systems. Look at public transportation here, even worse.
goingwithzed 5 months ago
It is so sad listening to a great man like Friedman next to a empty head like Donahue.
VictorLepanto 5 months ago
@VictorLepanto
You have to give Donahue, who was a supreme liberal weenie, credit for having Friedman on his show.
46spoony 5 months ago
@46spoony He knew it would draw in viewers.
Vote4RonPaulLiberty 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLepanto
You have to give Donahue, who was a supreme liberal weenie, credit for having Friedman on his show.
46spoony 5 months ago
i'm a leftist and i am extremely impressed with milton friedman and thomas sowell. i would love to have talked with either of them. although i hold to the somewhat empirical belief that government can function for the people, i recognize that there are conservative solutions that can benefit everyone.
also i hate obama
imoveri18chill 5 months ago
@imoveri18chill
The problem is your empirical belief is not empirical fact. If anything, the empirical evidence has shown the exact opposite...that government CANNOT function for the people overall. Human beings are not perfect and they are self-interested. You will never be able to design a system in which some people are allowed to take things from others against their will, and expect that everyone will be made better off in that system.
/watch?v=2IECY6LgqE0
mikerotcherson 5 months ago
Some have made the point that the building of highways in the 1950's and beyond was a huge subsidy plan that benefitted the trucking industry at the expense of the taxpayer and resulted in an unfair competitive advantage to trucking. I think that is a good point. But with Nafta we now have a healthy rail system and healthy trucking. With that comes a pipeline of good from China into Mexico by ship then trucked into the US with no border checks up into Kansas City then railed northward....
KidSheIeen 6 months ago
@KidSheIeen .....All created by government intervention. Now we cannot find meaning work but we can buy cheap shit from China. Are we better off with that? With continual govt intervention?
KidSheIeen 6 months ago
Dogooders are interfering busybodies who try to restrict what you say do and think to ruin things and are killjoys and spoilsports to the cause as well.
AnthonyUK 6 months ago
God stuff like this was on TV in the past? What happened? Present day television is disgraceful.
drshlotzkin 6 months ago
@drshlotzkin The "free Market" decided to dumb down the US public and sell them a televised junk food diet, lol.
EastCoastDude 5 months ago
@EastCoastDude
free market where?
drshlotzkin 5 months ago
@EastCoastDude How exactly does the free market "dumb down" people. The only people who can do that are schools, which means they must be failing. The only schools that are actually held accountable for anything are private schools which means PUBLIC schools are failing.
billygotgrove 4 months ago
The only people who can dumb down America are schools. Private Schools are held accountable if they don't teach. Therefore, the blame goes to corrupt public schools.
billygotgrove 4 months ago
Wow I have to say everything he said was so smart yet so simple. Thats the problem its simple it makes sense and works, people wont believe it.
jezza1789 6 months ago
@Lamboragon Get the book "Meltdown" by Thomas E Woods.
Thatmakessense356 7 months ago
To me "Do Gooders" are people who want to take care of the Less Fortunate with the money of the Self Sufficient. And have this approach, don't worry your problems are over, because we'll take care of you don't worry. Instead of having an approach that empowers the Less Fortunate to become Self Sufficient so they can take care of themselves.
FRSFreeStateNow 7 months ago
Man, this dude is smart, but he frightens the shit out of me.
supercommie 7 months ago
@supercommie
I'm sure you're not the only commie who's ever been frightened by what Milton Friedman had to say.
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson Bro, don't call me a commie please. I'm a liberal, but I'm not a fucking communist. My name is a pun because I come from Russia.
supercommie 7 months ago
@supercommie
Whatever you say, super commie.
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@shone1178 if you set up the private sector properly and you create enough competition, you dont get private sector tyrannies. instead of recognizing this and enacting policies to promote competition, we stifle it and go your route of concentrating decision-making power to a small number of individuals that we "trust". havings millions of separate interests acting in their own self interest wtih minimal individual influencei is better than trusting anyone in government to "be accountable"
Welsh77 8 months ago 5
donahue is a shithead.
avarmadillo 8 months ago
It's good to be a "do gooder," but only if one tries to do good with one's OWN money, time and other resources.
AshillaBeige 8 months ago
Friedman was to the U.S. economy, what the sexual revolution was to family values.
louiethegreater 9 months ago
@louiethegreater
Awesomeness?
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
@mikerotcherson HAHAHA I was going to use the exact same word. Fuck the 1950s family structure. Leave it to Beaver was terrible.
AshillaBeige 8 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
Hey dum dums that keep saying Reagan hurt the middle class....note to self:
Every class of people had an increase in their respective standards of living under Reagan. EVERYBODY do you understand?
kavalere 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
"Millions more homeless we have now"?
Please show where you got this information.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago 11
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
Wow, you didn't provide any source, you just called me a denier. You should see my big surprised face.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
How many homeless people do you think there are in the U.S.? Just give me a number. And give me the number for some year in the 80s. That's all I'm asking.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
Well, yeah, it kind of IS important...as that's what ur basing your entire postition on...the belief that a certain number of people r homeless now, & that number is significantly higher than it was in the 80s. And I think you've illustrated quite sufficiently that u don't have the first clue of what ur talking about and everything you've said is based in nothing more than what you'd like to believe.
Ever heard of facts? U should learn some of those.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
What statement is this you keep "referring" me to? The one based in nothing other than your personal opinion, or the one based in absolutely nothing? You have a very strange concept of how intellectual discourse works.
I refer YOU to my statement. Go read a book and come back when you have some facts to share, because your baseless opinions are not of any use to anyone.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
1.5 mil people were homeless throughout 2009 but on any given night in January there were only 640K (sheltered and unsheltered)
Compare to
2005 - 754K
1996 - 842K
Late '80s - 600k any given night with 1.2 million over the course of a year.
Were the # have risen at a rate equal to the population growth of the US (1.3%, wikipedia) we would expect almost 800k
So, 40k = millions?
#s from '09 & '07 Hud assessment
For #s in 80s, google "Reagan’s Legacy: Homelessness in America"
Isignorancebliss 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
lol. So now that someone else did your homework for you and proved you utterly wrong, you're going to claim the data are inaccurate and play semantics. Basically as long as you don't have your name on a title to a residential house you're "homeless".
It never ceases to entertain me the length that people like you will go to contort reality to fit into your personal worldview.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
@mikerotcherson
It's worth noting that bddc's original post took issue with the statement made by Kavalere that all had done well under Reagan.
While his "millions" figure was a gross over-estimate, the general idea is supported by the site I ref'd for the 80s figures. In fact, the essay says that as a result of actions by Reagan, homelessness "had swollen to 600,000;" indicating it had been less but I couldn't put a figure on it.
Isignorancebliss 9 months ago
@Isignorancebliss
I like your style. You don't seem to live up to your name. Be that as it may, regardless of the recklessness of Kavalere's statement, bddc201's statements aren't any better. In fact his initial response wasn't even a relevant one.
Read the two comments again. 1st guy says everyone had an increase in their standards during Reagan administration. 2nd guy comes in and says "even people today?"
Last time I checked, Ronald Regan isn't President.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
@mikerotcherson True. I concede.
Isignorancebliss 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Failure? Was it tried? Am I hallucinating or was "affordable housing" not a mantra used by Bush, Clinton and Bush again? Did we have a free market in housing? If so, what does the "F" in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stand for? It looks to me like the government screwed with the housing market again, and it had exactly the results Friedman predicted, disaster. I suspect you don't know what you're talking about, but if you do please provide more evidence.
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 So let me get this straight. People do the opposite of what Friedman recommends for housing. Disaster results. Therefore Friedman is an idiot.
And point two. Friedman takes a position X. For no other reason, Friedman is an idiot.
You have a lot to learn about arguing. By the way, the hidden assumptions in your argument are: 1) licensing prevents bad doctors from working, 2) bad doctors working is worse than having fewer doctors. If either of those are false, you lose.
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 I would get on board... My girlfriend drove me to work today and she's "unlicensed." I don't trust pieces of paper with my safety. I trust greedy airline executives to not want to lose money when their pilots crash. I trust pilots not to want to blow themselves up. I trust co-pilots to not want to crash and burn. I trust journalists to report when pilots crash and I remember who hired them.
And for what reason did Friedman "con" us? He secretly wanted to die in a fire?
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Airline executives responsible for 9/11? That's a new one.
Executives DO lose money when they kill someone and their product is abandoned by the market in favor of others. They often lose their jobs as well. You think the BP CEO is happy that he was fired?
Tell you what, why don't we make licensing voluntary. Then you can go on the expensive flight with the good pilot. And I'll fly the "deathtrap" piloted by the unlicensed one. And then we can all be happy? You know...freedom.
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago
@darwinkilledgod
WHAAA?? You want to go on a flight with an UNLICENSED pilot? That's not freedom! That's insanity! We can't have people going around thinking for themselves and making their own choices! That's just anarchy! You want total chaos! If you had half a brain you'd know that people need to be protected from themselves. In fact, you're a great example of that...you want to go fly on a deathtrap.
People like you are the reason we need wise overlords to tell us how to live.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
@bddc201
So lemme get this straight. You make outrageous claims, present no facts, present no sources, present absolutely nothing to support your claims, a third party comes in and presents facts that directly refute what you've said, you claim those facts don't count, and then it's on someone else to prove whatever you said is wrong?
As I said, you truly do have a very strange concept of how intellectual discourse works. The burden is on YOU to prove your claims.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
"If I provide sources you would just dismiss them for whatever convenient reason"
...You mean I'd do what you did? ;-)
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
...Again, like you did?
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
I'M emotionally invested? All I did was ask u to provide proof of one thing u said. It's u who keeps insisting everything u claim is true even in the face of refuting facts. U make assertions, provide nothing to support them, then when evidence is presented, it directly contradicts what u said, and u automatically claim the evidence isn't accurate (because it doesn't go along with what u claim).
Then you say...
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
...
Then u try to say that you just don't want to present any facts because I'd simply disregard them...when in actuality that's exactly what YOU'VE done.
So you make heated claims without support, won't provide any support, and when facts are provided that refute what you say, you claim they're inaccurate, again without any evidence.
Who's emotionally invested again?
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
Comment removed
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
Awww. Too emotionally invested and not enough facts and reality to back up all your claims? Okay. Have a nice day. Don't let that tail get too dirty from being so far up between your legs :-) Bye!
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
@bddc201
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Removing all your comments? And I'M emotionally invested? You are too hilarious. You know I even got a private message from someone telling me you did the same thing in at least one other conversation. Said you got your panties in a twist and removed all your comments. I didn't actually expect you to go THAT far, but here we have it! :)
Thanks for making my day! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
@mikerotcherson Show a little decorum, Mike. It's possible that he learned from his mistake and decided not to have erroneous comments next to his name forever. It's a rare event, but sometimes when you win an argument you actually change the other person's mind.
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago
@darwinkilledgod
Somehow I doubt that. I mean, call me crazy, but I find it hard to believe a guy who spent a dozen posts on a youtube video, over the course of a few days, arguing that there are "millions more homeless" in the U.S. than in the 80s thanks to Milton Friedman, got his mind changed because a guy whose youtube handle sounds like "my crotch" showed him how much of an ignoramus he is and made him look like an ass.
Especially not when I got a PM telling me he's done all this before.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
@mikerotcherson You're probably not wrong...
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago
What a terrible aloud reader Donahue is.
instantpestering 9 months ago
All of Milton Friedman's videos are pure gold.
SooNerdy 10 months ago 18
@Lamboragon I buy you books, I buy you books and all you do is eat the covers! Last time I am going to educate you, but you should learn this next year in the 5th grade. Reagan's policies created 21 million jobs, over 4 million in the following 20 months post recession, obama has created 22,000 jobs with his policies in the 20 months post recession, his policies are the exact opposite that of Reagan.I showed you proof ,now you show me proof of obama's policies ever working in the worlds history!
quinnrasta 11 months ago
@quinnrasta Reagan deregulated Wall ST and allowed real middle class American wealth to be dissolved for Wall ST profit. He also got rid of the fairness in broadcasting doctrine. I see where this world government is headed. More rights for the corporation while more people enter poverty. Republicans are not republicans. They are fascists.
sLdGlD 9 months ago
@sLdGlD Deregulation is what is needed today.In a true free market society, you would not give money to big corporations when they fail you let them fail! If you are mistaken me for a republican, you are very much mistaken. Wall ST needs to be held accountable for their actions, but by putting massive regulations in place it does the opposite. Should Wall st bet wrong they need to lose their money, should they commit fraud they need to go to jail. "TRUE" free markets would fix that.
quinnrasta 9 months ago
Fascism: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, CENTRALIZED CONTROL of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
Fascism is what the obama policies are right now. When a "PRIVATE" company cannot move to another state because of politician's lobbyist such as the AFL-CIO and SEIU that is fascism. When government gets involved to give a PRIVATE car company to the UAW while by passing bond holders, that is fascism.
quinnrasta 9 months ago
@Lamboragon The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.
quinnrasta 11 months ago
@Lamboragon The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.
quinnrasta 11 months ago
@Lamboragon President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period. The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. Sorry son you are just need to be educated!
quinnrasta 11 months ago
@Lamboragon When you finally become a teenager and take off you NIN shirt you might start comprehending real life situations! Good luck man, I really mean that!
quinnrasta 11 months ago
Thomas Sowell is one of my most admired economists and is "BLACK!" What are you talking about "WE" won... now thats racist! Blacks are far worse off in the cities ran by democrats! Blacks do much better in conservative cities and states like my great state of TEXAS! Why do you vote for people that count on blacks being poor, they keep you poor and say it you NEED them because you are black! Who is the racist, 64% of dems voted against civil rights legislation with 80% of repubs voting for it!
quinnrasta 11 months ago
@Lamboragon these countries are all running on socialist policies, just like cali, nj, ny, il, etc.. they are all in the same boat, they all have the same common denominator...liberal/ progressive/socialist policies! Where are taxes highest in this country? in the same european countries and in the same American states mentioned above. You liberals can never talk specifics, just broad generalizations that do not add up. I say Bush spent way too much, but obama will pass him in one 4 yr term!
quinnrasta 11 months ago
@Lamboragon We have not had a free market system in a hundred years, what Bush policy in specific caused the recession. If I recall the CRA was enacted under jimmy carter and under clinton HUD lowered borrowing standards to get everyone in a home did it again in 1995 and again in 1999. The housing crisis started this mess not Bush policies! Cali, NJ,NY, Illinois Michigan all have liberal policies and all have massive debt and unemployment! Did Bush cause greece, portugal, spain to fall as well?
quinnrasta 11 months ago
@Lamboragon Yawn.
mikerotcherson 11 months ago
@Lamboragon You're still trolling this?
mikerotcherson 11 months ago
@Lamboragon Had Bush followed this "dope" HUD FHA FANNIE & FREDDIE would have never received another dime to put people in houses they couldn't afford. Liberals like jimmy carter have been collecting a poor demographic for their constituency for the last 70 years, they tried to legislate ownership of property. We are now paying for the past mistakes of these liberals putting policies that steal wealth redistribute wealth instead of creating it. Look at liberal cities & states ... poor!
quinnrasta 11 months ago
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis
wacollier 11 months ago 44
@wacollier but I don't think this applies to the welfare state and lot of what the left wants- because the victims aren't the ones who being benefited.
mehandas 11 months ago
@wacollier I agree I believe in a secular state and free enterprise and a democratic republic. Listen though pal, democracy is an ideal that greed can't comprehend. Capitalism is profit driven to the point that it destroys a democracy and a republic and seeks to impose Totalitarianism. A status Quo of elites that suit themselves. What we need is our constitution to work with its inherent checks and balances...and get rid of all this secret society crap.
sLdGlD 9 months ago
@wacollier So basically far right Christianity need to shut up since they are the omnipotent moral busybody.
However I don't feel like living in a Corporatocracy. Corporations have long surpassed the robber barons.
Actually if we learned anything from the last 100 years is that some Corporations are never satisfied. They grow till they are too large, then they destroy everything around them like cancer.
This C.S Lewis quotes did not survive the test of time and changes. Nice quote though.
Neosaigo 9 months ago
@Neosaigo Corporatocracy (FYI, the grown ups are calling it corporatism or crony capitalism) is a bi-product of govt intervention. The Robber Barons were aided by the govt through a lack of prosecutions for the bad things they did; however, the good they did far exceeded the bad.
As for corporatism, corporatism is a form of economic fascism. FASCISM is govt sanctioned.
And corporations are just made of people. Stop acting like they're monsters. Grow up. This ain't a Michael Bay movie.
AshillaBeige 8 months ago
@wacollier The robber barons of today think that they are helping people by giving us jobs, and then taking our money and investing it overseas or in labor-replacing technologies, so this quote of Lewis' isn't really quite as perceptive as you (he) think(s). Quotes are of very little value. CEOs think their "tyrranies" are exercised for the good of their "victims."
shone1178 8 months ago
@shone1178 The only difference is, private sector tyrranies are unaccountable, while public sector tyrranies have at least some accountability.
shone1178 8 months ago
@shone1178 "labor-replacing technologies" .LOLOLOL...dude you are really really dumb, I mean seriously dumb...
paulstroie 6 months ago
@paulstroie good point
shone1178 6 months ago
@wacollier yea, unfortuantely we seem to have forgotten from the lesson of more than 1000yrs of roman catholic rule.
madscientistify 8 months ago
@wacollier Thanks for posting that quote, it is full of wisdom!
rescuemay 6 months ago
@wacollier excellent quote!! I first saw this on Thomas Sowell's quote list. If you get a chance check it out on tsowell dot com.
aussieconservative 5 months ago
@Lamboragon *eyeroll* Again, troll somewhere else.
mikerotcherson 11 months ago
@Lamboragon Hehe. Can't provide even a shred of evidence for anything you say, can you?
And Obama is fixing Bush's fires? By throwing gasoline on them?
/watch?v=EEOIhLZ3Uxw
mikerotcherson 11 months ago 13
@Lamboragon I don't know if you're just completely misinformed or are making that up on purpose, but that's completely inaccurate. To even suggest that "anything passed" in an entire decade was the policy of one man is so ridiculous it doesn't even really require refutation. And on top of that, we're supposed to consider the 80's a failure?
Friedman never claimed that markets were perfect. He always iterated that governments and markets were made up of PEOPLE who are indeed fallible.
mikerotcherson 11 months ago
@Lamboragon I'm sorry...what policies are we talking about exactly? And where were these enacted?
mikerotcherson 11 months ago
boy I wish this man became president
Mwaterfall 1 year ago
@Lamboragon Obama has a "peace prize" for whatever he did in the first 19 or so days he was President. (A lot of merit there for the Peace Prize committee). Obama does NOT have a PhD. You just made that one up. Friedman never ran for President. And "his book sold more"? That's the best you could do? Sold more than what? Friedman's 3rd grade paper? Troll somewhere else.
mikerotcherson 1 year ago