OBAMA and the democrats are the most detrimental instruments of inducing slavery. Welfare, food stamps, minimum wage - all taxes on businesses so that they can throw the crumbs to the poor while their UNION government social cubicle hamster workers bankrupt this country.
When you're in school, they teach you that Milton Friedman is a "kook", but they have no logical argument to support that claim. When you leave school and read decent material, you find quite the contrary.
@buewave26 because he is full of shit,and he probably knows it. E.g. private schools for the poor. Companies functions for profit margins.Poor people, if they can pay at all, cannot afford expensive schools.Therefore, private schools for poor people will be low price- low cost schools with the worst teachers and insufficient means for teaching. Where do you think those students stand in competing with high quality schools? And also, compare America's poor to say Sweden's, u c he is full of shit
@ElBank2012 well when it comes to views on public schools, this is a man who believes that competition is the mother of success and i agree. as for the poor people not being able to afford the schooling he wants to create the competition between the schools by giving all parents vouchers to pay for the schooling, if you ask me, a capitalist, this sounds pretty good, America is what it is because of competition. so why not put it in our schools. the bar is set to low in public organiz
@ElBank2012 Have you ever heard of price discrimination? If it's done in colleges, then why can't it be done in private schools. Is there really that much of a difference? It's ridiculous to coerce people into paying for things for which they didn't choose to pay.
It's astonishing how out of touch Friedman is back then about poor people...and it's even worse now.
Saying "we give them (blacks) lousy governmental schools" -which is true public education is terrible as a whole and worse in poor communities. But what's Friedman's solution???
Private schools? LMAO They can't afford housing or food! How the fuck can they afford schooling? So hi solution then by default - no education at all, WHAT A GENIUS!
@playbak...I think if you look into it more, you'll find that it's a little more complex than you assume. He of course isn't saying 'no education at all'. That's ridiculous. You are imagining what he's suggesting but still seeing it through the lens of today's current situation. For example, with true free market competition amongst private schools without government interference, there would be plenty of affordable schools.
@playbak Also, although there will always be some who aren't as well off as others, if some of what he suggests were put into place, it's likely that these poor people would be in a better position. Look at what he says about the welfare state, public housing, etc and how it is to the detriment to these people. Take these things away and they will benefit. Also, it's simply a better, more sensible way of doing things.
@RocknRollaRevolution That's a good point. If you went to a public school it does make sense though why they wouldn't want to expose you to these ideas. In my experience in public schools there was practically zero mention of Friedman or anyone with similar ideals about getting the state to stop interfering in our lives.
@SlothGamer60 "anti-negro" was evidently out of the past. you may catch jesse jackson correcting william f. buckley about the use of the term "negro" as early as '71: 2:10 - 2:45 dTrVXU9Wonw
Forced charity is not charity at all. Government doesn't have anything it didn't already take from another. Not only that, when it steps in to "take care of the poor" it acts as a very expensive and oppressive middle man. If history hasn't shown this I don't know what has. Then again, our youth is blissfully ignorant of history, as well as the populace at large.
@666or999 6-8 corporations run the show, the one that hosts this video will become one of them soon. Even if the rules were the same for all in a passage of time , after a period oligarchy is inevitable.
@mcamoran Silly man. This is obviously a channel run by the molemen. The molemen have the goal of completly controlling the world and yet having no clear effect on it. You'll see.
@mcamoran It's not a free market myth, if we would have been able to keep our Constitutional Republic it would not be this way. We don't really have a free market for you to criticize. That is because a while back they turned this into a Democracy and all Democracy's inevitability turn into a oligarchy and business follows into a corrupt system.
To the Republic for which it stands. It was beautiful while it lasted.
This was a good question and I have to say that Friedman's answer is very poor. A few points:
1. Government does have a responsibility to citizens. It is not only "of the people" but "for the people". Elementary democracy.
2. Friedman states that free market capitalism has lifted the majority of people from poverty. Which sounds great until you realise nothing resembling free market capitalism has ever existed in the USA. The US developed under state-funded capitalism.
3. The early 20 century saw improvements for the common man as Friedman states. However, this is because workers organised, formed unions and fought for a better deal. Improvements were hard won - not gifts from factory owners - read the history of the labour movement.
4. Unemployed teenagers. Friedman's suggestion of lowering the minimum wage is terrible. Taking the bottom out of wages only serves to further entrench poverty. The answer is increase funding to public education and training.
@rtnmt read an economics book. Even my liberal economics professors in college thought minimum wage was a bad idea. It helps no one. It just decreases the amount of jobs.
No the 20th century saw improvements for the lot of the common man because of the industrial revolution, technological advancement, and improvements in the quality of life brought about through a competitive market, that was his point. Furthermore unions are part of the free market.
I'm a Obama supporter, but I find this kind of debate truly stimulating. It sure beats the debate of today when I here conservatives resort to insults like IDIOT, LIBTARD, and COMMIE just because someone has a different point of view than them.
You definitely have a bare minimum understanding of political/economic philosophy, considering you haven't progressed past the overly simplistic one-dimensional 'left/liberal' 'right/conservative' categorization of the political landscape which is immensely more complex.
And liberals do the exact same sort of ad hominem/name calling too.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Who controls the resources? What regulatory force is there in a resource based economy that allows for resources to be available for everyone? The government!? I hope not. Bartering lacks a medium of exchange necessary to place an exchange value on goods. What competitive force would insure that resources are in the hands of individuals to do with them what they will instead of allocated by a few oligarchs and centralized by a tyrannical bureaucrat?
@StAugustine79 Who controls the resources? The planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants - public property. All decisions would be arrived at based upon the introduction of newer technologies and Earth's carrying capacity. Computers could provide this information with electronic sensors throughout the entire industrial, physical complex to arrive at more appropriate decisions.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Public property is impossible. Any time you enforce an equal system it involves one portion of the populace exerting power over another. Your technocratic utopian vision is just unrealistic. Planetary resources are not held as the common heritage because we live in scarcity. A technocrat or a body of technocrats dictating the proper use of resources is a total affront to natural liberties and is Malthusian nonsense. I suggest you read Brave New World and Road to Serfdom
@StAugustine79 Public property is possible. This is a system like none other in the past, as it involves cybernation of Government. It is not a utopia, as that implies a static civilization and that's simply impossible. Civilization is always emergent and undergoes change, today we have an established society, with politicians more likely to keep things the way they are due to the corrupt political processes. There is no purpose for any one person or group to exert power over another (cont.)
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER when everyone has a high standard of living and people are educated to understand that we all depend on each other. It is in this social darwinism, competitive system that uses the gaming strategy of power, property, and wealth. There is no incentive for one to be powerful when everyone lives well, it is the most egalitarian and altruistic society possible. Social stratifician in social classes creates psycho-social stresses in everyone today, which is detrimental to health
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER That is an absurdly naive view of human nature and a viewpoint totally bereft of understanding politics and economics. Capitalism is NOT social darwinism. Capitalism was a utilitarian philosophy and empirical system developed to maximize production to improve the quality of life. It is a system of common sense. Any time you use force to acheive equality, in this case a technocratic resolve, you end up with neither liberty nor equality.
@StAugustine79 I have studied behavioural science. I don't know how much research you have actually done but modern psychologists and behavioural scientists are essentially saying that there is no human nature. There is human behaviour and that has always changed otherwise you would still be living in a cave. Everything is learned. Scarcity creates aberrant behaviour in humans. Politics was good 80 years ago but it is no longer useful because politicians aren't trained in problem solving
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Problems are technical. Politicians are businesspeople and lawyers. I didn't say capitalism was social darwinism, I said the monetary market system employs social darwinism in its mechanics. Besides, capitalism always leads to corporatism and the mess the world is in today. Its usefulness has been surpassed, it is now more detrimental than is it helpful for the species survival.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER "capitalism always leads to corporatism" where on earth did you get that foolish idea? can you briefly explain to me a society prior to americas capitalistic system leading to corporatism? you have no historical depth to your point there. americas financial problems (moral problems aside) are 100% political
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER you dont have to teach a child to lie. there goes their theory. everything isn't learned. plus living in a house vs a cave has little to do with anything. It is just as likely that human nature seeks to make itself comfortable + tech helped make houses possible.
There are very few solutions...almost (if not everything) is a trade off. Solving problems isn't usually an option for society, only creating an environment where people have a chance to minimize their own issues
@1pp1k10k4m1 The child learns to lie because it gets them want they want even though they know it is wrong. Are you saying a cave is not a comfortable place to live? It can be. Technology comes from human ingenuity which is also learned. Otherwise you would be coming out with impressive technology as we speak, but you most likely aren't.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER "There are very few solutions...almost (if not everything) is a trade off. Solving problems isn't usually an option for society, only creating an environment where people have a chance to minimize their own issues"
What was all this jumble about? This is the problem with aspiring economists, they know fuck all about human behaviour and technology (engineering).
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Instead of putting up a sign saying "Drive carefully, slippery when wet." You put an abrasive in the surface so it is not slippery when wet. Solutions not laws. Instead of having cars hitting one another, you put electromagnetic repellants in cars so they don't hit one another. This is what a resource based economy wants, that is a sane and caring society.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER This is not true. MODERN behavioral science recognizes a lot of human nature. That we learn to speak is amazing due to poverty of stimulus, not that we pick it up with it all swirling around us. That is human nature - no other animal can pick up a single word. Modern behavioral scientist totally reject that there is no human nature - at least in all the good schools. You're talking about the 1950's - you're totally out of touch.
@VanceJoudrey Put a baby in a room by itself and tell me it will learn to speak on its own. You are beyond a joke. I have studied psychology in college. You haven't even given any evidence for human nature, other than "Yeah it's there", what a cop out. Give evidence or sit down, it is an empty word used by ignorant people like you who still live in the past. What human nature are you on about? Do we live in caves?
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Nonsense. For your example, we'll use your cavemen. Is it not human nature to reproduce? It is. Did cavemen teach their children how to reproduce? Or did their instinct lead them to it?
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Plenty of people TODAY who choose that. You said that there is basically no human nature, only learned skills. Reproduction was not and is not a learned skill from society. You are right when you said we learn, but not exclusively. We have basic human motivations that drive us that are not learned, but programmed into the DNA that makes us modern day humans.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Right, but it is still a human instinct. You said that human behavior is exclusively learned. Therefore, you just proved yourself wrong. Thank you sir.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER I'm also well versed in behavioral psyc. I hope you are not implying that gov't should create social laws using beh psyc to make a more "desired" society. 1)Socialist societies use psyc and tend to end up butchering their own people because of noncompliance. 2)What works in controlled settings isn't always applicable in the real world. 3)Who decides what is an (un)desired trait? 4)Learning=determinism is a philosophical thought, thusly provides no evidence to your claim.
@PrometheusVsLegion Firstly, what I advocate is not socialist. I am saying that it is mostly the environment that shapes human behaviour. If we want desirable human behaviour, we need to manipulate the variables in the environment so we get positive outcomes. Stop defending capitalism, it is on its way out. It is time to apply a scientific approach to our social and economic world. Our technology has superceded money, we can produce more than enough for everyone to get rid
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Okay, I went back over some of the old posts."No ownership". Society would 1st cease to be. Even if you have a society where there is unlimited resources, there is a fluctuation in value. There is the best spot. There is the best mate. There is the best tasting food. Ultimately I think the society your talking would either shift towards becoming tribal or communist. It would happen because that society'd still be neglecting peoples' secondary needs.
@PrometheusVsLegion Not saying either of those systems are as good at meeting those secondary needs as capitalism. It is possible that people would re-adopt a capitalistic society. Assuming though, that "the people" decided to quit capitalism, to take on a "Natural Law" society, I'd think that it is more likely that there would be a quick shifting toward communism or tribal society next, after Natural Law fell through.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Using "science" was also something that Germany suggested while they were building the hype for socialism, or at least their version of science. Psychology has helped some people, but it has helped on a case by case basis. How would you manipulate the variables in the environment? How would you apply the scientific approach to our social and economic world? What would your operational definition of abberant behavior be, since we are being scientific?
@PrometheusVsLegion Nazis used science in an intellectually dishonest way and has nothing to do with a resource based economy. A systems approach would replace the free-enterprise. This is where the earth is recognised as a single system which it is. Humans must live according to natural law as that is what matters first. First, a global survey of all earth's resources needs to be conducted. That tells you the carrying capacity of your society.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Problem with making the earth a single system who is the ruler of the system or I guess who would be doing the survey? My natural law is probably different then your natural law for starters.... If whoever is doing this survey says my carrying capacity or job is something I don't like I'm stuck with it, eh? If they think that per my physical and mental attributes I should be paired with some chick I don't like, stuck with her, eh?
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Oh and even under several different systems as opposed to the single system you're suggesting, considering how the gov't tries to overcomplicate things and how they are disconnected from the views of the people, How would having a single system be at all smarter? How would inviting in the screwiness of other systems benefit us? Honestly, even with all our problems I think we have the best system when it comes to gov't.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER It is this failed assumption that leads the belief that people can make a perfect government system on Earth. It will never happen. You only end up giving up your freedom and liberty to those who think they can construct this perfect society. The perfect society on created by man is a fantasy and many millions have died for it. If you accept that we are basically flawed from the beginning, you are closer to the truth.
@killerseps No such thing as perfection. "It will never happen" is what past people said about man moving in air but this was proven wrong with the advent of planes. You have no idea what a resource based economy is and are only left with projecting your own ideas and values into it. I suggest you do some more researching on it before you spout off on your old communist and socialist ideas. You are talking about a totalitarian society.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER (one would think that it'd be implied that I have looked it up if I corrected myself on the understanding of the term you used...)
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Also it must be noted it is not a perfect society, no one has said it was or is. Just because it's better than a monetary market system does not mean it is utopian. That is one of the first things we must do is automate all work, and create an abundance of all resources so as to reach a post-scarcity economy. Intelligent management of the earth's resources using the scientific method to social concerns can achieve this.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Public property is only possible when you restrict private property, which is highly immoral and goes against any basic notion of individual liberty.
@StAugustine79 Nonsense. The concept of ownership would be of no advantage whatsoever in a society of abundance. Think about it. You have ownership today because of scarcity, you need to protect one's access to goods and services.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER We will never have a society of abundance if no one owned property, because no one would have motivation to work for anything. Nor would we be able to maintain one in society of socialism, because no one would be motivated to keep working hard. Resources will always be scarce, thats basic economics.
@dchstrack That's what you've been taught dchstrack. No one needs to own anything when there is so much of it, it is there for your use when you want to use it, you don't want to own anything you want access to it when you need. Think about it. The free-enterprise system does create incentive to achieve, however it also breeds the incentive for corruption, theft, and greed.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER In a resource based economy, money would not be required to help one achieve or create, as facilities would be made available to serve everyone's needs. I could give you endless examples of people who fought, studied, created, and excelled without the allure of money as a reward, there are much more meaningful rewards than that. It depends on the value system that one is given and the culture that one is raised in that reinforces what is meant by a reward.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER A college student was opposed to the idea of "getting something for nothing." He was then asked him if he were paying his own way through school, or if his parents were paying for him. He admitted that his parents were.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER He also pointed out that if he really did believe that people should not receive something for nothing, then in the event of the death of his rich relative he would prefer that their inheritance be left to the heart or cancer fund, rather than being passed on to him. But the student, needless to say, was opposed to this idea.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER By merely being born in a developed country, we have access to many things that we put no effort whatsoever towards, such as the telephone, the automobile, electricity, running water, etc. These gifts of human ingenuity and invention do not degrade our lives, but rather they enrich and enhance us. What degrades us is our lack of concern for those unfortunate enough to experience poverty, hunger, and homelessness.
@dchstrack A resource-based economy would use technology to overcome scarce resources by utilizing renewable sources of energy; computerizing and automating manufacturing, inventory and distribution; designing safe, energy-efficient cities; providing universal health care and relevant education; and most of all, by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. It is a social-economic system. Today, we waste so much so of course it's going t get scarce. Basic stuff
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER No no. That is a fallacy. The only way that could ever be is if somehow human nature were to change. Even in a society of complete abundance people still have to do some sort of work to acquire those goods, therefore putting a personal value to it (no matter how small). Human nature is geared toward personal achievement and accumulation of valuables. Accumulation of resources is a basic survival mechanism.
@woopsme You are projecting your own values into a resource based economy. People would not have to do some sort of work to acquire those goods fuckwit. People would access them without servitude, barter, debt or trade. You're right human nature is about personal achievements, which happens after basic needs have been met, but accumulation of valuables is NOT human nature. That is due to scarce conditions where one needs to protect what they have earned.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER In a society of abundance I would seek to create artificial scarcity by taking control of the majority of the available resources. In fact, that would be my main goal, as I believe myself to be more deserving than others and all other incentives have been practically removed.
@sobeboyzz With a relevant education you wouldn't seek to do that, and I mean an education in regards to how people relate to one another and the environment and how we depend on the environment for its resources to give us a high standard of living and all the achievements made my man is for everybody. If you drop people today with their value system into a resource based economy, they'll fuck it all up so it resembles what we have today. They need a re-education.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Education has nothing to do with it. I could have all the education in the world and still seek to do this. And yes, it does have to do with human nature. Fear and self-interest. Pain and pleasure. It's not exclusive to humans, but this system is still the most powerful driving force behind every human exploit. In this situation, becoming more powerful would satisfy my self-interest and calm my fear of someone accomplishing it before me.
@sobeboyzz You wouldn't want to do that. You seek to become powerful because you are insecure due to being in a scarce and competitive environment, this has manipulated your behaviour. It is not human nature and we have always had these variables. This is an egalitarian, altruistic and co-operative society where everyone lives a high standard of living, and people with issues are helped not locked away in prison.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Might be hard for you to imagine, but self-interest is not caused by culture or insecurity. In fact, even altruism serves your self-interest. And yes, I can also attribute it to insecurity. The insecurity of being out-competed or socially penalised. Egalitarianism also makes zero sense, since it encourages consumption that exceeds production. No society can afford that and no education prevent it.
@sobeboyzz It has everything to do with education and cultural values. You are warped into this culture to have self-interest values, to be successful and to accumulate a lot. It's in the movies, television shows, books.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Also, "high standard of living" is relative. In time, having a standard of living that is similiar to everyone elses' will only cause dissatisfaction. And it does have to do with cultural values, yes. But why do you think does the media encourage success in the first place?
@sobeboyzz Pure speculation on your part. Go and get an education in sociology and then come talk to me. Humans are culturally manipulated. You need to do some more learning.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Oh, I'm not coming from sociology, but from human ethology. The laws that will not change no matter what happens. And most importantly, it's actually backed by research and experiments, unlike the semi-philosophical bullshit that current sociology and psychology are. Want studies? Just google it. You can start with dominance hierarchy and understand why some people will always want more. But there was a FAQ somewhere, I think.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Your assertions are false. There would be no body of restrictive law to stop either one individual or a group of individuals from seizing power over whatever management technology is put in place to control the masses. History is entirely against your rhetoric. What is to stop a bureaucrat from designing this governmental technology from exerting a total systematic mind control and daily productive schedule for each individual?
@StAugustine79 A resource based economy uses a cybernated society in which computers could replace the outmoded system of electing politicians that, in most cases, represent the entrenched vested interests. Technology will never dictate or monitor individuals' lives, as this would be considered socially offensive and counterproductive.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Motion pictures such as 1984, Brave New World, Blade- Runner, and Terminator 2 have spawned fear in some people regarding the takeover of technology in our society. A resource based economy's only purpose is to elevate the spiritual and intellectual potential of all people while also providing the goods and services that will meet their individual material needs.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER It has been said that many people employed by private corporations feel they serve in private dictatorships from the moment they step though the door and punch the time clock. A resource based economy, on the other hand, would utilize the best of technology to better the lives of everyone. In the proposed system, the workday will be shortened, thus providing individuals with more leisure time, a healthier life-style, and a stress-free environment.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Again, more utopian nonsense. Who decides what the best technology is? Have you thought about dissenting opinions? Moral objections? And what would happen if a large portion of the populace does not accept this technocracy? Trading corporatism for technocratism is essentially the same thing. People will be beholden to some technocrat-designed robotic system that could be used easily to control.
@StAugustine79 What does it matter who decides? Remember, no one is held higher than anyone else. The scientific method is used to arrive at decisions. The best technology is that which we know up to now, whilst being the most efficient with resources. Dissenting opinions are normal, we have them today, what do we do about it today? This is not a utopia no matter how many times you wish it to be. People are free to live within the system or not, they most likely will because of the benefits
@StAugustine79 There is no money, no profit, no purpose for controlling. A relevant education, high standard of living for all, egalitarianism and altruism will put a stop to those. In addition, the computers would be designed not to allow easy access to control, very easy to do.
@StAugustine79 I'm sorry buddy, but capitalism is no longer relevant. It has no physical referant to the resources on earth. The earth requires a "systems approach" and scientific method if we are to live harmoniously with nature. As long as you have prisons, wars, militaries, police, you are not civilised, far from it. It is only natural law that matters.
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER You speak of this Resource Based Economy as a disembodied thing that has no human force behind its implementation. Someone would have to put it into operation and I highly suggest you think about the implications of that policy. Power to affect the daily of lives of each individual?
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Unless of course the developers of said technology give their information to a power broker. Please tell me a case in recorded history where you find these angels that will insure that this technocracy would not be a system of enslavement!
@StAugustine79 You are totally paranoid. I have supplied you with an answer earlier as to why there is no incentive for that. Today the US Government is taking steps towards censoring the internet, so no there isn't any in recorded history because we are not civilised yet.
@MrFreddieBurgoyne Charges of racism are the result of the liberal not being able to make a rational factual argument. Irrational emotions rule the mind of the liberal, they base their rationalizations on intentions and not results. History is not on the side of the liberal, nor will it ever be
systems have been set up to help you if you became poor and your looking for work or a new job - its not to make you rich - people are always looking for the pot o gold - sorry you have to work for it , learn a new trade or start a new business - get off the system and make yourself rich-
@quinnrasta thanks for your kind reply - i was expecting to get hammered as its not trendy to ask people to work towards their future - the world is upside down right now -
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”Ben Franklin
"... people, who are hurting, perhaps it is the responsibility of this government of the people to help out... " Where?! Where in the constitution does it guarantee that the government is meant to alleviate us of all pain (and, this man, being a liberal, of course, also classes "effort" as pain)?! The pursuit of happiness. Not the instant granting of happiness, without any effort. We are not guaranteed happiness. No government in the world could afford that. We're guaranteed the pursuit.
hey everyone, Im looking for a Friedman quote or clip where he says something like, "it is the ineffectiveness of government that has preserved our liberty; if the government was good at doing things, it woul have stripped us of liberty years ago." Does anyone know what I am talking about, or knows the reference? Thanks
This is ridiculous. I think USA`s demise at the moment is because of the lack of regulation by the GOVERNMENT. The market does NOT correct itself, it is taken advantage of by rich, powerful people for their own benefit. The rich become richer and the poor become poorer.
Does he really think if you privatize schooling the schools for the poor will be better? That's ridiculous.
Government is present because it protects those who can't protect themselves (aka the poor).
@thealmassi1 Finally, he does not say that all government actions are bad, but he rather says that poverty is often the result of bad government policy. The "demise" of the US is more attributable to government intervention (as opposed to lack of regulation) in the markets when the FED encouraged the housing bubble by setting rates as low as they did.
@thealmassi1 First, he is not making an argument for privatizing poorly performing schools, he is arguing that we should eliminate "bad government failures," in this case by improving these schools. Friedman readily acknowledges that some services are best provided by the government. Second the government is not in existence to protect the poor, it exists to maintain order and provide essential services in american society.
@thealmassi1 Question, what has government done to help the "poor" and how are the poor better off as a result? Which regulations were we lacking...be specific. Did government put pressure on banks to loan to "poor" minorities?Did obama's law firm sue banks for not making loans?Fannie/freddie were gov sponsered enterprises, they owe the tax payers $150 billion.Banks would have not lent the money in the first place,if not for government.Liberals often confuse intentions with results.
@thealmassi1 We have 170,000 federal regulations & a 70,000 page tax code. Thru these regulations,small business is disappearing because of it. The Banking bill Dodd/Frank will eliminate small banks because the 4,000 page regulation requires them to have large capital reserves they cant afford,but can be afforded by the big boys. Regulations/taxes favor the rich,they eliminate their small business competitors Farms/Meat/Banks are now 80% owned by 4-6 companies in each due to regs
@sinistar99 No the government is not the people. It is a handful of people with their own agenda. People working in their own self interest as you would expect them to. This country is not a democracy, it is a republic. The government cannot have responsibility because it is an institution and not a person. We are running the government as if it were a nonprofit to fix everyone's problems, and it is showing on the balance sheet.
@JoshMan522 "It doesn't matter if the young guy is right or wrong." Yeah, it kinda does. That's pretty much the whole idea.
"you know he got laid more than Friedman ever could." If a 20-ish year old dude isn't getting laid more than a 70-ish year old dude, there's something...wrong. And you have absolutely no way of even guessing how much pussy Friedman was getting in his 20s.
@UCSDEngineerDoctor Yep and thank god for us... we have more jobs now no market crashes no bank bailouts and HS companies can't discriminate like they used to. Boy are we dumb.
@portpass1974: Also, I was quoting an IMF study. Disprove them if you want to disprove my public spending comment, since my knowledge of their methods is also limited and I might be misinterpreting their study.
@portpass1974: And regarding public investments, yes, their returns are diminishing or negative no matter how you look at it. An increase in government spending will benefit society much less than market based solutions. And yes, the returns in public investment CAN be measured in monetary terms. That's what econometrics all about: Measuring stuff that happens in the economy. For example, we can put a monetary value on healthcare, and a monetary value on clean air. It's all possible.
@portpass1974: Oh, and Friedman was a monetarist, as in, an economist who studies about money. He wasn't an entrepreneur or a researcher. Also, note that MOST useful inventions, like electricity, the light bulb, the modern research lab and the personal computer are invented by the private sector. IBM invented huge mainframe computers that are absolutely useless to the common people and completely useless to the economy, and their monopoly on computers was then destroyed by Windows and Apple.
@portpass1974: Most research done by the public sector is either useless or boosted in it's potential by the private sector. Case in point: Going to the moon is awesome, but a big waste of money. Internet was invented by the public sector, but expanded, improved and empowered by the private sector. It's fine for the public sector to do research to get the ball rolling, but ultimately it has always been and always will be the private sector which finalizes the product. Markets are awesome.
blacks are not poor...there are many white poor in every corner of the nation...why do people relate poverty with black...jail with black....every mother who teaches kid is poor....every....you are one of damn economist....
@portpass1974: Note that returns of public investment are either diminishing or even negative. If IMF is right that the most optimal percentage of economic activity run by the government is 30%, than most developed countries are heavily wasting their resources (Europe's average government run economic activity is 40%). On the other hand, private investments have accelerating returns, due to investments in technology and such. In the end, market socialism cannot allocate resources efficiently.
@Greedyspectator You cannot calculate investments in the public sector as the same in the private sector. Public investments are made to increase the quality of life of people. Private investments are made to increase profits. There's an enormous difference.
I don't think you really understand the meaning of market socialism (no offense). It can also have hard budgeting, which means that firms, although public, can only borrow from the government, not receive subsidies.
@portpass1974 With the greatest of respect. "Public Investments" are of course paid for by Private Individuals through the tax system are to a large extent services that most people would pay for privately. They are private provisions paid for by private individuals but organised through a Governmental system.
@portpass1974 To elaborate on my earlier point - the fact that you believe "there's an enormous difference" does not mean that it exists at all. Private Companies have by and large been the innovators which have to a large extent been the dampeners on the costs of "public services" - technology/knowledge absorption by the public sector - though not very efficiently has contributed greatly to it's survival.
OBAMA does not want you to have freedom. It means less taxes he can take from you.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 15 hours ago
OBAMA and the democrats are the most detrimental instruments of inducing slavery. Welfare, food stamps, minimum wage - all taxes on businesses so that they can throw the crumbs to the poor while their UNION government social cubicle hamster workers bankrupt this country.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 15 hours ago
Friedman absolutely destroyed this utopian socialist and all his silly egalitarian nonsense.
cyanide585 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you're in school, they teach you that Milton Friedman is a "kook", but they have no logical argument to support that claim. When you leave school and read decent material, you find quite the contrary.
ItsAllAboutGuitar 1 week ago
Comment removed
ItsAllAboutGuitar 1 week ago
Comment removed
ItsAllAboutGuitar 1 week ago
why would anyone try and debate this man
buewave26 1 week ago
@buewave26 because he is full of shit,and he probably knows it. E.g. private schools for the poor. Companies functions for profit margins.Poor people, if they can pay at all, cannot afford expensive schools.Therefore, private schools for poor people will be low price- low cost schools with the worst teachers and insufficient means for teaching. Where do you think those students stand in competing with high quality schools? And also, compare America's poor to say Sweden's, u c he is full of shit
ElBank2012 1 week ago
@ElBank2012 well when it comes to views on public schools, this is a man who believes that competition is the mother of success and i agree. as for the poor people not being able to afford the schooling he wants to create the competition between the schools by giving all parents vouchers to pay for the schooling, if you ask me, a capitalist, this sounds pretty good, America is what it is because of competition. so why not put it in our schools. the bar is set to low in public organiz
buewave26 1 week ago
@ElBank2012 Have you ever heard of price discrimination? If it's done in colleges, then why can't it be done in private schools. Is there really that much of a difference? It's ridiculous to coerce people into paying for things for which they didn't choose to pay.
RhodesCarnivale 1 day ago
It's astonishing how out of touch Friedman is back then about poor people...and it's even worse now.
Saying "we give them (blacks) lousy governmental schools" -which is true public education is terrible as a whole and worse in poor communities. But what's Friedman's solution???
Private schools? LMAO They can't afford housing or food! How the fuck can they afford schooling? So hi solution then by default - no education at all, WHAT A GENIUS!
playbak 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@playbak...I think if you look into it more, you'll find that it's a little more complex than you assume. He of course isn't saying 'no education at all'. That's ridiculous. You are imagining what he's suggesting but still seeing it through the lens of today's current situation. For example, with true free market competition amongst private schools without government interference, there would be plenty of affordable schools.
LJPpro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@playbak Also, although there will always be some who aren't as well off as others, if some of what he suggests were put into place, it's likely that these poor people would be in a better position. Look at what he says about the welfare state, public housing, etc and how it is to the detriment to these people. Take these things away and they will benefit. Also, it's simply a better, more sensible way of doing things.
LJPpro 1 week ago
Why didn't i learn about Milton Friedman in high school? This guy is a genius!
RocknRollaRevolution 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RocknRollaRevolution That's a good point. If you went to a public school it does make sense though why they wouldn't want to expose you to these ideas. In my experience in public schools there was practically zero mention of Friedman or anyone with similar ideals about getting the state to stop interfering in our lives.
LJPpro 1 week ago
Ive watched this a ton of times... still entertaining.
rcmeyerson 1 week ago 2
@rcmeyerson I know...for the load of crap he talks...
ElBank2012 1 week ago
Whilst the working class stay the slave class-there is no freedom.
23lFrench 2 weeks ago
Someone says "racist" at around 2:28.
Frutoses 2 weeks ago
@Frutoses I didn't hear it.
SlothGamer60 2 weeks ago
@SlothGamer60 "anti-negro" was evidently out of the past. you may catch jesse jackson correcting william f. buckley about the use of the term "negro" as early as '71: 2:10 - 2:45 dTrVXU9Wonw
pobaldy66 1 week ago
Forced charity is not charity at all. Government doesn't have anything it didn't already take from another. Not only that, when it steps in to "take care of the poor" it acts as a very expensive and oppressive middle man. If history hasn't shown this I don't know what has. Then again, our youth is blissfully ignorant of history, as well as the populace at large.
gdbalck 3 weeks ago
Free market is a myth, especially in the US corporate oligarchy controls even the presidents!
mcamoran 3 weeks ago
@mcamoran And the corporate oligarchy is controlled by the molemen!
666or999 3 weeks ago
@666or999 6-8 corporations run the show, the one that hosts this video will become one of them soon. Even if the rules were the same for all in a passage of time , after a period oligarchy is inevitable.
mcamoran 3 weeks ago
@mcamoran Silly man. This is obviously a channel run by the molemen. The molemen have the goal of completly controlling the world and yet having no clear effect on it. You'll see.
666or999 3 weeks ago
@666or999 I know because I am one of them!
mcamoran 3 weeks ago
@mcamoran Shiiiii***** I've been rumbled.
666or999 3 weeks ago
@666or999 You stick your nose where you shouldn't have, try to be careful from now on!
mcamoran 3 weeks ago
@mcamoran The US does not have a free market. It is incredibly corporatist and has been, and been growing increasingly so, since FDR's New Deal.
Jordoom777 3 weeks ago
@mcamoran It's not a free market myth, if we would have been able to keep our Constitutional Republic it would not be this way. We don't really have a free market for you to criticize. That is because a while back they turned this into a Democracy and all Democracy's inevitability turn into a oligarchy and business follows into a corrupt system.
To the Republic for which it stands. It was beautiful while it lasted.
TheGeneralOfWar 2 weeks ago
his ability to reduce and simplify a problem is what makes him such an effective speaker.
billsurlatete 3 weeks ago 8
Some form of governing is needed in our world, everyone knows this. How do you create a civilized society?
If you allow greedy people running corporations & banks the freedom to be as greedy as they want then you have global financial instability
You have the wealthy & powerful taking advantage of anyone they can, including other wealthy & powerful people or institutions
Look how Harvard lost $10 billion of its endowment to Goldman & others in 2008
Honest & enforced laws & regs are NECESSARY
bristow0156 1 month ago
@bristow0156 A resource based economy will be able to achieve a small Government due to have an efficient economy.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
at 4.02 he looks like he's gona cry. he got owned LOL....
mrgarlicbread100 1 month ago
This was a good question and I have to say that Friedman's answer is very poor. A few points:
1. Government does have a responsibility to citizens. It is not only "of the people" but "for the people". Elementary democracy.
2. Friedman states that free market capitalism has lifted the majority of people from poverty. Which sounds great until you realise nothing resembling free market capitalism has ever existed in the USA. The US developed under state-funded capitalism.
rtnmt 1 month ago
3. The early 20 century saw improvements for the common man as Friedman states. However, this is because workers organised, formed unions and fought for a better deal. Improvements were hard won - not gifts from factory owners - read the history of the labour movement.
4. Unemployed teenagers. Friedman's suggestion of lowering the minimum wage is terrible. Taking the bottom out of wages only serves to further entrench poverty. The answer is increase funding to public education and training.
rtnmt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rtnmt read an economics book. Even my liberal economics professors in college thought minimum wage was a bad idea. It helps no one. It just decreases the amount of jobs.
dchstrack 1 month ago
@rtnmt
No the 20th century saw improvements for the lot of the common man because of the industrial revolution, technological advancement, and improvements in the quality of life brought about through a competitive market, that was his point. Furthermore unions are part of the free market.
Califacience 1 month ago
lulz he said negro
BolnoyBratchny 1 month ago
Apparently the 9 people who disliked this are economic idiots.
babynalgene25 1 month ago
Friedman is pretty boss. Not as good as Rothbard or Mises though.
MrUnicorn1995 1 month ago
Without young idealists, society would never change.
squamish4244 1 month ago
I'm a Obama supporter, but I find this kind of debate truly stimulating. It sure beats the debate of today when I here conservatives resort to insults like IDIOT, LIBTARD, and COMMIE just because someone has a different point of view than them.
luvitluvitbaby 1 month ago
@luvitluvitbaby
You definitely have a bare minimum understanding of political/economic philosophy, considering you haven't progressed past the overly simplistic one-dimensional 'left/liberal' 'right/conservative' categorization of the political landscape which is immensely more complex.
And liberals do the exact same sort of ad hominem/name calling too.
BolnoyBratchny 1 month ago
Resource based economy > Capitalism.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Who controls the resources? What regulatory force is there in a resource based economy that allows for resources to be available for everyone? The government!? I hope not. Bartering lacks a medium of exchange necessary to place an exchange value on goods. What competitive force would insure that resources are in the hands of individuals to do with them what they will instead of allocated by a few oligarchs and centralized by a tyrannical bureaucrat?
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 Who controls the resources? The planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants - public property. All decisions would be arrived at based upon the introduction of newer technologies and Earth's carrying capacity. Computers could provide this information with electronic sensors throughout the entire industrial, physical complex to arrive at more appropriate decisions.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Public property is impossible. Any time you enforce an equal system it involves one portion of the populace exerting power over another. Your technocratic utopian vision is just unrealistic. Planetary resources are not held as the common heritage because we live in scarcity. A technocrat or a body of technocrats dictating the proper use of resources is a total affront to natural liberties and is Malthusian nonsense. I suggest you read Brave New World and Road to Serfdom
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 Public property is possible. This is a system like none other in the past, as it involves cybernation of Government. It is not a utopia, as that implies a static civilization and that's simply impossible. Civilization is always emergent and undergoes change, today we have an established society, with politicians more likely to keep things the way they are due to the corrupt political processes. There is no purpose for any one person or group to exert power over another (cont.)
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 6
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER when everyone has a high standard of living and people are educated to understand that we all depend on each other. It is in this social darwinism, competitive system that uses the gaming strategy of power, property, and wealth. There is no incentive for one to be powerful when everyone lives well, it is the most egalitarian and altruistic society possible. Social stratifician in social classes creates psycho-social stresses in everyone today, which is detrimental to health
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 9
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER That is an absurdly naive view of human nature and a viewpoint totally bereft of understanding politics and economics. Capitalism is NOT social darwinism. Capitalism was a utilitarian philosophy and empirical system developed to maximize production to improve the quality of life. It is a system of common sense. Any time you use force to acheive equality, in this case a technocratic resolve, you end up with neither liberty nor equality.
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 I have studied behavioural science. I don't know how much research you have actually done but modern psychologists and behavioural scientists are essentially saying that there is no human nature. There is human behaviour and that has always changed otherwise you would still be living in a cave. Everything is learned. Scarcity creates aberrant behaviour in humans. Politics was good 80 years ago but it is no longer useful because politicians aren't trained in problem solving
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 9
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Problems are technical. Politicians are businesspeople and lawyers. I didn't say capitalism was social darwinism, I said the monetary market system employs social darwinism in its mechanics. Besides, capitalism always leads to corporatism and the mess the world is in today. Its usefulness has been surpassed, it is now more detrimental than is it helpful for the species survival.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 8
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER "capitalism always leads to corporatism" where on earth did you get that foolish idea? can you briefly explain to me a society prior to americas capitalistic system leading to corporatism? you have no historical depth to your point there. americas financial problems (moral problems aside) are 100% political
rudesskeys 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER you dont have to teach a child to lie. there goes their theory. everything isn't learned. plus living in a house vs a cave has little to do with anything. It is just as likely that human nature seeks to make itself comfortable + tech helped make houses possible.
There are very few solutions...almost (if not everything) is a trade off. Solving problems isn't usually an option for society, only creating an environment where people have a chance to minimize their own issues
1pp1k10k4m1 1 month ago
@1pp1k10k4m1 The child learns to lie because it gets them want they want even though they know it is wrong. Are you saying a cave is not a comfortable place to live? It can be. Technology comes from human ingenuity which is also learned. Otherwise you would be coming out with impressive technology as we speak, but you most likely aren't.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER "There are very few solutions...almost (if not everything) is a trade off. Solving problems isn't usually an option for society, only creating an environment where people have a chance to minimize their own issues"
What was all this jumble about? This is the problem with aspiring economists, they know fuck all about human behaviour and technology (engineering).
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Instead of putting up a sign saying "Drive carefully, slippery when wet." You put an abrasive in the surface so it is not slippery when wet. Solutions not laws. Instead of having cars hitting one another, you put electromagnetic repellants in cars so they don't hit one another. This is what a resource based economy wants, that is a sane and caring society.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER This is not true. MODERN behavioral science recognizes a lot of human nature. That we learn to speak is amazing due to poverty of stimulus, not that we pick it up with it all swirling around us. That is human nature - no other animal can pick up a single word. Modern behavioral scientist totally reject that there is no human nature - at least in all the good schools. You're talking about the 1950's - you're totally out of touch.
VanceJoudrey 1 month ago
@VanceJoudrey Put a baby in a room by itself and tell me it will learn to speak on its own. You are beyond a joke. I have studied psychology in college. You haven't even given any evidence for human nature, other than "Yeah it's there", what a cop out. Give evidence or sit down, it is an empty word used by ignorant people like you who still live in the past. What human nature are you on about? Do we live in caves?
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Nonsense. For your example, we'll use your cavemen. Is it not human nature to reproduce? It is. Did cavemen teach their children how to reproduce? Or did their instinct lead them to it?
woopsme 1 month ago
@woopsme Yeah which is why we have plenty of people who choose not to have children. Great thinking right there bro.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Plenty of people TODAY who choose that. You said that there is basically no human nature, only learned skills. Reproduction was not and is not a learned skill from society. You are right when you said we learn, but not exclusively. We have basic human motivations that drive us that are not learned, but programmed into the DNA that makes us modern day humans.
woopsme 1 month ago
@woopsme Reproduction is instinctive in all animals, it is very low level and not regarded as an exclusive human nature trait.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Right, but it is still a human instinct. You said that human behavior is exclusively learned. Therefore, you just proved yourself wrong. Thank you sir.
woopsme 1 month ago
@woopsme Fuck off.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Is that how you act when you get proven wrong? All that college talk you were preaching? Pretentious asswipe.
woopsme 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER I'm also well versed in behavioral psyc. I hope you are not implying that gov't should create social laws using beh psyc to make a more "desired" society. 1)Socialist societies use psyc and tend to end up butchering their own people because of noncompliance. 2)What works in controlled settings isn't always applicable in the real world. 3)Who decides what is an (un)desired trait? 4)Learning=determinism is a philosophical thought, thusly provides no evidence to your claim.
PrometheusVsLegion 1 month ago
@PrometheusVsLegion Firstly, what I advocate is not socialist. I am saying that it is mostly the environment that shapes human behaviour. If we want desirable human behaviour, we need to manipulate the variables in the environment so we get positive outcomes. Stop defending capitalism, it is on its way out. It is time to apply a scientific approach to our social and economic world. Our technology has superceded money, we can produce more than enough for everyone to get rid
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER of most abberant behaviour.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Okay, I went back over some of the old posts."No ownership". Society would 1st cease to be. Even if you have a society where there is unlimited resources, there is a fluctuation in value. There is the best spot. There is the best mate. There is the best tasting food. Ultimately I think the society your talking would either shift towards becoming tribal or communist. It would happen because that society'd still be neglecting peoples' secondary needs.
PrometheusVsLegion 1 month ago
@PrometheusVsLegion Not saying either of those systems are as good at meeting those secondary needs as capitalism. It is possible that people would re-adopt a capitalistic society. Assuming though, that "the people" decided to quit capitalism, to take on a "Natural Law" society, I'd think that it is more likely that there would be a quick shifting toward communism or tribal society next, after Natural Law fell through.
PrometheusVsLegion 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Using "science" was also something that Germany suggested while they were building the hype for socialism, or at least their version of science. Psychology has helped some people, but it has helped on a case by case basis. How would you manipulate the variables in the environment? How would you apply the scientific approach to our social and economic world? What would your operational definition of abberant behavior be, since we are being scientific?
PrometheusVsLegion 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@PrometheusVsLegion Nazis used science in an intellectually dishonest way and has nothing to do with a resource based economy. A systems approach would replace the free-enterprise. This is where the earth is recognised as a single system which it is. Humans must live according to natural law as that is what matters first. First, a global survey of all earth's resources needs to be conducted. That tells you the carrying capacity of your society.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Problem with making the earth a single system who is the ruler of the system or I guess who would be doing the survey? My natural law is probably different then your natural law for starters.... If whoever is doing this survey says my carrying capacity or job is something I don't like I'm stuck with it, eh? If they think that per my physical and mental attributes I should be paired with some chick I don't like, stuck with her, eh?
PrometheusVsLegion 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Oh and even under several different systems as opposed to the single system you're suggesting, considering how the gov't tries to overcomplicate things and how they are disconnected from the views of the people, How would having a single system be at all smarter? How would inviting in the screwiness of other systems benefit us? Honestly, even with all our problems I think we have the best system when it comes to gov't.
PrometheusVsLegion 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER It is this failed assumption that leads the belief that people can make a perfect government system on Earth. It will never happen. You only end up giving up your freedom and liberty to those who think they can construct this perfect society. The perfect society on created by man is a fantasy and many millions have died for it. If you accept that we are basically flawed from the beginning, you are closer to the truth.
killerseps 1 month ago
@killerseps No such thing as perfection. "It will never happen" is what past people said about man moving in air but this was proven wrong with the advent of planes. You have no idea what a resource based economy is and are only left with projecting your own ideas and values into it. I suggest you do some more researching on it before you spout off on your old communist and socialist ideas. You are talking about a totalitarian society.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
Comment removed
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Apologies, thought you meant to say 'abhorrent human behaviour'.
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
@Vier5501 No, aberrant, look it up.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 3 weeks ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER (one would think that it'd be implied that I have looked it up if I corrected myself on the understanding of the term you used...)
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Also it must be noted it is not a perfect society, no one has said it was or is. Just because it's better than a monetary market system does not mean it is utopian. That is one of the first things we must do is automate all work, and create an abundance of all resources so as to reach a post-scarcity economy. Intelligent management of the earth's resources using the scientific method to social concerns can achieve this.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 9
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Public property is only possible when you restrict private property, which is highly immoral and goes against any basic notion of individual liberty.
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 Nonsense. The concept of ownership would be of no advantage whatsoever in a society of abundance. Think about it. You have ownership today because of scarcity, you need to protect one's access to goods and services.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER We will never have a society of abundance if no one owned property, because no one would have motivation to work for anything. Nor would we be able to maintain one in society of socialism, because no one would be motivated to keep working hard. Resources will always be scarce, thats basic economics.
dchstrack 1 month ago
@dchstrack That's what you've been taught dchstrack. No one needs to own anything when there is so much of it, it is there for your use when you want to use it, you don't want to own anything you want access to it when you need. Think about it. The free-enterprise system does create incentive to achieve, however it also breeds the incentive for corruption, theft, and greed.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 6
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER In a resource based economy, money would not be required to help one achieve or create, as facilities would be made available to serve everyone's needs. I could give you endless examples of people who fought, studied, created, and excelled without the allure of money as a reward, there are much more meaningful rewards than that. It depends on the value system that one is given and the culture that one is raised in that reinforces what is meant by a reward.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 6
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER A college student was opposed to the idea of "getting something for nothing." He was then asked him if he were paying his own way through school, or if his parents were paying for him. He admitted that his parents were.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 6
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER He also pointed out that if he really did believe that people should not receive something for nothing, then in the event of the death of his rich relative he would prefer that their inheritance be left to the heart or cancer fund, rather than being passed on to him. But the student, needless to say, was opposed to this idea.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 5
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER By merely being born in a developed country, we have access to many things that we put no effort whatsoever towards, such as the telephone, the automobile, electricity, running water, etc. These gifts of human ingenuity and invention do not degrade our lives, but rather they enrich and enhance us. What degrades us is our lack of concern for those unfortunate enough to experience poverty, hunger, and homelessness.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 6
@dchstrack A resource-based economy would use technology to overcome scarce resources by utilizing renewable sources of energy; computerizing and automating manufacturing, inventory and distribution; designing safe, energy-efficient cities; providing universal health care and relevant education; and most of all, by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. It is a social-economic system. Today, we waste so much so of course it's going t get scarce. Basic stuff
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 7
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER No no. That is a fallacy. The only way that could ever be is if somehow human nature were to change. Even in a society of complete abundance people still have to do some sort of work to acquire those goods, therefore putting a personal value to it (no matter how small). Human nature is geared toward personal achievement and accumulation of valuables. Accumulation of resources is a basic survival mechanism.
woopsme 1 month ago
@woopsme You are projecting your own values into a resource based economy. People would not have to do some sort of work to acquire those goods fuckwit. People would access them without servitude, barter, debt or trade. You're right human nature is about personal achievements, which happens after basic needs have been met, but accumulation of valuables is NOT human nature. That is due to scarce conditions where one needs to protect what they have earned.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER In a society of abundance I would seek to create artificial scarcity by taking control of the majority of the available resources. In fact, that would be my main goal, as I believe myself to be more deserving than others and all other incentives have been practically removed.
sobeboyzz 1 month ago
@sobeboyzz With a relevant education you wouldn't seek to do that, and I mean an education in regards to how people relate to one another and the environment and how we depend on the environment for its resources to give us a high standard of living and all the achievements made my man is for everybody. If you drop people today with their value system into a resource based economy, they'll fuck it all up so it resembles what we have today. They need a re-education.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Education has nothing to do with it. I could have all the education in the world and still seek to do this. And yes, it does have to do with human nature. Fear and self-interest. Pain and pleasure. It's not exclusive to humans, but this system is still the most powerful driving force behind every human exploit. In this situation, becoming more powerful would satisfy my self-interest and calm my fear of someone accomplishing it before me.
sobeboyzz 1 month ago
@sobeboyzz You wouldn't want to do that. You seek to become powerful because you are insecure due to being in a scarce and competitive environment, this has manipulated your behaviour. It is not human nature and we have always had these variables. This is an egalitarian, altruistic and co-operative society where everyone lives a high standard of living, and people with issues are helped not locked away in prison.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Might be hard for you to imagine, but self-interest is not caused by culture or insecurity. In fact, even altruism serves your self-interest. And yes, I can also attribute it to insecurity. The insecurity of being out-competed or socially penalised. Egalitarianism also makes zero sense, since it encourages consumption that exceeds production. No society can afford that and no education prevent it.
sobeboyzz 1 month ago
@sobeboyzz Where's your peer-review studies for all your nonsense?
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@sobeboyzz It has everything to do with education and cultural values. You are warped into this culture to have self-interest values, to be successful and to accumulate a lot. It's in the movies, television shows, books.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Also, "high standard of living" is relative. In time, having a standard of living that is similiar to everyone elses' will only cause dissatisfaction. And it does have to do with cultural values, yes. But why do you think does the media encourage success in the first place?
sobeboyzz 1 month ago
@sobeboyzz Pure speculation on your part. Go and get an education in sociology and then come talk to me. Humans are culturally manipulated. You need to do some more learning.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Oh, I'm not coming from sociology, but from human ethology. The laws that will not change no matter what happens. And most importantly, it's actually backed by research and experiments, unlike the semi-philosophical bullshit that current sociology and psychology are. Want studies? Just google it. You can start with dominance hierarchy and understand why some people will always want more. But there was a FAQ somewhere, I think.
sobeboyzz 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Your assertions are false. There would be no body of restrictive law to stop either one individual or a group of individuals from seizing power over whatever management technology is put in place to control the masses. History is entirely against your rhetoric. What is to stop a bureaucrat from designing this governmental technology from exerting a total systematic mind control and daily productive schedule for each individual?
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 A resource based economy uses a cybernated society in which computers could replace the outmoded system of electing politicians that, in most cases, represent the entrenched vested interests. Technology will never dictate or monitor individuals' lives, as this would be considered socially offensive and counterproductive.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 9
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Motion pictures such as 1984, Brave New World, Blade- Runner, and Terminator 2 have spawned fear in some people regarding the takeover of technology in our society. A resource based economy's only purpose is to elevate the spiritual and intellectual potential of all people while also providing the goods and services that will meet their individual material needs.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 7
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER It has been said that many people employed by private corporations feel they serve in private dictatorships from the moment they step though the door and punch the time clock. A resource based economy, on the other hand, would utilize the best of technology to better the lives of everyone. In the proposed system, the workday will be shortened, thus providing individuals with more leisure time, a healthier life-style, and a stress-free environment.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 9
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Again, more utopian nonsense. Who decides what the best technology is? Have you thought about dissenting opinions? Moral objections? And what would happen if a large portion of the populace does not accept this technocracy? Trading corporatism for technocratism is essentially the same thing. People will be beholden to some technocrat-designed robotic system that could be used easily to control.
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 What does it matter who decides? Remember, no one is held higher than anyone else. The scientific method is used to arrive at decisions. The best technology is that which we know up to now, whilst being the most efficient with resources. Dissenting opinions are normal, we have them today, what do we do about it today? This is not a utopia no matter how many times you wish it to be. People are free to live within the system or not, they most likely will because of the benefits
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 7
@StAugustine79 There is no money, no profit, no purpose for controlling. A relevant education, high standard of living for all, egalitarianism and altruism will put a stop to those. In addition, the computers would be designed not to allow easy access to control, very easy to do.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 6
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Those are not motion pictures, they are books. You might want to read them.
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 They are all motion pictures. Do a Google search for each one for evidence of this.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 9
Comment removed
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 You asserted that the titles I mentioned were not motion pictures, so I had to reply and say that they are, what did you expect?
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER I was speaking about the books. I read Brave New World in high school.
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Do some actual research instead of listening to Zeitgeist nonsense. Communism with robots.
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 I'm sorry buddy, but capitalism is no longer relevant. It has no physical referant to the resources on earth. The earth requires a "systems approach" and scientific method if we are to live harmoniously with nature. As long as you have prisons, wars, militaries, police, you are not civilised, far from it. It is only natural law that matters.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER You speak of this Resource Based Economy as a disembodied thing that has no human force behind its implementation. Someone would have to put it into operation and I highly suggest you think about the implications of that policy. Power to affect the daily of lives of each individual?
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER Unless of course the developers of said technology give their information to a power broker. Please tell me a case in recorded history where you find these angels that will insure that this technocracy would not be a system of enslavement!
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 You are totally paranoid. I have supplied you with an answer earlier as to why there is no incentive for that. Today the US Government is taking steps towards censoring the internet, so no there isn't any in recorded history because we are not civilised yet.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago 8
@StAugustine79 Resources are used in the most efficient manner so as to reduce waste.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
he lived through the great depression and some young baby boomer has the audacity to ask if he's ever been poor. spoiled brat
ajgolfer1 1 month ago
2:27 Listen closely.. someone calls him a racist? For what admitting the failure of government?
MrFreddieBurgoyne 1 month ago
@MrFreddieBurgoyne Charges of racism are the result of the liberal not being able to make a rational factual argument. Irrational emotions rule the mind of the liberal, they base their rationalizations on intentions and not results. History is not on the side of the liberal, nor will it ever be
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@quinnrasta So very true..
MrFreddieBurgoyne 1 month ago
systems have been set up to help you if you became poor and your looking for work or a new job - its not to make you rich - people are always looking for the pot o gold - sorry you have to work for it , learn a new trade or start a new business - get off the system and make yourself rich-
nutbagbrew102 1 month ago
@nutbagbrew102 Welfare causes generational poverty and is another government failure. You are correct my friend
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@quinnrasta thanks for your kind reply - i was expecting to get hammered as its not trendy to ask people to work towards their future - the world is upside down right now -
nutbagbrew102 1 month ago
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”Ben Franklin
True 200 years ago and proven today!!!
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@quinnrasta Great quote! Thanks, for sharing that one, Ben Franklin was a very wise man.
DEATH94SQUAD 1 month ago
cool vid thx!
hromi 1 month ago
THIS DUDE ROCKS I JUST LOVE IT!
stevemcgee99 1 month ago
"... people, who are hurting, perhaps it is the responsibility of this government of the people to help out... " Where?! Where in the constitution does it guarantee that the government is meant to alleviate us of all pain (and, this man, being a liberal, of course, also classes "effort" as pain)?! The pursuit of happiness. Not the instant granting of happiness, without any effort. We are not guaranteed happiness. No government in the world could afford that. We're guaranteed the pursuit.
LanceHertford 1 month ago
hey everyone, Im looking for a Friedman quote or clip where he says something like, "it is the ineffectiveness of government that has preserved our liberty; if the government was good at doing things, it woul have stripped us of liberty years ago." Does anyone know what I am talking about, or knows the reference? Thanks
MrHamncheez 2 months ago
@MrHamncheez Thank God for govt waste quote? End of this video: /watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
This is ridiculous. I think USA`s demise at the moment is because of the lack of regulation by the GOVERNMENT. The market does NOT correct itself, it is taken advantage of by rich, powerful people for their own benefit. The rich become richer and the poor become poorer.
Does he really think if you privatize schooling the schools for the poor will be better? That's ridiculous.
Government is present because it protects those who can't protect themselves (aka the poor).
thealmassi1 2 months ago
Comment removed
barnesiii 1 month ago
@thealmassi1 Finally, he does not say that all government actions are bad, but he rather says that poverty is often the result of bad government policy. The "demise" of the US is more attributable to government intervention (as opposed to lack of regulation) in the markets when the FED encouraged the housing bubble by setting rates as low as they did.
barnesiii 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thealmassi1 First, he is not making an argument for privatizing poorly performing schools, he is arguing that we should eliminate "bad government failures," in this case by improving these schools. Friedman readily acknowledges that some services are best provided by the government. Second the government is not in existence to protect the poor, it exists to maintain order and provide essential services in american society.
barnesiii 1 month ago
@thealmassi1 Question, what has government done to help the "poor" and how are the poor better off as a result? Which regulations were we lacking...be specific. Did government put pressure on banks to loan to "poor" minorities?Did obama's law firm sue banks for not making loans?Fannie/freddie were gov sponsered enterprises, they owe the tax payers $150 billion.Banks would have not lent the money in the first place,if not for government.Liberals often confuse intentions with results.
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@thealmassi1 We have 170,000 federal regulations & a 70,000 page tax code. Thru these regulations,small business is disappearing because of it. The Banking bill Dodd/Frank will eliminate small banks because the 4,000 page regulation requires them to have large capital reserves they cant afford,but can be afforded by the big boys. Regulations/taxes favor the rich,they eliminate their small business competitors Farms/Meat/Banks are now 80% owned by 4-6 companies in each due to regs
quinnrasta 1 month ago
The government IS the people. This guy's a prick.
sinistar99 2 months ago
@sinistar99 No the government is not the people. It is a handful of people with their own agenda. People working in their own self interest as you would expect them to. This country is not a democracy, it is a republic. The government cannot have responsibility because it is an institution and not a person. We are running the government as if it were a nonprofit to fix everyone's problems, and it is showing on the balance sheet.
kriskats19 1 month ago
It doesn't matter if the young guy is right or wrong; you know he got laid more than Friedman ever could. LOL
JoshMan522 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JoshMan522 "It doesn't matter if the young guy is right or wrong." Yeah, it kinda does. That's pretty much the whole idea.
"you know he got laid more than Friedman ever could." If a 20-ish year old dude isn't getting laid more than a 70-ish year old dude, there's something...wrong. And you have absolutely no way of even guessing how much pussy Friedman was getting in his 20s.
PumpingSmashkins 2 months ago
@JoshMan522 Dumbass pricks like you are the reason why ASSHOLES like OBAMA are in office.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 2 months ago
@UCSDEngineerDoctor Yep and thank god for us... we have more jobs now no market crashes no bank bailouts and HS companies can't discriminate like they used to. Boy are we dumb.
sinistar99 2 months ago
@portpass1974: Also, I was quoting an IMF study. Disprove them if you want to disprove my public spending comment, since my knowledge of their methods is also limited and I might be misinterpreting their study.
Greedyspectator 2 months ago
@portpass1974: And regarding public investments, yes, their returns are diminishing or negative no matter how you look at it. An increase in government spending will benefit society much less than market based solutions. And yes, the returns in public investment CAN be measured in monetary terms. That's what econometrics all about: Measuring stuff that happens in the economy. For example, we can put a monetary value on healthcare, and a monetary value on clean air. It's all possible.
Greedyspectator 2 months ago
@portpass1974: Oh, and Friedman was a monetarist, as in, an economist who studies about money. He wasn't an entrepreneur or a researcher. Also, note that MOST useful inventions, like electricity, the light bulb, the modern research lab and the personal computer are invented by the private sector. IBM invented huge mainframe computers that are absolutely useless to the common people and completely useless to the economy, and their monopoly on computers was then destroyed by Windows and Apple.
Greedyspectator 2 months ago
@portpass1974: Most research done by the public sector is either useless or boosted in it's potential by the private sector. Case in point: Going to the moon is awesome, but a big waste of money. Internet was invented by the public sector, but expanded, improved and empowered by the private sector. It's fine for the public sector to do research to get the ball rolling, but ultimately it has always been and always will be the private sector which finalizes the product. Markets are awesome.
Greedyspectator 2 months ago
blacks are not poor...there are many white poor in every corner of the nation...why do people relate poverty with black...jail with black....every mother who teaches kid is poor....every....you are one of damn economist....
MillionsChannel 2 months ago
@MillionsChannel after jail with black you totally lost your hold of the English language.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@portpass1974: Note that returns of public investment are either diminishing or even negative. If IMF is right that the most optimal percentage of economic activity run by the government is 30%, than most developed countries are heavily wasting their resources (Europe's average government run economic activity is 40%). On the other hand, private investments have accelerating returns, due to investments in technology and such. In the end, market socialism cannot allocate resources efficiently.
Greedyspectator 2 months ago
@Greedyspectator You cannot calculate investments in the public sector as the same in the private sector. Public investments are made to increase the quality of life of people. Private investments are made to increase profits. There's an enormous difference.
I don't think you really understand the meaning of market socialism (no offense). It can also have hard budgeting, which means that firms, although public, can only borrow from the government, not receive subsidies.
portpass1974 2 months ago
@portpass1974 With the greatest of respect. "Public Investments" are of course paid for by Private Individuals through the tax system are to a large extent services that most people would pay for privately. They are private provisions paid for by private individuals but organised through a Governmental system.
ChristopherAdderley 2 months ago
@portpass1974 To elaborate on my earlier point - the fact that you believe "there's an enormous difference" does not mean that it exists at all. Private Companies have by and large been the innovators which have to a large extent been the dampeners on the costs of "public services" - technology/knowledge absorption by the public sector - though not very efficiently has contributed greatly to it's survival.
ChristopherAdderley 2 months ago