Friedman makes Ayn Rand out to be an anarchist, which is the extreme brand of libertarianism, despite that she thoroughly disassociated herself from libertarianism as a whole with tough criticisms. She did believe that the initiation of force was always wrong, but that the government's role is to deal with those who do initiate it, to avoid the problem of competing police forces.
@eggory According to Rand, the Government, or State, was to be the sole repository of the RETALITORY use of physical force. This was the "sole and proper use" of the government's police authority.
Individuals refrained from using their OWN right of self-defense, allocating the Government to do so ON THEIR BEHALF. (One cannot delegate an authority one does NOT posess) this was the source of government's Police power.
Sadly, history shows that this rarely, if ever, actually works.
@LeoAutodidact Individuals should not refrain from defending themselves, it is just that the government is there to judge whether your use of force was criminally initiative or justly retaliatory, and to assist you if needed. It is a fine idea, and its only flaw is that it has rarely, if ever, been implimented. The use of force to override the consent of those individuals who produce wealth which would not exist but for their initiative, is what fundamentally does not work.
@shinobi38 No he did not, Go read the article about him and Pinochet more clearly. He only met Pinochet very briefly and said quote on quote afterwords ""Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies " FACT.
@tehatemachine Your wrong, he used Chile as an experiment and encouraged oppression. He chose Chile deliberatley because it was Socialist (Democratically so)and wanted to smash their Socialist economic system and universities. You should read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Milton Friedman's influence was catastrophic for growth, but favoured by the US government despite not benefiting communities. It only benefited the rich.
@shinobi38 You are incorrect. The US government barely followed Milton Friedman's advice. Dr. Friedman consistently lamented that his economic advice was not heeded. Free market enterprise does not benefit the rich, only monopoly generating keynesianism and corporate subsidies benefit the rich.
@chadimus84 as a liberal/socialist i see the apropriation of libatarianism by the right as nonsensical,it dosent fit with the represion inequality of wealth & power causes, i don't claim mill for the left other gr8 thinkers aspose equality but i do claim mill as part of my radical liberal heritage, by the way i got 2 criticisms today 1 was for taking marx seriously and this for doing the same with mill, on liberty & das kapital are in there own ways and on there own terms quite brilliant
Here is my justification of the core principle of libertarianism and the reason that I find fault with most other theories in gov't, there are at least two parties in each transaction. Whether you like it or not, you are responsible for your own actions. Even by not acting, you affect a consequence. No one is gonna do it for ya bud! Never has worked, never will.
What it means to be a libertarian is to buy into a fantasy fiction cult! To trade in your humanity for some cold, inhuman BS market system that allowed to run rampant has racked up a massive death toll. It is a belief in an imaginary "pure" capitalism that has never nor could ever exist because capitalists themselves wouldn't allow it as it is more profitable to exploit individuals and the state. It is a delusional belief that business WANTS competition lmao! Time to shed childish things people
In my view beeing libertarian means beeing against the initiation of force against people AND the environment we need to survive,under all circumstances,but you have the right to(and should) defend yourself.Its a way of beeing,it doesnt have anithyng to do with politics.A lot of people are libertarians without knowing it,some believe they are libertarians even if they are not.If your company pours chemical waste in a river you are not really a libertarian and people should stop you with force.
And I don't see at all where he addressed the issue of child labor during the early years of London. The question wasn't whether it was "rosier" anywhere else in the world; how did London finally resolve that particular issue? Like it or not, it was resolved through government involvement.
@fabafaba111 It's important to remember what the world was like at the time and not look at it only through the lens of what you consider to be normal now. Yes, children worked because the alternative was the family would starve. Friedman talked about what it was like prior to the industrial revolution, where children were also working, but on farms instead of factories. That may seem nicer or more peaceful on first mention but it was brutal work and a bad harvest meant starvation.
@electroplate "...It's important to remember what the world was like at the time and not look at it only through the lens of what you consider to be normal now...." Well, no shit, Sherlock.
@fabafaba111 Yes, it's obvious but apparently you didn't have that in mind when you made your initial comment. You claimed that benevolent government forces swooped in and saved children from terrible working conditions. In fact, it was industry and commerce that saved families from sustenance farming, bringing them into the cities, raising their living standards, and paving the way for the the living standards that we generally take for granted today.
Maybe I'm missing the finer point, but Central Park opened in 1857, and even then, it was city-owned property. Why did Mr. Friedman suggest that only recently the decline in the safety and cleanliness of this same park is the result of government involvement, and not perhaps a drastic shift in our compass? Then again, I had trouble with his analogy of early London. The conditions of that time were horrible, largely because no one (business) was held accountable for their actions.
@fabafaba111 I'm not going to address your issue on Central Park but I'm interested to hear about your ideas on how businesses weren't held accountable in London during the time period that was referenced. What actions did the businesses take that they weren't held accountable for? What would be your solutions for holding them accountable for those actions?
@electroplate (Part I): Charles Dickens’ depiction of early 19th century Britain was of a terrible mess, and to believe that much of the credit that went towards cleaning it up was due to progress of private enterprise is ridiculous. Most private enterprises are only concerned with making money, which is fine…I like money too. It was a lucky convenience, for private enterprise, that clearer alternatives were found.
@electroplate (Part II): Had cleaner solutions not been found, London would have continued to produce and burn the coal that polluted their air, while those within private enterprises could afford to escape to cleaner environments.
@electroplate (Part III): As for child labor, Mr. Friedman addressed neither farm life nor the industry. Instead, he, basically, smoothed over that particular subject, and I believe even he recognized that the child labor practices that went on (and continue to occur) within private enterprises can’t be defended.
@electroplate (Part IV): My solution would have been exactly what was done – in other words, I agree that government (in this case, Parliament) regulations were necessary in order to protect the interest of its citizens against the corruptions of private enterprises. Should government always get involved? No…but ethics seldom goes hand-in-hand with economics.
@Rasterius Not sure what your point is, if there is any, b/c Friedman was against the central bank and govt borrowing. So, he never jumped on the Keynesian wagon. Your claims are ridiculous and not based in truth whatsoever. Read a book.
The truth is Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
@logtype47 Actually she didn't much care for libertarians, and as a libertarian I don't much care for her either.
She believed some things libertarians believe but she also believed that men should be completely independent and not accept help. Libertarians, at least myself, believe strongly in charity.
@BlindMaphisto I don't know of anything in Rand's work where she states that it's wrong to accept or give help. I think she did have a problem with government using force to dispense charity, which is something totally different. Giving to charity and helping the needy voluntarily is done for almost opposite reasons as when politicians do it through force and pretend that they're being angels by doing it.
@logtype47 Ayn Rand is not her birth name, however, she changed her name following her departure from the USSR. She used Ayn as her name throughout her new life. Your assertion that she changed it when she got cancer is false. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, in her New York City apartment of heart failure. Also, there is a difference between anarcho capitalism, which she advocated, and libertarian capitalism.
Milton Friedman is a hypocrite, he jumped on board the keynsian bandwagon and yet says he wants a free market. Monetarism and central banking have crushed america, and the idea of borrowing to get out of debt is plain stupid, yet keynsian economics advocates just this.
@Rasterius I am pretty sure Milton Friedman was a Keynsian BEFORE waking up and seeing the libertarian light. Also, it might help to actually watch some of these videos...not one shred of hypocrisy.
@whalerhockey@ElJefer@navsquid32@tehatemachine Did any of you know he is associated with the creation of monetarism???? Friedman advocated a central bank policy aimed at keeping the supply and demand for money at equilibrium. I know my economic history inside out, you guys on the other hand...
Am I to understand that when, say, Cental Park and Yellowstone National and the Brazilian rain forest are privatized, that the collective corporate Einsteins are going to NOT then bulldoze the lot and replace them w the more economically remunerative Qwik-E-Park parking lots after coming to a corporate decision as to how much air the rest of us and the planet as a whole really require? On the brighter side, maybe some other planet will lend us some air in a kind of intergalactic bailout. Yay!!!!
@dantean Why do you assume that it's more economical to pave over Yellowstone and the Brazilian rainforest than to leave them the natural wonders they are today? What you are impying is that free people don't value nature and that government gives it value, which is false. And if people value nature then they are willing to pay for it, and if someone is willing to pay for something then it will be supplied so long as private property rights apply.
@maidenman69 I assume none of that. Are YOU guaranteeing me the brain trust at Corp-Inc. LLC will not devise what they at least believe more profitable than the current "pay as you enter" "visit our concession stands" nat'l park set-up? They've a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, y'know. Free people value nature, sure, but free people value freedom and become junkies, value life and commit suicide, and (I hope) value air but cut down trees to put up parking lots.
The interviewer asked excellent questions - and more importantly let Dr. Friedman explain with mostly excellent answers. Great job, I wish more interviews were like this these days.
Today many companies care less about taking care of their property or even making
a good product anymore,no it's all about maximizing short - term profits for Shareholders.So services and products are now of less quality than they used to be.I remember a time before when companies cared about their customers.Today if you have a complaint you often get someone on the phone who doesn't give a shit.
People who like big government are like people who pray to a god; they are thankful when they receive what they wish for, but they refuse to hold it the entity accountable when something goes wrong.
You really dont need to gamble on sports anymore! I use software that tells me which bets to place with the bookies to take advantage or arbitrage... get the details in my channel.
Friedman does not adress the fact that Central Park would never have been built. The owners of the land would build skyscrapers because they would raise more profit. Friedman would reply that the owners could charge people entryfees to a park since there would be a market for it. But compared to the potential profit of a big business in Manhattan, this fee could be up to $50. So sometimes the communities' interests are better served by the government than by the free market.
@underdogg20 There is such a thing as non use values that have a place when deciding to allocate property. With the inclusion of non use values you can easily have a Central Park. It simply requires that such values be included in the analysis and you can get close to the appropriate amount of park.
@MrDteer I admit that the size of Central Park as it is today is absurdly big. If middle-class New Yorkers were so desperate to have some nature to visit, a smaller park would have been built. Because else they would have lived in an area where they did get the space to jog. The difference between modern Libertarians and original Libertarian philosophy is that today a foreigner can buy any property in New York, or Tokyo or Paris; and thus have an influence on a society that is not it's own.
@underdogg20 Point taken. However, he is still correct that if it were Privately owned, the Park would be a little safer and taken care of. Granted, the Private owner my also have decided to sell the property for construction purposes.
The most common technique used by anti-Whites to try and demoralize White people who are racially self regarding is to promote a brown future, BUT ONLY IN WHITE COUNTRIES. You haven't told the Black people in Africa that they have to be blended out of existence; You haven't told the Asian people that they have to be blended out of existence. It is ONLY White people that are targeted with this tactic and this agenda...It's genocide...White Genocide
Anti-racists say that we are all ONE race..and that we ALL bleed red blood. We Whites have heard these kind of psycholgical techniques since childhood. The problem with this argument is that you don't demand that African or Asian countries open their borders and have millions upon millions of racially dissimilar people led into their respective countries in a bid to create a new blended humanity there. It in ONLY in White countries that you propose this. It is White Genocide!!
Do you say that Black African people are racist when they say that they do not want to have millions upon millions of non-Blacks led into their respctive countries by their leaders???
Do you say the Asian people are racist when they say that they do not want to have millions upon millions of non-Asians led into their homelands by their leaders.
NO YOU DON'T
You only say that to poor White people when we complain at having our lands overrun by non-White people.
The Genocide is characterized by the second oldest and probably most successful method known to humankind: force-assimilate a given population by leading massive numbers of racially dissimilar people into their country(s); then force-integrate these populations; then spend massive amounts of funds psycho-socially re-engineering trying to get the original population feel compelled to racially assimilate with the incoming population.That is genocide and has been forced on White people
It is only in White countries that this anti-racism is being perpetrated and forced upon the people...White people and our children. In other words, we are alleging that the White anglo-elites and their anti-racist collaborators have systematically targeted by intentional programs of massive non-White immigration, forced integration, and racial assimilation into the non-White immigrant peoples. This is genocide...White Genocide and it needs to be stopped and punished!
we have actual evidence of the elites in charge of Greater Anglosphere post World War Two. We have it on very good authority these vile anti-White elites formulated an outradeous explicit plan to force-assimilate White people out of existence. Understand...if you lead into a country racially dissimilar people to blend the receiving race out of existence, you are committing a program of genocide by force-assimilation.
If you try to alter another race genetically....GENOCIDE!!
The political decision to open the floodgates to non-White immigration (w/ out a popular vote) WAS deliberate. The political decision to force integrate White neighborhoods was deliberate. The political decision to put out PSAs that encourage interracial coupling was deliberate.
Don’t kid yourself. It doesn’t have to be immediate killing to be genocide under the law. It only need be INTENT that there be fewer Whites coupled with an ACT
Milton Friedman makes sense sometimes; but when he pushes it too far -- like in the case of Central Park -- he sounds really naive and hidebound. To me, parks are like roads, public facilities that are needed for the proper functioning of capatalism.
Besides falling back into denial, how do libertarians deal with global warming? They can't. Well, they typically opt for the "free" market to sort out any market anomalies. But are these ACCEPTABLE anomalies: environmental displacement, hundreds of millions loosing their fresh drinking water, desertification, ocean acidification, etc.???
Is it really the best idea to allow those with the capital and information to TAKE habitability from us? Hell no!
Libartarianism is about true freedom, without government control. Reducing the government its original purpuse. Not specific issues. Just because people are free it doesnt mean we wouldnt deal with our environment. How does being truly free mean people dont give a fuck about global warming or drinking water - who's dealing with those issues now? ..whoever is will still be free to do so when they are free. The point is we grow up and take responsability of things ourselves.
Without gov regs (control) negative enviromental costs (climate change) are not taken into consideration. You can be "truly free" and care about your enviornment but given short term interests, lack of adequate information, propaganda, and the lack of financial flexibility the "free" will not make the market decisions that are in their (as a species) long-term best interest. The negative costs are therefore shoved on to future generations to pay. Should you have the right to TAKE from them?
No. With my short term interests and my lack of info and money I wont be able to make long term decisions for the human species. Libertarianism is a step in the right direction. Perhaps the next step will be getting rid of the monetary system?
Here's a good paper that may help. We can shift to cleaner energy sources and uses to curb the more negative effects of climate change on future generations. With the libertarian approach, the costs of negative environmental externalities are shoved off on future generations. We should address our monetary issues but that doesn't mean we must to continue to degrade our only habitat.
@ReduceGHGs you walk a very danagerous line. What you are suggesting is that the few people, those in government, those in science, know what is best for everyone. The few making decisions for the many. If we were smart and free, then we would buy products that support a more reliable future. But what has government done to advance green energy? I would argue that most development of green tech has been demand of the private parties (i.e. you and me).
@bluefootedpig Dangerous? What I fear is that people like ron paul and other deniers of science will chart our course into a future of unnecessary environmental deterioration. The science is FACTUAL. Those that complete the studies tell us about reality and what lies ahead given various behaviors. It is up to We The People (via our governmental tools) to discourage destructive behaviors and encourage behaviors that increase the chances of giving us a more prosperous future. Try the Sankar link.
@ReduceGHGs The science of global warming is correct, but that of human caustion is what is up for debate. There is a strong sense that the global warming movement is to create a new market. The green energy market, via energy carbon credits, is going to be an industry that is easily 10x bigger than oil, which oil has been said to generate more wealth than any other time in our history. Not to mention global warming has had more money put into it than we did to develop a nuclear weapon.
@bluefootedpig Up for debate? According to who? You? Among those that actively study climate science, there is no credible debate. Humans are warming the planet. The vested interests fund propaganda to spread doubt where no reasonable doubt exists among the well informed. Sounds like the hooked you. Here's a link to a good short film that tells some of the story.
Google: The Denial Machine Video Frontline
Big business? Good! Let regulated capitalism solve the climate crisis!
@ReduceGHGs Yeah, I don't trust frontline, i have watched many of their videos and they give a very one sided story. Can you please link a more crediable source? or link to what shoes the studies that cite it as being specifically human caused.
@bluefootedpig Don't do Frontline? Do you "do" NASA, AAAS, AGU, NCAR, SOCC, NAS, or any of the respected scientific institutions? Here's a link to NAS and what they say about it.
Google: NAS pdf Global Warming 2008 Edition
You can also review what others have to say...
Google: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia
@ReduceGHGs I did find an article about how there are over 20,000 scientists on global warming that claim it is not man made. Even in the latest UN report, apparently it didn't even claim that it was human caused. Can you please cite your source that it is human caused? some actual study.
And you do realize less than 30 years ago, we were heading for an ice age right?
@bluefootedpig Your 20k "scientists" is The Oregon Petition also called The Petition Project. It was corporate propaganda to derail Kyoto. Art Robinson put it together. He ran for Senate here in Oregon in 2008. I asked him if he had a study do back up his claims. He didn't. Here's one of many debunkings.
Google: What if the Oregon Petition names were real?
One of the first studies to come out was conducted by NAS in 1979.
Google: Charney report - Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
@bluefootedpig Man, you really have consumed propaganda! What's the matter with our respected scientific institutions? They span the globe and over 30 years of research and study. Isn't the FACT that ALL of them see this issue one way mean anything? Isn't it expected that the vested interests like the Koch oil billionaire brothers, Exxon, and CEI fund disinformation?
70s ice age debunking link follows.
Google: Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY
@ReduceGHGs Actually, the fact that they all see the issue the same way tends to mean that there wasn't a debate on it. It normally means that people haven't properly challanged it. If all the banks tomorrow suddenly decided to push for a new law, and all were behind it, would you trust it?
And for the money you are right, look at how much money is put into proving global warming is human caused. It is already past 5x the cost of the mahatten project. Why so much money to prove it?
@bluefootedpig What you are saying is that no matter what the scientific evidence, no matter how many credible experts tell you what they found is occurring, you will find a way to believe what you believe? I provided everything you asked and debunked your sources. What do you now rely on?
Many studies conducted because there is a lot at risk; habitability of the biosphere! Have you read about the consequences? Ocean acidification, decreasing fresh water supplies, rising ocean levels, etc.?
@ReduceGHGs Well, I do know that science said in 1980 that we were going into an ice age. It was just as widely supported as global warming, so why should I believe it the second time around? Also, if I am not mistaken, science has also shown that during the 1400's, the world was warmer than it is now. So we aren't as bad as it was back in the 1400s, so why am I so scared this time around?
History has shown we have been here multiple times, and lived. Why care this time?
The period that so many deniers cling to was the 70s. I provided the USA Today article with the study. Nothing more I can do there.
Your logic ... "Because THEY were wrong about THAT back then it follows that THESE GUYS are wrong NOW about THIS." Ouch!
.
Physicians say the smoking is harmful. Why believe them?
What about lead and mercury? Yea, science just shouldn't be believed especially if you don't like the conclusions. For that matter, to heck with mathematics!
@bluefootedpig I'm no doc but you seem to be displaying symptoms of denial. How about some introspection?
.
"Denial is a defense mechanism ... in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence."
.
Here's the cure --> Determine unbiased sources of scientific info (there's a technique for this) then read, read, read! After many books and articles it MAY become clear.
@ReduceGHGs I think you misunderstand my position. I live very green, more than most. My energy bill in a 1920's house, single pane windows is less than 30 a month. For others in my area, with similar size homes, double pane windows, runs around 180 a month. I use rain barrels, solar panels, etc. I am acting as if global warming was real, as it is the most logical line of action given thbe current evidence. But then I also see that there is shitloads of money to be made if global warming is real
@bluefootedpig Acting "as if global warming was real". Given the "current evidence", it is clear to the reasonable, the critical thinker, that it is indeed real. Yes, there is a lot of money to be made in greening our economies. That's the way capitalism works. Want a different system?
Good that you're greening up even though you have doubts. The best thing to do is do some honest research. Once the overwhelming evidence overwhelms you, join the fight to change gov policies.
Next thing: English peasants moved into the cities because the Enclosure Act - the privatization of land in the English countryside - meant they could no longer grow food or graze their animals on common land. They had no choice but to move. And why was the Enclosure Act passed? Because new agro-industrial technology made it more profitable to grow crops on single, large farms employing a few hands who used to farm the same land themselves along with their families and neighbors.
Next thing: Why does Friedman assume that it would be advantageous to provide a nice safe space in Central Park if it were privately owned? Wouldn't it be much more advantageous to sell the land in parcels and build huge, overpriced McMansions on the plots and not allow any non-residents inside?
How can he claim that making everything private would be best for the public? How can all individuals benefit in a purely competitive world?
@mamawray i'm only going to reply to one of your points because you wrote a lot and i don't have time to read all of it - on your assertion that it would be more profitable to build mansions and to ignore those unable to afford them: you are assuming an infinite amount of rich people to buy them. eventually, there would be enough mansions to provide for the demand, and then there would be no more money to be made building them. other companies would see this and build smaller houses.
@RestAssuredDrummer@RestAssuredDrummer Your response doesn't address my point that Central Park would be converted from a public space into a gated community. It is a large park (843 acres) but it would not take an "infinite number" of rich people to fill it. At a modest 10 acres a piece, you would need to build less than 90 houses. I'm not concerned here with whether the private sector provides enough housing for all income levels, but the claim that private interests always benefit the public
Next thing: Central Park did indeed fall into danger and disrepair because of government neglect, but the solution is not to sell the land to a private company. The solution is to make funding available to the NYC parks dept. and the NYPD to improve the situation and provide political pressure to make sure those agencies do their jobs. Cental Park is great now, and it's still public land. On the other hand, Walmart parking lots at night are not at all safe places to be.
@mamawray I think the libertarian solution would be contract the park to a private firm, who would only turn profit when people visited the park. But I agree, this unabashed "Let's just privatize everything, it doesn't matter how we do it!" mentality is just plain stupid. Look at how much corruption resulted from the privatization of Russia after the fall of the USSR. That was handled so poorly that a decent number of people want to go back to Stalinism just to get rid of it.
Okay, first thing: it DOES take a governmental agency to maintain the theatres and museums in New York. It's called the NEA and without it most of the art institutions in America would die. And before anyone says, "Good" bear in mind the reason why the NEA was created in the first place. America, Congress reasoned at the time, needs to promote the American spirit of individualism and creative invention by nurturing her artists. Art feeds all of our souls and should be available to everyone.
Check out my chanel for a link to Michael Moore's interview on C-SPAN. Like he says, the first word in the Constitution is "We". We're all in this together. The libertarian's Me, Me, Me, perspective isn't reality, isn't in our best interest.
Open up a "Free" market society, destroy the IRS & Fed, Kill off government mandates, Privatize all government departments, and you get not a perfect society but the way it's suppose to be run
@TechFXpunk I am a Libertarian, but what worries me is the idea of complete economic freedom. If a company grows large enough, then competitors can not exist because they would simply undersell any emerging threats right out of business. It is done quite frequently in African states, for example, where regulation is only a theory and no real checks and balances are present. Don't understate this point please, cause it's a major obstacle for the ideology
@ReduceGHGs If consumers don't like the idea of banks gambling with their investments and said banks all not being smarter than the rest of the market, what they need to do is seek out something called a "credit union", or back part of their assets in something conservative such as gold. Continuing to patron a bad institution while asking the government to regulate the 'stupid' out of it is not an effective long term strategy.
"The ocean is taking up less carbon because of the warming caused by the carbon in the atmosphere," says McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.
Libertarians... Try explaining how your "free" market is dealing with carbon emissions, ocean acidification, etc. Rather fall back into denial?
@ReduceGHGs Allowing businesses to purchase speculative derivative investments isn't anymore a problem than allowing consumers to purchase alternative health supplements whose efficacy is not guaranteed. The problem is when the government financially *incentivizes* such action, by subsidizing banks risk through low interest rates and bailouts, and making the underlying assets appear more valuable by inflating bubbles.
@metamemetics Here's a well-said quote from economics Professor and 2001 Nobel laureate George Akerlof
“If you let your toddler out of her playpen, you need to watch her more carefully. This wisdom is known by every American parent but has been systematically ignored in economic deregulation…Now is the time to remember the lessons of the playpen: increased scope for action must be accompanied by increased regulatory oversight.”
Want lenders to "game" mortgages? Want the rivers to burn again?
Research for the sake of the public's health doesn't generally get private money because there's no profit in it. We The People, organized in governmental institutions, fund research because it needs to be done.
Your defense of the "free" market doesn't hold water. No surprise. How many decades too late would it be if we wait for private enterprise to reduce GHG pollution? Too many for sure as the biggest polluters (+free mktrs) are still fighting change. It may already be too late.
@ReduceGHGs I think you might have forgotten how lucrative the pharmaceutic industry is, most research is done by private companies. A private company would give billions for someone who thinks he has the final cure for cancer, because there is so much demand for cancer medication. Even if the private companies wouldn't do it, there could still be voluntary taxes, where people could choose to contribute to cancer research.
There certainly is a lot of research funded for profit motives, more than I thought. There is also a good deal of necessary research funded by the public that has no foreseeable profit "upside" especially for industries already vested in activities that, through research, later prove to be detrimental to the public's health. Waiting for sufficient voluntary tax revenue would cause delays that are not in out best interest. I prefer public funding including universal health care.
There certainly is a lot of research funded for profit motives, more than I thought. There is also a good deal of necessary research funded by the public that has no foreseeable profit "upside" especially for industries already vested in activities that, through research, later prove to be detrimental to the public's health. Waiting for sufficient voluntary tax revenue would cause delays that are not in out best interest. I prefer public funding including universal health care.
government (in the usual sense) is irrelevant to the discussion.
All organisations that have any sort of economic/social impact are "government" (in the sense that they will exert control). So, *all* organisations are "government" because it is their *puropse* to exert some kind of control.
So, identifying elected government as the problem is thinking in cliches. Corporate government far outweighs elected government, and doesn't even pretend to have our general welfare at heart.
I like and often agree with Friedman...but he ended up being wrong about Central Park. Central Park was a mess because of crime, not because the park wasn't better taken care of. Nowadays, Central Park is in great shape and accessible to everyone. This shouldn't be at odds with libertarianism. Almost all New York residents are willing to pay for upkeep of the park and share it with their fellow New Yorkers. Public works at the local level seems perfectly in line with moderate libertarianism
Libertarians are against control and oppression. They believe in economic, social, and personal freedom while promoting laissez faire economics. Both Liberals and Conservatives have an agenda to be fascist and somewhat controlling. Also, the libertarian party of the USA is the fastest growing party.
The libertarians like ron paul are having a pipe dream. The "free" market is not so free. The game is played better by those with more access, wealth, and information. The public's interest is NOT served by more and more deregulation. Look at ENRON and the housing bubble. How about our industrial foundation shipped overseas along with the jobs and profits? How are future generations to live in a degraded habitat; the result of "free marketiers" unregulated emissions? Get real.
@ReduceGHGs You're using straw man points to further a non existent point, you think by eliminating a free market will absolve our problems. Yet not one of you can point as to why how that would solve anything on a factual basis, yet history tells us how progressive spending has done nothing to expand the people's interests. You honestly think our future generations are going to suffer because of a free market and not our administration indebted on a never ending credit card? You get real.
@Mirovozzrenie100 I recommend not telling me what I think. I DO NOT advocate "eliminating a free market". There is actually no such thing as a totally free market. I believe that capitalism is the most productive system there is BUT it needs to be regulated for our long-term prosperity.
And yes, future generations will suffer more if the "free" market continues to exclude negative environmental externalities such as greenhouse gas pollution. And yes we need to balance the budget, a given.
@ReduceGHGs I didn't tell you what to think so get those panties off, time to be a big boy. Statistics have shown, especially in the credit industry how regulation has caused nothing by housing bubbles and market crashes due to loaning and horrible bank practices. So yeah, I honestly think you need to get real. Read up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the McCain Feingold, and AIG, thanks for playing.
Don't read the posts so good do you? I said I recommend not telling me what I THINK, not what TO think, chippy. It was deregulation that allowed the lending industry to get into risky derivities. The collapse was in large part due to their use.
Google: Forget About Housing, The The Real Cause Of The Crisis Was OTC Derivatives
But who am I to teach you about the risks of deregulation not only in dealing with the environment (our only habitat) but with the economy? Here's a film that may help you learn.
@ReduceGHGs Right, who are you to teach because you lack a better understanding of the topic itself. You're just blindly following without knowing the facts. Risks of deregulation.. give me a break jesus christ lmao. This isn't about the environment, this is about economic function.
Sorry, apparently my understanding exceeds yours if you think that deregulation doesn't affect BOTH our economy AND our environment. The two are tied together. I recommend the following paper that explains some of this pretty well.
@ReduceGHGs You're just preaching to the choir bud, I have different beliefs, I've stopped commenting on these things. People are just a little more inclined for different things.
Yes, some beliefs are baseless. I understand that. Deniers of climate change have not respected studies OR credible scientific institutions to back up their opinions. My beliefs are based on the best science available not ignorance or wishful thinking. Some just can't handle the truth, right?
Learn about externalities yet? It's hard to have anything but a baseless opinion if you don't understand what they are.
@ReduceGHGs Right because I'm a climate change denier, I guess you're a mind reader now, good on John Edwards. All you're saying is "Regulation good! Free market baaaad!" If you actually knew what you're talking about, you would've said something among the lines of "regulation costs our private sector 1.7 trillion per annum" but no.. you're just in denial right? Like I said, you're just preaching to the choir.
@Mirovozzrenie100 ALL regulations are not good. I never said they were. I'm all for capitalism but it needs to be regulated. Here's an example of regulation... Kids, like you perhaps, are not generally allowed to smoke cigarettes. Why? Why is this type of regulation (call it a law if you want) a good idea? Why is allowing kids to smoke a bad idea? How about polluting the rivers? Why is it a bad idea to allow unregulated dumping?
Still don't know about environmental externalities?
@ReduceGHGs I've smoked more than you have kid, so nice try. Not all regulations revolve around your hard-on for the EPA, what's with you and your obsession with the environment?
@ReduceGHGs I dunno, I tried getting out of the convo but I guess you're attracted to me or something.. trying to convert me to love the federal government. And no, there shouldn't be these strict regulations on cigarettes and alcohol, a kid at 18 is old enough to die for his country but not buy a beer, get real. Unless he lives in the few states that have law set to 18. Carry my weight.. says the statist loving entitlement machinist, that's the best thing I've heard all night haha.
@Mirovozzrenie100 I haven't a "love" for the fed gov. I do understand it is very necessary.
So it's okay that a kid of 15 years be allowed to smoke or do other drugs no matter these behaviors are dangerous and cost the public higher medical care? Or maybe when they get sick later you would let them suffer and die in the street because they made poor choices as children? What tha? What about promoting the common good? Where'd that come from? It's a long-term prosperity and humanitarian interest.
@ReduceGHGs I digress, tobacco companies and big corporations just use state coercion to support their interest groups anyway, and that's against my philosophy, so I guess that proves your ignorance further but you'll continue to beat yourself up and reply lol.
Tobacco companies use state coercion? Now you sound like a conspiracy theorist with a good dose of big brother paranoia. Oh well, no crime in following SOME of timothy mcveigh’s path. Good luck man! I haven’t more time to waste on you.
@ReduceGHGs Have you never heard of advocacy groups or did you not take government 101 in High School? You're the definition of a pseudo-intellectual, and to think you can post on a video about economics is just nothing but hilarity.
@Mirovozzrenie100 LOL! Yea, had my econ classes in high school and business college. Some of what I learned I apply to my own business. Please, tell me something I don't know. Accuse me of not understanding. Tell me why there's no need for regulations. good grief!
Still trying to figure out what negative environmental externalities are? Tell me which classes you took covered that topic.
@ReduceGHGs None, but don't derail the subject like most progressives do to shift the argument, explain how corporate lobbyists aren't a form of state coercion? It doesn't take a genius to know that we have negative environmental repercussions, but it's not going to last forever. The fact people like you push and push for green energy when it's not perfected, let alone financially viable is beyond me. In some countries people are living on gas rations in poverty, and people still push for
@ReduceGHGs "Clean" energy, not caring about the costs it would partake in, and not caring about how it cannot just be pushed without letting it eventually take over. A good example of this is in Mexico. I don't need your credentials because I'm 19 dude, and I'm self taught, so you're really not making much sense here. I think it's such an infantile mentality to be on that "If you're liberal you care for the environment" when that has nothing to do with it. It comes down to viability.
@Mirovozzrenie100 Costs are important... That's a given in a capitalistic economy. At 19 and "self taught" you should begin to realize there's a lot to learn, dude. This may be the reason why what I post doesn't make sense to you, they read "infantile" because you just don't have sufficient foundation.
Try reading a few books about how humans affect our only habitat as well as what options we have to deal with it.
@ReduceGHGs Thank you for proving my point, costs ARE important, and instead of thinking "Oh god.. this pollution.. it's gonna go on FOREVA!!!" it's really not dude.. clean energy will spontaneously rise out of our less than clean current sources, but we have to let it come about naturally. No country is in the financial situation to just PUSH green energy forward without it costing a fortune and a half. There's no foundation needed, I know our impacts on the environment just look around.
@ReduceGHGs but to think we can just "stop" pollution is asinine. We need energy, we need warmth, we need clean water. Things need to come about naturally, that is how everything in history has occurred. Do you think when the first airborne plane was invented by the Wright brothers, did the state PUSH for it's mass production, airports and all this other bullshit? No, it came about naturally and selectively.
@Mirovozzrenie100 While YOU wait for clean energy to "come out naturally" more and more pollution of the atmosphere occurres which will negatively affect habitability for many generations.
Again I recommend you read more so you'll have a better foundation. Here's a good place to start.
@Mirovozzrenie100 Here's an example worthy of consideration. Why does the government give grants for medical research? Why don't they (We The People) just wait for private industry to "come out naturally"?
Where is it in the consititution does it say something about Promote The Common Good and how does this relate to climate change?
@ReduceGHGs The private industry DID come about naturally so that just puts your point down, we didn't have the options we do today 50 years ago. No one's pushing for private industry because it's already dominant and puts the US at #1 for our doctors and medical research, we HAVE the best QUALITY of care in the world if you don't believe that then there's no hope for you. We don't see eye to eye on "climate" change, because I know you can't stop it there's nothing we can do to stop them.
@Mirovozzrenie100 Not willing to read - not williing to learn. This leaves you with a poor foundation for meaningful discussion.
Almost all your assumptions are wrong. What do you expect from a self-taught know-it-all kid. Read some books, take some classes, and experience the world. I haven't the time or desire.
@ReduceGHGs That is easy. Because the government offers grants. If you are a company and the government is offering a grant why wouldn't you use that before going to private investors? Many of those grants still go to private companies. In the absence of those grants I would be able to decide if I wanted to invest in that research. And if it produced something i would share in the profits. But under the grant system I am forced to invest and I get none of the proftis. Businesses are smart.
@mixmastermeeks So all scientific research that is supported by grants is tainted? Do you know why We The People fund the vast majority of scientific research and not the private sector. Yea, that IS easy.
Pick up smoking if you haven't already. All the research that told you it's bad for you health is tainted! Listen to what the tobacco industry was saying. There's your "free" market for ya; always looking out for your best interest.
@ReduceGHGs STRAWMAN ALERT! I never said that any research was "tainted". You are saying that the reason researchers get grants is because no one else would give them money. I am simply pointing out that government grants are the reason they don't get money from other places. Really not that complicated or even contraversial. And I like that part about how the free market is "always looking aout for your best interest". Like gov officals are always looing out for our best interests.
@mixmastermeeks Yea, it's a tired, sorry, and baseless excuse. It's all you have. To believe it one would have to believe in a world-wide conspiracy that has been conducted over the last 30 years without discovery. The conspirators would include scientists from Japan, Russia, Canada, Mexico, Sweden, France, Germany, Brazil, India, China, USA, England, Italy, Spain, and other countries.
Hey, maybe they all took part in that moon landing hoax too! lmfao! Pathetic at best.
@ReduceGHGs what the hell are you talking about? what is a tired baseless excuse? Did you respond the wrong post or are you just blathering on about nothing? What conspiracy are you talking about?
@ReduceGHGs If you run a hot dog stand and charge 2$ for a hot dog, and I being the slick politician I am, pull up a cart next to yours and offer the same hot dogs for free (payed for by taxpayers) you will go out of business. Then I can say "if the free market was providing people with hot dogs I wouldn't have to hand them out for free."
@ptbwf that was an anology as to why researchers get free money from the gov instead of looking for investors. The free money the government gives out is just as good as the money investors would give the company.....with the down side that if they get it from an investor they will have to share the profits, but if they get it from the tax payer they don't have to share.
@ReduceGHGs You think for one minute people like me are looking at you to carry our weight? Sorry no, we like the idea of hard work and actually supporting ourselves. The environment is always going to be in danger of human intervention, this is something you need to grasp. Does this mean we dump our toxic biproducts in the water? Absolutely not but who am I to delegate those decisions, you certainly aren't in a position either.
That coal argument is so weak .
woofalot13 1 day ago
I am interested in this can someone tell me why most libertarians i meet online are out and out racists ?
woofalot13 1 day ago
Friedman makes Ayn Rand out to be an anarchist, which is the extreme brand of libertarianism, despite that she thoroughly disassociated herself from libertarianism as a whole with tough criticisms. She did believe that the initiation of force was always wrong, but that the government's role is to deal with those who do initiate it, to avoid the problem of competing police forces.
eggory 5 days ago
@eggory According to Rand, the Government, or State, was to be the sole repository of the RETALITORY use of physical force. This was the "sole and proper use" of the government's police authority.
Individuals refrained from using their OWN right of self-defense, allocating the Government to do so ON THEIR BEHALF. (One cannot delegate an authority one does NOT posess) this was the source of government's Police power.
Sadly, history shows that this rarely, if ever, actually works.
LeoAutodidact 5 days ago
@LeoAutodidact Individuals should not refrain from defending themselves, it is just that the government is there to judge whether your use of force was criminally initiative or justly retaliatory, and to assist you if needed. It is a fine idea, and its only flaw is that it has rarely, if ever, been implimented. The use of force to override the consent of those individuals who produce wealth which would not exist but for their initiative, is what fundamentally does not work.
eggory 5 days ago
I went to a Libertarian orgy, but everyone just kept to themselves and masturbated.
keeperoftherealm 1 week ago
@keeperoftherealm THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS!
elijah108 4 days ago
Milton Friedman was responsible for genocide in Chile, The Philipines and Indonesia.
shinobi38 1 week ago
@shinobi38 No he did not, Go read the article about him and Pinochet more clearly. He only met Pinochet very briefly and said quote on quote afterwords ""Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies " FACT.
tehatemachine 1 week ago
@tehatemachine Your wrong, he used Chile as an experiment and encouraged oppression. He chose Chile deliberatley because it was Socialist (Democratically so)and wanted to smash their Socialist economic system and universities. You should read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Milton Friedman's influence was catastrophic for growth, but favoured by the US government despite not benefiting communities. It only benefited the rich.
shinobi38 1 week ago
@shinobi38 You are incorrect. The US government barely followed Milton Friedman's advice. Dr. Friedman consistently lamented that his economic advice was not heeded. Free market enterprise does not benefit the rich, only monopoly generating keynesianism and corporate subsidies benefit the rich.
StAugustine79 6 days ago
thier is no such thing as a libatarian on the right, as john stweart mill said teh conservative party is the stupid party
rictorn 2 weeks ago
@rictorn why do you listen to a utilitarian about anything?....jk
chadimus84 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chadimus84 as a liberal/socialist i see the apropriation of libatarianism by the right as nonsensical,it dosent fit with the represion inequality of wealth & power causes, i don't claim mill for the left other gr8 thinkers aspose equality but i do claim mill as part of my radical liberal heritage, by the way i got 2 criticisms today 1 was for taking marx seriously and this for doing the same with mill, on liberty & das kapital are in there own ways and on there own terms quite brilliant
rictorn 5 days ago
I agree with Milton. His words would fair well in our new 2012 year!
coniljw 2 weeks ago
The interviewer is the dude who wrote the "Mr. Gorbachov, Tear down this wall" speech.
CollectivePreference 2 weeks ago
brilliant man!
vonGleichenT 3 weeks ago
Here is my justification of the core principle of libertarianism and the reason that I find fault with most other theories in gov't, there are at least two parties in each transaction. Whether you like it or not, you are responsible for your own actions. Even by not acting, you affect a consequence. No one is gonna do it for ya bud! Never has worked, never will.
ultimateguitarwizard 3 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
What it means to be a libertarian is to buy into a fantasy fiction cult! To trade in your humanity for some cold, inhuman BS market system that allowed to run rampant has racked up a massive death toll. It is a belief in an imaginary "pure" capitalism that has never nor could ever exist because capitalists themselves wouldn't allow it as it is more profitable to exploit individuals and the state. It is a delusional belief that business WANTS competition lmao! Time to shed childish things people
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
I love how the intro guy just strolled in on his motorcycle
mindifid 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In my view beeing libertarian means beeing against the initiation of force against people AND the environment we need to survive,under all circumstances,but you have the right to(and should) defend yourself.Its a way of beeing,it doesnt have anithyng to do with politics.A lot of people are libertarians without knowing it,some believe they are libertarians even if they are not.If your company pours chemical waste in a river you are not really a libertarian and people should stop you with force.
affilinet 4 weeks ago
Friedman: "Nobody will take care of his own property as well as he will take care of his own"
Me: That is the truth. We rented out our house and the Idiot tenant trashed the place.
maxscriptguru 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from RCO64
Milton getting OWNED /watch?v=FXLWd_avNT8&feature=channel_video_title
diogotomediogo 1 month ago
Add me on Facebook pls
kirbymelton23 1 month ago
REAL libertarian here:
youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
And I don't see at all where he addressed the issue of child labor during the early years of London. The question wasn't whether it was "rosier" anywhere else in the world; how did London finally resolve that particular issue? Like it or not, it was resolved through government involvement.
fabafaba111 1 month ago
@fabafaba111 It's important to remember what the world was like at the time and not look at it only through the lens of what you consider to be normal now. Yes, children worked because the alternative was the family would starve. Friedman talked about what it was like prior to the industrial revolution, where children were also working, but on farms instead of factories. That may seem nicer or more peaceful on first mention but it was brutal work and a bad harvest meant starvation.
electroplate 1 month ago
Comment removed
fabafaba111 1 month ago
@electroplate "...It's important to remember what the world was like at the time and not look at it only through the lens of what you consider to be normal now...." Well, no shit, Sherlock.
fabafaba111 1 month ago
@fabafaba111 Yes, it's obvious but apparently you didn't have that in mind when you made your initial comment. You claimed that benevolent government forces swooped in and saved children from terrible working conditions. In fact, it was industry and commerce that saved families from sustenance farming, bringing them into the cities, raising their living standards, and paving the way for the the living standards that we generally take for granted today.
electroplate 1 month ago 2
@electroplate no it was the labour and unions that bettered the working mans lot not the bloody industrialists or commerce where did you such lies
fimatmax 1 month ago
Maybe I'm missing the finer point, but Central Park opened in 1857, and even then, it was city-owned property. Why did Mr. Friedman suggest that only recently the decline in the safety and cleanliness of this same park is the result of government involvement, and not perhaps a drastic shift in our compass? Then again, I had trouble with his analogy of early London. The conditions of that time were horrible, largely because no one (business) was held accountable for their actions.
fabafaba111 1 month ago
@fabafaba111 I'm not going to address your issue on Central Park but I'm interested to hear about your ideas on how businesses weren't held accountable in London during the time period that was referenced. What actions did the businesses take that they weren't held accountable for? What would be your solutions for holding them accountable for those actions?
electroplate 1 month ago
@electroplate (Part I): Charles Dickens’ depiction of early 19th century Britain was of a terrible mess, and to believe that much of the credit that went towards cleaning it up was due to progress of private enterprise is ridiculous. Most private enterprises are only concerned with making money, which is fine…I like money too. It was a lucky convenience, for private enterprise, that clearer alternatives were found.
fabafaba111 1 month ago
@electroplate (Part II): Had cleaner solutions not been found, London would have continued to produce and burn the coal that polluted their air, while those within private enterprises could afford to escape to cleaner environments.
fabafaba111 1 month ago
@electroplate (Part III): As for child labor, Mr. Friedman addressed neither farm life nor the industry. Instead, he, basically, smoothed over that particular subject, and I believe even he recognized that the child labor practices that went on (and continue to occur) within private enterprises can’t be defended.
fabafaba111 1 month ago
@electroplate (Part IV): My solution would have been exactly what was done – in other words, I agree that government (in this case, Parliament) regulations were necessary in order to protect the interest of its citizens against the corruptions of private enterprises. Should government always get involved? No…but ethics seldom goes hand-in-hand with economics.
fabafaba111 1 month ago
@Rasterius Not sure what your point is, if there is any, b/c Friedman was against the central bank and govt borrowing. So, he never jumped on the Keynesian wagon. Your claims are ridiculous and not based in truth whatsoever. Read a book.
navsquid32 2 months ago
The truth is Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
logtype47 2 months ago
Comment removed
BlindMaphisto 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@logtype47 Actually she didn't much care for libertarians, and as a libertarian I don't much care for her either.
She believed some things libertarians believe but she also believed that men should be completely independent and not accept help. Libertarians, at least myself, believe strongly in charity.
BlindMaphisto 2 months ago
@BlindMaphisto I don't know of anything in Rand's work where she states that it's wrong to accept or give help. I think she did have a problem with government using force to dispense charity, which is something totally different. Giving to charity and helping the needy voluntarily is done for almost opposite reasons as when politicians do it through force and pretend that they're being angels by doing it.
electroplate 1 month ago
@logtype47 I see anger and name-calling, but very little rational argumentation in your rant.
ElJefer 2 months ago
@logtype47 Ayn Rand is not her birth name, however, she changed her name following her departure from the USSR. She used Ayn as her name throughout her new life. Your assertion that she changed it when she got cancer is false. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, in her New York City apartment of heart failure. Also, there is a difference between anarcho capitalism, which she advocated, and libertarian capitalism.
jmfigone209 1 month ago
@logtype47 "Atlas Shrugged" is considered the second most influential book of all time and sold over 7M copies. As for the name calling, grow up.
thumpybones 1 month ago
Milton Friedman is a hypocrite, he jumped on board the keynsian bandwagon and yet says he wants a free market. Monetarism and central banking have crushed america, and the idea of borrowing to get out of debt is plain stupid, yet keynsian economics advocates just this.
Rasterius 2 months ago
@Rasterius WATCH HIS VIDEOS AGAIN.
tehatemachine 2 months ago
@Rasterius How did he become a Keynesian?
ElJefer 2 months ago
@Rasterius I am pretty sure Milton Friedman was a Keynsian BEFORE waking up and seeing the libertarian light. Also, it might help to actually watch some of these videos...not one shred of hypocrisy.
whalerhockey 1 month ago
@whalerhockey @ElJefer @navsquid32 @tehatemachine Did any of you know he is associated with the creation of monetarism???? Friedman advocated a central bank policy aimed at keeping the supply and demand for money at equilibrium. I know my economic history inside out, you guys on the other hand...
Rasterius 1 month ago
@Rasterius lol
testmark1 1 month ago
@whalerhockey I think it was more than "seeing the light". I believe there was a lot of hard work and analysis involved.
testmark1 1 month ago
Am I to understand that when, say, Cental Park and Yellowstone National and the Brazilian rain forest are privatized, that the collective corporate Einsteins are going to NOT then bulldoze the lot and replace them w the more economically remunerative Qwik-E-Park parking lots after coming to a corporate decision as to how much air the rest of us and the planet as a whole really require? On the brighter side, maybe some other planet will lend us some air in a kind of intergalactic bailout. Yay!!!!
dantean 2 months ago in playlist Political Economy
@dantean Why do you assume that it's more economical to pave over Yellowstone and the Brazilian rainforest than to leave them the natural wonders they are today? What you are impying is that free people don't value nature and that government gives it value, which is false. And if people value nature then they are willing to pay for it, and if someone is willing to pay for something then it will be supplied so long as private property rights apply.
maidenman69 2 months ago
@maidenman69 I assume none of that. Are YOU guaranteeing me the brain trust at Corp-Inc. LLC will not devise what they at least believe more profitable than the current "pay as you enter" "visit our concession stands" nat'l park set-up? They've a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, y'know. Free people value nature, sure, but free people value freedom and become junkies, value life and commit suicide, and (I hope) value air but cut down trees to put up parking lots.
dantean 2 months ago
the sadest part about this, here in germany, the grunts never heard of him. how hard is it to get a greencard?
robertgaudlitz 2 months ago
The interviewer asked excellent questions - and more importantly let Dr. Friedman explain with mostly excellent answers. Great job, I wish more interviews were like this these days.
goodspelr 2 months ago
Ron Paul is the only hope we have at achieving a society that Milton Freidman advocated and our forefathers fought for. Let's restore AMERICA.
RON PAUL 2012!!!!.
dixierebel1929 3 months ago
of lesser quality I meant to say.
ossiorn 3 months ago
Today many companies care less about taking care of their property or even making
a good product anymore,no it's all about maximizing short - term profits for Shareholders.So services and products are now of less quality than they used to be.I remember a time before when companies cared about their customers.Today if you have a complaint you often get someone on the phone who doesn't give a shit.
ossiorn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People who like big government are like people who pray to a god; they are thankful when they receive what they wish for, but they refuse to hold it the entity accountable when something goes wrong.
SkepticThink 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You really dont need to gamble on sports anymore! I use software that tells me which bets to place with the bookies to take advantage or arbitrage... get the details in my channel.
chazrockwell84 3 months ago
Friedman does not adress the fact that Central Park would never have been built. The owners of the land would build skyscrapers because they would raise more profit. Friedman would reply that the owners could charge people entryfees to a park since there would be a market for it. But compared to the potential profit of a big business in Manhattan, this fee could be up to $50. So sometimes the communities' interests are better served by the government than by the free market.
underdogg20 3 months ago
@underdogg20 There is such a thing as non use values that have a place when deciding to allocate property. With the inclusion of non use values you can easily have a Central Park. It simply requires that such values be included in the analysis and you can get close to the appropriate amount of park.
MrDteer 3 months ago
Comment removed
underdogg20 3 months ago
@MrDteer I admit that the size of Central Park as it is today is absurdly big. If middle-class New Yorkers were so desperate to have some nature to visit, a smaller park would have been built. Because else they would have lived in an area where they did get the space to jog. The difference between modern Libertarians and original Libertarian philosophy is that today a foreigner can buy any property in New York, or Tokyo or Paris; and thus have an influence on a society that is not it's own.
underdogg20 2 months ago
@underdogg20 you're missing the point all together, and I won't explain why try to figure it out, if you really can't then ask me I'll tell you.
innulja 3 months ago
@underdogg20 Point taken. However, he is still correct that if it were Privately owned, the Park would be a little safer and taken care of. Granted, the Private owner my also have decided to sell the property for construction purposes.
evolutionist101 2 months ago
The most common technique used by anti-Whites to try and demoralize White people who are racially self regarding is to promote a brown future, BUT ONLY IN WHITE COUNTRIES. You haven't told the Black people in Africa that they have to be blended out of existence; You haven't told the Asian people that they have to be blended out of existence. It is ONLY White people that are targeted with this tactic and this agenda...It's genocide...White Genocide
Formulaone21 3 months ago
Anti-racists say that we are all ONE race..and that we ALL bleed red blood. We Whites have heard these kind of psycholgical techniques since childhood. The problem with this argument is that you don't demand that African or Asian countries open their borders and have millions upon millions of racially dissimilar people led into their respective countries in a bid to create a new blended humanity there. It in ONLY in White countries that you propose this. It is White Genocide!!
Formulaone21 3 months ago
Do you say that Black African people are racist when they say that they do not want to have millions upon millions of non-Blacks led into their respctive countries by their leaders???
Do you say the Asian people are racist when they say that they do not want to have millions upon millions of non-Asians led into their homelands by their leaders.
NO YOU DON'T
You only say that to poor White people when we complain at having our lands overrun by non-White people.
Formulaone21 3 months ago
The Genocide is characterized by the second oldest and probably most successful method known to humankind: force-assimilate a given population by leading massive numbers of racially dissimilar people into their country(s); then force-integrate these populations; then spend massive amounts of funds psycho-socially re-engineering trying to get the original population feel compelled to racially assimilate with the incoming population.That is genocide and has been forced on White people
Formulaone21 3 months ago
It is only in White countries that this anti-racism is being perpetrated and forced upon the people...White people and our children. In other words, we are alleging that the White anglo-elites and their anti-racist collaborators have systematically targeted by intentional programs of massive non-White immigration, forced integration, and racial assimilation into the non-White immigrant peoples. This is genocide...White Genocide and it needs to be stopped and punished!
Formulaone21 3 months ago
we have actual evidence of the elites in charge of Greater Anglosphere post World War Two. We have it on very good authority these vile anti-White elites formulated an outradeous explicit plan to force-assimilate White people out of existence. Understand...if you lead into a country racially dissimilar people to blend the receiving race out of existence, you are committing a program of genocide by force-assimilation.
If you try to alter another race genetically....GENOCIDE!!
Formulaone21 3 months ago
The political decision to open the floodgates to non-White immigration (w/ out a popular vote) WAS deliberate. The political decision to force integrate White neighborhoods was deliberate. The political decision to put out PSAs that encourage interracial coupling was deliberate.
Don’t kid yourself. It doesn’t have to be immediate killing to be genocide under the law. It only need be INTENT that there be fewer Whites coupled with an ACT
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
Formulaone21 3 months ago
Black people deserve equal opportunity in traditionally Black countries
Asian people deserve equal opportunity in traditionally Asian countries
They do not deserve equal opportunity in traditionally White countries
White People and ONLY White People deserve the privilge of equal opportunity in traditionally White countries.
Anti-racist is nothing but a codeword for ANTI-WHITE
Diversity/Multiculturalism are just codewords for the program of White Genocide in White countries
Formulaone21 3 months ago
@shortywheat why ?
feebdaed 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Milton Friedman makes sense sometimes; but when he pushes it too far -- like in the case of Central Park -- he sounds really naive and hidebound. To me, parks are like roads, public facilities that are needed for the proper functioning of capatalism.
tamiliam1 3 months ago
Comment removed
tamiliam1 3 months ago
Currently:
Government=Parents ---- The People=Children
with Libertarianism:
The Children grow up and become adults and run there own lives, while the Parents will always be there for us when we need them.
Grow up.
okohiaj 3 months ago
@okohiaj Libertarians = Neocons on crack
Besides falling back into denial, how do libertarians deal with global warming? They can't. Well, they typically opt for the "free" market to sort out any market anomalies. But are these ACCEPTABLE anomalies: environmental displacement, hundreds of millions loosing their fresh drinking water, desertification, ocean acidification, etc.???
Is it really the best idea to allow those with the capital and information to TAKE habitability from us? Hell no!
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
Libartarianism is about true freedom, without government control. Reducing the government its original purpuse. Not specific issues. Just because people are free it doesnt mean we wouldnt deal with our environment. How does being truly free mean people dont give a fuck about global warming or drinking water - who's dealing with those issues now? ..whoever is will still be free to do so when they are free. The point is we grow up and take responsability of things ourselves.
okohiaj 3 months ago
Without gov regs (control) negative enviromental costs (climate change) are not taken into consideration. You can be "truly free" and care about your enviornment but given short term interests, lack of adequate information, propaganda, and the lack of financial flexibility the "free" will not make the market decisions that are in their (as a species) long-term best interest. The negative costs are therefore shoved on to future generations to pay. Should you have the right to TAKE from them?
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
No. With my short term interests and my lack of info and money I wont be able to make long term decisions for the human species. Libertarianism is a step in the right direction. Perhaps the next step will be getting rid of the monetary system?
okohiaj 3 months ago
@okohiaj
Here's a good paper that may help. We can shift to cleaner energy sources and uses to curb the more negative effects of climate change on future generations. With the libertarian approach, the costs of negative environmental externalities are shoved off on future generations. We should address our monetary issues but that doesn't mean we must to continue to degrade our only habitat.
Google: ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES. U. Sankar
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs you walk a very danagerous line. What you are suggesting is that the few people, those in government, those in science, know what is best for everyone. The few making decisions for the many. If we were smart and free, then we would buy products that support a more reliable future. But what has government done to advance green energy? I would argue that most development of green tech has been demand of the private parties (i.e. you and me).
bluefootedpig 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig Dangerous? What I fear is that people like ron paul and other deniers of science will chart our course into a future of unnecessary environmental deterioration. The science is FACTUAL. Those that complete the studies tell us about reality and what lies ahead given various behaviors. It is up to We The People (via our governmental tools) to discourage destructive behaviors and encourage behaviors that increase the chances of giving us a more prosperous future. Try the Sankar link.
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs The science of global warming is correct, but that of human caustion is what is up for debate. There is a strong sense that the global warming movement is to create a new market. The green energy market, via energy carbon credits, is going to be an industry that is easily 10x bigger than oil, which oil has been said to generate more wealth than any other time in our history. Not to mention global warming has had more money put into it than we did to develop a nuclear weapon.
bluefootedpig 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig Up for debate? According to who? You? Among those that actively study climate science, there is no credible debate. Humans are warming the planet. The vested interests fund propaganda to spread doubt where no reasonable doubt exists among the well informed. Sounds like the hooked you. Here's a link to a good short film that tells some of the story.
Google: The Denial Machine Video Frontline
Big business? Good! Let regulated capitalism solve the climate crisis!
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Yeah, I don't trust frontline, i have watched many of their videos and they give a very one sided story. Can you please link a more crediable source? or link to what shoes the studies that cite it as being specifically human caused.
bluefootedpig 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig Don't do Frontline? Do you "do" NASA, AAAS, AGU, NCAR, SOCC, NAS, or any of the respected scientific institutions? Here's a link to NAS and what they say about it.
Google: NAS pdf Global Warming 2008 Edition
You can also review what others have to say...
Google: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia
Enjoy!
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs I did find an article about how there are over 20,000 scientists on global warming that claim it is not man made. Even in the latest UN report, apparently it didn't even claim that it was human caused. Can you please cite your source that it is human caused? some actual study.
And you do realize less than 30 years ago, we were heading for an ice age right?
bluefootedpig 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig Your 20k "scientists" is The Oregon Petition also called The Petition Project. It was corporate propaganda to derail Kyoto. Art Robinson put it together. He ran for Senate here in Oregon in 2008. I asked him if he had a study do back up his claims. He didn't. Here's one of many debunkings.
Google: What if the Oregon Petition names were real?
One of the first studies to come out was conducted by NAS in 1979.
Google: Charney report - Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig Man, you really have consumed propaganda! What's the matter with our respected scientific institutions? They span the globe and over 30 years of research and study. Isn't the FACT that ALL of them see this issue one way mean anything? Isn't it expected that the vested interests like the Koch oil billionaire brothers, Exxon, and CEI fund disinformation?
70s ice age debunking link follows.
Google: Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Actually, the fact that they all see the issue the same way tends to mean that there wasn't a debate on it. It normally means that people haven't properly challanged it. If all the banks tomorrow suddenly decided to push for a new law, and all were behind it, would you trust it?
And for the money you are right, look at how much money is put into proving global warming is human caused. It is already past 5x the cost of the mahatten project. Why so much money to prove it?
bluefootedpig 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig What you are saying is that no matter what the scientific evidence, no matter how many credible experts tell you what they found is occurring, you will find a way to believe what you believe? I provided everything you asked and debunked your sources. What do you now rely on?
Many studies conducted because there is a lot at risk; habitability of the biosphere! Have you read about the consequences? Ocean acidification, decreasing fresh water supplies, rising ocean levels, etc.?
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Well, I do know that science said in 1980 that we were going into an ice age. It was just as widely supported as global warming, so why should I believe it the second time around? Also, if I am not mistaken, science has also shown that during the 1400's, the world was warmer than it is now. So we aren't as bad as it was back in the 1400s, so why am I so scared this time around?
History has shown we have been here multiple times, and lived. Why care this time?
bluefootedpig 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig
The period that so many deniers cling to was the 70s. I provided the USA Today article with the study. Nothing more I can do there.
Your logic ... "Because THEY were wrong about THAT back then it follows that THESE GUYS are wrong NOW about THIS." Ouch!
.
Physicians say the smoking is harmful. Why believe them?
What about lead and mercury? Yea, science just shouldn't be believed especially if you don't like the conclusions. For that matter, to heck with mathematics!
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig I'm no doc but you seem to be displaying symptoms of denial. How about some introspection?
.
"Denial is a defense mechanism ... in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence."
.
Here's the cure --> Determine unbiased sources of scientific info (there's a technique for this) then read, read, read! After many books and articles it MAY become clear.
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs I think you misunderstand my position. I live very green, more than most. My energy bill in a 1920's house, single pane windows is less than 30 a month. For others in my area, with similar size homes, double pane windows, runs around 180 a month. I use rain barrels, solar panels, etc. I am acting as if global warming was real, as it is the most logical line of action given thbe current evidence. But then I also see that there is shitloads of money to be made if global warming is real
bluefootedpig 3 months ago
@bluefootedpig Acting "as if global warming was real". Given the "current evidence", it is clear to the reasonable, the critical thinker, that it is indeed real. Yes, there is a lot of money to be made in greening our economies. That's the way capitalism works. Want a different system?
Good that you're greening up even though you have doubts. The best thing to do is do some honest research. Once the overwhelming evidence overwhelms you, join the fight to change gov policies.
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
Next thing: English peasants moved into the cities because the Enclosure Act - the privatization of land in the English countryside - meant they could no longer grow food or graze their animals on common land. They had no choice but to move. And why was the Enclosure Act passed? Because new agro-industrial technology made it more profitable to grow crops on single, large farms employing a few hands who used to farm the same land themselves along with their families and neighbors.
mamawray 3 months ago
Next thing: Why does Friedman assume that it would be advantageous to provide a nice safe space in Central Park if it were privately owned? Wouldn't it be much more advantageous to sell the land in parcels and build huge, overpriced McMansions on the plots and not allow any non-residents inside?
How can he claim that making everything private would be best for the public? How can all individuals benefit in a purely competitive world?
mamawray 3 months ago
@mamawray i'm only going to reply to one of your points because you wrote a lot and i don't have time to read all of it - on your assertion that it would be more profitable to build mansions and to ignore those unable to afford them: you are assuming an infinite amount of rich people to buy them. eventually, there would be enough mansions to provide for the demand, and then there would be no more money to be made building them. other companies would see this and build smaller houses.
RestAssuredDrummer 3 months ago
@RestAssuredDrummer @RestAssuredDrummer Your response doesn't address my point that Central Park would be converted from a public space into a gated community. It is a large park (843 acres) but it would not take an "infinite number" of rich people to fill it. At a modest 10 acres a piece, you would need to build less than 90 houses. I'm not concerned here with whether the private sector provides enough housing for all income levels, but the claim that private interests always benefit the public
mamawray 3 months ago
Next thing: Central Park did indeed fall into danger and disrepair because of government neglect, but the solution is not to sell the land to a private company. The solution is to make funding available to the NYC parks dept. and the NYPD to improve the situation and provide political pressure to make sure those agencies do their jobs. Cental Park is great now, and it's still public land. On the other hand, Walmart parking lots at night are not at all safe places to be.
mamawray 3 months ago
@mamawray I think the libertarian solution would be contract the park to a private firm, who would only turn profit when people visited the park. But I agree, this unabashed "Let's just privatize everything, it doesn't matter how we do it!" mentality is just plain stupid. Look at how much corruption resulted from the privatization of Russia after the fall of the USSR. That was handled so poorly that a decent number of people want to go back to Stalinism just to get rid of it.
Distortion0 3 months ago
Okay, first thing: it DOES take a governmental agency to maintain the theatres and museums in New York. It's called the NEA and without it most of the art institutions in America would die. And before anyone says, "Good" bear in mind the reason why the NEA was created in the first place. America, Congress reasoned at the time, needs to promote the American spirit of individualism and creative invention by nurturing her artists. Art feeds all of our souls and should be available to everyone.
mamawray 3 months ago
nice leather jacket nerd
xjustin523x 3 months ago
Check out my chanel for a link to Michael Moore's interview on C-SPAN. Like he says, the first word in the Constitution is "We". We're all in this together. The libertarian's Me, Me, Me, perspective isn't reality, isn't in our best interest.
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
Open up a "Free" market society, destroy the IRS & Fed, Kill off government mandates, Privatize all government departments, and you get not a perfect society but the way it's suppose to be run
TechFXpunk 3 months ago
@TechFXpunk I am a Libertarian, but what worries me is the idea of complete economic freedom. If a company grows large enough, then competitors can not exist because they would simply undersell any emerging threats right out of business. It is done quite frequently in African states, for example, where regulation is only a theory and no real checks and balances are present. Don't understate this point please, cause it's a major obstacle for the ideology
EarlRegent 3 months ago
GHGs is killin' it
MissSexyMan 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs If consumers don't like the idea of banks gambling with their investments and said banks all not being smarter than the rest of the market, what they need to do is seek out something called a "credit union", or back part of their assets in something conservative such as gold. Continuing to patron a bad institution while asking the government to regulate the 'stupid' out of it is not an effective long term strategy.
metamemetics 3 months ago
@metamemetics
Google: Climate change reducing ocean's carbon dioxide uptake
"The ocean is taking up less carbon because of the warming caused by the carbon in the atmosphere," says McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.
Libertarians... Try explaining how your "free" market is dealing with carbon emissions, ocean acidification, etc. Rather fall back into denial?
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Allowing businesses to purchase speculative derivative investments isn't anymore a problem than allowing consumers to purchase alternative health supplements whose efficacy is not guaranteed. The problem is when the government financially *incentivizes* such action, by subsidizing banks risk through low interest rates and bailouts, and making the underlying assets appear more valuable by inflating bubbles.
metamemetics 3 months ago
@metamemetics Here's a well-said quote from economics Professor and 2001 Nobel laureate George Akerlof
“If you let your toddler out of her playpen, you need to watch her more carefully. This wisdom is known by every American parent but has been systematically ignored in economic deregulation…Now is the time to remember the lessons of the playpen: increased scope for action must be accompanied by increased regulatory oversight.”
Want lenders to "game" mortgages? Want the rivers to burn again?
ReduceGHGs 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Congressman Ron Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
monctonvintageads 4 months ago
hoovervilles
gen6k 4 months ago
Research for the sake of the public's health doesn't generally get private money because there's no profit in it. We The People, organized in governmental institutions, fund research because it needs to be done.
Your defense of the "free" market doesn't hold water. No surprise. How many decades too late would it be if we wait for private enterprise to reduce GHG pollution? Too many for sure as the biggest polluters (+free mktrs) are still fighting change. It may already be too late.
Outahere
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs I think you might have forgotten how lucrative the pharmaceutic industry is, most research is done by private companies. A private company would give billions for someone who thinks he has the final cure for cancer, because there is so much demand for cancer medication. Even if the private companies wouldn't do it, there could still be voluntary taxes, where people could choose to contribute to cancer research.
026SH 4 months ago
@026SH.
There certainly is a lot of research funded for profit motives, more than I thought. There is also a good deal of necessary research funded by the public that has no foreseeable profit "upside" especially for industries already vested in activities that, through research, later prove to be detrimental to the public's health. Waiting for sufficient voluntary tax revenue would cause delays that are not in out best interest. I prefer public funding including universal health care.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@026SH.
There certainly is a lot of research funded for profit motives, more than I thought. There is also a good deal of necessary research funded by the public that has no foreseeable profit "upside" especially for industries already vested in activities that, through research, later prove to be detrimental to the public's health. Waiting for sufficient voluntary tax revenue would cause delays that are not in out best interest. I prefer public funding including universal health care.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
government (in the usual sense) is irrelevant to the discussion.
All organisations that have any sort of economic/social impact are "government" (in the sense that they will exert control). So, *all* organisations are "government" because it is their *puropse* to exert some kind of control.
So, identifying elected government as the problem is thinking in cliches. Corporate government far outweighs elected government, and doesn't even pretend to have our general welfare at heart.
mijmijrm 4 months ago
I like and often agree with Friedman...but he ended up being wrong about Central Park. Central Park was a mess because of crime, not because the park wasn't better taken care of. Nowadays, Central Park is in great shape and accessible to everyone. This shouldn't be at odds with libertarianism. Almost all New York residents are willing to pay for upkeep of the park and share it with their fellow New Yorkers. Public works at the local level seems perfectly in line with moderate libertarianism
shutuprafa 5 months ago
Libertarians are against control and oppression. They believe in economic, social, and personal freedom while promoting laissez faire economics. Both Liberals and Conservatives have an agenda to be fascist and somewhat controlling. Also, the libertarian party of the USA is the fastest growing party.
Nashhinton 5 months ago
I love this guy! He's brilliant and a libertarian, awesome!
munstrumridcully 5 months ago
The libertarians like ron paul are having a pipe dream. The "free" market is not so free. The game is played better by those with more access, wealth, and information. The public's interest is NOT served by more and more deregulation. Look at ENRON and the housing bubble. How about our industrial foundation shipped overseas along with the jobs and profits? How are future generations to live in a degraded habitat; the result of "free marketiers" unregulated emissions? Get real.
ReduceGHGs 5 months ago
@ReduceGHGs You're using straw man points to further a non existent point, you think by eliminating a free market will absolve our problems. Yet not one of you can point as to why how that would solve anything on a factual basis, yet history tells us how progressive spending has done nothing to expand the people's interests. You honestly think our future generations are going to suffer because of a free market and not our administration indebted on a never ending credit card? You get real.
Mirovozzrenie100 5 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 I recommend not telling me what I think. I DO NOT advocate "eliminating a free market". There is actually no such thing as a totally free market. I believe that capitalism is the most productive system there is BUT it needs to be regulated for our long-term prosperity.
And yes, future generations will suffer more if the "free" market continues to exclude negative environmental externalities such as greenhouse gas pollution. And yes we need to balance the budget, a given.
ReduceGHGs 5 months ago
@ReduceGHGs I didn't tell you what to think so get those panties off, time to be a big boy. Statistics have shown, especially in the credit industry how regulation has caused nothing by housing bubbles and market crashes due to loaning and horrible bank practices. So yeah, I honestly think you need to get real. Read up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the McCain Feingold, and AIG, thanks for playing.
Mirovozzrenie100 5 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100
Don't read the posts so good do you? I said I recommend not telling me what I THINK, not what TO think, chippy. It was deregulation that allowed the lending industry to get into risky derivities. The collapse was in large part due to their use.
Google: Forget About Housing, The The Real Cause Of The Crisis Was OTC Derivatives
Yes, get real and read up. Or, just go play.
ReduceGHGs 5 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 .
But who am I to teach you about the risks of deregulation not only in dealing with the environment (our only habitat) but with the economy? Here's a film that may help you learn.
.
Google: The Warning | FRONTLINE | PBS
ReduceGHGs 5 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Right, who are you to teach because you lack a better understanding of the topic itself. You're just blindly following without knowing the facts. Risks of deregulation.. give me a break jesus christ lmao. This isn't about the environment, this is about economic function.
Mirovozzrenie100 5 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 .
Sorry, apparently my understanding exceeds yours if you think that deregulation doesn't affect BOTH our economy AND our environment. The two are tied together. I recommend the following paper that explains some of this pretty well.
.
Google: environmental externalities sankar
ReduceGHGs 5 months ago
@ReduceGHGs You're just preaching to the choir bud, I have different beliefs, I've stopped commenting on these things. People are just a little more inclined for different things.
Mirovozzrenie100 5 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 .
Yes, some beliefs are baseless. I understand that. Deniers of climate change have not respected studies OR credible scientific institutions to back up their opinions. My beliefs are based on the best science available not ignorance or wishful thinking. Some just can't handle the truth, right?
Learn about externalities yet? It's hard to have anything but a baseless opinion if you don't understand what they are.
ReduceGHGs 5 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Right because I'm a climate change denier, I guess you're a mind reader now, good on John Edwards. All you're saying is "Regulation good! Free market baaaad!" If you actually knew what you're talking about, you would've said something among the lines of "regulation costs our private sector 1.7 trillion per annum" but no.. you're just in denial right? Like I said, you're just preaching to the choir.
Mirovozzrenie100 5 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 ALL regulations are not good. I never said they were. I'm all for capitalism but it needs to be regulated. Here's an example of regulation... Kids, like you perhaps, are not generally allowed to smoke cigarettes. Why? Why is this type of regulation (call it a law if you want) a good idea? Why is allowing kids to smoke a bad idea? How about polluting the rivers? Why is it a bad idea to allow unregulated dumping?
Still don't know about environmental externalities?
ReduceGHGs 5 months ago
@ReduceGHGs I've smoked more than you have kid, so nice try. Not all regulations revolve around your hard-on for the EPA, what's with you and your obsession with the environment?
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 .
Maybe you smoked too much. Having issues?
Sorry, I don't have those feelings for the EPA although they are indeed a necessary agency to protect human health and the environment.
Can't answer the cancer stick question? How come? Think kids should be allowed to be free to smoke, be free of regulation?
Obsession? Nah, but someone does have to carry your the weight. Get informed. Carry your own weight.
How's the externality study? Getting anywhere?
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs I dunno, I tried getting out of the convo but I guess you're attracted to me or something.. trying to convert me to love the federal government. And no, there shouldn't be these strict regulations on cigarettes and alcohol, a kid at 18 is old enough to die for his country but not buy a beer, get real. Unless he lives in the few states that have law set to 18. Carry my weight.. says the statist loving entitlement machinist, that's the best thing I've heard all night haha.
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 I haven't a "love" for the fed gov. I do understand it is very necessary.
So it's okay that a kid of 15 years be allowed to smoke or do other drugs no matter these behaviors are dangerous and cost the public higher medical care? Or maybe when they get sick later you would let them suffer and die in the street because they made poor choices as children? What tha? What about promoting the common good? Where'd that come from? It's a long-term prosperity and humanitarian interest.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs I digress, tobacco companies and big corporations just use state coercion to support their interest groups anyway, and that's against my philosophy, so I guess that proves your ignorance further but you'll continue to beat yourself up and reply lol.
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 .
Tobacco companies use state coercion? Now you sound like a conspiracy theorist with a good dose of big brother paranoia. Oh well, no crime in following SOME of timothy mcveigh’s path. Good luck man! I haven’t more time to waste on you.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Have you never heard of advocacy groups or did you not take government 101 in High School? You're the definition of a pseudo-intellectual, and to think you can post on a video about economics is just nothing but hilarity.
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 LOL! Yea, had my econ classes in high school and business college. Some of what I learned I apply to my own business. Please, tell me something I don't know. Accuse me of not understanding. Tell me why there's no need for regulations. good grief!
Still trying to figure out what negative environmental externalities are? Tell me which classes you took covered that topic.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs None, but don't derail the subject like most progressives do to shift the argument, explain how corporate lobbyists aren't a form of state coercion? It doesn't take a genius to know that we have negative environmental repercussions, but it's not going to last forever. The fact people like you push and push for green energy when it's not perfected, let alone financially viable is beyond me. In some countries people are living on gas rations in poverty, and people still push for
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs "Clean" energy, not caring about the costs it would partake in, and not caring about how it cannot just be pushed without letting it eventually take over. A good example of this is in Mexico. I don't need your credentials because I'm 19 dude, and I'm self taught, so you're really not making much sense here. I think it's such an infantile mentality to be on that "If you're liberal you care for the environment" when that has nothing to do with it. It comes down to viability.
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 Costs are important... That's a given in a capitalistic economy. At 19 and "self taught" you should begin to realize there's a lot to learn, dude. This may be the reason why what I post doesn't make sense to you, they read "infantile" because you just don't have sufficient foundation.
Try reading a few books about how humans affect our only habitat as well as what options we have to deal with it.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Thank you for proving my point, costs ARE important, and instead of thinking "Oh god.. this pollution.. it's gonna go on FOREVA!!!" it's really not dude.. clean energy will spontaneously rise out of our less than clean current sources, but we have to let it come about naturally. No country is in the financial situation to just PUSH green energy forward without it costing a fortune and a half. There's no foundation needed, I know our impacts on the environment just look around.
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs but to think we can just "stop" pollution is asinine. We need energy, we need warmth, we need clean water. Things need to come about naturally, that is how everything in history has occurred. Do you think when the first airborne plane was invented by the Wright brothers, did the state PUSH for it's mass production, airports and all this other bullshit? No, it came about naturally and selectively.
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 While YOU wait for clean energy to "come out naturally" more and more pollution of the atmosphere occurres which will negatively affect habitability for many generations.
Again I recommend you read more so you'll have a better foundation. Here's a good place to start.
Google: environmental externalities sankar
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 Here's an example worthy of consideration. Why does the government give grants for medical research? Why don't they (We The People) just wait for private industry to "come out naturally"?
Where is it in the consititution does it say something about Promote The Common Good and how does this relate to climate change?
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs The private industry DID come about naturally so that just puts your point down, we didn't have the options we do today 50 years ago. No one's pushing for private industry because it's already dominant and puts the US at #1 for our doctors and medical research, we HAVE the best QUALITY of care in the world if you don't believe that then there's no hope for you. We don't see eye to eye on "climate" change, because I know you can't stop it there's nothing we can do to stop them.
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago
@Mirovozzrenie100 Not willing to read - not williing to learn. This leaves you with a poor foundation for meaningful discussion.
Almost all your assumptions are wrong. What do you expect from a self-taught know-it-all kid. Read some books, take some classes, and experience the world. I haven't the time or desire.
Have a good one.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs That is easy. Because the government offers grants. If you are a company and the government is offering a grant why wouldn't you use that before going to private investors? Many of those grants still go to private companies. In the absence of those grants I would be able to decide if I wanted to invest in that research. And if it produced something i would share in the profits. But under the grant system I am forced to invest and I get none of the proftis. Businesses are smart.
mixmastermeeks 4 months ago in playlist posts
@mixmastermeeks So all scientific research that is supported by grants is tainted? Do you know why We The People fund the vast majority of scientific research and not the private sector. Yea, that IS easy.
Pick up smoking if you haven't already. All the research that told you it's bad for you health is tainted! Listen to what the tobacco industry was saying. There's your "free" market for ya; always looking out for your best interest.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs STRAWMAN ALERT! I never said that any research was "tainted". You are saying that the reason researchers get grants is because no one else would give them money. I am simply pointing out that government grants are the reason they don't get money from other places. Really not that complicated or even contraversial. And I like that part about how the free market is "always looking aout for your best interest". Like gov officals are always looing out for our best interests.
mixmastermeeks 4 months ago
@mixmastermeeks Yea, it's a tired, sorry, and baseless excuse. It's all you have. To believe it one would have to believe in a world-wide conspiracy that has been conducted over the last 30 years without discovery. The conspirators would include scientists from Japan, Russia, Canada, Mexico, Sweden, France, Germany, Brazil, India, China, USA, England, Italy, Spain, and other countries.
Hey, maybe they all took part in that moon landing hoax too! lmfao! Pathetic at best.
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs what the hell are you talking about? what is a tired baseless excuse? Did you respond the wrong post or are you just blathering on about nothing? What conspiracy are you talking about?
mixmastermeeks 4 months ago
Comment removed
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs If you run a hot dog stand and charge 2$ for a hot dog, and I being the slick politician I am, pull up a cart next to yours and offer the same hot dogs for free (payed for by taxpayers) you will go out of business. Then I can say "if the free market was providing people with hot dogs I wouldn't have to hand them out for free."
mixmastermeeks 4 months ago in playlist posts
@mixmastermeeks
eventually you will give shitty hot dogs out because you have no competition, and the guy will again be able to sell hot dogs for 2$.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf that was an anology as to why researchers get free money from the gov instead of looking for investors. The free money the government gives out is just as good as the money investors would give the company.....with the down side that if they get it from an investor they will have to share the profits, but if they get it from the tax payer they don't have to share.
mixmastermeeks 4 months ago
@ReduceGHGs You think for one minute people like me are looking at you to carry our weight? Sorry no, we like the idea of hard work and actually supporting ourselves. The environment is always going to be in danger of human intervention, this is something you need to grasp. Does this mean we dump our toxic biproducts in the water? Absolutely not but who am I to delegate those decisions, you certainly aren't in a position either.
Mirovozzrenie100 4 months ago