is there any discussion to be had with fellow travellers? As if such unabashed filth as this mongrel hippy are worthwhile candidates for anyones time... nevermind Friedman's.
That he would deign to treat with such a loathsome creature is surprising...
Poverty has asnd is caused by the state. If governments allowed every child to have world class education, healthcare and a rule of law. Good regulation then there would be no poverty. Governments fail to do this, hence the state is the cause of all povetry. Switzerland has lower taxes than anywhere else in the developed world and yet better schools and infrastructure.
The wealth of the Oligarchy who ruled/s the USA did not come from slavery alone, true, it can be traced to the stolen Native American land, and the exploitation of its resources. That is an undeniable fact. This man Milton Friedman is a dishonest shameless individual!
NOAM CHOMSKY! G. WILLIAM DOMHOFF! HOWARD ZINN! ACTUAL HISTORY!
milton misses the point about people's desire for political liberties
on an economic level he's right, but he falls too short on the bar in terms of explaining in a wholesale general manner the systems, although he does hint at it when he says capitalism is necessary but not all that's necessary
it might be because he's so specific, but he might've missed the mark on figuring out how to deal with the two sets of facts, political liberty is required and free markets are beneficial
@noobler9 in this particular case, to expand on what he left out or missed, a society that is internally a free market economy may still engage in behaviours that damage "other people, the ones that don't matter so much" such as how the corporatist/mercantilist east india trading company treated america prior to it's revolution
this hurt america in the short term economically, but it gained in the long run, the issue there though was political liberty, not a free market economy
@noobler9 however, by his definition, essentially afghanistan would be a roman type colony, mostly of military garrisons, of the USA regardless, it's interesting to note the various methods of explaining situations that his view presents
So, was Friedman saying that the West didn't benefit from slavery?
Also, what Friedman refers to as "stagnation" simply means that those countries had reached a point of economic and social stability where growth was unnecessary for survival. People didn't have the wheel in Africa because there was little impetus to invent the wheel. While many in the West see that idea as apocryphal, and worship "advancement" and growth, that is the ideal state for natural systems, to be in equilibrium.
@bannedbyMusloons Hmph, I wouldn't say that. Though I disagree with the guy giving the question I do think he had a great question, and is obviously a very intelligent guy.
@bannedbyMusloons Like I said I don't agree with him. Think about it like this; Who better to strengthen the case of capitalism than a person who is educated in an opposing economics. Saying what you said, makes it seem like you don't really even understand economics. Me going to school for economics, being taught and receiving newsletters by Austrian Economics Dr. Walter Block, I find it offensive that instead of giving the guy credit for his attempt you insult him.
This: The period since independence to 1898 (When Philipinnes was bought for 20 mil from Spain), America had no colonies!! says the great Milton.
If the original 13 states stayed put, they would have stagnated. The reason the states boomed, was because there was more of them and all the land and gold they got by rolling back the natives to the west and buying or bullying out the Mexicans!! It's not a triumph of competitive capitalism or a relatively free market!
@mistersmith6000 Wrong! The treaty signed ending the war of 1812 gave up the northwestern territories, Texas rightfully gained it's independence, Louisiana Purchase was what even the French wanted since Spain was pretty much going to destroy France's colonial empire, and Mexico decided to start yet ANOTHER war about Texas, and agrees to give up the rest of their North American Territories because they got their asses kicked by the USA. And to address the Philipinnes, they were a TERRITORY...
@MrJpryor74 These dates or events you refer to are just a manifestation of pressures that one powerful group could exert over another. Milton says America is rich because of free markets period. I'm saying, free markets in the original 13 colonies, left to themselves, might have gone flat. They needed to expand. Maybe it should read market + free land +cheap labor + lax environment laws = rich and happy in Milton's terms - 'Everybody wins' (except .....and....)
@mistersmith6000 You have to listen to the lecture again Because it seems that you missed alot of his points. And i Used to be in your shoes with that way of thinking.
The guy did not ask about the effects of people's contact with the west, he asked about the effects of slavery and colonialism. Friedman's answer was that slavery and colonialism were not what enriched the west. There is no point whatsoever in going into how people benefitted from their contact with the west, which had only to do with the technology (especially after the industrial revolution), and nothing to do with slavery nor with colonialism.
What is this BULLSHIT about slavery being "the American Holocaust?"
FACT: America impoprted only 1% of African slaves, and they were the TOP 1% of living-standards among them, with their numbers multiplying SIX FOLD, while everywhere else their numbers remained constant or PERISHED.
Furthermore, there is no "nation of America", each state was a SOVEREIGN NATION UNTO ITSELF.
I love how the crowd gets all fired up when Friedman points out that America never participated in colonialism. It's as if they were brainwashed into thinking otherwise.
@boshembechle The US did practice colonialism, on a huge scale. They colonized the entire continent expropriating and exterminating the natives. It is a mystery how Friedman, or anybody for that matter, could so blatantly ignore such common knowledge. Maybe the audience isn't so much "brainwashed" as aware and thinking.
" They colonized the entire continent expropriating and exterminating the natives."
No, THEY did not.IT did.
That was AFTER Jackson proclaimed the USA as a single nation, conquering the states by denying the FACT of their sovereignty as separate nations; that led to the Trail of Tears, and eventually Lincoln's holocaust and Sherman's "Fina Solution" for the Native Americans, which Hitler only COPIED with the Jews!
Friedman is a FOOL about history-- he's an ECONOMIST not a historian.
Semantics; the states became colonies after they were proclaimed subordinate to the Union as a single nation; then this empire began expanding like a fire, becoming the current global octopus.
I remember the title of one book, "Open Veins of Latin America", about how Spain drained the wealth of South and Central America through horrendous exploitation...but it was probably written by some commie pinko liberal gay scumbag. Likewise, I don't think the evidence supports Africa benefiting greatly from Western colonization, leaving aside the rather large moral issue of whether you can just take someone else's property in the first place.
To say India was a net loss is to fundamentally misunderstand the endeavor. There were other colonies, Australia, Africa, etc. It was a global system of dominance and influence that Britain constructed and that endured for centuries. During this time England was the richest country in history, due to its colonial system. To single out one part of that structure and say "this part was a net loss" is to misunderstand the benefit of the system as a whole the role of India in that system.
2 issues. India was a loss to Britain. In What sense? In a direct financial sense perhaps, but what about the benefit to the home economy, military and navel bases, influence and a presence in the region, the ability to project force, etc. India was a loss in the same sense that an aircraft carrier is a loss; it isn't a financial investment.
Second issue, America never had any colonies? Really, tell that to the Sioux, Cree, Wompanog, and so forth.
I always liked milton friedman. He was so good at explaining things. I see him mostly as a teacher. btw, I had no idea that the cost to benefit ratio of maintaining a colony was bad. I guess you learn something new every day
@VanessaTexasGal "I had no idea that the cost to benefit ratio of maintaining a colony was bad." That is because it is a part lie. Most colonies are just meant to extract resources from hostile territory. And eventually establish a secure foothold. Which almost ever fails for sure - but it is a gamble that can pay off tenfold.
@rubzy11 When a mother country takes from a colony, it is not a crime; it is a law. Notice that crimes and laws are not always based on what is moral or not. They had no reason to suppress that information, and every incentive to keep good records.
Slave labor, understandably, was not very productive. So unproductive, in fact, that the free farms were much wealthier. The cost of maintaining the slaves, and the unproductive labor lagely contributed to this reality.
It's amazing how Milton Friedman could make a dozen deep, rational points in the span of a couple of minute. No doubt this liberal did not comprehend a single one of them.
To say that the U.S. has no colonies that would depend on how you define colonies. Is the U.S. imperial yes that it is. It has always been so, the expansion west was imperialist the invasion of mexico was an imperial war. The Spanish American war was a clash of empires. WW1 WW2 both clashes of Empires. Is that capitalism? well some would say no and some would say yes. Empires are good for the elite that does not mean is good for the country. I see capitalism as a system where capitalist rule.
@N0g0dzN0masterz no sir it isn't. this isn't subjective. imperialism and colonialism require the goods and service of occupied country which we do neither of.
@UpalKashey really? Well I am from one of those occupied countries and I know from first hand experience that they do. It isn't subjective? Don't tell me that, is you american's that change the meaning of things.America has colonies you do not call them that, This is why I said it depends how "you" define it. TO THE PEOPLE LIVING UNDER COLONIAL KNOW IT IS. Military bases in over a 100 countries. That is not an empire? If you are not kidding you are just and idiot and need to fuck off.
@N0g0dzN0masterz You are another fool buying into the Military Bases claim. Once you subtract the Marine Guards Detachments at US Embasies, the bases count plumets. True bases count is between 12 and 20. And no it is not an empire because the bases are in (except for 2 cases) free and indepenent republics.
@Robbob9933 Have you ever lived or gone any where out side the U.S.? I bet you are another dumb american that believes all of your countries propaganda. Remember what goes around comes around. There is no way to excuse the murderous policies of your nation and you should do something to stop it. But you choose to swing your dicks around the world. Some one will cut it off one day.
@N0g0dzN0masterz I have been to more countries than I can think of off the top of my head. The list of the ones I have not been to is a far smaller list. I only go in the tourist area when the local government prohibits free travel. I have had hundreds if not thousands of political debates deep in non-tourist areas and have NEVER had a military question posed. Education, social welfare, immigration policy, trade, and etc... Are far more interesting topics with foreign nationals.
regarding colonialism I think that care should be taken. From what I understood french did some studies recently showing that at the end of the day the colonies ended up costing money to the metropol (thus representing a net transfer). Now of course there is also a moral point to debate and you have to put life in the balance. Colonial power did committed serious atrocities (ex Belgian Congo) but they also brought medicines (vaccines campaigns were being carried).
Oh, and particularly when the British government was indebted to the Indian government and they forced the Indians to agree to the stipulation of wiping their debt to India in order for Indian independence to be recognized, what a square deal that was.
Milton Friedman is a poorly educated pseudo intellectual jackass.
Twelve minutes with Noam Chomsky and his goose would be cooked. Too bad the asshole's dead.
Yeah, the Belgians didn't use slavery when they were chopping forced laborers hands off for not meeting their arbitrary quotas for rubber production in the Belgian Congo. Yeah, and when the British forced the Indians to sell raw materials and caused them to be unable to develop their industrial base while flooding their market with factory-made textiles, causing a massive trade imbalance, that was "good" for them.
Yeah, the British and French didn't have slavery, they just had corvee labor, de facto slavery. What a fucking numbnuts pretentious shit, just like another goddamn Ayn Rand.
God damn it, why don't you assheads find a real intellectual.
@roboty1000 They're just as clueless in university today, the majority of them anyway. It's perplexing to see 18 year olds full of idealistic fancies on how to spend other people's money, thinking they know everything.
The Gen Assembly request the Department of Public Information to continue its efforts to update web‑based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non‑Self‑Governing Territories and also request the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Public Information to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee and to continue their efforts to take measures through all the media available.
Fucking Milton Friedman, taking economic ideas and making them sacred to a free society. We know cooperatives and unions have been bought out and sold, people tortured and shocked into a free market system, where the corporations benefit and the people serve and suffer. Someone should have killed this man.
I should be free to set up a factory to employ children. Yet, I am stuck in this country PAYING for the free education of children for families I don't even know! What B.S. What happened to MY liberties?!
I am not an expert on American or World history, but I am sure that the part about India was just bullshit, Britishers were hugely benefited by colonizing India, and status of Life in India has improved hugely Post Independence.
@sandeeponweb But only since it decentralized it's government....honestly please listen to the whole lecture ffs. And how much history on the Raj do you know? Im guessin not a lot
@sandeeponweb Also, Friedman discusses how it cost the British more to maintain its colony in India - he assumes that this cost was distributed evenly among all British citizens - not true. The cost of empire is always distributed downward, while the benefits of that empire are reserved only for those at the time. One need only look how we handled Iraq, subsidizing cronies like Blackwater and Halliburton through taxpayer funds while the rewards are reaped by the oil corporations.
@gnomechomskylives The cost of maintaining the Indian colony have been well documented. The income to the crown was far less than the income to the crown.
@Robbob9933 It may have been unprofitable for the crown out of pocket but paid in spades for the Crown's business associates. The losses were distributed toward the state (since the crown receives money from the state, not to mention it's many holdings) while the profits were pocketed by a few, much like we're seeing today. Clearly the overall venture must have been profitable otherwise it wouldn't have lasted so long. No one deliberately invests money into failed ventures.
@gnomechomskylives Let me make it really simple. The total money gained in India was vastly smaller than the total money spent to maintain the Indian colony. There was ZERO PROFIT to any entity only NET LOSS.
@woopsme I never said we obtained oil from Iraq; that would have been too obvious. That's not how we do things. Iraq is part of a long-game strategy of securing friendly oil markets (along with other short-term geopolitical consideration), which of course benefits Western oil producers; China's making similar moves in buying up exclusive rights to oil in the Sudan and other oil producing countries. It's 21st century mercantilism.
@woopsme Perhaps, but then - you cannot count yourself among Mr. Friedman's proponents - you are either for a free market or a mercantilist, you can't be both.
However the main question is SOVEREIGNTY of the individual states via their people; since without it there can BE no free market-- just a facade, which leads to a wild goose-chase when the sheeple try to EXERCISE it.. and find that they're only as "free" as the LEASH they're on... and find that iif they pull too hard, the government will HANG them by it.
TRUE history has been suppressed by lies and propaganda; that's how they keep the people from getting wise.
Pundits will argue forever over the color of shit, but only the MARKET gives you what you actually WANT at a FIRM PRICE.
The less government involves itself, the better-- the market needs the government like a an orchestra needs a kid playing with a fog-horn, since have the same effect.
Not true Sandeep. Friedman is absolutely right. Don't believe what the Indian government school curriculum teaches you. Most of it is propaganda. I know it is hard to believe but it is true. The British did a great deal for common Indian people... Indians should never forget that. I am not saying that British rule was good.. but comparatively it was far superior to any Indigenous ruler's.
I don't know what are your sources, but I have seen enough data to say that above is not true, just google and you will find enough data showing how much profit britishers made
Remember all those Indians fighting on the side of the East India company? Do you really think they were all just stupid? Or were they all just traitors as the regular narrative is? Go read Wikipedia, if you want.. it is still pretty detailed of what went on back then.
Again! History is not complete until the other side is considered, and by that, I mean beyond accusations of "colonialism" or "profiteering".
Also, Indian govt was so poor it could not import food for feeding famine struck regions in the 60s and 70s. It went completely bankrupt in 1979. Indira Gandhi declared Emergency to take over and nationalize banks. It was only after Rajeev Gandhi's administration opened up India to the rest of the world (pretty much on a Friedmanite plan) that India has made great progress.
Do you think before the Brits came to India, that India was doing great? You have to have something to be looted of. If you have nothing.. then you can't be robbed. Please learn the history of India before the Brits came over.. it is horrid and generally polished over in petty matters between kings. If you looked at regular people.. they were severely impoverished.
you really believe that brits travelled half way across the globe to invest in 'poor' India and develop it and eradicate poverty. If you are naive enough to believe that, this discussion is pointless
No, they traveled to trade, to make money by exchange. What followed cannot be blamed just on them. What they did after that, you would expect from any human being. Please take the time to give the others side a look and learn history. It is far more interesting than it is usually told.
You said you are not an expert on American or World history. If you honestly meant it, then you need to become atleast acquainted with it. The claim that India was colonized and looted falls flat on its face when evidence is examined.
@terryshiavoftw The right never cease to amaze me. When your leaders are mocked for their anti-intellectual talking points, their vacuous stances, their empty statements you raise your noses in righteous indignation. Yet here you are mocking someone who *does* have a point (even if their articulation isn't clear) and you dismiss them for their style of dress? That is the ultimate ad hominem logical fallacy; in doing so you concede your point and admit you have nothing to argue.
@terryshiavoftw Moreover, who is stupider? The young man (and by extension the audience) that has studied history and sees the contradictions in the economic system of the West? Or the wonk who claims the United States has *never* engaged in colonialism? A statement so absurd that even a freshman in history knows that such a claim is meretricious at best. Ask the people of Guatemala,Santo Domingo, El Salvador,Chile&Mexico (among others) if the US has never engaged in colonialism.
@gnomechomskylives I hope you are trolling when you accuse me of a logical fallacy, and then present the question "who is STUPIDER."
STUPIDER? Is this a fucking joke?
Also, get off your high horse and drop the delusion that what I said was intended to be an intellectual discussion. It was a comment pertaining to the shared visual elements consistent in leftists and "hipsters." You're bringing a gun to a candy-cane fight.
It is amusing, however, how livid you become. Umad??
@terryshiavoftw Once again you deflect away from the heart of the issue and resort to superficialities. I used that improper use of the word to save space since I ran up against my character limit.
I addressed the question; you didn't. Your deflection proves my point. I ain't mad; I'm right :)
@gnomechomskylives Deflection? Once again you miss the point. My initial post was not designed to be an elaborate critique of neo-liberal economic theory, nor a substantive response to the gentleman's question in the video. It was a humorous jab at the cultural similarities of idealist liberals with respect to their clothing and outward appearance. Stop trying to portray yourself in this pathetic professorial guise. It's Youtube.
However I have to ask: what is the significance of "terryshiavoftw"? (I know ftw=for the win) Is it a farcical name meant to poke fun or something else? I'm just curious :)
@terryshiavoftw I hear you on the idealism. The way he is dressed has nothing to do with it. Don't inadvertently crap on conservatives by lowering yourself to insults.
@terryshiavoftw Insulting someone doesnt make you look any better btw... The key word in you comment is CHOOSE sure you can CHOOSE to insult someone in a comment... or not... put your best foot forward...
And this is not even speaking of the volatility of the financialized economy .. you ask me to provide an example of a better system than the current one? How about the one that regulated the banking and financial sector prior to Reagan's senseless deregulations? You know, those rules that were meant to check financial institutions' behaviour so we wouldn't do the same mistake all over again as the one which lead to the Great Depression? Like the Glass-Steagall Act which was revoked 1999 : - /
Did I say the system currently in existent was good? No. I make points to the left now who have no spine, no ideas, no morals and no principals. Their answer is more immigration, more taxation, more garbage regulations on certain parts of the free market which are being held back due to massive taxation. As a Canadian regulation is great to me but the left in the world now are out dated and we need real reform on the market and in politics to get the private sector
Out of the public sector. We need to get the politicians to go back to the mixed economy we had in the 60's onward, we need taxation reform desperately because of the burden the middle class is carrying right now. Keynesian economics is a failed policy now and its time for new ideas.
@Ardoelaid "You know, those rules that were meant to check financial institutions' behaviour so we wouldn't do the same mistake all over again as the one which lead to the Great Depression?"
You don't know what "led to the Great Depression." You're a liar and a phony. Go ahead and give us the reasons. Post them. I could use a good laugh.
BTW, I could tell you're a know-nothing, Liberal idiot the second you blathered about Glass-Steagall. It's another bumper-sticker slogan.
@raniisc14 He never gave an opinion on Indian colonialism. All he did was point out facts. He never said that colonialism itself is a good thing. He was providing an economic example to counter the questioners point.
America, Germany and Japan rose to such unprecedented levels of wealth not because of the free market and free competition advocated by Friedman, but due to effective protectionist policies that allowed these countries to catch up to Britain and therafter compete on equal terms. Such protectionist measures were however denied to the developing world under the mantra of "free market" ,, as if the free market created such wealth. No sir.
America, Germany and Japan rose to such unprecedented levels of wealth not because of the free market and free competition advocated by Friedman, but due to effective protectionist policies that allowed these countries to catch up to Britain and therafter compete on equal terms. Such protectionist measures were however denied to the developing world under the mantra of "free market" ,, as if the free market created such wealth. No sir.
@Reido2828 The current market is not free my friend. The European Union for example spends the bigger part of its budget to subsidize European farmers so their products can compete with cheap exports from the developing world. The same thing goes with America which subsidizes some $20 billion in direct subsidies to American "farmers", mostly big corporations that produce on scale. So you should reformulate your question and ask who this "free market" system really benefits. It certainly benefits
@Ardoelaid It certainly benefits those who sit on big amount of capital, since capital movement is free and its easier and cheaper to relocate production today than before, making it possible to sack jobs in America and move them to India, for example. But labour cannot relocate as easily and this is precisely what Adam Smith feared when he spoke of his misinterpreted invisible hand, a critique of what constitutes the core of neolbieral ideology, the offshoring of national production.
"Capitalism is a necessary condition for 'freedom'"
That really gets to the heart of what makes Friedman such a world-class bullshit artist.
Libertarian axioms that define "freedom" hinge on some abstract debate over negative and positive rights with a rather rigid unrealistic belief in the primacy of negative rights. The perverse definition of freedom relies on false a priori assumptions about human nature and unsubstantiated philosophical conjecture.
Capitalism is the individual's right to contract business with other free individuals. So, indeed, "capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom" because if your freedom to contract with others is denied then that's freedom denied. Someone owns your life, either you or others. The degree that others own your life is the degree that you're a slave. If I own my life, then I have a right to the furtherance of that life by engaging in private contact with others.
and as far as the united states not being a colonial country...ok
is imperialism a better word then? what do u call arriving on territory already occupied. murdering 90% of the indigenous population. Then using it to establishing a country in the manner u see fit?
@DivinelyMochaDipped something that happened two-hundred, or so, years ago, happened two hundred years ago. All nations, Ethnic Groups, Religious groups are guilty of something or other. The Spanish Inquisition, Napoleon being a war-monger, the Mongols killing thousands, the Persians burning Athens. My point being, that if the sins of the father don't fall on the sins of the son how is it that the sins of someones great-great-grandfather falls upon the great-great-grandson?
"something that happened 200 yrs ago happened 200 years ago"<-that cliche slogan has never done yall any good. if u dont kno that there is a legacy from institutional racism, u have a LOT of studying to do. & i really dont care for a history lesson in human civilization. the subject is AMERICA and how THIS nation has prospered from the atrocities accompanied by the concept of supremacy, imperialism and warfare<-That's y u did not address my question in my comment. bc u that is true.
@DivinelyMochaDipped Oh man, i thought you forgot about me. For your question: True Dat, but is it happening now? I dont think so--or not to the extent as before. I think were all in agreement here that all peoples have blood on their hands, and with the dismantling of institutional racism in all it's forms in AMERICA, the notion that this country is an imperialistic racist country is a pretty far-fetched one. Ive actually forgotten what our original argument was even about. I think i started it
the notion that this country is an imperialistic racist country is far-fetched <- This country murders, bombs, occupies and pillages Middle Eastern territories while hiding behind the self-righteous "In the name of Humanity" mask and u're under the impression that it's not imperialistic? Institutional racism hasnt dismantled. Sociological analyses backed with statistical information proves this. By saying "it's not like it used to be" isn't saying much bc it used to be HORRIBLE.
@DivinelyMochaDipped I can tell by your last text that your currently 'occupying wall street', that not withstanding I have to point out that were leaving Iraq & Afghanistan soon & not the more richer. We have actually sunk both blood & treasure into those countries trying to 'improve' them both economically & socially. On Iraq you will get no argument from me--HUGE MISTAKE--plus, oil's still a bitch, plus-plus, we were actually attacked on 9-11 & this may be a bit foolish of me but i hope......
@DivinelyMochaDipped ....your not a 9-11 Truther. I find it hard to believe that we are a racist country when the the POTUS is a Black man & we have people of all stripes serving in all branches of the Gov't, even you can see this through the fog that you live in. The disparity of the races can actually be answered by Annette Lareau's research on parenting styles, which are based on the White/Blue collar job you have--which i guess can be traced back to prejudices of yore. Sorry if this was long
this is such bullshit. if slavery or colonization was not profitable, wtf was it even used in the first place. and if slavery did not make the economy boom, what did? he did not even answer the question, all he said was "it is not true, you are uninformed." that's all libertarians say to anyone who doesn't agree with them or when they can't answer the question. wtf?
u can be sarcastic if u please but u still didn't address the question which only re-iterates the fact that white americans are unwilling to acknowledge the contradiction in your own "philosophy".
if slavery or colonization was not profitable, wtf was it even used in the first place?<---again, u nor he answered this. The entire concept of free market enterprise and the philosophy of private property is contradicted in the institution of slavery and the genocide of the indians. no?
About colonialism (understood in a broader sense), I'd say both sides have some reason. On the one hand, Western countries benefited from exploring resources of developing countries. On the other hand, the social indicators in developing countries have been improving by the contact with the West. One doesn't make the other wrong.
is there any discussion to be had with fellow travellers? As if such unabashed filth as this mongrel hippy are worthwhile candidates for anyones time... nevermind Friedman's.
That he would deign to treat with such a loathsome creature is surprising...
lictor313 15 hours ago
Poverty has asnd is caused by the state. If governments allowed every child to have world class education, healthcare and a rule of law. Good regulation then there would be no poverty. Governments fail to do this, hence the state is the cause of all povetry. Switzerland has lower taxes than anywhere else in the developed world and yet better schools and infrastructure.
warriorprince1010 1 day ago
That dude reminds me of Mitch Hedberg, except without the funny part.
aggrajag2813 1 day ago 2
Milton Friedman was very correct, as is the usual case.
stephenabm 2 days ago
The wealth of the Oligarchy who ruled/s the USA did not come from slavery alone, true, it can be traced to the stolen Native American land, and the exploitation of its resources. That is an undeniable fact. This man Milton Friedman is a dishonest shameless individual!
NOAM CHOMSKY! G. WILLIAM DOMHOFF! HOWARD ZINN! ACTUAL HISTORY!
Cristoviolanalgonas1 2 days ago
Get to the fucking point!! 2 minute question. p.s. nice clothes jive turkey
dkpai05 2 days ago 2
So Mr Friedman Colonialism didn't benefit the colonial masters. Are you ok if the colonized, take their colonial masters now like their colonies?
maghamiya 3 days ago
Friedman was brilliant !!!
7165mike 3 days ago
The Black guy is a future OWS Guru ( :
NCLUSA 4 days ago 4
milton misses the point about people's desire for political liberties
on an economic level he's right, but he falls too short on the bar in terms of explaining in a wholesale general manner the systems, although he does hint at it when he says capitalism is necessary but not all that's necessary
it might be because he's so specific, but he might've missed the mark on figuring out how to deal with the two sets of facts, political liberty is required and free markets are beneficial
noobler9 4 days ago
@noobler9 in this particular case, to expand on what he left out or missed, a society that is internally a free market economy may still engage in behaviours that damage "other people, the ones that don't matter so much" such as how the corporatist/mercantilist east india trading company treated america prior to it's revolution
this hurt america in the short term economically, but it gained in the long run, the issue there though was political liberty, not a free market economy
noobler9 4 days ago
@noobler9 however, by his definition, essentially afghanistan would be a roman type colony, mostly of military garrisons, of the USA regardless, it's interesting to note the various methods of explaining situations that his view presents
noobler9 4 days ago
So, was Friedman saying that the West didn't benefit from slavery?
Also, what Friedman refers to as "stagnation" simply means that those countries had reached a point of economic and social stability where growth was unnecessary for survival. People didn't have the wheel in Africa because there was little impetus to invent the wheel. While many in the West see that idea as apocryphal, and worship "advancement" and growth, that is the ideal state for natural systems, to be in equilibrium.
KeroroGunsouTX 5 days ago
@KeroroGunsouTX What was Friedman's opinion on climate change? I've heard he was terrible with externalities like the environment.
squamish4244 5 days ago
Milton really placed that braindead drugged out Marxist in his place.
bannedbyMusloons 6 days ago 10
@bannedbyMusloons Hmph, I wouldn't say that. Though I disagree with the guy giving the question I do think he had a great question, and is obviously a very intelligent guy.
arenor 5 days ago
@arenor: Really now? i guess that if spouting lies and Marxist propaganda makes you a genious he qualifies.
bannedbyMusloons 2 days ago
@bannedbyMusloons Like I said I don't agree with him. Think about it like this; Who better to strengthen the case of capitalism than a person who is educated in an opposing economics. Saying what you said, makes it seem like you don't really even understand economics. Me going to school for economics, being taught and receiving newsletters by Austrian Economics Dr. Walter Block, I find it offensive that instead of giving the guy credit for his attempt you insult him.
arenor 32 minutes ago
WRONG!!!!!!!!!
This: The period since independence to 1898 (When Philipinnes was bought for 20 mil from Spain), America had no colonies!! says the great Milton.
If the original 13 states stayed put, they would have stagnated. The reason the states boomed, was because there was more of them and all the land and gold they got by rolling back the natives to the west and buying or bullying out the Mexicans!! It's not a triumph of competitive capitalism or a relatively free market!
mistersmith6000 1 week ago
@mistersmith6000 Wrong! The treaty signed ending the war of 1812 gave up the northwestern territories, Texas rightfully gained it's independence, Louisiana Purchase was what even the French wanted since Spain was pretty much going to destroy France's colonial empire, and Mexico decided to start yet ANOTHER war about Texas, and agrees to give up the rest of their North American Territories because they got their asses kicked by the USA. And to address the Philipinnes, they were a TERRITORY...
MrJpryor74 6 days ago
@MrJpryor74 These dates or events you refer to are just a manifestation of pressures that one powerful group could exert over another. Milton says America is rich because of free markets period. I'm saying, free markets in the original 13 colonies, left to themselves, might have gone flat. They needed to expand. Maybe it should read market + free land +cheap labor + lax environment laws = rich and happy in Milton's terms - 'Everybody wins' (except .....and....)
mistersmith6000 6 days ago
@mistersmith6000 You have to listen to the lecture again Because it seems that you missed alot of his points. And i Used to be in your shoes with that way of thinking.
tehatemachine 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The guy did not ask about the effects of people's contact with the west, he asked about the effects of slavery and colonialism. Friedman's answer was that slavery and colonialism were not what enriched the west. There is no point whatsoever in going into how people benefitted from their contact with the west, which had only to do with the technology (especially after the industrial revolution), and nothing to do with slavery nor with colonialism.
PaulBlartMallCop1 1 week ago
a commie lecturing a commie in disguise on free speech. both working in concert to destroy america. fabianist and leninist scum.
panzramlad 1 week ago
@panzramlad lol.
DavidByrne85 1 week ago
What is this BULLSHIT about slavery being "the American Holocaust?"
FACT: America impoprted only 1% of African slaves, and they were the TOP 1% of living-standards among them, with their numbers multiplying SIX FOLD, while everywhere else their numbers remained constant or PERISHED.
Furthermore, there is no "nation of America", each state was a SOVEREIGN NATION UNTO ITSELF.
STOP THE INSANITY!
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
I love how the crowd gets all fired up when Friedman points out that America never participated in colonialism. It's as if they were brainwashed into thinking otherwise.
boshembechle 1 week ago
@boshembechle The US did practice colonialism, on a huge scale. They colonized the entire continent expropriating and exterminating the natives. It is a mystery how Friedman, or anybody for that matter, could so blatantly ignore such common knowledge. Maybe the audience isn't so much "brainwashed" as aware and thinking.
ColBrokov 1 week ago
@ColBrokov
" They colonized the entire continent expropriating and exterminating the natives."
No, THEY did not.IT did.
That was AFTER Jackson proclaimed the USA as a single nation, conquering the states by denying the FACT of their sovereignty as separate nations; that led to the Trail of Tears, and eventually Lincoln's holocaust and Sherman's "Fina Solution" for the Native Americans, which Hitler only COPIED with the Jews!
Friedman is a FOOL about history-- he's an ECONOMIST not a historian.
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
@SovereignStatesman
Lincoln's holocaust & Sherman's final solution?
Isn't that going a bit far.
I certainly think Lincoln is the most over rated president of all time as if he was a truly great president he would have avoided a civil war.
but, come on that is going a bit extreme.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 3 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS
It's not going far ENOUGH, if you care to recognize the facts.
1. It was not a civil war, each state is a sovereign nation by law, origin and intent.
2. Hitler's extermination of the Jews was based on Sherman's methods with the Native American population, including Sherman's term "Final Solution;"
3. likewise, Hitler's conquest of various Germanic states including Poland was based on Lincoln's doing the same with the American nations
Get ur facts.
SovereignStatesman 3 days ago
@SovereignStatesman
Poland is a Slavic Nation. nto a Germanic state.
The civil war certainly was a brutal waste of time.
It amazes me how many Americans on the right & left worship Lincoln.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 3 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS "Poland is a Slavic Nation. nto a Germanic state."
The part Hitler took over was, along with all the other states of the Weimar republic which were globally recognized as sovereign nations.
"It amazes me how many Americans on the right & left worship Lincoln."
They're BRAINWASHED by the state so they won't get wise to the fact that
it was NOT a civil war-- but an international war against popularly sovereign nations-- and take BACK our sovereignty!
SovereignStatesman 3 days ago
@SovereignStatesman
Germans took over Poland which regained it's indepedence after WW1
Germans stole these territories from Poland in 1795.
Germans actually stole Berlin from Polabian Slavs
& stole from Lusatia from Sorb Slavs too.
You seem to be brainwashed too If you think Poland is Germany.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 2 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS
He was followng Lincoln's example.
If you think America owns the states, you're the one who's brainwashed.
SovereignStatesman 2 days ago
@boshembechle
Semantics; the states became colonies after they were proclaimed subordinate to the Union as a single nation; then this empire began expanding like a fire, becoming the current global octopus.
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
I remember the title of one book, "Open Veins of Latin America", about how Spain drained the wealth of South and Central America through horrendous exploitation...but it was probably written by some commie pinko liberal gay scumbag. Likewise, I don't think the evidence supports Africa benefiting greatly from Western colonization, leaving aside the rather large moral issue of whether you can just take someone else's property in the first place.
squamish4244 1 week ago
Wow. I had no idea Dr. Teeth was a commie.
Talloweed 1 week ago
To say India was a net loss is to fundamentally misunderstand the endeavor. There were other colonies, Australia, Africa, etc. It was a global system of dominance and influence that Britain constructed and that endured for centuries. During this time England was the richest country in history, due to its colonial system. To single out one part of that structure and say "this part was a net loss" is to misunderstand the benefit of the system as a whole the role of India in that system.
ColBrokov 1 week ago
@ColBrokov
This guy conveniently IGNORED the 100 million Chinese who STARVED under Mao!
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
@ askar4kill i believe the man is of mixed race
lilmissannette 1 week ago
2 issues. India was a loss to Britain. In What sense? In a direct financial sense perhaps, but what about the benefit to the home economy, military and navel bases, influence and a presence in the region, the ability to project force, etc. India was a loss in the same sense that an aircraft carrier is a loss; it isn't a financial investment.
Second issue, America never had any colonies? Really, tell that to the Sioux, Cree, Wompanog, and so forth.
ColBrokov 1 week ago
The first guy with the glasses & hat is the poster boy for the term "hipster doofus"
That hipster doofus could not debate himself out of a paper bag.
I've never heard of Milton before but you can tell he is one smart cookie.
FiftyfourhundredWatt 1 week ago
I always liked milton friedman. He was so good at explaining things. I see him mostly as a teacher. btw, I had no idea that the cost to benefit ratio of maintaining a colony was bad. I guess you learn something new every day
VanessaTexasGal 1 week ago
@VanessaTexasGal "I had no idea that the cost to benefit ratio of maintaining a colony was bad." That is because it is a part lie. Most colonies are just meant to extract resources from hostile territory. And eventually establish a secure foothold. Which almost ever fails for sure - but it is a gamble that can pay off tenfold.
Schneboll 1 week ago
Comment removed
Robbob9933 1 week ago
"excuse me, I'd like a lil bit of free speach myself " LMAO ! xDD
JeremiahLawrenceTV 1 week ago
He's wrong about america not having colonies, it's all done through economic deals nwo though.
dionhenderson 1 week ago
oh jeez he just destroyed this guy. LOL
cesar333 1 week ago
@rubzy11 When a mother country takes from a colony, it is not a crime; it is a law. Notice that crimes and laws are not always based on what is moral or not. They had no reason to suppress that information, and every incentive to keep good records.
Slave labor, understandably, was not very productive. So unproductive, in fact, that the free farms were much wealthier. The cost of maintaining the slaves, and the unproductive labor lagely contributed to this reality.
Wyattinmnk 1 week ago
6:05 Ron Paul should pull this quote out.
13lackLight 1 week ago
Friedman also lied;3;53 -3;59
"Britain, which did not have slavery"
FYI.....BRITAIN DID HAVE SLAVERY...THEY TOOK SLAVES FROM WEST AFRICA!
rubzy11 1 week ago
@rubzy11 Britain did not, British Colonies did. Great Britian ended its slave era 1807. The government simply bought the slaves and freed them.
Robbob9933 1 week ago
@rubzy11
Britain also took Iirsh & Scottish slaves.
Actually Iirsh & Scottish slaves were Enslaved by Anglos in the U.S.A before any Black slaves were bought here.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 3 days ago
It's amazing how Milton Friedman could make a dozen deep, rational points in the span of a couple of minute. No doubt this liberal did not comprehend a single one of them.
SKUSMC 1 week ago
why u americans call social-democrats - liberals?
Eclipsepoland 1 week ago
@Eclipsepoland
The term Liberal in American parlance often refers to anyone who is on the Left - including Social Democrats / Democratic Socialists.
smartwarlord 1 week ago
@smartwarlord thats the problem with this world because democrats have nothing to do with liberity so why call them liberal?
Eclipsepoland 1 week ago
@Eclipsepoland unfortunately they hijacked the term
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@Eclipsepoland because they are stupid and don't even know what a liberal or a social democrat is. They just use it as a slur.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 week ago
To say that the U.S. has no colonies that would depend on how you define colonies. Is the U.S. imperial yes that it is. It has always been so, the expansion west was imperialist the invasion of mexico was an imperial war. The Spanish American war was a clash of empires. WW1 WW2 both clashes of Empires. Is that capitalism? well some would say no and some would say yes. Empires are good for the elite that does not mean is good for the country. I see capitalism as a system where capitalist rule.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 week ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz no sir it isn't. this isn't subjective. imperialism and colonialism require the goods and service of occupied country which we do neither of.
UpalKashey 1 week ago
@UpalKashey really? Well I am from one of those occupied countries and I know from first hand experience that they do. It isn't subjective? Don't tell me that, is you american's that change the meaning of things.America has colonies you do not call them that, This is why I said it depends how "you" define it. TO THE PEOPLE LIVING UNDER COLONIAL KNOW IT IS. Military bases in over a 100 countries. That is not an empire? If you are not kidding you are just and idiot and need to fuck off.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 week ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz You are another fool buying into the Military Bases claim. Once you subtract the Marine Guards Detachments at US Embasies, the bases count plumets. True bases count is between 12 and 20. And no it is not an empire because the bases are in (except for 2 cases) free and indepenent republics.
Robbob9933 1 week ago
@Robbob9933 Have you ever lived or gone any where out side the U.S.? I bet you are another dumb american that believes all of your countries propaganda. Remember what goes around comes around. There is no way to excuse the murderous policies of your nation and you should do something to stop it. But you choose to swing your dicks around the world. Some one will cut it off one day.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 week ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz I have been to more countries than I can think of off the top of my head. The list of the ones I have not been to is a far smaller list. I only go in the tourist area when the local government prohibits free travel. I have had hundreds if not thousands of political debates deep in non-tourist areas and have NEVER had a military question posed. Education, social welfare, immigration policy, trade, and etc... Are far more interesting topics with foreign nationals.
Robbob9933 1 week ago
A society based on fairness cannot exist because life is not fair. DONE! Can we got back to progress now?
Sumoto999 2 weeks ago
regarding colonialism I think that care should be taken. From what I understood french did some studies recently showing that at the end of the day the colonies ended up costing money to the metropol (thus representing a net transfer). Now of course there is also a moral point to debate and you have to put life in the balance. Colonial power did committed serious atrocities (ex Belgian Congo) but they also brought medicines (vaccines campaigns were being carried).
MrLecam21 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, and particularly when the British government was indebted to the Indian government and they forced the Indians to agree to the stipulation of wiping their debt to India in order for Indian independence to be recognized, what a square deal that was.
Milton Friedman is a poorly educated pseudo intellectual jackass.
Twelve minutes with Noam Chomsky and his goose would be cooked. Too bad the asshole's dead.
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, the Belgians didn't use slavery when they were chopping forced laborers hands off for not meeting their arbitrary quotas for rubber production in the Belgian Congo. Yeah, and when the British forced the Indians to sell raw materials and caused them to be unable to develop their industrial base while flooding their market with factory-made textiles, causing a massive trade imbalance, that was "good" for them.
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, the British and French didn't have slavery, they just had corvee labor, de facto slavery. What a fucking numbnuts pretentious shit, just like another goddamn Ayn Rand.
God damn it, why don't you assheads find a real intellectual.
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
I mean really Whos doing the Speech?
blacksocialist 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol. Milton Friedman defending colonialism.
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mickomoo 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mickomoo 2 weeks ago
@roboty1000 They're just as clueless in university today, the majority of them anyway. It's perplexing to see 18 year olds full of idealistic fancies on how to spend other people's money, thinking they know everything.
Mrlaissezfaire90 3 weeks ago
Was the questioner black or white... ? :S
askar4kill 4 weeks ago
@askar4kill Why does it matter?.
BigDaddydigsdp 2 weeks ago
@askar4kill
He was Eggshell.
dibaterman 2 weeks ago
@askar4kill Who cares? :S
TheWiseCommenter 2 weeks ago
a tea party wanker couldn't pose a question this articulately like any of these liberals.
halflifeproductionz 4 weeks ago
@halflifeproductionz
Your right it takes a special kind of mind to phrase bullshit so eloquently.
dibaterman 2 weeks ago
@dibaterman Hiqt
bruliet 2 weeks ago
The UK and the US are still voting against decolonization at the UN...
111jasy111 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dissemination of information on decolonization.
The Gen Assembly request the Department of Public Information to continue its efforts to update web‑based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non‑Self‑Governing Territories and also request the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Public Information to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee and to continue their efforts to take measures through all the media available.
The UK votes against.
111jasy111 1 month ago
Fucking Milton Friedman, taking economic ideas and making them sacred to a free society. We know cooperatives and unions have been bought out and sold, people tortured and shocked into a free market system, where the corporations benefit and the people serve and suffer. Someone should have killed this man.
toknowandgrow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I should be free to set up a factory to employ children. Yet, I am stuck in this country PAYING for the free education of children for families I don't even know! What B.S. What happened to MY liberties?!
JoshMan522 1 month ago
I am not an expert on American or World history, but I am sure that the part about India was just bullshit, Britishers were hugely benefited by colonizing India, and status of Life in India has improved hugely Post Independence.
sandeeponweb 1 month ago
@sandeeponweb But only since it decentralized it's government....honestly please listen to the whole lecture ffs. And how much history on the Raj do you know? Im guessin not a lot
ooshgasm 1 month ago
@sandeeponweb Also, Friedman discusses how it cost the British more to maintain its colony in India - he assumes that this cost was distributed evenly among all British citizens - not true. The cost of empire is always distributed downward, while the benefits of that empire are reserved only for those at the time. One need only look how we handled Iraq, subsidizing cronies like Blackwater and Halliburton through taxpayer funds while the rewards are reaped by the oil corporations.
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago 11
@gnomechomskylives The cost of maintaining the Indian colony have been well documented. The income to the crown was far less than the income to the crown.
Robbob9933 1 week ago
@Robbob9933 It may have been unprofitable for the crown out of pocket but paid in spades for the Crown's business associates. The losses were distributed toward the state (since the crown receives money from the state, not to mention it's many holdings) while the profits were pocketed by a few, much like we're seeing today. Clearly the overall venture must have been profitable otherwise it wouldn't have lasted so long. No one deliberately invests money into failed ventures.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives Let me make it really simple. The total money gained in India was vastly smaller than the total money spent to maintain the Indian colony. There was ZERO PROFIT to any entity only NET LOSS.
Robbob9933 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives What solid proof do you have that we obtained any oil directly from the Iraqi conflict?
woopsme 1 week ago
@woopsme I never said we obtained oil from Iraq; that would have been too obvious. That's not how we do things. Iraq is part of a long-game strategy of securing friendly oil markets (along with other short-term geopolitical consideration), which of course benefits Western oil producers; China's making similar moves in buying up exclusive rights to oil in the Sudan and other oil producing countries. It's 21st century mercantilism.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives Cool, well when shit hits the fan we'll still have oil. God bless the US.
woopsme 1 week ago
@woopsme Perhaps, but then - you cannot count yourself among Mr. Friedman's proponents - you are either for a free market or a mercantilist, you can't be both.
gnomechomskylives 1 week ago
@gnomechomskylives
Hear hear!
However the main question is SOVEREIGNTY of the individual states via their people; since without it there can BE no free market-- just a facade, which leads to a wild goose-chase when the sheeple try to EXERCISE it.. and find that they're only as "free" as the LEASH they're on... and find that iif they pull too hard, the government will HANG them by it.
TRUE history has been suppressed by lies and propaganda; that's how they keep the people from getting wise.
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
@woopsme
Fuck oil, let the market decide what's best.
Pundits will argue forever over the color of shit, but only the MARKET gives you what you actually WANT at a FIRM PRICE.
The less government involves itself, the better-- the market needs the government like a an orchestra needs a kid playing with a fog-horn, since have the same effect.
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gnomechomskylives "Iraq is part of a long-game strategy of securing friendly oil markets"
Friendly? Mission FAILED!
You mean securing RIGHTS there for the big oil-companies.
If we got out of the middle east altogether, oil would flow, but profits would GO.
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
@sandeeponweb
Not true Sandeep. Friedman is absolutely right. Don't believe what the Indian government school curriculum teaches you. Most of it is propaganda. I know it is hard to believe but it is true. The British did a great deal for common Indian people... Indians should never forget that. I am not saying that British rule was good.. but comparatively it was far superior to any Indigenous ruler's.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter
I don't know what are your sources, but I have seen enough data to say that above is not true, just google and you will find enough data showing how much profit britishers made
sandeeponweb 1 month ago
@sandeeponweb
Remember all those Indians fighting on the side of the East India company? Do you really think they were all just stupid? Or were they all just traitors as the regular narrative is? Go read Wikipedia, if you want.. it is still pretty detailed of what went on back then.
Again! History is not complete until the other side is considered, and by that, I mean beyond accusations of "colonialism" or "profiteering".
utubehayter 1 month ago
@sandeeponweb
Also, Indian govt was so poor it could not import food for feeding famine struck regions in the 60s and 70s. It went completely bankrupt in 1979. Indira Gandhi declared Emergency to take over and nationalize banks. It was only after Rajeev Gandhi's administration opened up India to the rest of the world (pretty much on a Friedmanite plan) that India has made great progress.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter yes, but that was after 200 years of enslavement and wealth drain
sandeeponweb 1 month ago
@sandeeponweb
Do you think before the Brits came to India, that India was doing great? You have to have something to be looted of. If you have nothing.. then you can't be robbed. Please learn the history of India before the Brits came over.. it is horrid and generally polished over in petty matters between kings. If you looked at regular people.. they were severely impoverished.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter
truly you are in dark, get your facts right
sandeeponweb 1 month ago
@sandeeponweb
I have.. which is why I am trying to save you some time. Things are not as they tell us they are.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter
you really believe that brits travelled half way across the globe to invest in 'poor' India and develop it and eradicate poverty. If you are naive enough to believe that, this discussion is pointless
sandeeponweb 1 month ago
@sandeeponweb
No, they traveled to trade, to make money by exchange. What followed cannot be blamed just on them. What they did after that, you would expect from any human being. Please take the time to give the others side a look and learn history. It is far more interesting than it is usually told.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@sandeeponweb
You said you are not an expert on American or World history. If you honestly meant it, then you need to become atleast acquainted with it. The claim that India was colonized and looted falls flat on its face when evidence is examined.
utubehayter 1 month ago
What an immoral jackass this Friedman character
Luke43168 1 month ago
@Luke43168 Help me with where he is being immoral?
laramr1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love these hipster liberals asking such stupid questions. Hat turned sideways? Check. Sunglasses indoors? Check. Liberal? CHECK
terryshiavoftw 1 month ago 17
@terryshiavoftw I'll take these liberals over what I've seen at the GOP debates any day.
LongBow1600 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LongBow1600 - "I'll take these liberals over what I've seen at the GOP debates any day."
That's because you're a brain-dead Useful Idiot who is so stupid from indoctrination you can't even be correct on accident.
thomaserossi 1 month ago
@terryshiavoftw The right never cease to amaze me. When your leaders are mocked for their anti-intellectual talking points, their vacuous stances, their empty statements you raise your noses in righteous indignation. Yet here you are mocking someone who *does* have a point (even if their articulation isn't clear) and you dismiss them for their style of dress? That is the ultimate ad hominem logical fallacy; in doing so you concede your point and admit you have nothing to argue.
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago
@terryshiavoftw Moreover, who is stupider? The young man (and by extension the audience) that has studied history and sees the contradictions in the economic system of the West? Or the wonk who claims the United States has *never* engaged in colonialism? A statement so absurd that even a freshman in history knows that such a claim is meretricious at best. Ask the people of Guatemala,Santo Domingo, El Salvador,Chile&Mexico (among others) if the US has never engaged in colonialism.
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago
@gnomechomskylives I hope you are trolling when you accuse me of a logical fallacy, and then present the question "who is STUPIDER."
STUPIDER? Is this a fucking joke?
Also, get off your high horse and drop the delusion that what I said was intended to be an intellectual discussion. It was a comment pertaining to the shared visual elements consistent in leftists and "hipsters." You're bringing a gun to a candy-cane fight.
It is amusing, however, how livid you become. Umad??
terryshiavoftw 1 month ago
@terryshiavoftw Once again you deflect away from the heart of the issue and resort to superficialities. I used that improper use of the word to save space since I ran up against my character limit.
I addressed the question; you didn't. Your deflection proves my point. I ain't mad; I'm right :)
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago
@gnomechomskylives Deflection? Once again you miss the point. My initial post was not designed to be an elaborate critique of neo-liberal economic theory, nor a substantive response to the gentleman's question in the video. It was a humorous jab at the cultural similarities of idealist liberals with respect to their clothing and outward appearance. Stop trying to portray yourself in this pathetic professorial guise. It's Youtube.
PS. UMAD????
yeaumad
terryshiavoftw 1 month ago
@terryshiavoftw Fine fine, let's agree to disagree.
However I have to ask: what is the significance of "terryshiavoftw"? (I know ftw=for the win) Is it a farcical name meant to poke fun or something else? I'm just curious :)
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago
@terryshiavoftw
I think he was more of a left-wing guy.
IiiERT 1 month ago
@terryshiavoftw I hear you on the idealism. The way he is dressed has nothing to do with it. Don't inadvertently crap on conservatives by lowering yourself to insults.
freecannabisplease 1 month ago
@freecannabisplease I can insult if I choose. Welcome to the internet and Youtube. Such serious business.
terryshiavoftw 1 month ago
@terryshiavoftw Insulting someone doesnt make you look any better btw... The key word in you comment is CHOOSE sure you can CHOOSE to insult someone in a comment... or not... put your best foot forward...
ssjwes 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Sidewinder77
@terryshiavoftw Yeah, right..looks like a slick produced spin job, to make Friedmans theories seem all the more credible.
tfustudios 2 weeks ago
@terryshiavoftw maybe he wanted to be anonymous?
TheDenknach 2 weeks ago
@terryshiavoftw lol these arent liberals these are brainwashed children
UpalKashey 1 week ago
what a very intelligent question and a Very intelligent answer.
alvisc2002 1 month ago 3
waw, the guys he is speaking to are so clueless.
roboty1000 1 month ago 13
And this is not even speaking of the volatility of the financialized economy .. you ask me to provide an example of a better system than the current one? How about the one that regulated the banking and financial sector prior to Reagan's senseless deregulations? You know, those rules that were meant to check financial institutions' behaviour so we wouldn't do the same mistake all over again as the one which lead to the Great Depression? Like the Glass-Steagall Act which was revoked 1999 : - /
Ardoelaid 1 month ago
@Ardoelaid
Did I say the system currently in existent was good? No. I make points to the left now who have no spine, no ideas, no morals and no principals. Their answer is more immigration, more taxation, more garbage regulations on certain parts of the free market which are being held back due to massive taxation. As a Canadian regulation is great to me but the left in the world now are out dated and we need real reform on the market and in politics to get the private sector
Reido2828 1 month ago
@Ardoelaid
Out of the public sector. We need to get the politicians to go back to the mixed economy we had in the 60's onward, we need taxation reform desperately because of the burden the middle class is carrying right now. Keynesian economics is a failed policy now and its time for new ideas.
Reido2828 1 month ago
@Ardoelaid "You know, those rules that were meant to check financial institutions' behaviour so we wouldn't do the same mistake all over again as the one which lead to the Great Depression?"
You don't know what "led to the Great Depression." You're a liar and a phony. Go ahead and give us the reasons. Post them. I could use a good laugh.
BTW, I could tell you're a know-nothing, Liberal idiot the second you blathered about Glass-Steagall. It's another bumper-sticker slogan.
thomaserossi 1 month ago
Milton is an IDIOT
zloben9000 1 month ago
Friedman's opinion on indian colonialism are criminal.
raniisc14 1 month ago
@raniisc14 He never gave an opinion on Indian colonialism. All he did was point out facts. He never said that colonialism itself is a good thing. He was providing an economic example to counter the questioners point.
mmeziere 1 month ago
@raniisc14 Really? What law?
testmark1 1 month ago
7:30 why is the guy in the green shirt standing up? he didnt ask the question...
redsox1006 1 month ago
Is he the ancestor of hipsters as we know them today?
TheMarksmenCat 2 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
America, Germany and Japan rose to such unprecedented levels of wealth not because of the free market and free competition advocated by Friedman, but due to effective protectionist policies that allowed these countries to catch up to Britain and therafter compete on equal terms. Such protectionist measures were however denied to the developing world under the mantra of "free market" ,, as if the free market created such wealth. No sir.
Ardoelaid 2 months ago
America, Germany and Japan rose to such unprecedented levels of wealth not because of the free market and free competition advocated by Friedman, but due to effective protectionist policies that allowed these countries to catch up to Britain and therafter compete on equal terms. Such protectionist measures were however denied to the developing world under the mantra of "free market" ,, as if the free market created such wealth. No sir.
Ardoelaid 2 months ago
@Ardoelaid
Can you name a better system than the current free market?
Reido2828 2 months ago
@Reido2828 He's taking it for granted so I doubt he can.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@tehatemachine
Typical of liberal idiots to. Complain and complain with no alternative.
Reido2828 1 month ago
@Reido2828 The current market is not free my friend. The European Union for example spends the bigger part of its budget to subsidize European farmers so their products can compete with cheap exports from the developing world. The same thing goes with America which subsidizes some $20 billion in direct subsidies to American "farmers", mostly big corporations that produce on scale. So you should reformulate your question and ask who this "free market" system really benefits. It certainly benefits
Ardoelaid 1 month ago
@Ardoelaid It certainly benefits those who sit on big amount of capital, since capital movement is free and its easier and cheaper to relocate production today than before, making it possible to sack jobs in America and move them to India, for example. But labour cannot relocate as easily and this is precisely what Adam Smith feared when he spoke of his misinterpreted invisible hand, a critique of what constitutes the core of neolbieral ideology, the offshoring of national production.
Ardoelaid 1 month ago
"Capitalism is a necessary condition for 'freedom'"
That really gets to the heart of what makes Friedman such a world-class bullshit artist.
Libertarian axioms that define "freedom" hinge on some abstract debate over negative and positive rights with a rather rigid unrealistic belief in the primacy of negative rights. The perverse definition of freedom relies on false a priori assumptions about human nature and unsubstantiated philosophical conjecture.
MiltonAugustoFREEDOM 2 months ago
@MiltonAugustoFREEDOM,
Capitalism is the individual's right to contract business with other free individuals. So, indeed, "capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom" because if your freedom to contract with others is denied then that's freedom denied. Someone owns your life, either you or others. The degree that others own your life is the degree that you're a slave. If I own my life, then I have a right to the furtherance of that life by engaging in private contact with others.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
@MiltonAugustoFREEDOM
Thank you.
DivinelyMochaDipped 2 months ago
and as far as the united states not being a colonial country...ok
is imperialism a better word then? what do u call arriving on territory already occupied. murdering 90% of the indigenous population. Then using it to establishing a country in the manner u see fit?
DivinelyMochaDipped 2 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped something that happened two-hundred, or so, years ago, happened two hundred years ago. All nations, Ethnic Groups, Religious groups are guilty of something or other. The Spanish Inquisition, Napoleon being a war-monger, the Mongols killing thousands, the Persians burning Athens. My point being, that if the sins of the father don't fall on the sins of the son how is it that the sins of someones great-great-grandfather falls upon the great-great-grandson?
arivas713 2 months ago
@arivas713
"something that happened 200 yrs ago happened 200 years ago"<-that cliche slogan has never done yall any good. if u dont kno that there is a legacy from institutional racism, u have a LOT of studying to do. & i really dont care for a history lesson in human civilization. the subject is AMERICA and how THIS nation has prospered from the atrocities accompanied by the concept of supremacy, imperialism and warfare<-That's y u did not address my question in my comment. bc u that is true.
DivinelyMochaDipped 2 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped Oh man, i thought you forgot about me. For your question: True Dat, but is it happening now? I dont think so--or not to the extent as before. I think were all in agreement here that all peoples have blood on their hands, and with the dismantling of institutional racism in all it's forms in AMERICA, the notion that this country is an imperialistic racist country is a pretty far-fetched one. Ive actually forgotten what our original argument was even about. I think i started it
arivas713 2 months ago
@arivas713
the notion that this country is an imperialistic racist country is far-fetched <- This country murders, bombs, occupies and pillages Middle Eastern territories while hiding behind the self-righteous "In the name of Humanity" mask and u're under the impression that it's not imperialistic? Institutional racism hasnt dismantled. Sociological analyses backed with statistical information proves this. By saying "it's not like it used to be" isn't saying much bc it used to be HORRIBLE.
DivinelyMochaDipped 2 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped I can tell by your last text that your currently 'occupying wall street', that not withstanding I have to point out that were leaving Iraq & Afghanistan soon & not the more richer. We have actually sunk both blood & treasure into those countries trying to 'improve' them both economically & socially. On Iraq you will get no argument from me--HUGE MISTAKE--plus, oil's still a bitch, plus-plus, we were actually attacked on 9-11 & this may be a bit foolish of me but i hope......
arivas713 2 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped ....your not a 9-11 Truther. I find it hard to believe that we are a racist country when the the POTUS is a Black man & we have people of all stripes serving in all branches of the Gov't, even you can see this through the fog that you live in. The disparity of the races can actually be answered by Annette Lareau's research on parenting styles, which are based on the White/Blue collar job you have--which i guess can be traced back to prejudices of yore. Sorry if this was long
arivas713 2 months ago
this is such bullshit. if slavery or colonization was not profitable, wtf was it even used in the first place. and if slavery did not make the economy boom, what did? he did not even answer the question, all he said was "it is not true, you are uninformed." that's all libertarians say to anyone who doesn't agree with them or when they can't answer the question. wtf?
DivinelyMochaDipped 2 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped ever heard of the industrial revolution?
ajgolfer1 2 months ago
@ajgolfer1
u can be sarcastic if u please but u still didn't address the question which only re-iterates the fact that white americans are unwilling to acknowledge the contradiction in your own "philosophy".
if slavery or colonization was not profitable, wtf was it even used in the first place?<---again, u nor he answered this. The entire concept of free market enterprise and the philosophy of private property is contradicted in the institution of slavery and the genocide of the indians. no?
DivinelyMochaDipped 2 months ago
beauty
cpnankin 2 months ago
About colonialism (understood in a broader sense), I'd say both sides have some reason. On the one hand, Western countries benefited from exploring resources of developing countries. On the other hand, the social indicators in developing countries have been improving by the contact with the West. One doesn't make the other wrong.
luizcadu 2 months ago
Love the disco hat
alex7171 2 months ago
Cuba was a colony of Spain
skydome29 2 months ago
@skydome29 Puerto Rico is still a colony of the USA
MrCrgl 2 months ago
@MrCrgl good deduction cpt. moron, but before america was even a glimmer cuba was a colony of spain.
skydome29 2 months ago
@skydome29 and whats your point ? mine was not a deduction ? do you know what a deduction is ?
MrCrgl 2 months ago
@MrCrgl I was being sarcastic. What was the point of your original post?
skydome29 2 months ago