Friedman was definitely a rabid free-trader, but he also supported generally open immigration.
All of the early Republicans except Walt Whitman were soft-protectionists and favored trade, but with tariffs so that cheap labor couldn't undercut the US in its own market.
@Amiduffer Perhaps if you could read it would be better. Having said that, why do you suppose the Chinese came to America if things were so bad for them? Why do Mexicans poor across the borders to the US? Its because Capitalism has made this country great! And even the poor in this country are rich compared to the poor of other countries.
@gcard86 A lot of my videos involve reading something foolish person. I take it your reading material is limited to People magazine and the Weekly World News.
Well, Friedman answers the accusation you level against him on supporting Pinochet, and he made it very clear his position on tyranny and stifling of freedom. Thats pretty much the only thing you have here that isn't downright illogical and absurd
@GoingGoingGalt That's OK. Being an apologist for genocidal policies isn't new for the free market sect. Religious zombies deny all the inconsistent crap in the bible all the time.
@Amiduffer Equating an economic philosophy to a biblical religion is a false analogy. Moreover, claiming that the free market is in some way genocidal is also false.
@GoingGoingGalt The Free Market theory was written for the East India company/British Empire. A company notorious in history as drug pushing, enslaving, mass murderers, with a philosophy that looks at humans as nothing more than beasts and is just as irrational as claiming that prayer will cause magical things to happen.
@Amiduffer Interesting, considering how the East India Trading company followed a mercantilist, not a capitalist, policy. The free market theory was developed partly by Adam Smith to refute the zero sum game fallacy and the government privellige fallacy created under mercantilism
@GoingGoingGalt They were drug pushers! They starved 10s of millions of people to death in order to grow the opium that they forced on the Chinese at gunpoint. Why in hell do you trust the opinion of a liar who wrote on behalf of the perpetuation of empire slavery, and mass murder?
@Amiduffer I don't deny the fact that the British forced opium on the Chinese people, but again, that has nothing to do with the free market, and that has nothing to do with Adam Smith. This was a mercantilist system; the East India Trading Company had a government enforced monopoly so already do we see how there was no free market. At the same time you deny Adam Smith's theories merely on the guilt by association fallacy. Pathetic
@GoingGoingGalt The shithead was on the facility of the East India Co. training school, Haileybury! As was Mill, Hume, Ricardo, etc. The director lord Shelburne directed him to write his book with the intention of destroying the British Empires rivals. Pathetic is your strange disassociated separation of academic masterbation and the real world effect of economic policy. But, then you believe in invisible hands, just like a religious fundamentalist.
@Amiduffer Let's see, do I believe what you say about Adam Smith's beliefs, or do I believe what Adam Smith's own works say about Adam Smith's beliefs? I'd be inclined to follow the latter, given that the former is supported by a guilt by association fallacy. Seeing as how Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations directly attacked the setup of the East India Trading Company, your argument holds no water.
Btw, the invisible hand is a metaphor for how economic mechanisms have been proven to work.
@GoingGoingGalt His belief, as he stated, is that humans exist at the level of animals. The invisible hand is just an excuse for criminal activity. You're just defending it because that's what you were indoctrinated in.
@Amiduffer Actually, I was taught essentially left wing collectivist ideas. FYI, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people who have never met me talk to me as if they have known me their entire lives, so don't try to assume what I was, if anything, indocrinated to believe in. I picked up free market capitalism on my own. Once again, you don't substantiate your claims. Even if what you say is true, you don't reject it because you show Smith to be wrong, but rather you just don't like it.
@GoingGoingGalt Left or right, its just the same bestial outlook indoctrinated into people by the Empire. As long as they can shape your axiomatic outlook, it doesn't matter if you go right wing or left wing. They've been running left versus right games for centuries. Just like when they dominated the southern slave system and were financing the abolition movement.
@Amiduffer Oh, they funded the abolition movement? So was your beloved Frederick Douglass a crone or a puppet? Can you sustantiate any of this or is this the typical cynical conspiratorial crap I hear from attention seekers?
@Amiduffer Douglass split because of disagreements between him and William Lloyd Garrison over the interpretation of the constitution, but he was still a part of the abolition movement right up to his death.
You still haven't proven that the left and right wings were developed by the same party. Stop beating around the bush
@GoingGoingGalt Garrison was for breaking the country up, while Douglas was for the Union. The problem here is your wrong viewpoint of the misnomer of left and right which is only a description of the seating arrangement of the French Parliament. But, you've had your head twisted by that crazy woman Rand, so I'm not sure how much damage I can reverse.
@Amiduffer True, it was done as a seating arrangement, but the seating arrangement was set up based on the political views. You have it in reverse. And your logic is flawed because the United States did not break up because of slavery. and slavery was not the reason for the war until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which was done to keep the British out of the war.
@GoingGoingGalt The confederate states in their declarations say that they were seceding to protect slavery from Lincoln. Free Trade and slavery, they go together.
@Amiduffer This has nothing to do with Ayn Rand, other than that youre using my philosophical views as a cop-out-of course you would claim I am too "confused" for you to handle. Makes it easier to save face.
Speaking of face, why not settle this on Stickam, where we have more space than just these 500 character boxes and we can finish this mano a mano
@Amiduffer Thats just a non sequiter. Friedman himself pointed out how Great Britain, Japan following the Meji Restoration, and the northern United States not only survived without slaves, but had excelled and surpassed slave societies in terms of development. You make a false dichotomy and a false generalization. Thats perhaps the biggest sign of your immaturity
@GoingGoingGalt The northern states industrialized with Alexander Hamiltons American System. The Slave states were just raw material exporters to England and their global slave system which is why the southern legislators were all fanatical free traders. The Meiji Restoration was based on Hamilton and Henry Carey. There's no dichotomy.
@Amiduffer It wasn't a dichotomy, but a comparison, showing you how your argument is false because a market where everyone is free to trade with their labor performs better than a slave society. Why did the northern states industrialize but not the southern ones until AFTER slavery was abolished? You can't claim that they both had high tariffs AND were raw material exporters to England. England would do better in India, which Jacob Viner proved cost more than with free trade with India
@Amiduffer As for genocide, thats an even less educated claim. There was a project called Economic Freedom of the World, which ranked the countries of the world based on their economic freedom. When compared with the Democracy Index and the Global Peace Index, they found that economic freedom was 54 times more correlated with peace than political freedom. This is because in a free market people have to peacefully cooperate in order to make the most gain for themselves
In conclusion, my challenge to the watchers of this video: go and watch some of Milton's videos like the one on "Capitalism & Morality," "Slavery & Colonialism," "Free to choose: Born Equal," etc. Read Capitalism & Freedom or his biography. You will find no support of violence and crime, but only a deep belief in personal liberty, freedom of choice and responsibility.
Do listen to his side too before you make your final judgement adn be sure, you will not regret it.
Furthermore, what is important is the Douglass himself was not an economist, neither a god. I do admire him too for his amazing achievement of learning and his words are very strong, but I am afraid on this issue his view is very short. Had he asked my grandparents, and the immigrants from China, Ireland, Germany, and so on, if they'd prefer to be in America even for this cheap wages, or stay home, he'd see a much different reaction than what he describes.
@redpyramid88 America grew into a powerful industrial nation based on Hamiltons protectionist American System model, not the British Empires free trade slavery which Friedman espoused. As such Douglas is more cognizant of the nature of the economic fight than you, especially since he suffered under that same British Free Trade model.
@Amiduffer ...again what you say is untrue. The protectionism to which you refer (may I guess you refer to labour protection laws, minimum wages, social security, etc.) have almost bring this country to bankruptry. Is there any person actually knowing the least of economics who can say such a thing? And it is that sort of protectionism that has hurt the African American community for the past 50 years. You can try and watch walter Williams' testimony on the subject.
@redpyramid88 What I'm saying is absolutely historically true. Your monetarist thinking always results in speculative bubbles, collapses, and fascist austerity, just like Wall St is doing right now.
teacher unions & govt intervention, subsidiaries & 'regulations' have made education worse by many times. There is no competition- there is only socialized subsidized dictations for students&parents to get any education
@robzrob Again, I fail to comprehend why society would be insane enough to throw a certain portion of its population on the scrapheap over the false "barrier" of so-called scarcity.
@Amiduffer@Amiduffer Happy or unhappy attack, your video's intro text is full of lies and distortions, so I cannot see any argument against the man. He never worked with dictators. Do yourself a favour and read Johan Norberg's article on his life.
I do accept arguments against the his opinions but disrespect and distorting of his actions goes way beyond that. I do not expect that you will change your mind but I'd like the youtube watchers to know the other side of this issue, the side of truth
@redpyramid88 His entire conception of liberty and economics is based on the doctrines of the drug pushing, slave mongering, genocidal British Empire and their bestial view of "each against all". As such, everything he wrote was a lie and a distortion.
the markets dictate the sacred relationships of economy- ie. The sacred relationships refer to the: Teacher/Student, Doctor/Patient, Employee/employer, buyer/seller, etc all these are direct relationships between 2 people. There is no room for a third party . it is the third party which always corrupts the system
like insurance companies, trade unions, teacher unions, etc & worst of all- the government with its brute force
well this guy fails to understand the irony of the minimum wage-there aint no such thing as minimum wage. markets dont see it- it aint there. Governments try to institute it at the barrel of a gun, but buisnesses dont see it. when i mean see i mean there is no such FACTOR. there is only supply & demand, consumer & seller
Added to my playlist, and thank you for posting it. Frederick Douglass should have been, and should now be. required reading for all intellectuals, academics, political scientists, and every 'economist' on earth.
If you could tell me which book the quotes are read from, that would help me greatly. Thank you again.
You're still tied up in Plato's cave son commenting on the shadows, or in your case speculating on the shadows. What's the point, besides promoting your Milton Friedman cult.
That point is the evils that you are talking about are NOT the products of freedom,or free markets, but a product of FAILED govenment policy that allowed and even promoted the allowance of slavery in our founding documents...is this not a failure of man? that is the point...It is not about 1 man or a few empowered men because men will ALWAYS make mistakes and that is why people were worse off in many other countries around the world.......pt.1
The evils we're talking about are a result of economic policies of private financial interests over governments that Friedman was a spokesman of, whether you want to blindly accept his cover story or not. Your mistake is to accept his biased view.
pt .2 Like I already said, yes Friedman is one of my influences, but one of many,one must think outside of the box when listening to him as well as have a grasp on the history of world gov. Just ask a poor russian farmer under Stalin if he would rather have been a slave in America,...Why is this? because a divide in power MUST be a strict divide.Most slaves were not beaten or killed because of the cost, but in russia millions of farmers were killed,slaughtered even...cont
So I am not promoting 1 man but I am promoting every man,this is the only way to keep from things like slavery from happening again, You use the example of mexicans being mistreated,politicians are to blame for this,they play political ping pong with a fate of a race in their hands, you state a book in which......but look into STATE DEP. activity and tell me that that is not the same. Ask the japaneese during WWII if they approved of a strong centralized gov. where 1 man FDR was the figure head
so before you say" were gonna talk about more economics" and "free trade" figure out what that means, like i said it's neither,Another example(and i could do this all day) the Indians under Jackson was far more detrimental toward a race of people than the mistreatment of the Africans,almost went the way of the buffalo...Gov. implemented a policy and the people acted. whose to blame? The people for going after free land or the gov for empowering them? same idea dif. application, same result .....
Nope, something totally different. In this book the author goes through the entire history of the United States and finds that the money supply is a leading variable to the level of national income. That is to say, the money supply has a powerful effect on national income. This is an purely empirical approach economics, i.e. just look at the raw data. Now, without googleing it, who do you suppose wrote this book?
Ah damn it, I knew you would Google it. What a poor sport. Anyway, what say you then to the leading variable discovery of the money supply? Do you deny the claim? and if so what is your explanation for the positive statistical correlation coefficient that was discovered to exist between the money supply and the level of GDP?
I didn't google anything. It sounds like a horrible book that only graduate students who wish to kiss up to sadistic professors would torture themselves to read. I'd rather read Hamilton. He actually created a working system that built this country.
Then what is your answer to my question. What do you say to the conclusion, the money supply as a leading variable to GDP? That is to say, deposit of institutions, travelers checks, notes, coins, illiquid assets and so on, i.e. the money supply, if those listed above change, GDP consistently follows the change by some correlation coefficient. What say you to that?
It depends. Liquidities value depends on if the sector it is circulating in is of a industrial/agricultural nature, or gambling and speculation. As Hamilton said, its not the material of the currency, its the quality of the activity.
Ah, now that's more like it! A thought out response with a citation. Well done indeed. But lets suppose that you have a variety of quality in economic activity. Do you agree with the claim that the supply of money is a leading variable to growth?
Only if it is vectored mostly into industrial/agricultural activity (Hamiltons reports on Banking/Credit/Industry). Otherwise, you can cite 1923 Germany as an extreme case, and the current bailouts of the financial system approaching 1923 globally.
Does it? It certainly didn't in Europe in the 16th century. Then with much new coin minted (mainly gold and silver from the Spanish conquests in Central and Southern America) there was simply huge inflation. See History of Money G Davies OUP
Partly so yes, but my comment was directed to The "Good" Economist. His problem (like many other economists) is they do not think scientifically. The scientist does not "expand on the logic" he observes, from those observations he makes a theory, he tests that theory by other observations. If he makes a contrary observation he discards his theory. That is the theory is "falsifiable' . But the "Good" economist thinks in a vacuum ignoring your and my contrary examples. He is simply wrong.
Good observation. He typifies what Friedrich Schiller warned about with "bread fed scholars". Concern with perpetuation of facts and assumptions that guarantee tenure, but do nothing about real world problems.
Aw shucks guys....it warms my heart that my words have brought two people to common ground...Anyway, I must point to an example of distinction within science. There is a difference between argument for a theory and the observation of a theory. if you would like to come to my school and watch me study and observe, thats one thing, this is an online debate which I know I will not win. But I can ask you questions that hopefully will stimulate you thinking. Here is my point; Questions are the answer
Questions are not the answer. the answer is to observe and draw your conclusions from the observations. Or (and science works like this too) to test your theory by predictions. If your predictions come true your theory may be correct (I am not sure Popper would ever say a theory is correct-it remains a scientific theory and therefore falsifiable) [more later when I verify my sources on monetarism and inflation]
reading your comments you seem to be an angry peron so i think that ill leave you a quote that has about as much relevance to the subject as your whole video and comment collection as a whole....."I said emotional content, NOT anger! Try again!" -Bruce Lee-
also mexicans are not imported they choose to improve their quality of life by comming to a place where it is possible as was with the chineese,and the irish,scottish,german,polish,hungarian,italian,slovaks,........and africans of modern day as well as anyone who seeks to flee from oppression
The only oppression came from the destruction of their currency, the looting of their manufacturing, and the theft of their banking system by the Wall St. and European financial bloodsuckers.
again too vague, why dont you make a valid point and be specific. Who, What, When, and Where? Im waiting...The buisness men destroyed whose economy? and how? In many cases the reason that this oppression is allowed is because of government policy. No time in mans history has he been able to opress people alone a system of power must first be established and within this institution the people in charge usually called for these wrongdoings to be acted out...
You want the entire history of Mexico? That would take more time than this little reply box would allow. John Perkins wrote a book a couple of years ago about his days enslaving countries to western financial interests. Its entitled "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". Try it out.
thats a nonsense response im just commenting on your main point which is that Democracy isn't fair...i assume but i ask you to show me an example of this and ill prove the otherwise you say mexico but then refer me to a book so i'll refer you to a book as well...Free To Chose by friedman...we could do this all day but Im asking YOUR proof on the issue not one of another person. I dont have to read your book I know the history already one of nationalization and oppression as well as corruption
again you missed my point...again, i want to hear ideas that you can articulate and not refer me to a book (which i leafed through, not well written and extremely flawed) so i guess you dont want to talk about issues,like i said put up or shut up.
You call Douglas an imbecile, and Perkins a bad writer, yet promote the unreadable Friedman, and when I don't worship him, you go off in a rage state. tsk tsk
douglas was an intelligent man im pointing out your ignorance...friedman was a wise man as well and would surely put you to shame thats besides the point...he is one of MANY people that I consider an influence,
Friedman was not a wise man, just a salesman for an old, rotten system, dressed up in new clothes. One that Douglas correctly denounced from a century ago.
i think that your ideas are a bit one sided you blame free markets for germany? the national socialists? and so on with your examples...these are not an example of a free market NOT BY FAR so i assume that you must not be a student of history but a follower of ideology, whats the difference? one is put forth for interpretation and the other is intended to lead people blindly...Ideology is universal, history is perceived...think for yourself really examine ideas...that takes time and few care to
Make money. If you make it with prostitution or drugs, fine. We don't care as long as you make it, and if you can't, fuck you. Go die. If you oppose the financial system, you deserve to be killed.
See there you go showing your true colors...that is what a true communist would say..thank you sir my work is done here....because you can no longer hold your own
also what you are putting forth is not economics...you are repeating quotes from a slave that is talking about the human condition...this is at most a glimpse into the perspective of the life of a free slave , not economics more sociology but i hate to call it that as well
stuff like this is all pointless really...i dont see the purpose,name calling and so on time to grow up emotionally and mentally, this is what I always say there is no real debates anymore because people can't articulate an idea and resort to mudslinging...to an educated person this is obvious and instantly discredits the person as is the case now, good bye comrade...
I would expect Douglas, who was tortured under the slave system, to be biased toward ANY system that treats other humans as cattle. Endorsing such a view does not make one a sheep. Opposing him would seem to make you a sheeple to the unjust economic system that you mistakenly support.
I know lots of people who today live in fantatic houses, have great health care, and hardly have to work.
The improvement for most people came BECAUSE of governent rules and restrictions allowed for spread of wealth You need balance. Slavery was free market gone mad. Get some kind of balance -- everything other construct is meaningless.
Its literally impossible for large populations to survive with just economic means to address issues. Politics has to - and will --emerge. That means government regulation.
Why on earth would people be barred from having our food supply checked? Our only recourse is to not buy tainted food?
The video employs false logic. Positive increases of REAL wages (inflation adjusted) matter more than that of relative labor costs. Real wages in the United States have gone up, not down for everyone above the poorest of the poor. and even the poorest of the poor's conditions over time has improved. Markets always provide greater wealth for the lower classes in time, unlike the short sighted socialist instant gratification.
Umm, out here in the real world, everyone is getting poorer. The financial system is dead. When folks' pensions are disappearing, and all the auto companies are shutting down, and there's not enough doctors, you have to ask, are these formulas I've been taught to regurgitate based on reality?
The facts are against you, the government has gotten more involved in our day to day lives and of the regulations and taxation of business, not less. I point out that correlation when you mention the failing of our finance system. Secondly, look at the numbers/facts and mathematics, you will find my earlier statement about real wages to be true.
real wages have gone up cause we got RID of free trade -- as it was described by Douglass. Min wage, labor laws, labor rights, safey laws -- all came from politcal forces. Not market forces.
Anyone who thinks "Laissez-faire capitalism" and no regulation will lead to prosperty or for most people is simply insane, and doesnt know anything about history.
I am afraid that is false, real wages for every income class with the exemption of the poorest of the poor in the United States have gone up. That is to say; for the majority of people, life has improved. The right labor laws are indeed needed, that is a desirable part of the market, but you would be a fool to say political forces are the main reason for improved prosperity,
where is your data, the Upjohn Foundation monograph series reports a decline in US real wages (And a reduction in jobs overall) since the introduction of free trade policies- a trend accelerating markedly since NAFTA. (see their website)
You dont know your facts sir, there is a mathematical identity in Real Gross Domestic accounting known as the income approach, not counting the recession, real wages have risen. If you give me a citation, I would gladly check it out. Please note, that there is one income class with diclining real wages, and that is the poorest of the poor. All income groups above them have risen
It is important that you learn the three accounting methods of Real Gross Domestic Product. It is not difficult to learn and I can provide a mathematical proof for what I am saying. Once you have learned these I am sure you will agree with me one this topic
Let me read to you their words, "Our central empirical finding provides support for arguments on both sides of the Great Trade Debate" He is talking about employment transfer as a result of changes in trade policy, not real income. This does not make any statements about what we are talking about. Now, my sources are textbooks, the two key ones are "Macroeconomics" By Roger Arnold and "Macroeconomics" by Williamson, you can google both of them, I fear however it may be difficult to get them
Yes that is their words from the prologue (Available on the web) but their research goes further. They find that there has been a net loss of jobs (less then 10%) due to free trade in USA and that the replacement jobs are -on average - lower paid. Not that that should surprise you - go to Flint or Detroit (the authors are from Michigan)
That is still not what I was talking about, I was talking about real income. It would be a good idea to look up how real GPD is accounted for. Answer me this, how is it that real income (save for the recession) keeps going up? How do you explain that phenomena?
if that comment is directed at me, then the point I was making is about income distribution.. The empirical evidence is that the income of workers displaced by free trade (*NAFTA being the particular example) has declined, the wages of the (fewer) replacing workers is also less.. It may be (and indeed is) that over all national income is rising but that is not a result of borrowing which has come to a halt not of free trade see "The Wealth Illusion" American Conservative April 6 2009
First of all, just because one sector of employment is effected by trade does not mean that national income falls, that would assume that everyone lost their job after NAFTA. Secondly you have made a claim that I am not fully understanding with borrowing, who is borrowing from who? the government? financial capital investments? What are you referring to?
As to firstly your original point was that income of all (other than the very lowest) had risen after NAFTA. That is not so. I have given you the source. The same is true for India and Australia (the only 2 nations I know where there have been studies. Dickens made much the same point for England in "Hard Times" though that novel is not an empirical study.) As to secondly I suggest you read the article before you respond again.
Really? Not so? Then how do you explain that GDP has been raising? (GDP=National income) Secondly, its been fun and all, but the break is over and I have econ to attend to. Also, if you want to talk about trade, ask yourself this question and try to expand on the logic as much as possible, the city that you live in, does it produce everything it needs by itself or does it purchase from other regions within the bourders of the country?
Answer: income distribution has become much less equal. (sources as above) Further GDP has fallen recently and quite dramatically. Second trade: your error is you are static in your thinking. Adam Smith said that America should be agrarian and import its manufactures from Europe because Europe could produce the goods more cheaply. Protection changed that (see P Buchanon he Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy)
Excellent work, much better you pointed out a flaw with GDP, you are correct. Now we can finally take this argument to a higher level. The income distribution is determined statistically by the Lorenz curve. It provides the essential reason why income for all levels above the poorest of the poor is rising (even if at an unequal rate)
Secondly, trade. You talked about Adam Smith encouraging the US to be agrarian and the US justice and sovereignty was harmed by global trade as we see it today. Let me ask you this question...Can the city that you live in produce all of the goods and services it needs to survive? (this may be a long Q and A process)
oh P.S, GDP has a two percent growth trend since 1800 despite booms and busts. Therefore it is a false statement to say that GDP has fallen. True that it has during the recent recession, but not before or after.
"Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."[42]
not really. Friedman didn't give them a dictator. The US government would have helped overthrow the Chilean government even if Friedman had never been born.
No, the coup was run by first imposing sanctions, and then after the economy was in chaos, organizing the military takeover. That was run by the British/US through figures like George Shultz, Kissinger, & Felix Rohatyn. The Chicago school was brought in after to setup the economic looting policy.
What's that have to do with what I said? Again, even if Friedman had never been there, the US (and apparently British, I didn't know they were also involved) would have still overthrown the Chilean government. The US has a bit of a history sticking its nose in other countries' business and overthrowing their leaders.
I hope you have read Freidman before you make these claims. M.F. was opposed to the draft and the war on drugs. He believed that capitalism was a necessary (not sufficient) condition for human freedom and I agree wholeheartedly. He also said this:
"With some notable exceptions, businessmen favor free enterprise in general but are opposed to it when it comes to themselves. "
Can you cite where he SUPPORTED DICTATORSHIPS? He was in a position to help their economies--not overthrow Pinochet.
Yes, his friend George Shultz is a drug pusher too, just like George Soros. Too bad you believed that lie that he saved the economy of Chile. You ignore the sanctions put on Chile by the British/Wall St. that created the crisis in the first place. C'mon, it was pretty common to overthrow governments and install ruthless bloody dictators, as long as they were anti-communist.
Schacht organized the Nazi takeover of the Weimar government. Milton endorsed his method of slave labor recycling. Its certainly consistant with his disgusting view of humanity.
Mexicans are being imported into the United States? I thought all those evil conservatives were trying to keep them out. My mistake. By the way, Friedman was not that big a fan of NAFTA by the way, because it's managed trade not free trade. And the big free trade movement started in the enlightenment at the same time (and often by the same people) who opposed slavery and began the long process of abolishing it.
Yes, you're completely mistaken about everything you've said in this post. British Imperial Free Trade has killed more people than Stalin, and Hitler combined. What do you mean "managed"?? That makes no sense.
NAFTA and the WTO manage trade through international bureaucracy's. NAFTA is something like 20,000 pages long, all filled with restrictions on free trade meant to benefit powerful nations and big corporations at the expense of employees, consumers, other usually smaller companies and weaker nations. Free trade would simply be reducing trade barriers. I think you're relating a lot of bad things with "free trade" that simply happened around the same time and were not part of the same idea.
British free trade was imposed on its colonies along with other atrocities. However, what Adam Smith and other enlightenment thinkers wanted was to end mercantilism (high trade barriers and govt-corporate collusion) that brought slavery, colonization and near constant war. As classical liberalism took hold some good things happened (slavery ended, fewer wars) but colonization didn't. Maybe those ideas just needed more time before statism reemerged, maybe not. It's not a simple question though.
They didn't want to end Mercantilism, they wanted to destroy the economies of their rivals. The entire "classical" school was run out of the East Indias Co. Hailybury school. Smith, Ricardo, et al were all just paid hacks for the empire. Nothing more. Enlightened my ass. Their view of humanity was disgusting.
Smith did have a job for the customs commission but his ideas certainly weren't "run out of the East Indias Co" which wanted the high trade barriers to prevent competition. I don't think a system based on volutary transactions is disgusting. I can see why some feel coercion is necessary, but here's a rule that is just about 100%, tariffs are corporate welfare. For example, the Funjul family has lobbyied for sugar tariffs in the US which doubled the price, it's the only reason they even exist.
British imperial free trade has always been about reducing humans to chattel, just as in African & Chinese then, and today Mexicans. The Chicago school comes right out of British Fabian circles and has been a voice for their policies ever since.
I don't think Friedman has ever advocated the ownership of human beings or labor contracts that require specific performace in the event of breach.
My understanding was the Fabian school is based on Socalist principles while the Chicago School is based on free market capitalsim. I am wrong on that? I don't see the link.
Yet when asked on a interview if he was to be dictator for a day he quickly relpied "no me dictator no I not about dictating the people but about limiting goverment involment to the point where people are the most free without implecations on other peoples freedoms." thats the nazi where Adolf took full control and the people had no control how do you come to such conclusions
Yeah, Friedman's policies have field so much that real wages in the US have gone up. Bit of advise to the the guy who put this video, learn economics before you talk about it.
Compared to where? Bhutan? As compared to fake wages? What percentage of people have wages that have increased? Is that the reason that forclosures are at record levels? Is that why barely anyone can afford health care?
The minimum wage income earners have lost real wages, but everybody above them have gained, that includes the lower, middle, and upper class. The foreclosures have nothing to do with Friedman. It would have happened under Keynesian economics as well. Tell me, what theory explained stagflation in the 70s? and who where the people who made it?
The root cause of the High Forclossures rate, in my humble opinion, was the terrible currency managamnet by our Central Bank.
Health Care is so expensive because the system is no longer tied to the price mechanism. If you want to see the cost go through the roof impliment full soical medicine.
Furthermore, the Dr. has every incentive to use the most expensive treatment because that patient is not paying.
The real payer (the insurance company or the government) creates a new over sight mechanisms to try to limit the cost of freeloaders and wasteful Docs.
This is not free either. This further raises costs to all other parties and is sheer waste.
Insurance only functions well it is designed to protect against serios catastrophe.
Okay, here is why Frederick Dougulas is a Retard. If the builders of the railroads and the steel tycoons are the one's building the nation and the economy how is this the few. All the people who benifit from the risks and investment taken by business to create products that enable people to live better. All the people who use the railways and the steel and whatever else is created by the so called few is really for the many. Since it is the many who benifet from the use of the rail
Friedman was definitely a rabid free-trader, but he also supported generally open immigration.
All of the early Republicans except Walt Whitman were soft-protectionists and favored trade, but with tariffs so that cheap labor couldn't undercut the US in its own market.
MegaAstrodude 4 months ago
His video doesn't seem to work. Kind of like how his arguments don't work.
atarirocks15 5 months ago
@atarirocks15 As long as he got people to suspend belief in reality, then he got people to go along with his snake oil.
Amiduffer 5 months ago
@Amiduffer Perhaps if you could read it would be better. Having said that, why do you suppose the Chinese came to America if things were so bad for them? Why do Mexicans poor across the borders to the US? Its because Capitalism has made this country great! And even the poor in this country are rich compared to the poor of other countries.
gcard86 3 weeks ago
@gcard86 A lot of my videos involve reading something foolish person. I take it your reading material is limited to People magazine and the Weekly World News.
Amiduffer 2 weeks ago
What?
Suarez23 7 months ago
Well, Friedman answers the accusation you level against him on supporting Pinochet, and he made it very clear his position on tyranny and stifling of freedom. Thats pretty much the only thing you have here that isn't downright illogical and absurd
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt That's OK. Being an apologist for genocidal policies isn't new for the free market sect. Religious zombies deny all the inconsistent crap in the bible all the time.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer Equating an economic philosophy to a biblical religion is a false analogy. Moreover, claiming that the free market is in some way genocidal is also false.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt The Free Market theory was written for the East India company/British Empire. A company notorious in history as drug pushing, enslaving, mass murderers, with a philosophy that looks at humans as nothing more than beasts and is just as irrational as claiming that prayer will cause magical things to happen.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer Interesting, considering how the East India Trading company followed a mercantilist, not a capitalist, policy. The free market theory was developed partly by Adam Smith to refute the zero sum game fallacy and the government privellige fallacy created under mercantilism
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt They were drug pushers! They starved 10s of millions of people to death in order to grow the opium that they forced on the Chinese at gunpoint. Why in hell do you trust the opinion of a liar who wrote on behalf of the perpetuation of empire slavery, and mass murder?
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer I don't deny the fact that the British forced opium on the Chinese people, but again, that has nothing to do with the free market, and that has nothing to do with Adam Smith. This was a mercantilist system; the East India Trading Company had a government enforced monopoly so already do we see how there was no free market. At the same time you deny Adam Smith's theories merely on the guilt by association fallacy. Pathetic
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt The shithead was on the facility of the East India Co. training school, Haileybury! As was Mill, Hume, Ricardo, etc. The director lord Shelburne directed him to write his book with the intention of destroying the British Empires rivals. Pathetic is your strange disassociated separation of academic masterbation and the real world effect of economic policy. But, then you believe in invisible hands, just like a religious fundamentalist.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer Let's see, do I believe what you say about Adam Smith's beliefs, or do I believe what Adam Smith's own works say about Adam Smith's beliefs? I'd be inclined to follow the latter, given that the former is supported by a guilt by association fallacy. Seeing as how Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations directly attacked the setup of the East India Trading Company, your argument holds no water.
Btw, the invisible hand is a metaphor for how economic mechanisms have been proven to work.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt His belief, as he stated, is that humans exist at the level of animals. The invisible hand is just an excuse for criminal activity. You're just defending it because that's what you were indoctrinated in.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer Actually, I was taught essentially left wing collectivist ideas. FYI, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people who have never met me talk to me as if they have known me their entire lives, so don't try to assume what I was, if anything, indocrinated to believe in. I picked up free market capitalism on my own. Once again, you don't substantiate your claims. Even if what you say is true, you don't reject it because you show Smith to be wrong, but rather you just don't like it.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Left or right, its just the same bestial outlook indoctrinated into people by the Empire. As long as they can shape your axiomatic outlook, it doesn't matter if you go right wing or left wing. They've been running left versus right games for centuries. Just like when they dominated the southern slave system and were financing the abolition movement.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer Oh, they funded the abolition movement? So was your beloved Frederick Douglass a crone or a puppet? Can you sustantiate any of this or is this the typical cynical conspiratorial crap I hear from attention seekers?
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Yes, it is documented. Frederick broke with them after a short association. You should read his collected writings to why he did.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer Douglass split because of disagreements between him and William Lloyd Garrison over the interpretation of the constitution, but he was still a part of the abolition movement right up to his death.
You still haven't proven that the left and right wings were developed by the same party. Stop beating around the bush
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Garrison was for breaking the country up, while Douglas was for the Union. The problem here is your wrong viewpoint of the misnomer of left and right which is only a description of the seating arrangement of the French Parliament. But, you've had your head twisted by that crazy woman Rand, so I'm not sure how much damage I can reverse.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer True, it was done as a seating arrangement, but the seating arrangement was set up based on the political views. You have it in reverse. And your logic is flawed because the United States did not break up because of slavery. and slavery was not the reason for the war until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which was done to keep the British out of the war.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt The confederate states in their declarations say that they were seceding to protect slavery from Lincoln. Free Trade and slavery, they go together.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer This has nothing to do with Ayn Rand, other than that youre using my philosophical views as a cop-out-of course you would claim I am too "confused" for you to handle. Makes it easier to save face.
Speaking of face, why not settle this on Stickam, where we have more space than just these 500 character boxes and we can finish this mano a mano
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Copping out is accepting slavery and genocide just because you can tack "free market" on it.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer Thats just a non sequiter. Friedman himself pointed out how Great Britain, Japan following the Meji Restoration, and the northern United States not only survived without slaves, but had excelled and surpassed slave societies in terms of development. You make a false dichotomy and a false generalization. Thats perhaps the biggest sign of your immaturity
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt The northern states industrialized with Alexander Hamiltons American System. The Slave states were just raw material exporters to England and their global slave system which is why the southern legislators were all fanatical free traders. The Meiji Restoration was based on Hamilton and Henry Carey. There's no dichotomy.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer It wasn't a dichotomy, but a comparison, showing you how your argument is false because a market where everyone is free to trade with their labor performs better than a slave society. Why did the northern states industrialize but not the southern ones until AFTER slavery was abolished? You can't claim that they both had high tariffs AND were raw material exporters to England. England would do better in India, which Jacob Viner proved cost more than with free trade with India
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@Amiduffer As for genocide, thats an even less educated claim. There was a project called Economic Freedom of the World, which ranked the countries of the world based on their economic freedom. When compared with the Democracy Index and the Global Peace Index, they found that economic freedom was 54 times more correlated with peace than political freedom. This is because in a free market people have to peacefully cooperate in order to make the most gain for themselves
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
In conclusion, my challenge to the watchers of this video: go and watch some of Milton's videos like the one on "Capitalism & Morality," "Slavery & Colonialism," "Free to choose: Born Equal," etc. Read Capitalism & Freedom or his biography. You will find no support of violence and crime, but only a deep belief in personal liberty, freedom of choice and responsibility.
Do listen to his side too before you make your final judgement adn be sure, you will not regret it.
redpyramid88 1 year ago
Furthermore, what is important is the Douglass himself was not an economist, neither a god. I do admire him too for his amazing achievement of learning and his words are very strong, but I am afraid on this issue his view is very short. Had he asked my grandparents, and the immigrants from China, Ireland, Germany, and so on, if they'd prefer to be in America even for this cheap wages, or stay home, he'd see a much different reaction than what he describes.
redpyramid88 1 year ago
@redpyramid88 America grew into a powerful industrial nation based on Hamiltons protectionist American System model, not the British Empires free trade slavery which Friedman espoused. As such Douglas is more cognizant of the nature of the economic fight than you, especially since he suffered under that same British Free Trade model.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer ...again what you say is untrue. The protectionism to which you refer (may I guess you refer to labour protection laws, minimum wages, social security, etc.) have almost bring this country to bankruptry. Is there any person actually knowing the least of economics who can say such a thing? And it is that sort of protectionism that has hurt the African American community for the past 50 years. You can try and watch walter Williams' testimony on the subject.
redpyramid88 1 year ago
@redpyramid88 What I'm saying is absolutely historically true. Your monetarist thinking always results in speculative bubbles, collapses, and fascist austerity, just like Wall St is doing right now.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
sad attack on Friedman. Bless the ignorant.
redpyramid88 1 year ago
@redpyramid88 No, its a very happy attack on one of the worst economists to come out of that bastion of monetarist stupidity.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
teacher unions & govt intervention, subsidiaries & 'regulations' have made education worse by many times. There is no competition- there is only socialized subsidized dictations for students&parents to get any education
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 How in hell can you even consider a stupid concept like competition and education? Creating a thinking human being is not a matter of a race.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer Competition (ie best and cheapest) in PROVISION of education, not necessarily within it.
robzrob 1 year ago
@robzrob Again, I fail to comprehend why society would be insane enough to throw a certain portion of its population on the scrapheap over the false "barrier" of so-called scarcity.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer @Amiduffer Happy or unhappy attack, your video's intro text is full of lies and distortions, so I cannot see any argument against the man. He never worked with dictators. Do yourself a favour and read Johan Norberg's article on his life.
I do accept arguments against the his opinions but disrespect and distorting of his actions goes way beyond that. I do not expect that you will change your mind but I'd like the youtube watchers to know the other side of this issue, the side of truth
redpyramid88 1 year ago
@redpyramid88 His entire conception of liberty and economics is based on the doctrines of the drug pushing, slave mongering, genocidal British Empire and their bestial view of "each against all". As such, everything he wrote was a lie and a distortion.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
@Amiduffer ....You have not really read any of his stuff?
redpyramid88 1 year ago
the markets dictate the sacred relationships of economy- ie. The sacred relationships refer to the: Teacher/Student, Doctor/Patient, Employee/employer, buyer/seller, etc all these are direct relationships between 2 people. There is no room for a third party . it is the third party which always corrupts the system
like insurance companies, trade unions, teacher unions, etc & worst of all- the government with its brute force
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Sacred? You mean slavery to money and the criminals in the financial system who manipulate it for immoral speculative purposes.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
well this guy fails to understand the irony of the minimum wage-there aint no such thing as minimum wage. markets dont see it- it aint there. Governments try to institute it at the barrel of a gun, but buisnesses dont see it. when i mean see i mean there is no such FACTOR. there is only supply & demand, consumer & seller
swu880 1 year ago
Added to my playlist, and thank you for posting it. Frederick Douglass should have been, and should now be. required reading for all intellectuals, academics, political scientists, and every 'economist' on earth.
If you could tell me which book the quotes are read from, that would help me greatly. Thank you again.
Silam81 1 year ago
This was from The National Era, a weekly abolitionist newspaper published 1847-1860.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
Awesome video
GodBlesstheWorld2008 1 year ago
Thank you.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
once you move out of your moms basement you will understand the point I am trying to make son...
jonshultz 2 years ago 2
You're still tied up in Plato's cave son commenting on the shadows, or in your case speculating on the shadows. What's the point, besides promoting your Milton Friedman cult.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
That point is the evils that you are talking about are NOT the products of freedom,or free markets, but a product of FAILED govenment policy that allowed and even promoted the allowance of slavery in our founding documents...is this not a failure of man? that is the point...It is not about 1 man or a few empowered men because men will ALWAYS make mistakes and that is why people were worse off in many other countries around the world.......pt.1
jonshultz 2 years ago 2
The evils we're talking about are a result of economic policies of private financial interests over governments that Friedman was a spokesman of, whether you want to blindly accept his cover story or not. Your mistake is to accept his biased view.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
pt .2 Like I already said, yes Friedman is one of my influences, but one of many,one must think outside of the box when listening to him as well as have a grasp on the history of world gov. Just ask a poor russian farmer under Stalin if he would rather have been a slave in America,...Why is this? because a divide in power MUST be a strict divide.Most slaves were not beaten or killed because of the cost, but in russia millions of farmers were killed,slaughtered even...cont
jonshultz 2 years ago
Serfdom was a common feature of most of Europe, not just Russia.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
true dat ...and so was collectivism
jonshultz 2 years ago
So I am not promoting 1 man but I am promoting every man,this is the only way to keep from things like slavery from happening again, You use the example of mexicans being mistreated,politicians are to blame for this,they play political ping pong with a fate of a race in their hands, you state a book in which......but look into STATE DEP. activity and tell me that that is not the same. Ask the japaneese during WWII if they approved of a strong centralized gov. where 1 man FDR was the figure head
jonshultz 2 years ago
so before you say" were gonna talk about more economics" and "free trade" figure out what that means, like i said it's neither,Another example(and i could do this all day) the Indians under Jackson was far more detrimental toward a race of people than the mistreatment of the Africans,almost went the way of the buffalo...Gov. implemented a policy and the people acted. whose to blame? The people for going after free land or the gov for empowering them? same idea dif. application, same result .....
jonshultz 2 years ago
OPPRESSION....Stick to poetry and do as you suggest, study your history @ 0:33
jonshultz 2 years ago
Before you google it. Have you heard of the book; "A monetary history of the United States"?
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
I'm reading Hamiltons argument on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, does that count?
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Nope, something totally different. In this book the author goes through the entire history of the United States and finds that the money supply is a leading variable to the level of national income. That is to say, the money supply has a powerful effect on national income. This is an purely empirical approach economics, i.e. just look at the raw data. Now, without googleing it, who do you suppose wrote this book?
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
Someone who shouldn't be writing about economics.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Ah damn it, I knew you would Google it. What a poor sport. Anyway, what say you then to the leading variable discovery of the money supply? Do you deny the claim? and if so what is your explanation for the positive statistical correlation coefficient that was discovered to exist between the money supply and the level of GDP?
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
I didn't google anything. It sounds like a horrible book that only graduate students who wish to kiss up to sadistic professors would torture themselves to read. I'd rather read Hamilton. He actually created a working system that built this country.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Then what is your answer to my question. What do you say to the conclusion, the money supply as a leading variable to GDP? That is to say, deposit of institutions, travelers checks, notes, coins, illiquid assets and so on, i.e. the money supply, if those listed above change, GDP consistently follows the change by some correlation coefficient. What say you to that?
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
It depends. Liquidities value depends on if the sector it is circulating in is of a industrial/agricultural nature, or gambling and speculation. As Hamilton said, its not the material of the currency, its the quality of the activity.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Ah, now that's more like it! A thought out response with a citation. Well done indeed. But lets suppose that you have a variety of quality in economic activity. Do you agree with the claim that the supply of money is a leading variable to growth?
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
Only if it is vectored mostly into industrial/agricultural activity (Hamiltons reports on Banking/Credit/Industry). Otherwise, you can cite 1923 Germany as an extreme case, and the current bailouts of the financial system approaching 1923 globally.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Does it? It certainly didn't in Europe in the 16th century. Then with much new coin minted (mainly gold and silver from the Spanish conquests in Central and Southern America) there was simply huge inflation. See History of Money G Davies OUP
backnumber1662 2 years ago
The conquests were geared toward debt payments for usurious loans.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Partly so yes, but my comment was directed to The "Good" Economist. His problem (like many other economists) is they do not think scientifically. The scientist does not "expand on the logic" he observes, from those observations he makes a theory, he tests that theory by other observations. If he makes a contrary observation he discards his theory. That is the theory is "falsifiable' . But the "Good" economist thinks in a vacuum ignoring your and my contrary examples. He is simply wrong.
backnumber1662 2 years ago
Good observation. He typifies what Friedrich Schiller warned about with "bread fed scholars". Concern with perpetuation of facts and assumptions that guarantee tenure, but do nothing about real world problems.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Aw shucks guys....it warms my heart that my words have brought two people to common ground...Anyway, I must point to an example of distinction within science. There is a difference between argument for a theory and the observation of a theory. if you would like to come to my school and watch me study and observe, thats one thing, this is an online debate which I know I will not win. But I can ask you questions that hopefully will stimulate you thinking. Here is my point; Questions are the answer
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
Questions are not the answer. the answer is to observe and draw your conclusions from the observations. Or (and science works like this too) to test your theory by predictions. If your predictions come true your theory may be correct (I am not sure Popper would ever say a theory is correct-it remains a scientific theory and therefore falsifiable) [more later when I verify my sources on monetarism and inflation]
backnumber1662 2 years ago
reading your comments you seem to be an angry peron so i think that ill leave you a quote that has about as much relevance to the subject as your whole video and comment collection as a whole....."I said emotional content, NOT anger! Try again!" -Bruce Lee-
jonshultz 2 years ago
also mexicans are not imported they choose to improve their quality of life by comming to a place where it is possible as was with the chineese,and the irish,scottish,german,polish,hungarian,italian,slovaks,........and africans of modern day as well as anyone who seeks to flee from oppression
jonshultz 2 years ago
The only oppression came from the destruction of their currency, the looting of their manufacturing, and the theft of their banking system by the Wall St. and European financial bloodsuckers.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
again too vague, why dont you make a valid point and be specific. Who, What, When, and Where? Im waiting...The buisness men destroyed whose economy? and how? In many cases the reason that this oppression is allowed is because of government policy. No time in mans history has he been able to opress people alone a system of power must first be established and within this institution the people in charge usually called for these wrongdoings to be acted out...
jonshultz 2 years ago
You want the entire history of Mexico? That would take more time than this little reply box would allow. John Perkins wrote a book a couple of years ago about his days enslaving countries to western financial interests. Its entitled "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". Try it out.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
i thought we were talking about free markets which mexico is not
jonshultz 2 years ago
Used car salesmen use all sorts of words to get you to buy their lemons. Thus Friedman and "free markets", a worthless term.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
thats a nonsense response im just commenting on your main point which is that Democracy isn't fair...i assume but i ask you to show me an example of this and ill prove the otherwise you say mexico but then refer me to a book so i'll refer you to a book as well...Free To Chose by friedman...we could do this all day but Im asking YOUR proof on the issue not one of another person. I dont have to read your book I know the history already one of nationalization and oppression as well as corruption
jonshultz 2 years ago
Friedmans book is not proof of anything. Its only an opinion and an irrational one at that.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
again you missed my point...again, i want to hear ideas that you can articulate and not refer me to a book (which i leafed through, not well written and extremely flawed) so i guess you dont want to talk about issues,like i said put up or shut up.
jonshultz 2 years ago
You call Douglas an imbecile, and Perkins a bad writer, yet promote the unreadable Friedman, and when I don't worship him, you go off in a rage state. tsk tsk
Amiduffer 2 years ago
douglas was an intelligent man im pointing out your ignorance...friedman was a wise man as well and would surely put you to shame thats besides the point...he is one of MANY people that I consider an influence,
jonshultz 2 years ago
Friedman was not a wise man, just a salesman for an old, rotten system, dressed up in new clothes. One that Douglas correctly denounced from a century ago.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
i think that your ideas are a bit one sided you blame free markets for germany? the national socialists? and so on with your examples...these are not an example of a free market NOT BY FAR so i assume that you must not be a student of history but a follower of ideology, whats the difference? one is put forth for interpretation and the other is intended to lead people blindly...Ideology is universal, history is perceived...think for yourself really examine ideas...that takes time and few care to
jonshultz 2 years ago
If you don't know the history of the British Empire, then its easy to fall for the snake oil that Friedman pushed. Just ask Frederick Douglas.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
elaborate what friedman pushes,you made the claim so you have to back it up...just ask jet
jonshultz 2 years ago
Make money. If you make it with prostitution or drugs, fine. We don't care as long as you make it, and if you can't, fuck you. Go die. If you oppose the financial system, you deserve to be killed.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
See there you go showing your true colors...that is what a true communist would say..thank you sir my work is done here....because you can no longer hold your own
jonshultz 2 years ago
Promoting a drug pusher is not holding your own, just stupid.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
ignorance,as expected
jonshultz 2 years ago
also what you are putting forth is not economics...you are repeating quotes from a slave that is talking about the human condition...this is at most a glimpse into the perspective of the life of a free slave , not economics more sociology but i hate to call it that as well
jonshultz 2 years ago
He stopped being a slave when he made up his mind to stop being one, unlike you.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
stuff like this is all pointless really...i dont see the purpose,name calling and so on time to grow up emotionally and mentally, this is what I always say there is no real debates anymore because people can't articulate an idea and resort to mudslinging...to an educated person this is obvious and instantly discredits the person as is the case now, good bye comrade...
jonshultz 2 years ago
Excess verbiage does not indicate intelligence, just a thesaurus.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
repeating another mans words without being able to perceive it, and discern bias, makes you nothing more than a sheep.
jonshultz 2 years ago
I would expect Douglas, who was tortured under the slave system, to be biased toward ANY system that treats other humans as cattle. Endorsing such a view does not make one a sheep. Opposing him would seem to make you a sheeple to the unjust economic system that you mistakenly support.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
In a society such as ours you must ask yourself why are the poor, poor and why are the rich, wealthy that is the question
jonshultz 2 years ago
Life has not improved? Since when?
Since Plato? Since my granmother fixed biscuts?
Life hasnt improved for who? You? Your cousin?
I know lots of people who today live in fantatic houses, have great health care, and hardly have to work.
The improvement for most people came BECAUSE of governent rules and restrictions allowed for spread of wealth You need balance. Slavery was free market gone mad. Get some kind of balance -- everything other construct is meaningless.
ItchMyFoot 2 years ago
NO slavery was a government failure in many ways and was supported by the gov.early on
jonshultz 2 years ago
Slavery was a global system of the EMPIRES that dominated the world, and the financial system that made their policies.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
exactly...the only difference is slaves were a minority in America and in Russia they were the majority...
jonshultz 2 years ago
British, French, Dutch, Portugese, Danish, Spanish, Venetian, Turkish, etc. etc. all promoted slavery.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Yep their Governments all did at one time or another..and so did Africa,and ancient Rome, and the egyptians,, whats your point?
jonshultz 2 years ago
Its literally impossible for large populations to survive with just economic means to address issues. Politics has to - and will --emerge. That means government regulation.
Why on earth would people be barred from having our food supply checked? Our only recourse is to not buy tainted food?
Bizzaro world.
ItchMyFoot 2 years ago
I'm not certain what your point is.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Things should in fact be slightly more complicated than that. Interesting video though... thx.
Billiedekid 2 years ago
The video employs false logic. Positive increases of REAL wages (inflation adjusted) matter more than that of relative labor costs. Real wages in the United States have gone up, not down for everyone above the poorest of the poor. and even the poorest of the poor's conditions over time has improved. Markets always provide greater wealth for the lower classes in time, unlike the short sighted socialist instant gratification.
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
Umm, out here in the real world, everyone is getting poorer. The financial system is dead. When folks' pensions are disappearing, and all the auto companies are shutting down, and there's not enough doctors, you have to ask, are these formulas I've been taught to regurgitate based on reality?
Amiduffer 2 years ago
The facts are against you, the government has gotten more involved in our day to day lives and of the regulations and taxation of business, not less. I point out that correlation when you mention the failing of our finance system. Secondly, look at the numbers/facts and mathematics, you will find my earlier statement about real wages to be true.
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
real wages have gone up cause we got RID of free trade -- as it was described by Douglass. Min wage, labor laws, labor rights, safey laws -- all came from politcal forces. Not market forces.
Anyone who thinks "Laissez-faire capitalism" and no regulation will lead to prosperty or for most people is simply insane, and doesnt know anything about history.
ItchMyFoot 2 years ago
I am afraid that is false, real wages for every income class with the exemption of the poorest of the poor in the United States have gone up. That is to say; for the majority of people, life has improved. The right labor laws are indeed needed, that is a desirable part of the market, but you would be a fool to say political forces are the main reason for improved prosperity,
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
With 30% unemployment, increasing foreclosures and bankruptcy of the states, life has not improved.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
i cant see where you are getting your ideas from clearly you have not gone to school
jonshultz 2 years ago
where is your data, the Upjohn Foundation monograph series reports a decline in US real wages (And a reduction in jobs overall) since the introduction of free trade policies- a trend accelerating markedly since NAFTA. (see their website)
backnumber1662 2 years ago
You dont know your facts sir, there is a mathematical identity in Real Gross Domestic accounting known as the income approach, not counting the recession, real wages have risen. If you give me a citation, I would gladly check it out. Please note, that there is one income class with diclining real wages, and that is the poorest of the poor. All income groups above them have risen
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
That sounds like an extremely sophist way of trying to avoid reality with just a little mathematical slight-of-hand.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
It is important that you learn the three accounting methods of Real Gross Domestic Product. It is not difficult to learn and I can provide a mathematical proof for what I am saying. Once you have learned these I am sure you will agree with me one this topic
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
Job Creation, Job Destruction, and International Competition Klein, Schuh, and Triest W E Upjohn Institute Kalamazoo 2003
now give me your sources please
backnumber1662 2 years ago
Let me read to you their words, "Our central empirical finding provides support for arguments on both sides of the Great Trade Debate" He is talking about employment transfer as a result of changes in trade policy, not real income. This does not make any statements about what we are talking about. Now, my sources are textbooks, the two key ones are "Macroeconomics" By Roger Arnold and "Macroeconomics" by Williamson, you can google both of them, I fear however it may be difficult to get them
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
Yes that is their words from the prologue (Available on the web) but their research goes further. They find that there has been a net loss of jobs (less then 10%) due to free trade in USA and that the replacement jobs are -on average - lower paid. Not that that should surprise you - go to Flint or Detroit (the authors are from Michigan)
backnumber1662 2 years ago
That is still not what I was talking about, I was talking about real income. It would be a good idea to look up how real GPD is accounted for. Answer me this, how is it that real income (save for the recession) keeps going up? How do you explain that phenomena?
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
if that comment is directed at me, then the point I was making is about income distribution.. The empirical evidence is that the income of workers displaced by free trade (*NAFTA being the particular example) has declined, the wages of the (fewer) replacing workers is also less.. It may be (and indeed is) that over all national income is rising but that is not a result of borrowing which has come to a halt not of free trade see "The Wealth Illusion" American Conservative April 6 2009
backnumber1662 2 years ago
First of all, just because one sector of employment is effected by trade does not mean that national income falls, that would assume that everyone lost their job after NAFTA. Secondly you have made a claim that I am not fully understanding with borrowing, who is borrowing from who? the government? financial capital investments? What are you referring to?
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
As to firstly your original point was that income of all (other than the very lowest) had risen after NAFTA. That is not so. I have given you the source. The same is true for India and Australia (the only 2 nations I know where there have been studies. Dickens made much the same point for England in "Hard Times" though that novel is not an empirical study.) As to secondly I suggest you read the article before you respond again.
backnumber1662 2 years ago
Really? Not so? Then how do you explain that GDP has been raising? (GDP=National income) Secondly, its been fun and all, but the break is over and I have econ to attend to. Also, if you want to talk about trade, ask yourself this question and try to expand on the logic as much as possible, the city that you live in, does it produce everything it needs by itself or does it purchase from other regions within the bourders of the country?
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
Answer: income distribution has become much less equal. (sources as above) Further GDP has fallen recently and quite dramatically. Second trade: your error is you are static in your thinking. Adam Smith said that America should be agrarian and import its manufactures from Europe because Europe could produce the goods more cheaply. Protection changed that (see P Buchanon he Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy)
backnumber1662 2 years ago
Excellent work, much better you pointed out a flaw with GDP, you are correct. Now we can finally take this argument to a higher level. The income distribution is determined statistically by the Lorenz curve. It provides the essential reason why income for all levels above the poorest of the poor is rising (even if at an unequal rate)
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
Secondly, trade. You talked about Adam Smith encouraging the US to be agrarian and the US justice and sovereignty was harmed by global trade as we see it today. Let me ask you this question...Can the city that you live in produce all of the goods and services it needs to survive? (this may be a long Q and A process)
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
oh P.S, GDP has a two percent growth trend since 1800 despite booms and busts. Therefore it is a false statement to say that GDP has fallen. True that it has during the recent recession, but not before or after.
ThegoodEconomist 2 years ago
lol u cracka why dont u let a black man teach about black history and white man teach about white history!
lslinger 2 years ago
There's no such thing. There's only human history.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
Thats coz ur a ignorant fool.
U dumb shit, dont tell me they aint no such thing!
There is, and if you have seen half the shit I have seen, and read what your cracka ass race does to other people, u wud not have written that!
lslinger 2 years ago
I doubt that you've even read one thing that Douglas wrote, otherwise, you wouldn't be saying such ignorant things.
Amiduffer 2 years ago
By your logic, Italy should be the most powerful nation on Earth (A former Empire) and the UK (a former territory) should be a third world nation.
psugeog11 3 years ago
Your statement made no sense.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
"Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."[42]
Friedman
milfrie 3 years ago 2
Yep, gave them a dictator for life. What a free democratic system.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
not really. Friedman didn't give them a dictator. The US government would have helped overthrow the Chilean government even if Friedman had never been born.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago 2
No, the coup was run by first imposing sanctions, and then after the economy was in chaos, organizing the military takeover. That was run by the British/US through figures like George Shultz, Kissinger, & Felix Rohatyn. The Chicago school was brought in after to setup the economic looting policy.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
What's that have to do with what I said? Again, even if Friedman had never been there, the US (and apparently British, I didn't know they were also involved) would have still overthrown the Chilean government. The US has a bit of a history sticking its nose in other countries' business and overthrowing their leaders.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago 2
I hope you have read Freidman before you make these claims. M.F. was opposed to the draft and the war on drugs. He believed that capitalism was a necessary (not sufficient) condition for human freedom and I agree wholeheartedly. He also said this:
"With some notable exceptions, businessmen favor free enterprise in general but are opposed to it when it comes to themselves. "
Can you cite where he SUPPORTED DICTATORSHIPS? He was in a position to help their economies--not overthrow Pinochet.
milfrie 3 years ago
Yes, his friend George Shultz is a drug pusher too, just like George Soros. Too bad you believed that lie that he saved the economy of Chile. You ignore the sanctions put on Chile by the British/Wall St. that created the crisis in the first place. C'mon, it was pretty common to overthrow governments and install ruthless bloody dictators, as long as they were anti-communist.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, Friedman was Gog.
o0xst 3 years ago
"endorsed Nazi austerity policies"
Godwin's Law.
Besides, Nazi economic policies were the opposite of everything Friedman ever supported.
Nazis supported large government spending, price controls, nationalizations, central planning and high trade barriers.
lockedesu 3 years ago 3
Schacht organized the Nazi takeover of the Weimar government. Milton endorsed his method of slave labor recycling. Its certainly consistant with his disgusting view of humanity.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
Would you care to prove your point?
And also what do you say about the fact that pretty much every economic measure defended by Friedman is the opposite of what the nazis would do?
lockedesu 3 years ago 3
Mexicans are being imported into the United States? I thought all those evil conservatives were trying to keep them out. My mistake. By the way, Friedman was not that big a fan of NAFTA by the way, because it's managed trade not free trade. And the big free trade movement started in the enlightenment at the same time (and often by the same people) who opposed slavery and began the long process of abolishing it.
rios9000 3 years ago 2
Yes, you're completely mistaken about everything you've said in this post. British Imperial Free Trade has killed more people than Stalin, and Hitler combined. What do you mean "managed"?? That makes no sense.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
NAFTA and the WTO manage trade through international bureaucracy's. NAFTA is something like 20,000 pages long, all filled with restrictions on free trade meant to benefit powerful nations and big corporations at the expense of employees, consumers, other usually smaller companies and weaker nations. Free trade would simply be reducing trade barriers. I think you're relating a lot of bad things with "free trade" that simply happened around the same time and were not part of the same idea.
rios9000 3 years ago
British free trade was imposed on its colonies along with other atrocities. However, what Adam Smith and other enlightenment thinkers wanted was to end mercantilism (high trade barriers and govt-corporate collusion) that brought slavery, colonization and near constant war. As classical liberalism took hold some good things happened (slavery ended, fewer wars) but colonization didn't. Maybe those ideas just needed more time before statism reemerged, maybe not. It's not a simple question though.
rios9000 3 years ago
They didn't want to end Mercantilism, they wanted to destroy the economies of their rivals. The entire "classical" school was run out of the East Indias Co. Hailybury school. Smith, Ricardo, et al were all just paid hacks for the empire. Nothing more. Enlightened my ass. Their view of humanity was disgusting.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
Smith did have a job for the customs commission but his ideas certainly weren't "run out of the East Indias Co" which wanted the high trade barriers to prevent competition. I don't think a system based on volutary transactions is disgusting. I can see why some feel coercion is necessary, but here's a rule that is just about 100%, tariffs are corporate welfare. For example, the Funjul family has lobbyied for sugar tariffs in the US which doubled the price, it's the only reason they even exist.
rios9000 3 years ago
What exactly is you point here? I don't see the link to Friedman. What social/economic policy are you advocating or attacking?
Do you want to shut down the Mexican border? Do you think this is achievable?
You need to focus down the issue so we can have a meaningful conversation.
drchief88 3 years ago
British imperial free trade has always been about reducing humans to chattel, just as in African & Chinese then, and today Mexicans. The Chicago school comes right out of British Fabian circles and has been a voice for their policies ever since.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
Can you define what you mean by chattel?
I don't think Friedman has ever advocated the ownership of human beings or labor contracts that require specific performace in the event of breach.
My understanding was the Fabian school is based on Socalist principles while the Chicago School is based on free market capitalsim. I am wrong on that? I don't see the link.
drchief88 3 years ago
Yes, you're wrong. It was a advocate of British Imperialism, just with a different name.
Friedman has endorsed the methods of Schacht before, which is the use of brute power to enslave a population, just like Pinochet.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
The group that advocated British Imperalism had another name or did the group suddenly have a change of heart and become the socalist party?
Either way, I still don't see the link to Friedman.
I am interested to see where Friedman ever advocated the use of "brute force" or any force for that matter. Can you give me a source?
As far as the link to Schacht, are you refering to Friedman's anti-union policy and/or monetary policy or some oher policy?
drchief88 3 years ago
Yet when asked on a interview if he was to be dictator for a day he quickly relpied "no me dictator no I not about dictating the people but about limiting goverment involment to the point where people are the most free without implecations on other peoples freedoms." thats the nazi where Adolf took full control and the people had no control how do you come to such conclusions
MattRivers22 3 years ago
Just for my curiosity, what exactly do you mean by socialism? If I asked, I would probably get a zillion different descriptions.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
Yeah, Friedman's policies have field so much that real wages in the US have gone up. Bit of advise to the the guy who put this video, learn economics before you talk about it.
ThegoodEconomist 3 years ago
Compared to where? Bhutan? As compared to fake wages? What percentage of people have wages that have increased? Is that the reason that forclosures are at record levels? Is that why barely anyone can afford health care?
Amiduffer 3 years ago
The minimum wage income earners have lost real wages, but everybody above them have gained, that includes the lower, middle, and upper class. The foreclosures have nothing to do with Friedman. It would have happened under Keynesian economics as well. Tell me, what theory explained stagflation in the 70s? and who where the people who made it?
ThegoodEconomist 3 years ago
The root cause of the High Forclossures rate, in my humble opinion, was the terrible currency managamnet by our Central Bank.
Health Care is so expensive because the system is no longer tied to the price mechanism. If you want to see the cost go through the roof impliment full soical medicine.
drchief88 3 years ago
I thought health care was supposed to be about, ya know, taking care of people. What does "price mechanism" have to do with it?
Amiduffer 3 years ago
Furthermore, the Dr. has every incentive to use the most expensive treatment because that patient is not paying.
The real payer (the insurance company or the government) creates a new over sight mechanisms to try to limit the cost of freeloaders and wasteful Docs.
This is not free either. This further raises costs to all other parties and is sheer waste.
Insurance only functions well it is designed to protect against serios catastrophe.
drchief88 3 years ago
Okay, here is why Frederick Dougulas is a Retard. If the builders of the railroads and the steel tycoons are the one's building the nation and the economy how is this the few. All the people who benifit from the risks and investment taken by business to create products that enable people to live better. All the people who use the railways and the steel and whatever else is created by the so called few is really for the many. Since it is the many who benifet from the use of the rail