"that was the key thing that made possible what we now have (Reagan's adherence to principal)". No arguments with that, but you should also mention what we now have is a growth rate that was about a third lower 1980 - 2010 than it was 1945 - 1970, accompanied by a series of asset bubbles and massive growth in asset sectors at the expense of the real economy to the point where if the financial sector dissappeared like at the beginning of the Great Depression, it would leave an equally large hole
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in "Reaganomics". The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in "Reaganomics". The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
@CosmicFork The labor unions (which you capitalized for some unknown reason) are grossly overpowered and have run the American auto industry into the ground, and they actually take away the rights of many workers by forcing them to join and pay dues, which then go to campaign contributions for politicians whom the individuals may not even support.
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in "Reaganomics". The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
@CosmicFork So you think its good when labor unions are ones who whole all of the cards. It can't be a mix of unions and business who hold cards? Seems pretty stupid.
@manhunter9 and then they go to arbitration, where they default to the demands of the strikers. I don't know where your from, but man do we seem to live close.
So some of the biggest corporations in the world, rather than getting prosecuted for fraud and money laundering, which we know they did because they settled out of court, were given hundreds of billions of dollars under the Bush and Obama administration Congresses, and $16 trillion from the Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke, oh my god, it's so hard to pay American workers as much as during the Bush Sr administration the cost of doing business and credit is so harrrrd.
@Redfingers Yet you conveniently forgo the fact that regulations are so ridiculous that we're regulating our jobs away. It's been a well known fact that people in other countries will work for much lower wages than Americans, yet only during the great depression and in recent years have we had such an issue with jobs. Why is that? Because we are printing too much money and regulating far too much - the cost of hiring a worker is much higher than just their wage.
Minimum wage is actually lower right now, when inflation adjusted, than decades ago, when average wages were actually higher. But executive salaries continue to inflate, until they are tens to hundreds of times higher than the average worker at their corporation's salary. Why? Regulations? Taxes? When they give tax holidays to large corporations, their record is to cut jobs and give themselves huge bonuses and stock dividends. Grow up.
Then we have Warren Buffett, a billionaire, who pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. Oh, and the fact that blue chip corporations pay on average half the effective corporate tax rate. Oh, and then the fact that they hide all their money in offshore tax havens like the Caiman islands and only bring it back when they're guaranteed to not be taxed on the capital.
Oh or that there were no prosecutions during the financial crisis of rampant fraud and abuse.
There were million dollar tax brackets 20 years BEFORE the Reagan administration, in 2012 under President Obama, a "leftist liberal" who supposedly raises taxes every twelve seconds, the top income tax bracket is -STILL- $250k. Wanna know why? Because the tax brackets haven't been changed since the last Bush Sr administration. The Republican income tax brackets were kept in tact almost without changes from the Bush Sr administration.
Plus this bullshit you're talking about is a trend I identified with the Reagan administration. So, post-Reagan, with 2 consecutive Bush administrations in the 2000s, Bush Sr in the 90s, broken up only by 2 Clinton administrations, most of the time we're talking about here is Republican administrations.
By the way, go look at the history of the income tax in the US around the time of Ronald Reagan and towards the modern day....income tax brackets basically do not exist to this day.
Oh, so while America has one of the -BIGGEST- trade imbalances in the entire world, literally multiple times our export figure, AND we are the biggest import market in the entire world, we are soooo burdened by those tariffs, what is this, the 1840s? Shut up you fucking retard. Jesus.
Consumer prices are still low almost entirely because they're all imported from Mexico and China and Chile. That's part of why the Fed (incorrectly I might add) uses the consumer price index instead of money supply
@Redfingers I hope you know this is result of the inflation of the american dollar in a central bank, along with the economic sanctions such as tariffs, taxes, and penalties for both large and small business. In a regulated government mixed economy, when government intervenes its power into the market, you must recognize the threat of special interest imposing regulation that do much to destroy competition and favor itself. You must also take into consideration the federal wage law.
Tariffs, taxes, and penalties? What fucking tariffs? One of the most consistent trends within the American economy is that the manufacturing sector packed up and fucking LEFT because they can find people that will work pennies on the dollar in Taiwan and Korea. Ever heard of NAFTA? Fucking idiot. Ever hear of the Caiman Islands? Ever hear of a TAX HOLIDAY, what they're trying to promote in Congress and on the Pres. campaign trail? Buy into more propaganda you moron
Well, if you make a bald ass assertion about my intelligence instead of responding to the plethora of information I reported, all of which is true, then I guess you win. Not much I can do. I am retarded after all.
Jesus Christ, I swear to god, some of you motherfuckers simply should not be allowed to vote. Or breed.
Unsurprisingly, you play Call of Duty AND like Milton Friedman. Jesus Christ, I need to take a shower after talking to you.
@Redfingers Umm NO. After reading your "plethora of information" (lol) is exactly why I called you a retard. And then your retarded reply just proceeded to confirm it. Let's look at some of your gems:
"Real wages have not risen since the 1970" Umm NO. Real wages have risen consistently. Source: US Dept of Labor.
"What fucking tariffs?...tax holiday" Yeah it's called capital flight (look it up) & we know what causes it.
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in Reaganomics. The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
@CosmicFork: Wrong, the unions themselves make sure that less workers get hired and the government unionized workers make sure the taxpayer remains in perpetual debt and keeps governement budgets (taxpayer) in deficits. Also, unions make sure that the laziest workers get paid the SAME as the productive workers, that's hardly "fair"
@CosmicFork Your understanding of the word 'rights' is fatally flawed, but never mind that for now. Consider this, as Mrs Thatcher is back in the news just now: Was Britain more free and prosperous in the 1970s, when government and other unions were in control, or in the 1980s and 90s after their monopoly was challenged?
@themetalgod21 But how long did that downturn last, compared to now? Reagan stood by and let things work themselves out and it was largely over in six months. FDR and BHO reacted with flurries of regulations, laws, and governmental power grabs and prolonged the downturns by years. When will we learn these lessons?
@Drchainsaw77 Actually Reagan left H.W. Bush a recession that lasted for 6 years, it was what caused Bush Sr. to lose to Bill Clinton.The reagan years were sparse for the poor.
@ChrisDutch- Nothing good ever came out of being negative. Milton Friedman did win a Noble Peace Prize, just....you know....Google it. Plenty of videos and records will put your outlandish and anger filled theories to rest.
Since you like to bash free market economists, I ask you this, "Have you done anything comparable to winning a Noble Prize for advocating an Adam Smith-Free Market System in a Keynesian ruled era, that may establish your self-proclaimed high credibility?"
@LongBow1600- I want to know facts that support your theory. Not facts from a well credited liberal website either, because they hate the guy. Reagan with Paul Volker stopped inflation through monetary policy of not printing near the amount of money. This brought the Real interest rate down drastically coupled with price drops. This means an increase in purchasing power of the dollar against inflation coupled with easier yet responsible access to credit. How is this a failure?
We now know that Reaganomics failed and that Friedman, his lapdog, is full of shit. Furthermore, WTF happened to the GOP. They're all fucking crazies now. If someone was critical of Reagan back then, they must be shitting themselves now. Put a Reagan debate against what the GOP debates are now, and you'd think Reagan was a liberal.
@LongBow1600 Do we know this? How do we know that Reagaomics failed? Do explain this to me. In what way are you economically happier or more prosperous now than you were or would have been, say, in 1988?
Your last sentence is mindlessly backward. No current candidate comes anywhere near Reagan. The GOP is inside-out but only because they abandon Reagan's (and Friedman's) principles and legacy.
@tehatemachine Go ahead asswipe. If you've read any of Miltie scumbag's tomes the stuff that comes out of your ass will make the flowers on my grave grow tall. Until then enjoy your trip corporate socialism fuckface.
@tehatemachine Who won a Nobel Peace Prize? Miltie didn't: he won if for economics about the same time his twin sister Pinochet was murdering everyone in sight who stood in the way of imposing Friedman's free market fascism. As for my "tyrannical belifes" I suppose my belief in local economies, flexible banking, protective tariffs, lower taxes for the middle class, higher taxes for the wealthy, unionization and resistance to offshoring run counter to the American tradition, right?
@ChrisDutch IF you listened to Friedman. He said that he does not condone the actions of the Chilean government on enforcing it. He beliefs are set against force. But Voluntary action. And again you never received any recognition because you are yet just another fag on youtube Forcing others to agree with you. "unionization" Oh what's that I see off the the corner of the webpage? Hmm it says "Milton Friedman on Labor Unions- Free To Choose" Looks like it's a vid you haven't watched yet fagot.
@tehatemachine you must be a republikan cause only they have the power of having farts that makes more sense then when they try to speak with worths.
You like friedman. . he is a jew, yet you somehow agree with hitler to destroy all jews because they are selfish and bla bla bla (source, your own you tube channel)
there is not much i would like to ask you but there is only just this one question, how does it feel to be that stupid?
@1984socrates oh hey guys hes a jew! that means hes lying automatic because of his ethnicity! har har har. I guess you are a socialist faggot then since you seem to use your words with FORCE. but it's a shame that you have convinced no one otherwise since we in here have a higher education than you do.
@tehatemachine i have nothing against jews, i was speaking about you. . maybe you should understand the FORCE of listening first before you respond and just answer the question.
i know it's hard for you to do that with all that shit in your eyes and ears but at least give it a try cause you might learn something.
so let's try it again and try not to repeat yourself time after time, that's kind off boring.
@ChrisDutch ya actually tarrifs and especially high taxes on the rich are a relatively new thing in america becoming popular in the early 1900s. so no duh. income tax itself and all those things you mentioned are not part of "american tradition" they are dumb ideas we imported from europe. just as crappy as plastic junk we import from china today.
@ChrisDutch I'm sorry but you clearly have no understanding of the word "fascism;" it has nothing to do with free markets or freedom at all and is exactly the opposite.
Also, your belief in progressive taxation, protective tariffs, unionization, etc not only run counter to founding American principles, but counter to principles that create freedom and prosperity for the greatest possible number of people.
The peace prize counts for nothing, if one like Arafat can receive one.
I think it's tragic that Friedman's brilliant physical intellect in his brain, which required great study and effort to refine, is now terminated because of death.
This just goes to show you what a shill this guy is. Reagan was one of the most protectionist Presidents their were. He was one of the biggest spenders their were. He oversaw the deregulation of the markets that caused the biggest Crash since the 30's.
@Seedofwinter : Dumb, the entire boom of the 1990's was financed by Reagan's tax cuts and the which also financed the innovation of technology. Reagan turned this country around. Its the Democrat's social programs that are bankrupting us ie: social security, 70 welfare programs including medicaid. If your gonna finger point the blame, start with FDR (New Deal) and LBJ (Great Society, and JFK signed law allowing government employees to unionize ....THANKS FOR BANKRUPTING US DEMS!!!
@pmango1000 Supply side economics AKA voodoo economics, does not stimulate the economy. It DOESN'T bring new revenue into the system. All the studies show that cutting taxes or increasing taxes as very little effect on the overall economy
What's bankrupting us is tax cuts for rich folks and wars around the globe, not SS--Surplus as I type this. The problem with HC costs is that it's in privatized.
Sometimes I wish we could institute these policies, just so you can see how disastrous they are
@Seedofwinter LOL, yeah right so you are saying that TAKING $ out of the PEOPLE's hands and putting $ in governments hands produces better result?? Wars? LOL The wars arnt even 5% of our budget, sorry you are wrong. Social programs take up 50% of budget and growing so fast we cannot keep up.
Iraq War cost per year: $140 billion a year, deficit = $1.4 TRILLION, about 10% of deficit. YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG. Welfare in 2010: about $700 BILLION. Idiot HC? DOnt get me started, u need to learn
@pmango1000 In the case of HC? Yes. Take the system out of their hands and we can be successful.
Most National Healthcare systems spend very little money on bureaucrats. Their is nothing wrong with the people pooling their tax resources together to take care of one another. Most of us actually care for our brother humans, and have an interest in making sure people aren't bankrupted by private healthcare. Your system of private healthcare works only for the rich.
@Seedofwinter "Your system of private healthcare works only for the rich." This statement is true only *because* of government involvement. In every industry in which the government is involved -- medicine, energy, automobiles, education, any other you care to name -- prices *always* increase. Everywhere else, prices fall. Remove governmental intervention from medicine and most problems will go away.
@pmango1000 SS doesn't contribute ANYTHING to the debt or deficit. It has a surplus of 2.2 trillion. It is good.
Most of that debt we have is the result of Republican Presidents, and their big government in the Pentagon.
As soon as Bush took office our fiscal situation started to deteriorate. a war on two fronts while cutting taxes. A giant prescription drug program that he DIDN'T pay for.
When MC was enacted, it was paid for. Us, as citizens, decided we wanted to take care of our Seniors.
@Seedofwinter WRONG. Bush just happened to be president when all of the last 4 decades of social programs all added up, became unaffordable as ALL socialism has thruout history. Add in the government getting into housing under Carter and Clinton, social services, pensions, etc we finally had our collapse that the hard left has been planning for decades so that government can further takeover and divide the rich and poor. capitalism DIDNT fail, WE failed capitalism
@pmango1000 I really wish you could see the timeline this Country would have taken if we never decided government had an interest in educating it's citizens, or alleviating the ills of poverty. Political stability would be more extreme
Socialism is only supposed to be applied to programs of extreme importance to a Country's well-being or progression. Don't you agree that Socialism in education has made this Country better, and collectively, more educated?
@Seedofwinter : Actually its opposite of what you are saying. War on poverty? Yeah right, poverty level has INCREASED. Prior to 1900 there was very little poverty. Education?? Come on! The 3R's (reading, writing and Arithmetic) were mastered by the majority in 5th grade in tiny school houses without computers and billions of $. Today, we have 18 year olds who still cant read. Before all the social programs, American took care of themselves and it was known as the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY
@pmango1000 Check out the statistics. Your economic philosophy was responsible for widespread poverty AND has caused numerous depressions. Poverty is alleviated to a much greater extent in present times than in previous times. Can you honestly say that poor folks were better off in the 1800's or early 1900's?
Before Social programs their WASN'T a fifth grade, and not many people COULD get educated
I can't believe you think the 1800's were better economically for Americans. I'm flabbergasted
@Seedofwinter you are flabbergasted because you are comparing modern times to 1800's. AND like I said, USA was known as "the land of opportunity" in 1800's. Keep in mind that in 1800's ALL countries were centrally controlled, socialist, monarchs, communist etc except the USA. USA had FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM and founders believed that the ONLY taxation should be tariffs and NO internal taxation EXCEPT on luxury items which Congress would decide. They were against taxing property and income.
@Seedofwinter They where when they came to the United States. There are still people alive today from the Early 1900's, They said at that time from their old country. There was no running water or EVEN HEATED at all out of the tap. And this was quickly becoming a STANDARD. Which it now is like electricity. Was that a result of government intervention? The Great depression was far extended due to the enactments on the federal reserve.
@pmango1000 Another ignorant comment!!!!Defense takes up most of the budget at 670 billion dollars a year not including the covert programs.Iraq and Afghanistan war over 10 years, trillions upon trillions.
he uses a fancy word "monetary restraint". Do you know how does that decrease inflation? by increasing unemployment! yes, Regean decreased the inflation by throwing people out of work so less money was in the economy and inflation was decreased. unemployment went high, wages went down so corporations gained increasing power which they used to increase their political influence so that wages never recovered... Today's inequality is thanks to Regean.
@astronomypouya Volcker and Reagan saw an economic contraction in '82, yes, but this was bitter medicine that the nation had to swallow in order to stop and reverse inflation and restore the value of the dollar. Your relationship to money supply and employment is, at best, backward. This recession was over with in '83, and directly led to the prosperity that the nation enjoyed until 2001.
Come on Milton - what about the Fed bailouts of mexico under Reagan and all the other bailouts and all the other secretive Fed activity, like arming and propping up the Soviets and every other dictator right under his nose. The left hand was fiscal but the right hand was fascist. Right? Maybe he didn't do what Daddy Bush wanted and that's why his life was attacked. Back on track Ronny back on track.
I also fail to realize that the tooth fairy, the Great Pumplin and Elvis are winning Dancing With the Stars ... and for the same reason. Federal diollars have been as much a part of the success of American business as they were for the success of Solyndra. The VAST majority of corporations - businesses of any kind, have succeeded not only without government subsidy, but in spite of government interference. Is Microsoft successful enough for you?
The microchip was financed by military buying early computers from IBM and others for numerical calculations used to develop thermonuclear weapons. The japanese once they got hold of it did what they do best - analyze anything to a high precision and detail, and then manufacture it at least cost with high consistent quality at reasonable price.
@DavidHiII You are talking about different things.. You talk about the free market as if it is only possible under anarchy.. That isn't the truth in the least.. What is happening today is you have government far reaching into business and then "saying" they are not meddling with the free market.. Massive regulations, taxation over and over again on profits etc... That is a TOTAL AND COMPLETE manipulation of the free market.. Politicians get to pick winners and losers based on campaign contribute
@DavidHiII You are talking about different things.. You talk about the free market as if it is only possible under anarchy.. That isn't the truth in the least.. What is happening today is you have government far reaching into business and then "saying" they are not meddling with the free market.. Massive regulations, taxation over and over again on profits etc... That is a TOTAL AND COMPLETE manipulation of the free market.. Politicians get to pick winners and losers based on campaign contribute
@DavidHiII I would argue that through human history there have been many pockets of free market anarchy that did quite well but eventually gave up their autonomy for protection. There are more innovations in societies at times when their government and market were geared more towards self-determination. Humans are self-preserving by nature, this model fits our nature. Capitalism is the only proposed economic model that keeps the power diffused among the many
IM For The Board of Enfranchisement of The U.S.A. which will have a program
that will enfranchise more people U.S wide state to state ,with a 1.5 Trillion Dollar Federal funding being that we have Gold reserves. The Stock of Gold will be up and Gold will be $2500 a Troy ounce, This program will create 2 Million Jobs supporters are welcome toghter we stand
@DaviidHiIl I'm sorry to keep this going but there are quite a few things that are being overlooked.
If an American company is only in business because the government is pumping money into it's industry (like the military) than most likely it's because it's not a viable industry. Or rather, if the money was not controlled by the military and spent on military interests and instead was spent by the people it would not have to be redeveloped for consumers, thus saving money and/or advancing prog
BS. It wasn't Reagan who started the higher inflation & recession. It was Paul Volcker appointed by Carter as Fed President in 1979. It worked, & it is the reason that got Reagan elected in the first place. Of course, sadly for our nation, the recession ended in 1983, and Reagan was easily reelected in 1984. Then in his 2d term the Reagan dumped Volcker and placed Friedman disciple Allen Greenspan in charge of the Fed. Greenspan gave us such things as the housing bubble that just popped.
I wonder what Friedman thinks about his massive tax cuts, and his supply side economic policies... He doesn't strike me as one who would have supported something like that.
Reagan stuck to his principles? That's hilarious, he grew the government while all the while decrying big government. He talked a great game, but was no different than the rest of the statist clowns.
And why the fuck is Friedman endorsing somebody who went against all of Friedman's professed ideals: an imperialist protectionist who fought a war on drugs and immigration. Friedman spoke out against all of these, so I am beginning to think that he was either a hypocrite or just plain stupid.
@darwinkilledgod Luckily he's pushing up daisies and does not see anything anymore. Imperialism and protectionism are not "issues", they represent a negation of everything the "free market" ideology stands for.
@sasoslacek Wrong, they represent a negation of "some" of what the free market ideology stands for. They don't negate the reduction in payroll taxes that are part of the free market, or the continued deregulation of American industries, or the ending of socialized energy schemes...etc.
@darwinkilledgod No, you either have a free market or you don't. If there is one single import tariff or export subsidy in place it will have repercussions for the whole of the economy. Similarly diminishing the redistribution of wealth is just another form of government intervention, so is redistributing money from welfare to the military, so is a governmental war on unions. A free market system has never existed and can not exist, it is pure naivete to believe that it could.
@sasoslacek This is the point where I leave the conversation because your mind is no longer interesting to me. For the record it happened when you said, "you either have a free market or you don't." If you see no meaningful distinctions between the Soviet Union, France, and the US because none have a "real" free market then there is little I can do about it in this format.
@darwinkilledgod His mind isn't interesting to you? Why? Milton Friedman says "Free markets are the way to prosperity". He claims Reagan was principled, when Reagan was protectionist.
Folks like Milton Friedman and Reagan have ALWAYS played for bucks, they care not for principle
And their philosophy is veritably ignorant. As you see, this unbridled free-market philosophy gave us a little depression, AS IT ALWAYS DOES. NEVER let greedy people operate Carte Blanche. The little guy always burns
@Seedofwinter The people who saw the housing market collapse coming (Peter Schiff, Ron Paul) say the problem was government pushing home loans on poor people. People who didn't see see the collapse coming have retroactively blamed it on lack of regulation and (hilariously) "greed." Claiming we had "unbridled free-market" active in the housing market is just a boring lie. We have unbridled free-markets in porn and video games...that's about it. And both industries are doing fantastic.
Most Subprime were issued by PRIVATE BANKS, not Fannie and Freddy- the Government sponsored entities in which the CRA was put under. Government didn't force Wells Fargo to make such loans, nor did they force Wamu. They didn't force AIG to sell fradulant insurance on bogus products either. THAT was free markets
Subprime loans were crafted (and gambled in a completely free derivatives market hitherto) because it was very profitable to do so
@Seedofwinter If it was profitable why did they all go bankrupt?
Also, Fannie and Freddy were the worst, but the government was underwriting the bad loans even when made by private banks. Thomas Sowell explains this in his book. Or you can watch youtube videos of Clinton promising just that.
True or false: Austrian economists saw the collapse coming (Sowell, Schiff, Ron Paul)
True or false: Austrian economists say it was government intervention causing the problem
@darwinkilledgod Whether it was profitable for their companies is a whole other matter altogether. It most definitely was profitable for the CEO's and shareholders as those housing prices continued to ascend, and their institutions' stock wit it
No, the government WAS NOT underwriting their loans. You are misinformed. What private industry was doing was operating under the assumption that they would get a bailout because they knew that they were to fail
@Seedofwinter They backed the loans, which increased investments in those entities. They created the underwriting standards, its called an FHA loan. I can't believe you just said that Ron Paul is always doom and gloom. So he's trying to warn us for a long time, that's your insult?. He went into congress because we went of the gold standard and he knew the consequences.The Federal Reserve created so much money,1970-2011, which is reflected in Goldman sacs leverage-or the cause.
Friedman somehow forgets to mention the role of household debt in the "soaring" of the economy (both of the US and western Europe). Fact is that ever since the mid seventies, wages have failed to keep pace with the rise of productivity and the hole was being patched up by household debt, which has been steadily increasing since that time. The problem is not as simple as Friedman makes it out to be.
Mr. Friedman was warning us of where we are today. We need to take a minute of pause and listen to what he is saying. And it would be smart for those that oppose him or Reagan to take a real hard look at what you do support!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Theortical (sic) logic of Free-Market Fundamentalism" - DavidHill.
Uh, David. You need to get a grip on reality. The only one living in theory fantasy land is you. ANYTHING the government does turns to shit. Go try to get something done at the DMV for example. There are some things that the government has to step in to do, but for the most part the free market is the best solution. Government is the PROBLEM, not the answer. We've TRIED more government over the last century. Look where we are.
@Digali, no we have not "TRIED government over the last century." Since the early 1970s, real wages for the average American worker have either stagnated or gone down. No, not everything "the government does turns to shit," as you so vulgarly put it. If you stop underfunding government, it works a lot better. There's a huge difference between waiting in line for the DMV, supporting social services programs, funding vital infrastructure & protecting workers' rights
@daPlumber702, I've read many books, studied my history, & remain a very well informed individual.
It's true that if you fund government adequately it actually wroks quite well. It's common sense.
I like how you say in one breath that I'm "quite simply factually wrong," and then go on to say "it would take far too long to point out how many ways." Ample amounts of facts were provided to support my point of view.
With holes in the logic of Free Market fundamentalism identified, you can then proceed to discover that the ideological edifice is logically bankrupt.
The logical bankruptcy thus yields the undeniable fact that pro-business, pro-Free-Market propaganda & policy is actually one big power play & nothing more!
The fetishization of growth over development is no justification for the inhumane consequences of free-market fundamentalism.
In order for them to be "holes in the logic of Free Market fundamentalism", they actually have to be connected in some way to reality unlike the big market power play and inhumane consequences that you cite that are about as realistic as a Spngebob Squarepants episode...
...which seems to be your primary source material.
@FletchforFreedom there are major holes in the theortical logic of Free-Market fundamentalism. These holes have to do with inconsistencies between what the theory has to say about power relationships & accounatbility, and what real-life examples of free-market-inspired policies implemented in in the real world have to say about power relationships & accountability
In theory, nobody ought to get a hand-out. In reality, free-market theory just happens to provide public subsidies to corporations
It's rare to find such obvious drivel described as "common sense". The effectiveness of free markets and free exchange is not some ivory tower theory. It is observable reality. The only point that theory enters the discussion is WHY unfettered markets are so successful. The inconsistencies is between the perceptions/accusations of socialists and simple reality. The real-life examples continue to support the case for free marjets over governmnet intervention. Without exception.
What I find amusing is you fail to realize how much the federal governement has to do with the success of american corporations by directly subsidizing research into military and space applications that get turned into new products by the US corporations; name me ONE successful US corporation that did not build its fundemantal core subject free of governement subsidy post 1913?
If you can identify holes in the logic of free-market fundamentalism, such as that embraced by Milton Friedman, you can begin to dismantle the political, intellectual philosophical, ideological, and theoretical justifications for implementation of "free market" Supply-Side Economic neoliberalism.
Rather than posing humanitarian arguments against neoliberalism, which are always unabashedly dismissed by ideologues such as Friedman, the holes in the logic speak for themselves.
@jscottupton, those ideas you say Friedman believed in, enumerated simply as "individual freedom and limited government" don't really capture the full spectrum of ramifications and consequences of policies implemented that have been inspired by Milton Friedman's philosophy and ideology.
There's a huge difference between free market theory on paper and free market policies in action. The result is always some form of corporate-dominated tyranny, DESPITE how Friedman was against that tyranny.
Say hello to Mr. Rorke while you're there on the island! Your bizarre delusions about "corporate-dominated tyranny" bear no resemblance to literally anything that occurs in the real world (much as your ideological blindness may wish it to be so).
Corporations in a free market only have as much power as they can get consumers to grant them by purchasing their products. If they don't meet consumer needs, they go out of business. This is what actually happens in actual reality.
@FletchforFreedom, the only real "Fantasy Island" is that which exists in the pages of "free-market" theoreticians & philosophers -basically high-priests of today's religion, which calls itself "free-market" capitalism.
Corporations in a "free-market" only have as much power as their Share-Holders grant them. Corporations are far more accountable to their share-holders rather than the consumer. It's common sense: corporations are more accountable to wealthy elites, rather than consumers.
@ASRIBEIRIO Both are responsible. But lets not think that the FED chariman is immune from political pressure. In the early 1980's there were several bills that would have required through legislation to bring interest rates down. If Reagan would have caved into political pressure that is exactly what would have happened.
free markets should never be meddled with unless you have situations where the other country manipulates trade, such as China who uses gov't subsidies to make their steel, rubber, etc cheaper which helps them undercut other countries. That is immoral and against true free trade but since China is so critical to economies nobody has the balls to take them on.
Even then they shouldn't. The American consumer benefits from the, say, Chinese subsidizing steel and selling it to us. When they can't afford it anymore, we can start again or buy their plants.
Our economy will adjust to meet the new supply of workers. And it may so happen that it will be enough to make steel cheaper here.
But then intervention to protect the steel industry in the US failed to save any steel jobs and destroyed thousands of jobs in industries using finished steel. Sugar protectionism has driven most candy makers out of the US (accounting for more jobs than were ever saved). All the while consumers get stuck with higher prices. If China wants to harm itself so we can get cheaper goods, LET 'EM. The economic efficiencies gained from paying less for Chinese goods CREATES JOBS HERE.
good points. The sugar subsidies are one of the most unconscionable subsidies around. I saw an economic analysis that said for every job saved it costs about 300K dollars because it costs the rest of the nation's consumers and producers twice as much to pay for domestic sugar compared to foreign sugars.
Unfortunately pols will rarely take on special interests as it will make powerful enemies and win few supporters except the few people who realize that subsidies kill net jobs
the Reaganites always talked enthusiastically about "market forces," but they refused to allow them to function - and for a very simple reason: if market forces had been allowed to function, the United States would no longer have an auto industry, or a microchip industry, or computers or electronics, because they would have been wiped out by the Japanese.
So therefore the Reaganites closed off American markets and poured in huge amounts of public funds.
And actually, they were pretty frank about it to the business community - though of course not to the public.
So when he was Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker proudly proclaimed to a business audience in 1987 that Ronald Reagan "has granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century" - which was far too modest actually; Reagan probably provided more import relief to industry than all his predecessors COMBINED in that period!
Baker WAS right. That Reagan sought a voluntary agreement from the Japanese on auto sales (lest the Democratic Congress pass veto-proof tariffs) and made similar moves in the semi-conductor field (in a retaliatory measure - as Adam Smith suggested in 1776 - to offset Japanese subsidy of these industries) in no way supports the ridiculous claim that Reagan didn't allow markets to work. The reality is quite the opposite. This absurd "your hero did it too" idiocy never had any credibility.
@FletchforFreedom, pay attention to what I DID say. I didn't say, "your hero did it too." I expressed that free market theory cannot actually be implemented in real life in its purest form, primarily because it would be unrealistic.
I did this by using the example of Reagan-era protectionism. Aside from this one instance, we also find that the US economy basically runs on state-sponsored capitalism, primarily through the Military & Crime control sectors: military/police-state initiatives.
It has nothing to do with "heroes"; it has to do with the imbecility of the position that there is anything "unrealistic" about the embrace of free markets (which occur in their purest form every day when two individuals exchange in the absence of coersion). Your "example" of Reagan-era protectionism has already been demonstrated to be laughable, but not neraly so much as the pretense that the US runs primarily on "state-sponsored capotalism".
@FletchforFreedom, the US does run primarily on state-sponsored capitalism. Why do you think the government spends so heavily on the military sector and the crime control sector? Do you think it really has anything to do with actual threats to our security? Absolutely not! It has to with the way the US manages its economy. I just presented to you a concrete example of Lockheed.
There's no imbecility in the assertion that free-market theory is unrealistic: just compare theory with reality.
What's amazing is that anyone still attempts to repeat the complete oxymoron of state (sponsored) capitalism. State action is not capitalism, BY DEFINITION. Then you present the non sequitur of Lockhead which is an action I never endorsed, does not support the absurdity of "state capitalism" and doesn;t undermine anything I've said.
There's nothing but imbecility in the in the assertion that free-market theory is unrealistic. The reality in no way resembles your delusions.
Of course, the "free market" ideology is very useful - it's a weapon against the general population here, because it's an argument against social spending, and it's a weapon against poor people abroad, because we can hold it up to them and say "You guys have to follow these rules," then just go ahead and rob them.
But nobody really pays attention to this stuff when it comes to actual planning - and no one ever has.
So, for example, there was a British study of the hundred leading transnational corporations of the "Fortune 500," and it found that of the hundred, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had benefitted from what's called "state industrial policy" -that is some form of government intervention in the country in which they're based.
And of the hundred, they said at least twenty had been saved from total collapse by state intervention at one point or another.
For instance, the Lockheed corporation was going under in the 1970s, and the Nixon administration just bailed them out with public funds.
Okay, so they're back in business.
And now they STAY in business because the public pays for C-130s, and upgrading F-16s, and the F-22 project, War on Terror, and so on -NONE of which has to do with a "free market" either.
@DavidHilll You cite many things that are obviously at odds with the core principles of a free market, then point to those things as if they were short comings of capitalism. In a truly free economic system all of the government and corporation collusion you cite would be illegal. The fact that it has been manipulated and abused over the last century does not point to a failure of capitalism. It in fact proves the opposite.
Or take the fact that so many people live in the suburbs and everybody has to drive their own car everywhere. Was that a result of the "free market?"
No, it was because the U.S. government carried out a massive social engineering project in the 1950s to DESTROY the public transportation system in FAVOR of expanding a highly inefficient system based on cars and airplanes -because that's what benefits big industry.
It started with corporate schemes to buy up and eliminate the streetcar systems, and then continued with huge public subsidies to build the highway system and encourage an extremely inefficient and environmentally destructive alternative.
THAT's what led to the suburbanization of the country -so you get huge shopping malls in the suburbs, and devastation in the inner cities.
But these policies were a result of planning -they had NOTHING to do with the "free market."
@DaviidHill Voluntary export restraints actually hurt the domestic automakers... The Japanese just shifted production from small cars which had a tariffs to small trucks which did not have the tariff. The US produces more cars than ever before in US factories.
@DaviidHill He didn't close markets or fed fund companies he tariffed certain products to protect American companies...thus no money was needed from the fed government (the tax payers to bail them out) As a matter of fact, he cut taxes on companies so they could produce products at a lower cost to better compete... Unlike the backing of the Japanese's governments funding of Jap companies at that time.
@DaviidHill Maybe no Auto but the chip and tech industry in America out paces Japan by a long shot. I know it's easy to assume that they are ahead without doing any research, but American Technology is strides ahead of it's competition.
However, we would have pry been better had these industries been allowed to fail or compete against the foreign markets.
@DaviidHill Well actually they wouldnt have lol. The auto industry sucked so bad for so long because of that reason. Now american cars are much mroe competitive with japaneese cars. And our computers are still the best and we still have the best software
best software? you gotta be kidding me. Most high tech software for critical applications does not come from the US; like control sofware for the FAA and other air industries are hand scripted by Euro companies running them on Unix based distros that are built to Unix specifications but by European companies; the GSM network was developed by a Euro consorcium, and the US defense contractors suck so bad they had to buy the screens into the F-22 and F-35 from the Eurofighter programme
best software? you gotta be kidding me. Most high tech software for critical applications does not come from the US; like control sofware for the FAA and other air industries are hand scripted by Euro companies running them on Unix based distros that are built to Unix specifications but by European companies; the GSM network was developed by a Euro consorcium, and the US defense contractors suck so bad they had to buy the screens into the F-22 and F-35 from the Eurofighter programme
@52111centrumcz Uhh consumer soft ware? There is only one microsoft, one google etc. How many european software companies can match those? The video game sector is american in terms of developers.
The video game sector is American in terms of developers in the US; there are a lots of games programmed in England, and other places that are quite good as well; they just don't make it over the pond. Microsoft now lives off the corporate sector; very little of its income is from selling OS to the consumer market. Google has brand loyalty as it was efficient and first; until something better comes along it will remain first. However that does not negate any of the points I made.
"that was the key thing that made possible what we now have (Reagan's adherence to principal)". No arguments with that, but you should also mention what we now have is a growth rate that was about a third lower 1980 - 2010 than it was 1945 - 1970, accompanied by a series of asset bubbles and massive growth in asset sectors at the expense of the real economy to the point where if the financial sector dissappeared like at the beginning of the Great Depression, it would leave an equally large hole
sfjeff1089 1 day ago
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in "Reaganomics". The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
CosmicFork 1 day ago
These economists stick to their principles indefinitely and call themselves social scientists. There's nothing scientific in what they do...
TradingTutor 3 days ago
Friedman should have been president
EODtchwon 3 days ago
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in "Reaganomics". The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
CosmicFork 1 week ago 6
@CosmicFork
"The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!"
Why is it illegal?
cvict6 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CosmicFork
"The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!"
Why is it illegal?
cvict6 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CosmicFork
"The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!"
Why is it illegal?
cvict6 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CosmicFork
"The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!"
Why is it illegal?
cvict6 3 days ago
@CosmicFork If employees have rights, why don't employers?
H1TMANactual 2 days ago
@CosmicFork The labor unions (which you capitalized for some unknown reason) are grossly overpowered and have run the American auto industry into the ground, and they actually take away the rights of many workers by forcing them to join and pay dues, which then go to campaign contributions for politicians whom the individuals may not even support.
wowzabowza123 3 hours ago
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in "Reaganomics". The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
CosmicFork 1 week ago
@CosmicFork So you think its good when labor unions are ones who whole all of the cards. It can't be a mix of unions and business who hold cards? Seems pretty stupid.
Tacotruck1166 1 week ago
@CosmicFork unions take away jobs from other workers, they inflate wages and push down employment
in my town bus drivers make $30 an hour because the union takes the city hostage by striking if they dont. how is that fair?
manhunter9 1 week ago
@manhunter9 and then they go to arbitration, where they default to the demands of the strikers. I don't know where your from, but man do we seem to live close.
skydome29 4 days ago
@CosmicFork You're either an idiot or a troll
jensonmp 1 week ago
@jensonmp and you're some brain-washed Ron Paulee... so take a Hike!
CosmicFork 1 week ago
So some of the biggest corporations in the world, rather than getting prosecuted for fraud and money laundering, which we know they did because they settled out of court, were given hundreds of billions of dollars under the Bush and Obama administration Congresses, and $16 trillion from the Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke, oh my god, it's so hard to pay American workers as much as during the Bush Sr administration the cost of doing business and credit is so harrrrd.
Redfingers 1 week ago 6
@Redfingers Yet you conveniently forgo the fact that regulations are so ridiculous that we're regulating our jobs away. It's been a well known fact that people in other countries will work for much lower wages than Americans, yet only during the great depression and in recent years have we had such an issue with jobs. Why is that? Because we are printing too much money and regulating far too much - the cost of hiring a worker is much higher than just their wage.
Ixandius 16 hours ago
@Ixandius
Minimum wage is actually lower right now, when inflation adjusted, than decades ago, when average wages were actually higher. But executive salaries continue to inflate, until they are tens to hundreds of times higher than the average worker at their corporation's salary. Why? Regulations? Taxes? When they give tax holidays to large corporations, their record is to cut jobs and give themselves huge bonuses and stock dividends. Grow up.
Redfingers 14 hours ago
Then we have Warren Buffett, a billionaire, who pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. Oh, and the fact that blue chip corporations pay on average half the effective corporate tax rate. Oh, and then the fact that they hide all their money in offshore tax havens like the Caiman islands and only bring it back when they're guaranteed to not be taxed on the capital.
Oh or that there were no prosecutions during the financial crisis of rampant fraud and abuse.
Redfingers 1 week ago
There were million dollar tax brackets 20 years BEFORE the Reagan administration, in 2012 under President Obama, a "leftist liberal" who supposedly raises taxes every twelve seconds, the top income tax bracket is -STILL- $250k. Wanna know why? Because the tax brackets haven't been changed since the last Bush Sr administration. The Republican income tax brackets were kept in tact almost without changes from the Bush Sr administration.
Blame income taxes? What a monkey fucking retard.
Redfingers 1 week ago
Plus this bullshit you're talking about is a trend I identified with the Reagan administration. So, post-Reagan, with 2 consecutive Bush administrations in the 2000s, Bush Sr in the 90s, broken up only by 2 Clinton administrations, most of the time we're talking about here is Republican administrations.
By the way, go look at the history of the income tax in the US around the time of Ronald Reagan and towards the modern day....income tax brackets basically do not exist to this day.
Redfingers 1 week ago
Oh, so while America has one of the -BIGGEST- trade imbalances in the entire world, literally multiple times our export figure, AND we are the biggest import market in the entire world, we are soooo burdened by those tariffs, what is this, the 1840s? Shut up you fucking retard. Jesus.
Consumer prices are still low almost entirely because they're all imported from Mexico and China and Chile. That's part of why the Fed (incorrectly I might add) uses the consumer price index instead of money supply
Redfingers 1 week ago
Astonishingly, he looks like less of a douchebag in his old age, even when spouting nonsense about Ronald Reagan.
-Real wages have not risen since the 1970s.-
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
@Redfingers I hope you know this is result of the inflation of the american dollar in a central bank, along with the economic sanctions such as tariffs, taxes, and penalties for both large and small business. In a regulated government mixed economy, when government intervenes its power into the market, you must recognize the threat of special interest imposing regulation that do much to destroy competition and favor itself. You must also take into consideration the federal wage law.
Jaminjames122 1 week ago
@Jaminjames122
Tariffs, taxes, and penalties? What fucking tariffs? One of the most consistent trends within the American economy is that the manufacturing sector packed up and fucking LEFT because they can find people that will work pennies on the dollar in Taiwan and Korea. Ever heard of NAFTA? Fucking idiot. Ever hear of the Caiman Islands? Ever hear of a TAX HOLIDAY, what they're trying to promote in Congress and on the Pres. campaign trail? Buy into more propaganda you moron
Redfingers 1 week ago
@Redfingers Try seeing a doctor for your retardation.
H1TMANactual 2 days ago
@H1TMANactual
Well, if you make a bald ass assertion about my intelligence instead of responding to the plethora of information I reported, all of which is true, then I guess you win. Not much I can do. I am retarded after all.
Jesus Christ, I swear to god, some of you motherfuckers simply should not be allowed to vote. Or breed.
Unsurprisingly, you play Call of Duty AND like Milton Friedman. Jesus Christ, I need to take a shower after talking to you.
Redfingers 2 days ago
@Redfingers Umm NO. After reading your "plethora of information" (lol) is exactly why I called you a retard. And then your retarded reply just proceeded to confirm it. Let's look at some of your gems:
"Real wages have not risen since the 1970" Umm NO. Real wages have risen consistently. Source: US Dept of Labor.
"What fucking tariffs?...tax holiday" Yeah it's called capital flight (look it up) & we know what causes it.
I am out of space. Try again retard.
H1TMANactual 2 days ago
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in Reaganomics. The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
CosmicFork 2 weeks ago
@CosmicFork: Wrong, the unions themselves make sure that less workers get hired and the government unionized workers make sure the taxpayer remains in perpetual debt and keeps governement budgets (taxpayer) in deficits. Also, unions make sure that the laziest workers get paid the SAME as the productive workers, that's hardly "fair"
pmango1000 2 weeks ago
@CosmicFork Your understanding of the word 'rights' is fatally flawed, but never mind that for now. Consider this, as Mrs Thatcher is back in the news just now: Was Britain more free and prosperous in the 1970s, when government and other unions were in control, or in the 1980s and 90s after their monopoly was challenged?
Drchainsaw77 2 weeks ago
What about the stock market crash of '87 that never happened??
themetalgod21 1 month ago
@themetalgod21 But how long did that downturn last, compared to now? Reagan stood by and let things work themselves out and it was largely over in six months. FDR and BHO reacted with flurries of regulations, laws, and governmental power grabs and prolonged the downturns by years. When will we learn these lessons?
Drchainsaw77 2 weeks ago
@Drchainsaw77 Actually Reagan left H.W. Bush a recession that lasted for 6 years, it was what caused Bush Sr. to lose to Bill Clinton.The reagan years were sparse for the poor.
themetalgod21 2 weeks ago
Reagan stood by principle ,how about Iran Contra and lying under oath????
themetalgod21 1 month ago
@ChrisDutch- Nothing good ever came out of being negative. Milton Friedman did win a Noble Peace Prize, just....you know....Google it. Plenty of videos and records will put your outlandish and anger filled theories to rest.
Since you like to bash free market economists, I ask you this, "Have you done anything comparable to winning a Noble Prize for advocating an Adam Smith-Free Market System in a Keynesian ruled era, that may establish your self-proclaimed high credibility?"
PROPHETJESTER 1 month ago
@LongBow1600- I want to know facts that support your theory. Not facts from a well credited liberal website either, because they hate the guy. Reagan with Paul Volker stopped inflation through monetary policy of not printing near the amount of money. This brought the Real interest rate down drastically coupled with price drops. This means an increase in purchasing power of the dollar against inflation coupled with easier yet responsible access to credit. How is this a failure?
PROPHETJESTER 1 month ago
We now know that Reaganomics failed and that Friedman, his lapdog, is full of shit. Furthermore, WTF happened to the GOP. They're all fucking crazies now. If someone was critical of Reagan back then, they must be shitting themselves now. Put a Reagan debate against what the GOP debates are now, and you'd think Reagan was a liberal.
LongBow1600 1 month ago
@LongBow1600
Dumb leftwing faggot, STFU!
LogicalFlawDetector 3 weeks ago
@LongBow1600 Do we know this? How do we know that Reagaomics failed? Do explain this to me. In what way are you economically happier or more prosperous now than you were or would have been, say, in 1988?
Your last sentence is mindlessly backward. No current candidate comes anywhere near Reagan. The GOP is inside-out but only because they abandon Reagan's (and Friedman's) principles and legacy.
Drchainsaw77 2 weeks ago
R.I.P Milton. YOU VOICE SHOULD BE HEARD BY MY GENERATION! They do not understand your working principles!
tehatemachine 2 months ago
Reagan and Friedman, two con men and murderers that took this country straight into the shithouse. May both of these bastards rot in hell forever.
ChrisDutch 2 months ago
@ChrisDutch I will gladly piss on your fucking grave then take a dump afterwords on it you Socialist fuck.
tehatemachine 2 months ago
@tehatemachine Go ahead asswipe. If you've read any of Miltie scumbag's tomes the stuff that comes out of your ass will make the flowers on my grave grow tall. Until then enjoy your trip corporate socialism fuckface.
ChrisDutch 2 months ago
@ChrisDutch Sorry Bro. but you're not the one who won a Nobel peace prize. Keep on spreading your tyrannical beliefs fagot.
tehatemachine 2 months ago
@tehatemachine Who won a Nobel Peace Prize? Miltie didn't: he won if for economics about the same time his twin sister Pinochet was murdering everyone in sight who stood in the way of imposing Friedman's free market fascism. As for my "tyrannical belifes" I suppose my belief in local economies, flexible banking, protective tariffs, lower taxes for the middle class, higher taxes for the wealthy, unionization and resistance to offshoring run counter to the American tradition, right?
ChrisDutch 2 months ago
@ChrisDutch IF you listened to Friedman. He said that he does not condone the actions of the Chilean government on enforcing it. He beliefs are set against force. But Voluntary action. And again you never received any recognition because you are yet just another fag on youtube Forcing others to agree with you. "unionization" Oh what's that I see off the the corner of the webpage? Hmm it says "Milton Friedman on Labor Unions- Free To Choose" Looks like it's a vid you haven't watched yet fagot.
tehatemachine 2 months ago
@tehatemachine you must be a republikan cause only they have the power of having farts that makes more sense then when they try to speak with worths.
You like friedman. . he is a jew, yet you somehow agree with hitler to destroy all jews because they are selfish and bla bla bla (source, your own you tube channel)
there is not much i would like to ask you but there is only just this one question, how does it feel to be that stupid?
1984socrates 1 month ago
@1984socrates oh hey guys hes a jew! that means hes lying automatic because of his ethnicity! har har har. I guess you are a socialist faggot then since you seem to use your words with FORCE. but it's a shame that you have convinced no one otherwise since we in here have a higher education than you do.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@tehatemachine i have nothing against jews, i was speaking about you. . maybe you should understand the FORCE of listening first before you respond and just answer the question.
i know it's hard for you to do that with all that shit in your eyes and ears but at least give it a try cause you might learn something.
so let's try it again and try not to repeat yourself time after time, that's kind off boring.
How does it feel to be that stupid?
1984socrates 1 month ago
@tehatemachine Maybe you didn't know ti but a lot of notable jews were socialists inclusing Einstein.The russian revolution was led by a jew Lenin.
themetalgod21 1 month ago
@ChrisDutch ya actually tarrifs and especially high taxes on the rich are a relatively new thing in america becoming popular in the early 1900s. so no duh. income tax itself and all those things you mentioned are not part of "american tradition" they are dumb ideas we imported from europe. just as crappy as plastic junk we import from china today.
elwoodwinn 1 month ago
@ChrisDutch I'm sorry but you clearly have no understanding of the word "fascism;" it has nothing to do with free markets or freedom at all and is exactly the opposite.
Also, your belief in progressive taxation, protective tariffs, unionization, etc not only run counter to founding American principles, but counter to principles that create freedom and prosperity for the greatest possible number of people.
The peace prize counts for nothing, if one like Arafat can receive one.
Drchainsaw77 2 weeks ago
Man, he's old.
humanvegetable 2 months ago
ASSHOLE!!!!!! You almost blew my fucking speakers at the beginning
clintcastle 2 months ago
I think it's tragic that Friedman's brilliant physical intellect in his brain, which required great study and effort to refine, is now terminated because of death.
However, his work will live on in perpetuity.
wallstreetatheist 3 months ago
This just goes to show you what a shill this guy is. Reagan was one of the most protectionist Presidents their were. He was one of the biggest spenders their were. He oversaw the deregulation of the markets that caused the biggest Crash since the 30's.
Principle.....I lost all my respect for this guy.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter : Dumb, the entire boom of the 1990's was financed by Reagan's tax cuts and the which also financed the innovation of technology. Reagan turned this country around. Its the Democrat's social programs that are bankrupting us ie: social security, 70 welfare programs including medicaid. If your gonna finger point the blame, start with FDR (New Deal) and LBJ (Great Society, and JFK signed law allowing government employees to unionize ....THANKS FOR BANKRUPTING US DEMS!!!
pmango1000 3 months ago
@pmango1000 Supply side economics AKA voodoo economics, does not stimulate the economy. It DOESN'T bring new revenue into the system. All the studies show that cutting taxes or increasing taxes as very little effect on the overall economy
What's bankrupting us is tax cuts for rich folks and wars around the globe, not SS--Surplus as I type this. The problem with HC costs is that it's in privatized.
Sometimes I wish we could institute these policies, just so you can see how disastrous they are
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter LOL, yeah right so you are saying that TAKING $ out of the PEOPLE's hands and putting $ in governments hands produces better result?? Wars? LOL The wars arnt even 5% of our budget, sorry you are wrong. Social programs take up 50% of budget and growing so fast we cannot keep up.
Iraq War cost per year: $140 billion a year, deficit = $1.4 TRILLION, about 10% of deficit. YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG. Welfare in 2010: about $700 BILLION. Idiot HC? DOnt get me started, u need to learn
pmango1000 3 months ago
@pmango1000 In the case of HC? Yes. Take the system out of their hands and we can be successful.
Most National Healthcare systems spend very little money on bureaucrats. Their is nothing wrong with the people pooling their tax resources together to take care of one another. Most of us actually care for our brother humans, and have an interest in making sure people aren't bankrupted by private healthcare. Your system of private healthcare works only for the rich.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter "Your system of private healthcare works only for the rich." This statement is true only *because* of government involvement. In every industry in which the government is involved -- medicine, energy, automobiles, education, any other you care to name -- prices *always* increase. Everywhere else, prices fall. Remove governmental intervention from medicine and most problems will go away.
Drchainsaw77 2 weeks ago
@pmango1000 SS doesn't contribute ANYTHING to the debt or deficit. It has a surplus of 2.2 trillion. It is good.
Most of that debt we have is the result of Republican Presidents, and their big government in the Pentagon.
As soon as Bush took office our fiscal situation started to deteriorate. a war on two fronts while cutting taxes. A giant prescription drug program that he DIDN'T pay for.
When MC was enacted, it was paid for. Us, as citizens, decided we wanted to take care of our Seniors.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter WRONG. Bush just happened to be president when all of the last 4 decades of social programs all added up, became unaffordable as ALL socialism has thruout history. Add in the government getting into housing under Carter and Clinton, social services, pensions, etc we finally had our collapse that the hard left has been planning for decades so that government can further takeover and divide the rich and poor. capitalism DIDNT fail, WE failed capitalism
pmango1000 2 months ago
@pmango1000 I really wish you could see the timeline this Country would have taken if we never decided government had an interest in educating it's citizens, or alleviating the ills of poverty. Political stability would be more extreme
Socialism is only supposed to be applied to programs of extreme importance to a Country's well-being or progression. Don't you agree that Socialism in education has made this Country better, and collectively, more educated?
Seedofwinter 2 months ago
@Seedofwinter : Actually its opposite of what you are saying. War on poverty? Yeah right, poverty level has INCREASED. Prior to 1900 there was very little poverty. Education?? Come on! The 3R's (reading, writing and Arithmetic) were mastered by the majority in 5th grade in tiny school houses without computers and billions of $. Today, we have 18 year olds who still cant read. Before all the social programs, American took care of themselves and it was known as the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY
pmango1000 2 months ago
@pmango1000 Check out the statistics. Your economic philosophy was responsible for widespread poverty AND has caused numerous depressions. Poverty is alleviated to a much greater extent in present times than in previous times. Can you honestly say that poor folks were better off in the 1800's or early 1900's?
Before Social programs their WASN'T a fifth grade, and not many people COULD get educated
I can't believe you think the 1800's were better economically for Americans. I'm flabbergasted
Seedofwinter 2 months ago
@Seedofwinter you are flabbergasted because you are comparing modern times to 1800's. AND like I said, USA was known as "the land of opportunity" in 1800's. Keep in mind that in 1800's ALL countries were centrally controlled, socialist, monarchs, communist etc except the USA. USA had FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM and founders believed that the ONLY taxation should be tariffs and NO internal taxation EXCEPT on luxury items which Congress would decide. They were against taxing property and income.
pmango1000 2 months ago
@Seedofwinter They where when they came to the United States. There are still people alive today from the Early 1900's, They said at that time from their old country. There was no running water or EVEN HEATED at all out of the tap. And this was quickly becoming a STANDARD. Which it now is like electricity. Was that a result of government intervention? The Great depression was far extended due to the enactments on the federal reserve.
tehatemachine 2 months ago
@pmango1000 Another ignorant comment!!!!Defense takes up most of the budget at 670 billion dollars a year not including the covert programs.Iraq and Afghanistan war over 10 years, trillions upon trillions.
themetalgod21 1 month ago
In other words....."The thing that impressed me most abt Reagan is that he was a principled man, he always followed my principles."
MrMadPsyntist 3 months ago
he uses a fancy word "monetary restraint". Do you know how does that decrease inflation? by increasing unemployment! yes, Regean decreased the inflation by throwing people out of work so less money was in the economy and inflation was decreased. unemployment went high, wages went down so corporations gained increasing power which they used to increase their political influence so that wages never recovered... Today's inequality is thanks to Regean.
astronomypouya 3 months ago
@astronomypouya Volcker and Reagan saw an economic contraction in '82, yes, but this was bitter medicine that the nation had to swallow in order to stop and reverse inflation and restore the value of the dollar. Your relationship to money supply and employment is, at best, backward. This recession was over with in '83, and directly led to the prosperity that the nation enjoyed until 2001.
Inequality is also a meaningless concept.
Drchainsaw77 2 weeks ago
Come on Milton - what about the Fed bailouts of mexico under Reagan and all the other bailouts and all the other secretive Fed activity, like arming and propping up the Soviets and every other dictator right under his nose. The left hand was fiscal but the right hand was fascist. Right? Maybe he didn't do what Daddy Bush wanted and that's why his life was attacked. Back on track Ronny back on track.
mikedans55 3 months ago
I also fail to realize that the tooth fairy, the Great Pumplin and Elvis are winning Dancing With the Stars ... and for the same reason. Federal diollars have been as much a part of the success of American business as they were for the success of Solyndra. The VAST majority of corporations - businesses of any kind, have succeeded not only without government subsidy, but in spite of government interference. Is Microsoft successful enough for you?
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@sgmenges
The microchip was financed by military buying early computers from IBM and others for numerical calculations used to develop thermonuclear weapons. The japanese once they got hold of it did what they do best - analyze anything to a high precision and detail, and then manufacture it at least cost with high consistent quality at reasonable price.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
@DavidHiII You are talking about different things.. You talk about the free market as if it is only possible under anarchy.. That isn't the truth in the least.. What is happening today is you have government far reaching into business and then "saying" they are not meddling with the free market.. Massive regulations, taxation over and over again on profits etc... That is a TOTAL AND COMPLETE manipulation of the free market.. Politicians get to pick winners and losers based on campaign contribute
SuperGuitarman69 4 months ago
@DavidHiII You are talking about different things.. You talk about the free market as if it is only possible under anarchy.. That isn't the truth in the least.. What is happening today is you have government far reaching into business and then "saying" they are not meddling with the free market.. Massive regulations, taxation over and over again on profits etc... That is a TOTAL AND COMPLETE manipulation of the free market.. Politicians get to pick winners and losers based on campaign contribute
SuperGuitarman69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidHiII I would argue that through human history there have been many pockets of free market anarchy that did quite well but eventually gave up their autonomy for protection. There are more innovations in societies at times when their government and market were geared more towards self-determination. Humans are self-preserving by nature, this model fits our nature. Capitalism is the only proposed economic model that keeps the power diffused among the many
fdpirigyi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IM For The Board of Enfranchisement of The U.S.A. which will have a program
that will enfranchise more people U.S wide state to state ,with a 1.5 Trillion Dollar Federal funding being that we have Gold reserves. The Stock of Gold will be up and Gold will be $2500 a Troy ounce, This program will create 2 Million Jobs supporters are welcome toghter we stand
PattersonAndWhipson 5 months ago
@DaviidHiIl I'm sorry to keep this going but there are quite a few things that are being overlooked.
If an American company is only in business because the government is pumping money into it's industry (like the military) than most likely it's because it's not a viable industry. Or rather, if the money was not controlled by the military and spent on military interests and instead was spent by the people it would not have to be redeveloped for consumers, thus saving money and/or advancing prog
ASherbuck84 5 months ago
BS. It wasn't Reagan who started the higher inflation & recession. It was Paul Volcker appointed by Carter as Fed President in 1979. It worked, & it is the reason that got Reagan elected in the first place. Of course, sadly for our nation, the recession ended in 1983, and Reagan was easily reelected in 1984. Then in his 2d term the Reagan dumped Volcker and placed Friedman disciple Allen Greenspan in charge of the Fed. Greenspan gave us such things as the housing bubble that just popped.
WRCis 5 months ago
I wonder what Friedman thinks about his massive tax cuts, and his supply side economic policies... He doesn't strike me as one who would have supported something like that.
mightyafrowhitey 5 months ago
stopping inflation? isnt that "price controls"? reagans a commie.
jwfcp 6 months ago
Even though Ronald Reagan had libertarian leanings on Social Issues, Milton Friedman was to the left of him on Social Issues.
FRSFreeStatePlus 7 months ago
Reagan stuck to his principles? That's hilarious, he grew the government while all the while decrying big government. He talked a great game, but was no different than the rest of the statist clowns.
pretorious700 8 months ago
@pretorious700 Didn't he "grow the government" for one of the few legitimate purposes of government- national defense?
davekeays 6 months ago
And why the fuck is Friedman endorsing somebody who went against all of Friedman's professed ideals: an imperialist protectionist who fought a war on drugs and immigration. Friedman spoke out against all of these, so I am beginning to think that he was either a hypocrite or just plain stupid.
sasoslacek 8 months ago
@sasoslacek Or Milton sees more than the 3 issues you do...
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
@darwinkilledgod Luckily he's pushing up daisies and does not see anything anymore. Imperialism and protectionism are not "issues", they represent a negation of everything the "free market" ideology stands for.
sasoslacek 8 months ago
@sasoslacek Wrong, they represent a negation of "some" of what the free market ideology stands for. They don't negate the reduction in payroll taxes that are part of the free market, or the continued deregulation of American industries, or the ending of socialized energy schemes...etc.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
@darwinkilledgod No, you either have a free market or you don't. If there is one single import tariff or export subsidy in place it will have repercussions for the whole of the economy. Similarly diminishing the redistribution of wealth is just another form of government intervention, so is redistributing money from welfare to the military, so is a governmental war on unions. A free market system has never existed and can not exist, it is pure naivete to believe that it could.
sasoslacek 8 months ago
@sasoslacek This is the point where I leave the conversation because your mind is no longer interesting to me. For the record it happened when you said, "you either have a free market or you don't." If you see no meaningful distinctions between the Soviet Union, France, and the US because none have a "real" free market then there is little I can do about it in this format.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago 33
@darwinkilledgod His mind isn't interesting to you? Why? Milton Friedman says "Free markets are the way to prosperity". He claims Reagan was principled, when Reagan was protectionist.
Folks like Milton Friedman and Reagan have ALWAYS played for bucks, they care not for principle
And their philosophy is veritably ignorant. As you see, this unbridled free-market philosophy gave us a little depression, AS IT ALWAYS DOES. NEVER let greedy people operate Carte Blanche. The little guy always burns
Seedofwinter 2 months ago
@Seedofwinter The people who saw the housing market collapse coming (Peter Schiff, Ron Paul) say the problem was government pushing home loans on poor people. People who didn't see see the collapse coming have retroactively blamed it on lack of regulation and (hilariously) "greed." Claiming we had "unbridled free-market" active in the housing market is just a boring lie. We have unbridled free-markets in porn and video games...that's about it. And both industries are doing fantastic.
darwinkilledgod 2 months ago
@darwinkilledgod A typical right-wing, talking point.
Most Subprime were issued by PRIVATE BANKS, not Fannie and Freddy- the Government sponsored entities in which the CRA was put under. Government didn't force Wells Fargo to make such loans, nor did they force Wamu. They didn't force AIG to sell fradulant insurance on bogus products either. THAT was free markets
Subprime loans were crafted (and gambled in a completely free derivatives market hitherto) because it was very profitable to do so
Seedofwinter 2 months ago
@Seedofwinter If it was profitable why did they all go bankrupt?
Also, Fannie and Freddy were the worst, but the government was underwriting the bad loans even when made by private banks. Thomas Sowell explains this in his book. Or you can watch youtube videos of Clinton promising just that.
True or false: Austrian economists saw the collapse coming (Sowell, Schiff, Ron Paul)
True or false: Austrian economists say it was government intervention causing the problem
darwinkilledgod 2 months ago
@darwinkilledgod Whether it was profitable for their companies is a whole other matter altogether. It most definitely was profitable for the CEO's and shareholders as those housing prices continued to ascend, and their institutions' stock wit it
No, the government WAS NOT underwriting their loans. You are misinformed. What private industry was doing was operating under the assumption that they would get a bailout because they knew that they were to fail
False. Ron Paul is ALWAYS doom n gloom
Seedofwinter 2 months ago
@Seedofwinter They backed the loans, which increased investments in those entities. They created the underwriting standards, its called an FHA loan. I can't believe you just said that Ron Paul is always doom and gloom. So he's trying to warn us for a long time, that's your insult?. He went into congress because we went of the gold standard and he knew the consequences.The Federal Reserve created so much money,1970-2011, which is reflected in Goldman sacs leverage-or the cause.
tadaa11 1 month ago
Friedman somehow forgets to mention the role of household debt in the "soaring" of the economy (both of the US and western Europe). Fact is that ever since the mid seventies, wages have failed to keep pace with the rise of productivity and the hole was being patched up by household debt, which has been steadily increasing since that time. The problem is not as simple as Friedman makes it out to be.
sasoslacek 8 months ago
Mr. Friedman was warning us of where we are today. We need to take a minute of pause and listen to what he is saying. And it would be smart for those that oppose him or Reagan to take a real hard look at what you do support!
webster2020 8 months ago
Fuck Ronald Reagan.
TheEthanwashere 9 months ago
Milton Greedman and uncle ronny, what a american dreamteam ;-).
hopsala1 9 months ago
Is it just me, or is the intro music REALLY loud?
MrHamncheez 9 months ago
hola
cyberfidei 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The best economist and president of the United States history...
myhome123 1 year ago
Reagan principles: crush South America, crush unions, RAISE protective barriers (anti-free market), etc. Ya, this guy is full of shit.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@DaviidHill
It doesn't matter to you that the Japanese engaged in illegal business practises like dumping and price-fixing, does it?
Cockwallet 1 year ago
Sticking to Principle!
Military expenditures on a large scale without finding adequate tax revnue to cover the expense!
Sir, you do JEST!
gundamWWW 1 year ago
Murray N Rothbard had a very different view of Reagan. Who is right?
help4343 1 year ago
@help4343, Rothbard was right!
Friedman had to pretend as though Reagan was a pure free-market fundamentalist due to political & personal allegiances that he held/
However, Rothbard was a pure ideologue beholden to nobody, save his own narrow-minded ideology!
DavidHilll 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Theortical (sic) logic of Free-Market Fundamentalism" - DavidHill.
Uh, David. You need to get a grip on reality. The only one living in theory fantasy land is you. ANYTHING the government does turns to shit. Go try to get something done at the DMV for example. There are some things that the government has to step in to do, but for the most part the free market is the best solution. Government is the PROBLEM, not the answer. We've TRIED more government over the last century. Look where we are.
Digali 1 year ago
@Digali, no we have not "TRIED government over the last century." Since the early 1970s, real wages for the average American worker have either stagnated or gone down. No, not everything "the government does turns to shit," as you so vulgarly put it. If you stop underfunding government, it works a lot better. There's a huge difference between waiting in line for the DMV, supporting social services programs, funding vital infrastructure & protecting workers' rights
DavidHillI 1 year ago
@DavidHillI underfunding? retarded. go read a book.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702, I've read many books, studied my history, & remain a very well informed individual.
It's true that if you fund government adequately it actually wroks quite well. It's common sense.
I like how you say in one breath that I'm "quite simply factually wrong," and then go on to say "it would take far too long to point out how many ways." Ample amounts of facts were provided to support my point of view.
DaviiidHill 1 year ago
With holes in the logic of Free Market fundamentalism identified, you can then proceed to discover that the ideological edifice is logically bankrupt.
The logical bankruptcy thus yields the undeniable fact that pro-business, pro-Free-Market propaganda & policy is actually one big power play & nothing more!
The fetishization of growth over development is no justification for the inhumane consequences of free-market fundamentalism.
DaviidHiII 1 year ago
In order for them to be "holes in the logic of Free Market fundamentalism", they actually have to be connected in some way to reality unlike the big market power play and inhumane consequences that you cite that are about as realistic as a Spngebob Squarepants episode...
...which seems to be your primary source material.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom there are major holes in the theortical logic of Free-Market fundamentalism. These holes have to do with inconsistencies between what the theory has to say about power relationships & accounatbility, and what real-life examples of free-market-inspired policies implemented in in the real world have to say about power relationships & accountability
In theory, nobody ought to get a hand-out. In reality, free-market theory just happens to provide public subsidies to corporations
DavidHilll 1 year ago
It's rare to find such obvious drivel described as "common sense". The effectiveness of free markets and free exchange is not some ivory tower theory. It is observable reality. The only point that theory enters the discussion is WHY unfettered markets are so successful. The inconsistencies is between the perceptions/accusations of socialists and simple reality. The real-life examples continue to support the case for free marjets over governmnet intervention. Without exception.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
What I find amusing is you fail to realize how much the federal governement has to do with the success of american corporations by directly subsidizing research into military and space applications that get turned into new products by the US corporations; name me ONE successful US corporation that did not build its fundemantal core subject free of governement subsidy post 1913?
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
If you can identify holes in the logic of free-market fundamentalism, such as that embraced by Milton Friedman, you can begin to dismantle the political, intellectual philosophical, ideological, and theoretical justifications for implementation of "free market" Supply-Side Economic neoliberalism.
Rather than posing humanitarian arguments against neoliberalism, which are always unabashedly dismissed by ideologues such as Friedman, the holes in the logic speak for themselves.
DaviidHiII 1 year ago
Ya, rickbar123, Friedman was a bad guy because he believed in individual freedom and limited government. Those are really bad ideas.
jscottupton 1 year ago
@jscottupton, those ideas you say Friedman believed in, enumerated simply as "individual freedom and limited government" don't really capture the full spectrum of ramifications and consequences of policies implemented that have been inspired by Milton Friedman's philosophy and ideology.
There's a huge difference between free market theory on paper and free market policies in action. The result is always some form of corporate-dominated tyranny, DESPITE how Friedman was against that tyranny.
DaviidHiII 1 year ago
Say hello to Mr. Rorke while you're there on the island! Your bizarre delusions about "corporate-dominated tyranny" bear no resemblance to literally anything that occurs in the real world (much as your ideological blindness may wish it to be so).
Corporations in a free market only have as much power as they can get consumers to grant them by purchasing their products. If they don't meet consumer needs, they go out of business. This is what actually happens in actual reality.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom, the only real "Fantasy Island" is that which exists in the pages of "free-market" theoreticians & philosophers -basically high-priests of today's religion, which calls itself "free-market" capitalism.
Corporations in a "free-market" only have as much power as their Share-Holders grant them. Corporations are far more accountable to their share-holders rather than the consumer. It's common sense: corporations are more accountable to wealthy elites, rather than consumers.
DavidHilll 1 year ago
Hey Milton!!!
How is Hell???? Warm I bet.
rickbar123 1 year ago
@rickbar123 What did this guy ever do wrong?
john5927572 1 year ago
@rickbar123
I feel sorry for you. By the way, we are in a depression.
crock837 1 year ago
We wouldn't be in the problem we are in today if we had a real president with friedman advising.
vampov 1 year ago 6
@vampov We would be in a depression
rickbar123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vampov
Ron Paul Peter Schiff
mossbergmaniac1947 9 months ago
@vampov Well they did use some of his policies for the bailout apparently.
TheEthanwashere 9 months ago
One would normally thank Volcker, the guy who actually did something; but apparently it was Reagan who was responsible.
ASRIBEIRIO 1 year ago
@ASRIBEIRIO Both are responsible. But lets not think that the FED chariman is immune from political pressure. In the early 1980's there were several bills that would have required through legislation to bring interest rates down. If Reagan would have caved into political pressure that is exactly what would have happened.
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
free markets should never be meddled with unless you have situations where the other country manipulates trade, such as China who uses gov't subsidies to make their steel, rubber, etc cheaper which helps them undercut other countries. That is immoral and against true free trade but since China is so critical to economies nobody has the balls to take them on.
umrmecheman 2 years ago
Even then they shouldn't. The American consumer benefits from the, say, Chinese subsidizing steel and selling it to us. When they can't afford it anymore, we can start again or buy their plants.
Our economy will adjust to meet the new supply of workers. And it may so happen that it will be enough to make steel cheaper here.
JohnBreadForger 2 years ago
But then intervention to protect the steel industry in the US failed to save any steel jobs and destroyed thousands of jobs in industries using finished steel. Sugar protectionism has driven most candy makers out of the US (accounting for more jobs than were ever saved). All the while consumers get stuck with higher prices. If China wants to harm itself so we can get cheaper goods, LET 'EM. The economic efficiencies gained from paying less for Chinese goods CREATES JOBS HERE.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
good points. The sugar subsidies are one of the most unconscionable subsidies around. I saw an economic analysis that said for every job saved it costs about 300K dollars because it costs the rest of the nation's consumers and producers twice as much to pay for domestic sugar compared to foreign sugars.
Unfortunately pols will rarely take on special interests as it will make powerful enemies and win few supporters except the few people who realize that subsidies kill net jobs
umrmecheman 2 years ago
the Reaganites always talked enthusiastically about "market forces," but they refused to allow them to function - and for a very simple reason: if market forces had been allowed to function, the United States would no longer have an auto industry, or a microchip industry, or computers or electronics, because they would have been wiped out by the Japanese.
So therefore the Reaganites closed off American markets and poured in huge amounts of public funds.
DaviidHill 2 years ago 41
And actually, they were pretty frank about it to the business community - though of course not to the public.
So when he was Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker proudly proclaimed to a business audience in 1987 that Ronald Reagan "has granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century" - which was far too modest actually; Reagan probably provided more import relief to industry than all his predecessors COMBINED in that period!
DaviidHill 2 years ago
Baker WAS right. That Reagan sought a voluntary agreement from the Japanese on auto sales (lest the Democratic Congress pass veto-proof tariffs) and made similar moves in the semi-conductor field (in a retaliatory measure - as Adam Smith suggested in 1776 - to offset Japanese subsidy of these industries) in no way supports the ridiculous claim that Reagan didn't allow markets to work. The reality is quite the opposite. This absurd "your hero did it too" idiocy never had any credibility.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
@FletchforFreedom, pay attention to what I DID say. I didn't say, "your hero did it too." I expressed that free market theory cannot actually be implemented in real life in its purest form, primarily because it would be unrealistic.
I did this by using the example of Reagan-era protectionism. Aside from this one instance, we also find that the US economy basically runs on state-sponsored capitalism, primarily through the Military & Crime control sectors: military/police-state initiatives.
DaviidHiII 1 year ago
It has nothing to do with "heroes"; it has to do with the imbecility of the position that there is anything "unrealistic" about the embrace of free markets (which occur in their purest form every day when two individuals exchange in the absence of coersion). Your "example" of Reagan-era protectionism has already been demonstrated to be laughable, but not neraly so much as the pretense that the US runs primarily on "state-sponsored capotalism".
Who do you expect to fall for such drivel?
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom, the US does run primarily on state-sponsored capitalism. Why do you think the government spends so heavily on the military sector and the crime control sector? Do you think it really has anything to do with actual threats to our security? Absolutely not! It has to with the way the US manages its economy. I just presented to you a concrete example of Lockheed.
There's no imbecility in the assertion that free-market theory is unrealistic: just compare theory with reality.
DavidHilll 1 year ago
What's amazing is that anyone still attempts to repeat the complete oxymoron of state (sponsored) capitalism. State action is not capitalism, BY DEFINITION. Then you present the non sequitur of Lockhead which is an action I never endorsed, does not support the absurdity of "state capitalism" and doesn;t undermine anything I've said.
There's nothing but imbecility in the in the assertion that free-market theory is unrealistic. The reality in no way resembles your delusions.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Of course, the "free market" ideology is very useful - it's a weapon against the general population here, because it's an argument against social spending, and it's a weapon against poor people abroad, because we can hold it up to them and say "You guys have to follow these rules," then just go ahead and rob them.
But nobody really pays attention to this stuff when it comes to actual planning - and no one ever has.
DavidHilll 1 year ago
So, for example, there was a British study of the hundred leading transnational corporations of the "Fortune 500," and it found that of the hundred, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had benefitted from what's called "state industrial policy" -that is some form of government intervention in the country in which they're based.
And of the hundred, they said at least twenty had been saved from total collapse by state intervention at one point or another.
DavidHilll 1 year ago
For instance, the Lockheed corporation was going under in the 1970s, and the Nixon administration just bailed them out with public funds.
Okay, so they're back in business.
And now they STAY in business because the public pays for C-130s, and upgrading F-16s, and the F-22 project, War on Terror, and so on -NONE of which has to do with a "free market" either.
DavidHilll 1 year ago
@DavidHilll You cite many things that are obviously at odds with the core principles of a free market, then point to those things as if they were short comings of capitalism. In a truly free economic system all of the government and corporation collusion you cite would be illegal. The fact that it has been manipulated and abused over the last century does not point to a failure of capitalism. It in fact proves the opposite.
fdpirigyi 5 months ago
Or take the fact that so many people live in the suburbs and everybody has to drive their own car everywhere. Was that a result of the "free market?"
No, it was because the U.S. government carried out a massive social engineering project in the 1950s to DESTROY the public transportation system in FAVOR of expanding a highly inefficient system based on cars and airplanes -because that's what benefits big industry.
DavidHilll 1 year ago
It started with corporate schemes to buy up and eliminate the streetcar systems, and then continued with huge public subsidies to build the highway system and encourage an extremely inefficient and environmentally destructive alternative.
THAT's what led to the suburbanization of the country -so you get huge shopping malls in the suburbs, and devastation in the inner cities.
But these policies were a result of planning -they had NOTHING to do with the "free market."
DavidHilll 1 year ago
@DaviidHill Voluntary export restraints actually hurt the domestic automakers... The Japanese just shifted production from small cars which had a tariffs to small trucks which did not have the tariff. The US produces more cars than ever before in US factories.
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
@DaviidHill He didn't close markets or fed fund companies he tariffed certain products to protect American companies...thus no money was needed from the fed government (the tax payers to bail them out) As a matter of fact, he cut taxes on companies so they could produce products at a lower cost to better compete... Unlike the backing of the Japanese's governments funding of Jap companies at that time.
zepDzen 1 year ago
@DaviidHill you're quite simply factually wrong. it would take far too long too point out in how many ways.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@DaviidHill What are you smoking and where can I buy some?
TheHeshbon 9 months ago
@TheHeshbon Reagan was extremely protectionist, look at the tariffs and subsidies he helped impose.
WorldAsWiIl 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHeshbon Reagan was extremely protectionist, look at the tariffs and subsidies he helped impose.
WorldAsWiIl 8 months ago
@DaviidHill Maybe no Auto but the chip and tech industry in America out paces Japan by a long shot. I know it's easy to assume that they are ahead without doing any research, but American Technology is strides ahead of it's competition.
However, we would have pry been better had these industries been allowed to fail or compete against the foreign markets.
ASherbuck84 7 months ago
@DaviidHill Well actually they wouldnt have lol. The auto industry sucked so bad for so long because of that reason. Now american cars are much mroe competitive with japaneese cars. And our computers are still the best and we still have the best software
astreocclu 7 months ago
@astreocclu
best software? you gotta be kidding me. Most high tech software for critical applications does not come from the US; like control sofware for the FAA and other air industries are hand scripted by Euro companies running them on Unix based distros that are built to Unix specifications but by European companies; the GSM network was developed by a Euro consorcium, and the US defense contractors suck so bad they had to buy the screens into the F-22 and F-35 from the Eurofighter programme
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
@astreocclu
best software? you gotta be kidding me. Most high tech software for critical applications does not come from the US; like control sofware for the FAA and other air industries are hand scripted by Euro companies running them on Unix based distros that are built to Unix specifications but by European companies; the GSM network was developed by a Euro consorcium, and the US defense contractors suck so bad they had to buy the screens into the F-22 and F-35 from the Eurofighter programme
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
@52111centrumcz Uhh consumer soft ware? There is only one microsoft, one google etc. How many european software companies can match those? The video game sector is american in terms of developers.
astreocclu 3 months ago
@astreocclu
The video game sector is American in terms of developers in the US; there are a lots of games programmed in England, and other places that are quite good as well; they just don't make it over the pond. Microsoft now lives off the corporate sector; very little of its income is from selling OS to the consumer market. Google has brand loyalty as it was efficient and first; until something better comes along it will remain first. However that does not negate any of the points I made.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
@DaviidHill Umm... Do the words "international division of labor" mean anything to you?
TheNonAntiAnarchist 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show