@hawaiianshirtedpony So, your argument is that because management of economies of scale, began more than 5075 years before the American Revolution, then somehow it was justifiable for the Reagan Administration to allow the Business Interests of our country to illegally fire tens of thousands of working people for even breathing "Union" under their breath? LOL! That's Rich! Have you considered going into comedy? Because that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
"Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 "Wagner Act" or National Labor Relations Act." You neglected the fact that management began more than 1524 years before the American revolution.
I find it interesting that your major points on why I am incorrect about the origin of management are that, a) I am a child, which very well may be true, but has no baring on the standing of my argument, and b) that I do not believe managers, which I have stated began in 3300BCE, and c) a multitude other points I have in no way stated and may even be opposed to. To summarise, if you are going to fight my argument, fight my argument not me.
@hawaiianshirtedpony O.K. I'll fight your argument. You really believe that the Business Interests that run this country didn't engage in the illegal firing of thousands of workers (especially during the Reagan, and Bush '41 administrations)? It's part of the historical record. The Wagner Act drove business berserk, so they undertook a program to undermine it. They created scientific methods of strike breaking, pumped billions of dollars into Pro-Business Propaganda for the Media... etc.
@hawaiianshirtedpony In the "Reagan Years" the United States simply rescinded Article 23 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees elementary human rights of workers, including the right to form Labor Unions. If you look at the numbers, the statistics for "illegal discharges" i.e. Firings, goes off the page during The Reagan Administration. His Administration basically said to Business: "Go ahead, break the Law, we won't stop you. we won't enforce The Wagner Act." So they did
I find it interesting to think that Management (a practice that was prevalent in Mesopotamia around 3300 BCE) has always been to undermine the 1935 "Wagner Act" or National Labor Relations Act.
@hawaiianshirtedpony I find it interesting that this kid lives in Free-Market Fantasy Land, where there are no bosses, no supervisors, no managers, no "at-will employment" and where you can't just be fired for any reason, or NO reason at all! Go back to your Fantasy Land where anyone with a Laptop can set themselves up in business and become a Millionaire, LOL... I got news for you: it's about Market Shares for The Big Boys, and You Don't Count! What a DumbShit! Watch another Friedman Video.
@mba2ceo it depends on what you define as fair. It is not possible for all people to have the same economic resources. Given that people have different abilities, motivation and luck, people must also have different income and wealth
Mr. Summers is ignorant. For something to be "fair" SOMEONE has to decide what is "fair". If that person deciding what is fair is unscrupulous or misinformed or favors one group of people over another, then you've just potentially promoted MORE "unfairness" then you maybe had before.
The overriding question has always been do you believe in equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. If you believe in the former you vote Liberal. If you believe in the latter, you vote Conservative.
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!
Is it just me, or do I feel like this clip has been edited to make Summers look more liberal?
He didn't call Friedman a devil, he said he was a devil figure to his family when he was growing up. That says nothing about Summer's current beliefs.
lol progressives and socialists are clueless and financed their own brand of statism in America for the last 100 years that left us with a debt of TRILLiONS OF DOLLARS, A CENTRAL BANK, AN IMPERIAL EMPIRE and now your state love affair paradigm is disintegrating and you realize the little power you thought you had over your life let alone the leviathan state is non-existent because you Statist fucks don't even believe in free-will. that is your problem, how does it feel to have the walls cave in?
Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
Of course he was a devil figure in a keyensian socialist household. Empathy to the extreme is highly valued by the left as long as others are doing & paying for it. Wait for God or government to sort it out... you'll die of old age my friends.
Notice how slick Larry is when admitting he is a brainwashed libtard socialist. So subtle, yet slimy... and... dammit now I have to brush my teeth...YUK!
@hokieneer17 That is your interpretation, as a freedom loving American. The Summers interpretation/code is that fairness means being unfair to successful individuals so groups of slackers can have undeserved compensation.
@johnnyvee333 Friedman was a damn godsend that's what he was. The man helped suppress the draft. He has brought more freedom than Liberal bitch Klien has done (shes a whore activist who tried to interpret his work)
We are told that they can not pay a living wage and workers have to live off Minimum wage so they can have 5-10 big big homes, all the cars they ever want the best health care yada yada yada.
Workers have to suffer so they can live so well.
It is clear they can not manage resources and the state has to take over all business activities now.
All profits goes to the state, benefiting all workers and citizens.
We do not need evil greedy rich anymore. they serve no purpose.
Banking Deregulation was a Huge Factor in the Financial Meltdown of 2008. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 dropped the barriers that barred Commercial Banks from taking on the risks of Investment Banks. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 allowed for the proliferation of derivatives markets. Derivatives formed an "avatar economy" (a system of illusory value built atop the real economy). When Debentures based on Real Estate turned out to be DogShit that caused a major Credit Crisis!
@CosmicFork Note the sleazy socialist fraud of evading the difference between total and partial deregulation. And evading the decrease in production from indirect regulations. Banking is one of the most regulated industries. Money is totally regulated.
@CosmicFork Banking deregulation didn't cause the collapse the fed did by control interest rates, and trying to stop a small collapse in 2003, turning into a big one, in 2008, get it strait both 1930, and 2008 were Failier of government. Not the market, if you know anything about economics, then you know that when the market collapses, it is in fact a market CORRECTION. 2003 .com bubble burst, and 2008 the finance bubble burst, due to Ben Bernanke forcing interest low to stimulate the economy
There's a huge difference between the hypothetical ideal of "Free Markets" supported by strident libertarians, and their actual manifestations in the real world. People can be told the truth, that a truly free market has never existed, (in the U.S. we have state capitalism) yet they'll listen to Friedman. Look at Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years" and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers better.
Friedman seemed, in his talks, to come across as an omniscient figure oddly disconnected from the suffering created by inequality and poverty. Although in this video he is not so, just a very old man on his way out of this world.
Banking Deregulation was a Huge Factor in the Financial Meltdown of 2008. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 dropped the barriers that barred Commercial Banks from taking on the risks of Investment Banks. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 allowed for the proliferation of derivative markets. Derivatives formed an "avatar economy" (a system of illusory value built atop the real economy). When debentures based on real estate turned out to be DogShit, that caused a major Credit Crisis!
Well you heard it from Mr. Larry Fuck-Face Summers himself: Freedom is not fair. Question is, to whom does he mean it's not fair to? Surely it's not fair to allow all the banks that he helped advise go bankrupt instead of being bailed-out, riiiiight?
Thumbs up if you know the difference between fairness of opportunities and fairness of outcomes (or at least if you choose not to equivocate over the two/beg important normative questions).
you lazy non-ambitious fuckers all over youtube are useless, because of you cunts nobody will be ever satisfied, you are given education, but that IS NOT meant to give a GREAT BIG PAYD JOB, we live in times where SO MANY people are educated especially in Asia, Europe and America that you have to have something more than education, you have to stand out and be innovative. Now blame big corporations for controlling your ass, YOU LET THEM DO IT, THEY DONT FORCE YE TO DO SHIT. Long Live Capitalism.
What most people don't understand is that in a free society, there is no perfection or solutions. If there were, the Democratic Party would have completely taken over the country, and there would be no more problems.
Stating that Friedman's "guidance" is the reason we have an economic hardships is a quick way to show everyone that you're ignorant on the topic which you speak.
The reason we have an economic crisis today is the Federal Reserves arbitrarily lowered interest rates and the mass malinvestments they caused. This caused the housing market to crash; this devalued our dollar as it was based off of intangible assets such as the housing market (smart, right?).
The Federal Government and the Federal Reserves solution to this was, guess what? To print more money, causing inflation, and devaluing the dollar even further. They then used this money to bail out the banks (which helped cause the mess) and failed corporations (which failed for a damn reason, so this "too big to fail" nonsense makes no sense.) This put all the burden on the middle class.
So in fewer words: what caused this economic crisis was not Friedman's ideals; quite the contrary.
@CrazyDave408 And the banks didn't have anything to do with it? Who was responsible for the credit crisis? Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion dollars in cash. This trend has been increasing for the past 30 years. No one can blame today's economic crisis one one single thing. I'm not a fan of the Federal Reserve. Remember when everyone hailed Greenspan as a Messiah? But there are other guilty parties as well. Politicians are to blame too. But they're stool pigeons of the corporations.
@USASecretHistory I know there is plenty of blame to go around. What I gave was the vaguest of explanations in an attempt to make it easy to understand for anyone. The fact of the matter is that what happened was not due to the school of economics Friedman represent, as the top comment so ignorantly states.
@CrazyDave408 His ideas are partly responsible. His ideas were implemented during the neo-liberal reform era under Reagan and Thatcher. Many Progressive era and New Deal reforms were dismantled from the 1980s to today. The tax cuts under Reagan were an attempt to defund and destroy Social Security. It failed because Social Security was and still is very popular. Even Clinton tried to privatize it. He failed too. CosmicFork is right about the corporations getting free rein.
@USASecretHistory Interesting comments. I'm just throwing this out there; but, could the hoarding of cash by corporations be, at least partially, tied to increased regulations and uncertainty? Why else would corporations keep increasingly larger asset sums in liquid portfolios when other investments, such as long term debt financing of large capital projects, could bring a higher rate of return?
@USASecretHistory Without the Federal Reserve, corporations and banks don't have the ability to take the actions that they do. You have to remember that credit securities and the derivative market only work if there is a Federal Reserve to back up any missing money. Without a central bank printing back up money, fraud is exposed immediately and not after a giant bubble pops. Who was hailing Greenspan? Certainly not the Austrian Economists or a later version of Friedman
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
Our currency was beaten down so badly that inflation ran wild on imported goods, like China. People had to pay more for inflated goods (which were and still are cheaper than U.S. goods, another topic) without an increase in income (another mortgage, lenders knew they would fail and didn't want to lose anymore) and that's how defaults started and increasingly continue till today.
Gov't was and still is responsible for the 2008 crash and our slugish economy. Both parties used Keynes and failed.
Previous comment continued- What happened was inflation beat the dollar down so badly against other countries, like China, whom consumers purchased most of their goods from their imports (Look at all the Made in China stickers). This caused a major shift in consumer operating budgets, a shift that couldn't support the monthly payments of even a Sub-prime mortgage and thus defaults were and still are rampant.
Previous comment continued- Inflation affected home prices most of all prior to the 2008 crash. A sudden increase in the money supply through lenders giving out supposed "Free Loans" because they were almost all SUBPRIME mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back and both the lenders and the gov't knew they couldn't. They're solution was to print more money and pay it back with the new money; all the while, causing higher inflation and quickly reducing the dollars value against inflation.
@CosmicFork- I completely disagree with you. It was the overprinting of money or massive increase in the money supply which always causes massive amounts of inflation and the rise of the real interest rate because lenders find out borrowers are paying back loans in weaker dollars against inflation, so they raise the interest rates in order to maintain the same buying power.
True free markets promote the best environment for small businesses to thrive. Most attempts at regulations to tie down big business do exactly the opposite because big business is better suited to meet those regulations than smaller ones. This country gradually makes it harder and harder for the common man to compete in the marketplace.
Banking Deregulation was a Huge Factor in The Financial Meltdown of 2008. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 dropped the barriers that barred Commercial Banks from taking on the risks of Investment Banks. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 allowed for the proliferation of derivatives markets. Derivatives formed an "avatar economy" (a system of illusory value built atop the real economy). When debentures based on real estate turned out to be DogShit that caused a major Credit Crisis!
Kettle meet black. Cosmic Fork, show me where laizzes fair economics has been tried in the US in the past 100 years???? A kid can't even open a lemonade stand in this country anymore.
Corporatism is the result of Friedman's ideas. The people that post Friedman videos are deluded! They're like "lefties" who are deluded enough to think that Russian Communism isn't "real communism." WRONG. When you try communism in any form you get authoritarian states. Same with Friedman!~ his ideas are great for The Mega-Corporation, The I.M.F, The World Bank & The Pentagon's clearing house of contractors. They are a CLASS WAR against the Middle & Lower Class. Friedman's ideas have died!!!
@CosmicFork It is obvious by this post that you have never read or studied Friedman's philosphy. If anything, Larry Summers & the hard left are the ones that are directly tied to Corporatism & Wall St. Wake the eff up!
@CosmicFork Friedman's ideas have not died. They are becoming more pertinent and obvious every day that these Keynesian idiots are in our government. Friedman spoke out about corporatism. He wanted free markets, not the crony-capitalism that is destroying this country. You should really be a little more informed before you start spouting this nonsense.
@CosmicFork he advocated an unregulated market without bailiuts, corporatism only works when the state give special privelegies to some companies or makes it harder for small buisnesses to grow and compete with larger through regulation, you sir, are wrong!
Milton Friedman & the so-called guidance of "The Chicago School" are the reason we have an economic crisis today, where working people are being thrown from their homes, and jobs shipped to places where workers are exploited. Friedman denied any social responsibility, and touted absolute free rein for corporations. The rest of us are reaping that bitter harvest, (or bringing in migrant workers to do it for us!) There is a world of difference between a Free Market, and Corporate Libertarianism!!!
Milton Friedman touted absolute free reign for corporations? So all the lobbying, special interest, special treatment, all the government's Fannies and Freddies (that, before the collapse, those same hard working people you talk about had NO trouble with providing them an artifical low mortgage) and last, but CERTAINLY not least, the gigantic bailouts are things Freidman would aprove of?
@CosmicFork For your point on people being thrown from their homes, you cant live in a house without paying rent or a mortgage, and by signing off on the house you agree to pay the set amount, which implies that you are able to pay the amount so when one doenst pay, why shouldnt they be kicked out? And for your second point, jobs are being shipped over seas because the feds stepped in and raised taxes on business owners and made it impossible to produce anything cheaply in america
@CosmicFork The crisis was created by the Federal Reserve which Friedman CONDEMNED. Friedman believed that corporations could do what they want SO LONG AS they did not commit fraud or harm anyone else. You have plenty to be upset about, but please don't blame Friedman without understanding his true positions. Friedman was against the bailouts way back in the 70s, which should tell you where he would have stood in 08, and he hates government subsidies to corporations
@PatriotNotGovernment Go back to target shootin' & believing that the solution to every social problem is to buy more ammunition for your guns... ya Right-Wing Reactionary Fuck ! Another twice Bush-Votin' Bastard Blocked...
@CosmicFork I actually own no guns. I didn't vote for Bush. Also why don't you keep being a leech on society and expect Big Daddy government to take care of you. Cowards like you have not spine and can't stand w/o government backing you.
@CosmicFork Explain yourself. What particular policies that followed Friedman's philosophy lead to the economic crisis. The way austrian economists (you know, the one's who accurately predicted the boom and bust) People are being thrown out of their homes because the government and Federal Reserve made money too easy to get for people who had horrible credit. Jobs are shipped off because of expensive regulations and taxes, as well as overly empowered unions. Neither follow Friedman's philosophy
@CosmicFork Every word that you wrote is incorrect. If we followed Friedman, the real estate bubble would not have happened and as a result we wouldn't have had the financial crisis. Keynesianism and government intervention laid the foundation for the bust and credit crisis. Friedman is not a corporatist. Corportatism and libertarianism are antonyms. Immigration and migrant work are GOOD things.
When people like you spew garbage like this, it makes me doubt the worthiness of the 1st amendment.
@CosmicFork Corporations are powerful because people like and buy their products. If corporations are so evil, than why do people continue to freely give their money to corportaions?
@ThePokerMercenary Well, I would ask you to consider the possibility, that in reality we don't a "Free Market" today, in our totally Corporate Dominated Economy. Corporations want a market, but not a free market. They want the power to fix the terms and conditions of employment on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and to fix the cost of materials and the price of finished products in the same way. In essence, people are not "freely giving their money to corporations". I mean, you have to live!
@CosmicFork Democracy begins in the work place. To create the jobs and prosperity, working people must own the fruits of their own labor and make the business decisions. How? By working people replacing the investment class, the banks, and electing their own management. Eliminate the State! Eliminate the Corporations. Death to the King! Long live municipal government! Long live worker owned factories!
@CitizenPlusPlus I agree completely. What we need is Economic Democracy. In the future I imagine a world where we have: 1. Workplace self-management, including election of supervisors. 2. Management of Capital Investment by a form of Public Banking. 3. Democratically run enterprises that in the future will totally replace capitalist financial markets with egalitarian, democratic institutions. It's totally doable! Economic Democracy IS a Market Economy. There's just not a "critical mass" yet...
@CitizenPlusPlus that is a socialist ideal, corporation are good, as long as they dont have control of the government, stock broker, investors, and share holders, are human beings, and are not evil, i got an idea how about the workers if they want control of the company they work for they BUY SHARES just like anyone else, or take the risk and start their own company with their own money, its easy to steal something that someone else started, they didnt start that company they have no right to it
@CitizenPlusPlus May i also tell you what labor is, Labor is a product, the individual own his labor, he or she sells their labor to companies, their labor is only worth what people are willing to pay, if i hire someone to do my garden, by your logic, they would now own my garden, and all my money and assets. I am the corporation. CEO's are picked carefully, they have to have to best skill, they need to be in peak mental condition. If the workers chose the CEO,s most companies would FAIL FACT
@CitizenPlusPlus PS many companies, already give some shares to its employees, and they deduct the cost from there wages. If working people new anything about running a busness then why not they go and start their own business, tell me that, they are workers because they dont know how to be business men, GET A GRIP, you ideals are the opposite of Milton freedman. IT IS A communist ideal, raise the proletariat, and destroy the bourgeoisie. you ideal are the same that start SOVIET russia
@CosmicFork What are you even talking about. I don't even know where to start, because every sentence is completely economically outrageous. Let's just focus on the last sentence: there's no such thing as corporate libertarianism. It's either libertarianism, which Friedman was an advocate of, or corporationism which was the economic regime of Fascist Italy.
@zapasiewicz Of Course There Is Such A Thing As Corporate Libertarianism! I'll define it very clearly for you. Corporate Libertarianism demands that all political, economic, civic and even cultural barriers to the free rein of Corporate Interests and Capital be removed. THAT'S NOT THE FREE MARKET! And that's what Friedman was really advocating, so stop the BullShit, and tell the truth! Now I'll just block your Von Hayek reading Austrian Ass, and move on. And you can Get Lost!
@CosmicFork I'm sorry but you're talking an absolute balloney. Confusing Friedman's ideas with Hayek's you've showed your true, ignorant nature.
And no, there's no such thing as "corporate libertarianism", because corporationism is in a principal conflict with libertarianism. Please read more than you write, then we can talk.
@zapasiewicz Sounds like you need to read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"...
Reality is, progressives and socialists in America gave us WORKER'S RIGHTS, WOMEN'S RIGHTS, MINORITY RIGHTS, THE 8-HOUR WORKDAY, RIGHTS TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND DEMOCRATIC WORKPLACES, SAFETY/HEALTH RIGHTS, the list goes on... the right-wing has only sought to DESTROY workers' rights/protections via voodoo economics and naive market worship, which only serves the rich elites, I guarantee you!
@CosmicFork Rights, by definition, can never be given. They can only be taken away. You can rightly say that a corporation took someone's rights away when they coerced people to work 16 hour days, but I just as accurately say can say that the government took away my right to sell work for more than 8 hours daily at a mutually bargained rate.
@KayamaTakeru Oh yeah, Big Bad Government taking away your "rights". Until "big government" intervened, corporations were free to exploit child labor. (Oh, I forgot they still can in 3rd World Nations!) Until "big government" protected workers' bargaining, corporations could pay less than a living wage. (Oh, I forgot they still do!) Until "big government" provided unemployment comp. and Social Security benefits, the worker cast off by a corporate employer had nowhere to turn, but the street!
@KayamaTakeru government took away my right to sell work for more than 8 hours daily at a mutually bargained rate.
Actually Bush worked tirelessly to institute labor laws which took away overtime pay for upper level workers. In any case, the 8 hour work shift does stipulate that you can't work longer by your own choice. You are allowed to bargain your overtime with your employer
@CosmicFork Sounds like you need to read F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It was FDR statist/socialist policies that enacted a welfare-state capitalism model, that has inflated the budget and the national deficit, driving prices up through the limitation of competition. Only Keynesianism has favored the rich at the expense of the poor, not Austrian economics.
@StAugustine79 "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith
@StAugustine79 "What are the common wages of labor depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties (workmen - and masters), whose interests are by no means the same.The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are as disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor." - Adam Smith
@CosmicFork every other conservative, libertarian, etc that I know, have no desire to stop you from having the opportunity to any of those things, or the right to pursue those things. I do wish to stop you from using the government to force people to grant you those things. If you have the RIGHT to say, an 8 hour workday, then someone has the obligation to give it to you. Where did you get the right to use the threat of physical force (police, army, etc.) to make people give you want you want?
@CosmicFork Great post. This is something I keep reminding right-wingers who can't stop telling us how liberalism and progressivism is ruining the world.
The middle class and the wealth and blessings of wealth came from the industrial revolution and from private enterprise. Government is now in the process of destroying that wealth but while it lasted it came from the private sector. The reason our standard of life has continually declined is because government has continually grown. All of those advancements you note could have been achieved without unions or government as is proven by non-union companies today.
@CosmicFork This isn't a one sided argument to your point. The fact is that BOTH parties pursue the SAME objectives in a different approach in increasing government control. It is mutually agreeable on all ends that Competition is GOOD for the market so long as it isn't subsidized and so long as the execs of that company cannot go to the government asking for assistance or bailouts.
@CosmicFork many of the problems people are complaining about are not looked into very clearly, It always ends up splitting it's self into two sides each bashing eachother. And from what i've seen. There are really shitty politicians on the left and right. We have to look at the effects. Not what a policy intends on doing.
@CosmicFork costco and many others are a great example of how nice guys finish first. we all LOVE costco. You rarely hear about employees being mistreated in that company. Whenever you treat your employees good. They give you say a buff. That buff is Loyalty which means they will put great hard effort into doing the best possible job they can. Treating those nice who deserve it will always get you where you want to go in life.
@CosmicFork when you realize that the market and social issues cannot be blended, you will be free to leave the temple... Until then, get back to studying liberty and capitalism, Grasshopper!
The Jungle is such a fascinating and instructive example.
(watch?v=oQfpvQKUodY)
Apparently, to notice anything untoward going on at all, it took one socialist ideologue and a pair of inspectors who later admitted to being highly motivated to push through new regulations, and to knowing nothing of meat packing. The later, more comprehensive inspection, which took place after the inspection act had already been forced through Congress contradicted their accounts, -
- and reaffirmed the opinion of the state and local regulators and officials, and the tens of thousands of visitors who had been touring the plant each year.
And even more damning: Upton Sinclair hated the meat inspection act which he had inspired. He correctly recognized it as a cartelizing measure, which only gave economies of scale to the big packers.
Your strawman is laughable. No one opposes those forms of compensation. Rather, some of us recognize that not -
- everyone is at the level of productivity where they can earn them, and not everyone who can earn them prefers them over the other forms of compensation which they could instead have. Making it illegal to profitably hire someone who cannot earn them isn't empathy, it's just discrimination against marginal producers.
The lower you set the lowest rung on the ladder, the more people are able to start climbing, and the higher we can all reach in the long run.
That's bollocks and you know it. Friedman did not advocate a free rein for corporations; for example, he once wrote that the greatest enemy of capitalism was the capitalist. He said that when big business and big government gets together, the result will be negative. Libertarians despise corporations because most are a result of government intervention in the economy; they use governments to regulate their competitors out of business.
@Bastiat90 Why would Libertarians despise corporations? After all, the corporations fund the Libertarian "Think Tanks" like The Cato Institute. Charles Koch was a primary founder of this Institute, and the chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc. the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States. From what I've researched professional libertarians tend to be reliant on right-wing welfare: i.e. corporate-funded employment by think-tanks. IMO...
As far as I know, the Koch brothers never needed government help to achieve what they've achieved but you can correct me if I'm wrong.
And why shouldn't libertarians fund think tanks to propagate their ideas? The Left has a virtual monopoly over the higher education sector, so we need some forum for our ideas. Cato and Mises do not accept government funding; they are entirely reliant upon charitable donations.
@Bastiat90 "Koch brothers never needed government help to achieve what they've achieved"
Koch employees were the largest oil and gas industry donors to Congressmen and women on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is responsible for legislation affecting the industry. For eg, Koch donated $20,000 to Upton, the Chairman for House Energy and Commerce activity which regulates fossil fuels. Upton had a position that carbon emissions need regulation. contd...
Their lobbying activities do not negate their success in business. They may be able to buy cockroaches on Congress but they were already billionaires before
@Bastiat90 By April 2010, Upton position changed to, "he was "not convinced" that "carbon is a problem in need of regulation," and urging Congress to overturn EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.[21] He is the co-sponsor, with Ed Whitfield, of the “Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011”
From your research?! I assume you're one of those morons who has read Das Kapital and decided that he has learned everything there is to know about politics and economics.
Have you read any of the reports by Cato? Can you find me one that states its support for corporate welfare and government subsidies for big business? Instead of dealing in the usual leftist ad hominem, why don't you substantiate your claims with a little evidence.
@Bastiat90 the point is that his idea can degenerate. In theory every system works (of course since it is designed in a theoretical world). The problem is that every system degenerates at some point. In my opinion the degeneracy of Friedman opinion is a plutocracy. The roman used to say the wisdom lies in moderation, and the way he expresses his opinion suggests a lack of it.
I don't think corporations are possible in a free market; certainly not to the exist of requiring antitrust laws. People are too different from each other to want the same thing: you see it with brothers... if one wants Apple, the other will want Microsoft just to be different.
@CosmicFork Actually you are wrong on all points. It is ignorant Keynsian theories of gov't intervention that has caused ALL of our economic woes. Unions have bought power and in concert with extreme taxation and prohibitive regulation have forced jobs overseas. Carter's 1979 CRA and Clinton's expansions of it in '94 and '97 caused the housing bubble, and subsequent bursting of it. A free market would not have allowed any of these maladies, but fools like you refuse to learn.
@svvmichael1 yes to an extent, but 2008 was caused by the .com bubble bursting in 2003, The fed didn't want a small recession then so it stimulated the economy by forcing interest to 1%, this made debt cheap, banks new the gov would bail them out if they failed, if the gov wasnt going to do that then the banks wouldn't have been risky, the housing started when a few people bundled subprime mortgages, and labeled them AAA because they were successful on small scale, but on large scale they FAILED
@wowzinger You are incorrect. 1) The dot-com bubble burst in '99-'00. 2) The CRA of '77, '93 and '95 is what caused the problems. You can make interest rates 0%, but if you have to have good credit and put 10-20% down you won't have much of a problem. The problem came when bad risks got loans because of gov't intervention. That is why the prices whent thru the roof (much increased demand). Banks bundled the notes hoping not to shoulder the whole risk themselves (not honorable,...
@svvmichael1 yeas i know it but in 99, but the colapse when on to 2003, and 911 added to the decline. and we are both right, because both of what we said are true, but you are talking more long term causes im talking short term
@wowzinger ...but since the gov't forced them to take the risk, semi-understandable). When those bad-risk roaches defaulted in '06-'07-'08 it crushed the system. Paired with no oversight of Fannie/Freddie by the leftists we had a collapse. The people defaulting now are not the bad-credit risks, they are the ones destroyed by dropping home values, high unemployment that are results of leftist gov't intervention.
@CosmicFork That is manifestly incorrect. Milton Friedman was a champion of free market enterprise and an opponent of the statist policies such as the inflationary federal reserve and corporate subsidies. There is a difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. The economic crisis of today is caused by mal-investment due to the federal reserve, excessive govt. spending, inflation, and the devaluation of the currency. Govt. Managed trade such as NAFTA and GAT is what has been causing job loss.
Milton Friedman was all about fairness and equality. Like the rest of us libertarians, he wanted everyone to be treated fairly and equally by the same laws. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome (:
Why do you need regulations? The most important regulation we don't have for the special interest groups on wall street is failure. The past decade wouldn't have ended it this mess if it wasn't for: artificially low interest rates, inflation, and government involvment in guarunteeing mortages and student loans. The federal reserve made all of the above possible by controlling the money supply and interest rates. That is planning the economy. And we are heading to feudalism bc of these policies.
"No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses."
"His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record."
There is a HUGE discrepancy between the ideal of "Free Markets" supported by strident libertarians, and their actual manifestations in the real world. Friedman denied any social responsibility and touted free rein for corporations. Look at Friedman's ideological consequences on the REAL world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years," and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down working people in England better! Economic freedom became a cover story for exploitation !!!
Yes. Milton is more concerned with freedom than fairness. But in many cases freedom creates fairness! It certainly does it more effectually than government. To be specific, if there was a convenient store that had racist policies, that store would be run out of business due to its loss of business from blacks, a situation we saw with Rosa Parks and the bus strikes back in the mid 50's. This example runs across the board.
What is "fairness"? Is "fairness" giving raises to union workers while we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers? Or is "fairness" raising taxes on business owners and pissing it away on government programs?
This guy is an assmunch. Join the sane party d com, spread the word, save the country; listen to my latest radio interview on my channel! Subscribe today.
SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM and ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM are 2 different things. I know people in Germany and Denmark who enjoy giving up economic individualism while maintain Social Justice. I plan on moving to Germany, and I have accepted the fact that pro-business people aren't in every country.
There is a HUGE discrepancy between the ideal of "Free Markets" supported by strident libertarians, and their actual manifestations in the real world. Friedman denied any social responsibility and touted free rein for corporations. Look at Friedman's ideological consequences on the REAL world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years," and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down working people in England better! Economic freedom became a cover story for exploitation !!!
@CosmicFork
First, I never mentioned economies of scale.
Second, my argument is that when you used the absolute "always" your statement became impossible.
hawaiianshirtedpony 1 day ago
I cried when I watched this... I miss you, Milton!
PazGuerro 1 day ago
@CosmicFork
Sorry that calculation is wrong . It should read:
"You neglected the fact that management began more than 5075 years before the American revolution."
hawaiianshirtedpony 1 day ago
@hawaiianshirtedpony So, your argument is that because management of economies of scale, began more than 5075 years before the American Revolution, then somehow it was justifiable for the Reagan Administration to allow the Business Interests of our country to illegally fire tens of thousands of working people for even breathing "Union" under their breath? LOL! That's Rich! Have you considered going into comedy? Because that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
CosmicFork 1 day ago
@CosmicFork
My argument was that, when you said,
"Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 "Wagner Act" or National Labor Relations Act." You neglected the fact that management began more than 1524 years before the American revolution.
hawaiianshirtedpony 1 day ago
@CosmicFork
I find it interesting that your major points on why I am incorrect about the origin of management are that, a) I am a child, which very well may be true, but has no baring on the standing of my argument, and b) that I do not believe managers, which I have stated began in 3300BCE, and c) a multitude other points I have in no way stated and may even be opposed to. To summarise, if you are going to fight my argument, fight my argument not me.
hawaiianshirtedpony 3 days ago
@hawaiianshirtedpony O.K. I'll fight your argument. You really believe that the Business Interests that run this country didn't engage in the illegal firing of thousands of workers (especially during the Reagan, and Bush '41 administrations)? It's part of the historical record. The Wagner Act drove business berserk, so they undertook a program to undermine it. They created scientific methods of strike breaking, pumped billions of dollars into Pro-Business Propaganda for the Media... etc.
CosmicFork 2 days ago
@hawaiianshirtedpony In the "Reagan Years" the United States simply rescinded Article 23 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees elementary human rights of workers, including the right to form Labor Unions. If you look at the numbers, the statistics for "illegal discharges" i.e. Firings, goes off the page during The Reagan Administration. His Administration basically said to Business: "Go ahead, break the Law, we won't stop you. we won't enforce The Wagner Act." So they did
CosmicFork 2 days ago
@CosmicFork
I find it interesting to think that Management (a practice that was prevalent in Mesopotamia around 3300 BCE) has always been to undermine the 1935 "Wagner Act" or National Labor Relations Act.
hawaiianshirtedpony 4 days ago
@hawaiianshirtedpony I find it interesting that this kid lives in Free-Market Fantasy Land, where there are no bosses, no supervisors, no managers, no "at-will employment" and where you can't just be fired for any reason, or NO reason at all! Go back to your Fantasy Land where anyone with a Laptop can set themselves up in business and become a Millionaire, LOL... I got news for you: it's about Market Shares for The Big Boys, and You Don't Count! What a DumbShit! Watch another Friedman Video.
CosmicFork 3 days ago
life in general is not fair, so i dont understand why economics should be fair
kraskata2012 5 days ago
@kraskata2012 ... why should it not be fair ?
mba2ceo 4 days ago
@mba2ceo it depends on what you define as fair. It is not possible for all people to have the same economic resources. Given that people have different abilities, motivation and luck, people must also have different income and wealth
kraskata2012 4 days ago
Mr. Summers is ignorant. For something to be "fair" SOMEONE has to decide what is "fair". If that person deciding what is fair is unscrupulous or misinformed or favors one group of people over another, then you've just potentially promoted MORE "unfairness" then you maybe had before.
mikebri527 1 week ago
Why a 33 second clip? Nothing of value can come from just the beginning of a thought. Let the man speak! This smacks of soundbite quote mining.
nsofast 2 weeks ago
larry summers you ignorant piece of scum
lawes84 2 weeks ago
How the hell is there a conflict between freedom and fairness? I guess tyranny and fairness go together much better somehow.
dubified89 2 weeks ago
The overriding question has always been do you believe in equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. If you believe in the former you vote Liberal. If you believe in the latter, you vote Conservative.
RingerDaMan 2 weeks 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 6
apasiewicz fails to realize that without CAPITAL and INVESTORS, there would be nowhere to work in the FIRST place.
evelsteev 2 weeks ago
Nothing is more fair than freedom.
cooljj82 3 weeks ago
Is it just me, or do I feel like this clip has been edited to make Summers look more liberal?
He didn't call Friedman a devil, he said he was a devil figure to his family when he was growing up. That says nothing about Summer's current beliefs.
SCBUAD 3 weeks ago 13
So the President of Harvard is a slimy, socialist douchebag?
Is anyone surprised?
SeamusLight93 3 weeks ago
lol progressives and socialists are clueless and financed their own brand of statism in America for the last 100 years that left us with a debt of TRILLiONS OF DOLLARS, A CENTRAL BANK, AN IMPERIAL EMPIRE and now your state love affair paradigm is disintegrating and you realize the little power you thought you had over your life let alone the leviathan state is non-existent because you Statist fucks don't even believe in free-will. that is your problem, how does it feel to have the walls cave in?
jawber898 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 month ago
larry summers is a devil
jerryleeharrison32 1 month ago
Fairness? Fairness? Isn't one of the very first lessons of life is that IT IS NOT FAIR....
DeeDonner 1 month ago
Of course he was a devil figure in a keyensian socialist household. Empathy to the extreme is highly valued by the left as long as others are doing & paying for it. Wait for God or government to sort it out... you'll die of old age my friends.
SippinonMickeys 1 month ago
Notice how slick Larry is when admitting he is a brainwashed libtard socialist. So subtle, yet slimy... and... dammit now I have to brush my teeth...YUK!
DannyDad208 1 month ago
People who try to get fairness from pointing a gun at society are delusional.
quantumG 1 month ago
Did summers really say "with his emphasis on individualism, freedom, and markets to be so unconcerned with fairness"?
What's more fair than every person is free to be there own individual?
hokieneer17 1 month ago
@hokieneer17 That is your interpretation, as a freedom loving American. The Summers interpretation/code is that fairness means being unfair to successful individuals so groups of slackers can have undeserved compensation.
DannyDad208 1 month ago
Garbage like Summers needs to be removed from society like a criminal.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
Friedman was more like an Angel if you ask me.
johnnyvee333 1 month ago
@johnnyvee333 Friedman was a damn godsend that's what he was. The man helped suppress the draft. He has brought more freedom than Liberal bitch Klien has done (shes a whore activist who tried to interpret his work)
tehatemachine 1 month ago
this asshole fucked up the economy
FSFchannel 1 month ago
Who did?
scienceatheism 3 weeks ago
We are told that they can not pay a living wage and workers have to live off Minimum wage so they can have 5-10 big big homes, all the cars they ever want the best health care yada yada yada.
Workers have to suffer so they can live so well.
It is clear they can not manage resources and the state has to take over all business activities now.
All profits goes to the state, benefiting all workers and citizens.
We do not need evil greedy rich anymore. they serve no purpose.
MrAppleseed88 1 month ago
Banking Deregulation was a Huge Factor in the Financial Meltdown of 2008. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 dropped the barriers that barred Commercial Banks from taking on the risks of Investment Banks. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 allowed for the proliferation of derivatives markets. Derivatives formed an "avatar economy" (a system of illusory value built atop the real economy). When Debentures based on Real Estate turned out to be DogShit that caused a major Credit Crisis!
CosmicFork 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Note the sleazy socialist fraud of evading the difference between total and partial deregulation. And evading the decrease in production from indirect regulations. Banking is one of the most regulated industries. Money is totally regulated.
TeaParty1776 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Banking deregulation didn't cause the collapse the fed did by control interest rates, and trying to stop a small collapse in 2003, turning into a big one, in 2008, get it strait both 1930, and 2008 were Failier of government. Not the market, if you know anything about economics, then you know that when the market collapses, it is in fact a market CORRECTION. 2003 .com bubble burst, and 2008 the finance bubble burst, due to Ben Bernanke forcing interest low to stimulate the economy
wowzinger 1 month ago
There's a huge difference between the hypothetical ideal of "Free Markets" supported by strident libertarians, and their actual manifestations in the real world. People can be told the truth, that a truly free market has never existed, (in the U.S. we have state capitalism) yet they'll listen to Friedman. Look at Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years" and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers better.
CosmicFork 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Thatcher's policies increased Brit production and decreased union political power. Youre a commie destroyer.
TeaParty1776 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Friedman seemed, in his talks, to come across as an omniscient figure oddly disconnected from the suffering created by inequality and poverty. Although in this video he is not so, just a very old man on his way out of this world.
squamish4244 1 month ago
Comment removed
squamish4244 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrLecam21 1 month ago
Banking Deregulation was a Huge Factor in the Financial Meltdown of 2008. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 dropped the barriers that barred Commercial Banks from taking on the risks of Investment Banks. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 allowed for the proliferation of derivative markets. Derivatives formed an "avatar economy" (a system of illusory value built atop the real economy). When debentures based on real estate turned out to be DogShit, that caused a major Credit Crisis!
CosmicFork 1 month ago
Larry Summers is a criminal parasite.
ComicPenius 1 month ago
cool story bro. u mad bro? i think so...get a job
scarsofbravery 1 month ago
And what did Larry say next? I felt a "but" followed by his point. This is useless without the context.
gim10003 1 month ago
@azikblaze stated perfectly!
imzack27 2 months ago
Well you heard it from Mr. Larry Fuck-Face Summers himself: Freedom is not fair. Question is, to whom does he mean it's not fair to? Surely it's not fair to allow all the banks that he helped advise go bankrupt instead of being bailed-out, riiiiight?
azikblaze 2 months ago
Larry Summers = Council on Foreign Relations... Enough said...
pattymcpatterstud1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you know the difference between fairness of opportunities and fairness of outcomes (or at least if you choose not to equivocate over the two/beg important normative questions).
AWASHA 2 months ago
I hope I live to see Larry Summers roasted on a spit like the cock sucking communist pig he is.
sanitydotorg 2 months ago
Fuck you Summers
DannyMullenBjj 2 months ago
you lazy non-ambitious fuckers all over youtube are useless, because of you cunts nobody will be ever satisfied, you are given education, but that IS NOT meant to give a GREAT BIG PAYD JOB, we live in times where SO MANY people are educated especially in Asia, Europe and America that you have to have something more than education, you have to stand out and be innovative. Now blame big corporations for controlling your ass, YOU LET THEM DO IT, THEY DONT FORCE YE TO DO SHIT. Long Live Capitalism.
LukasX62S 2 months ago
@LukasX62S Spoken like a true FASCIST FUCK.
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork I dont think you understood what I wrote.
LukasX62S 2 months ago
What most people don't understand is that in a free society, there is no perfection or solutions. If there were, the Democratic Party would have completely taken over the country, and there would be no more problems.
koolkamel322 2 months ago
Stating that Friedman's "guidance" is the reason we have an economic hardships is a quick way to show everyone that you're ignorant on the topic which you speak.
The reason we have an economic crisis today is the Federal Reserves arbitrarily lowered interest rates and the mass malinvestments they caused. This caused the housing market to crash; this devalued our dollar as it was based off of intangible assets such as the housing market (smart, right?).
CrazyDave408 2 months ago
cont'd
The Federal Government and the Federal Reserves solution to this was, guess what? To print more money, causing inflation, and devaluing the dollar even further. They then used this money to bail out the banks (which helped cause the mess) and failed corporations (which failed for a damn reason, so this "too big to fail" nonsense makes no sense.) This put all the burden on the middle class.
So in fewer words: what caused this economic crisis was not Friedman's ideals; quite the contrary.
CrazyDave408 2 months ago
@CrazyDave408 And the banks didn't have anything to do with it? Who was responsible for the credit crisis? Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion dollars in cash. This trend has been increasing for the past 30 years. No one can blame today's economic crisis one one single thing. I'm not a fan of the Federal Reserve. Remember when everyone hailed Greenspan as a Messiah? But there are other guilty parties as well. Politicians are to blame too. But they're stool pigeons of the corporations.
USASecretHistory 2 months ago 3
@USASecretHistory I know there is plenty of blame to go around. What I gave was the vaguest of explanations in an attempt to make it easy to understand for anyone. The fact of the matter is that what happened was not due to the school of economics Friedman represent, as the top comment so ignorantly states.
CrazyDave408 2 months ago
@CrazyDave408 His ideas are partly responsible. His ideas were implemented during the neo-liberal reform era under Reagan and Thatcher. Many Progressive era and New Deal reforms were dismantled from the 1980s to today. The tax cuts under Reagan were an attempt to defund and destroy Social Security. It failed because Social Security was and still is very popular. Even Clinton tried to privatize it. He failed too. CosmicFork is right about the corporations getting free rein.
USASecretHistory 2 months ago
@USASecretHistory Interesting comments. I'm just throwing this out there; but, could the hoarding of cash by corporations be, at least partially, tied to increased regulations and uncertainty? Why else would corporations keep increasingly larger asset sums in liquid portfolios when other investments, such as long term debt financing of large capital projects, could bring a higher rate of return?
ranger1843 2 months ago
@USASecretHistory Without the Federal Reserve, corporations and banks don't have the ability to take the actions that they do. You have to remember that credit securities and the derivative market only work if there is a Federal Reserve to back up any missing money. Without a central bank printing back up money, fraud is exposed immediately and not after a giant bubble pops. Who was hailing Greenspan? Certainly not the Austrian Economists or a later version of Friedman
johnsurs22 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
The fed saw this and greatly reduced money printing. This caused a massive deflation of home prices due to very little money in the market from slowed fed printing to lenders closing their doors.Home prices and values were not real, but primed or inflated. So they tanked badly to their real or below real levels.
This Keynesian idea of "artificial savings": consumers spending till their wallets were empty and the fed prints more money to give to consumers. Inflation always kills it, period.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
Our currency was beaten down so badly that inflation ran wild on imported goods, like China. People had to pay more for inflated goods (which were and still are cheaper than U.S. goods, another topic) without an increase in income (another mortgage, lenders knew they would fail and didn't want to lose anymore) and that's how defaults started and increasingly continue till today.
Gov't was and still is responsible for the 2008 crash and our slugish economy. Both parties used Keynes and failed.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
Previous comment continued- What happened was inflation beat the dollar down so badly against other countries, like China, whom consumers purchased most of their goods from their imports (Look at all the Made in China stickers). This caused a major shift in consumer operating budgets, a shift that couldn't support the monthly payments of even a Sub-prime mortgage and thus defaults were and still are rampant.
My next post will deal with the effects of this.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
Previous comment continued- Inflation affected home prices most of all prior to the 2008 crash. A sudden increase in the money supply through lenders giving out supposed "Free Loans" because they were almost all SUBPRIME mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back and both the lenders and the gov't knew they couldn't. They're solution was to print more money and pay it back with the new money; all the while, causing higher inflation and quickly reducing the dollars value against inflation.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
@CosmicFork- I completely disagree with you. It was the overprinting of money or massive increase in the money supply which always causes massive amounts of inflation and the rise of the real interest rate because lenders find out borrowers are paying back loans in weaker dollars against inflation, so they raise the interest rates in order to maintain the same buying power.
PROPHETJESTER 2 months ago
If he thinks differently than you, he must be the devil!! sounds familiar?
dkronst 2 months ago
What is fair and who decides? The whole practice of making things fair in society almost always ends up not fair.
skydome29 2 months ago
Exactly what has Summers EVER produced ?????? Except problems.......
meyer5515 2 months ago
True free markets promote the best environment for small businesses to thrive. Most attempts at regulations to tie down big business do exactly the opposite because big business is better suited to meet those regulations than smaller ones. This country gradually makes it harder and harder for the common man to compete in the marketplace.
TheDetoX 2 months ago
corporate libertarianism is just the same as anarchro-socialism. Not possible.
kmelfina 2 months ago
Banking Deregulation was a Huge Factor in The Financial Meltdown of 2008. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 dropped the barriers that barred Commercial Banks from taking on the risks of Investment Banks. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 allowed for the proliferation of derivatives markets. Derivatives formed an "avatar economy" (a system of illusory value built atop the real economy). When debentures based on real estate turned out to be DogShit that caused a major Credit Crisis!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
Kettle meet black. Cosmic Fork, show me where laizzes fair economics has been tried in the US in the past 100 years???? A kid can't even open a lemonade stand in this country anymore.
TheKaffeeKlatsch 2 months ago
Corporatism is the result of Friedman's ideas. The people that post Friedman videos are deluded! They're like "lefties" who are deluded enough to think that Russian Communism isn't "real communism." WRONG. When you try communism in any form you get authoritarian states. Same with Friedman!~ his ideas are great for The Mega-Corporation, The I.M.F, The World Bank & The Pentagon's clearing house of contractors. They are a CLASS WAR against the Middle & Lower Class. Friedman's ideas have died!!!
CosmicFork 2 months ago 2
@CosmicFork It is obvious by this post that you have never read or studied Friedman's philosphy. If anything, Larry Summers & the hard left are the ones that are directly tied to Corporatism & Wall St. Wake the eff up!
jcat3022 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Friedman's ideas have not died. They are becoming more pertinent and obvious every day that these Keynesian idiots are in our government. Friedman spoke out about corporatism. He wanted free markets, not the crony-capitalism that is destroying this country. You should really be a little more informed before you start spouting this nonsense.
socalmx18 2 months ago
@CosmicFork he advocated an unregulated market without bailiuts, corporatism only works when the state give special privelegies to some companies or makes it harder for small buisnesses to grow and compete with larger through regulation, you sir, are wrong!
bajskorvaren 2 months ago
Milton Friedman & the so-called guidance of "The Chicago School" are the reason we have an economic crisis today, where working people are being thrown from their homes, and jobs shipped to places where workers are exploited. Friedman denied any social responsibility, and touted absolute free rein for corporations. The rest of us are reaping that bitter harvest, (or bringing in migrant workers to do it for us!) There is a world of difference between a Free Market, and Corporate Libertarianism!!!
CosmicFork 2 months ago 13
@CosmicFork
Milton Friedman touted absolute free reign for corporations? So all the lobbying, special interest, special treatment, all the government's Fannies and Freddies (that, before the collapse, those same hard working people you talk about had NO trouble with providing them an artifical low mortgage) and last, but CERTAINLY not least, the gigantic bailouts are things Freidman would aprove of?
jccusell 2 months ago
@CosmicFork For your point on people being thrown from their homes, you cant live in a house without paying rent or a mortgage, and by signing off on the house you agree to pay the set amount, which implies that you are able to pay the amount so when one doenst pay, why shouldnt they be kicked out? And for your second point, jobs are being shipped over seas because the feds stepped in and raised taxes on business owners and made it impossible to produce anything cheaply in america
zoltan440 2 months ago
@CosmicFork The crisis was created by the Federal Reserve which Friedman CONDEMNED. Friedman believed that corporations could do what they want SO LONG AS they did not commit fraud or harm anyone else. You have plenty to be upset about, but please don't blame Friedman without understanding his true positions. Friedman was against the bailouts way back in the 70s, which should tell you where he would have stood in 08, and he hates government subsidies to corporations
johnsurs22 2 months ago
@CosmicFork I've never heard such eloquent stupidity
PatriotNotGovernment 2 months ago
@PatriotNotGovernment Go back to target shootin' & believing that the solution to every social problem is to buy more ammunition for your guns... ya Right-Wing Reactionary Fuck ! Another twice Bush-Votin' Bastard Blocked...
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork I actually own no guns. I didn't vote for Bush. Also why don't you keep being a leech on society and expect Big Daddy government to take care of you. Cowards like you have not spine and can't stand w/o government backing you.
PatriotNotGovernment 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Explain yourself. What particular policies that followed Friedman's philosophy lead to the economic crisis. The way austrian economists (you know, the one's who accurately predicted the boom and bust) People are being thrown out of their homes because the government and Federal Reserve made money too easy to get for people who had horrible credit. Jobs are shipped off because of expensive regulations and taxes, as well as overly empowered unions. Neither follow Friedman's philosophy
BelieversinThings 2 months ago
Comment removed
stebecool 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CosmicFork Every word that you wrote is incorrect. If we followed Friedman, the real estate bubble would not have happened and as a result we wouldn't have had the financial crisis. Keynesianism and government intervention laid the foundation for the bust and credit crisis. Friedman is not a corporatist. Corportatism and libertarianism are antonyms. Immigration and migrant work are GOOD things.
When people like you spew garbage like this, it makes me doubt the worthiness of the 1st amendment.
stebecool 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Corporations are powerful because people like and buy their products. If corporations are so evil, than why do people continue to freely give their money to corportaions?
ThePokerMercenary 2 months ago
@ThePokerMercenary Well, I would ask you to consider the possibility, that in reality we don't a "Free Market" today, in our totally Corporate Dominated Economy. Corporations want a market, but not a free market. They want the power to fix the terms and conditions of employment on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and to fix the cost of materials and the price of finished products in the same way. In essence, people are not "freely giving their money to corporations". I mean, you have to live!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Democracy begins in the work place. To create the jobs and prosperity, working people must own the fruits of their own labor and make the business decisions. How? By working people replacing the investment class, the banks, and electing their own management. Eliminate the State! Eliminate the Corporations. Death to the King! Long live municipal government! Long live worker owned factories!
CitizenPlusPlus 2 months ago 17
@CitizenPlusPlus I agree completely. What we need is Economic Democracy. In the future I imagine a world where we have: 1. Workplace self-management, including election of supervisors. 2. Management of Capital Investment by a form of Public Banking. 3. Democratically run enterprises that in the future will totally replace capitalist financial markets with egalitarian, democratic institutions. It's totally doable! Economic Democracy IS a Market Economy. There's just not a "critical mass" yet...
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CitizenPlusPlus that is a socialist ideal, corporation are good, as long as they dont have control of the government, stock broker, investors, and share holders, are human beings, and are not evil, i got an idea how about the workers if they want control of the company they work for they BUY SHARES just like anyone else, or take the risk and start their own company with their own money, its easy to steal something that someone else started, they didnt start that company they have no right to it
wowzinger 1 month ago
Comment removed
wowzinger 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CitizenPlusPlus May i also tell you what labor is, Labor is a product, the individual own his labor, he or she sells their labor to companies, their labor is only worth what people are willing to pay, if i hire someone to do my garden, by your logic, they would now own my garden, and all my money and assets. I am the corporation. CEO's are picked carefully, they have to have to best skill, they need to be in peak mental condition. If the workers chose the CEO,s most companies would FAIL FACT
wowzinger 1 month ago
@CitizenPlusPlus PS many companies, already give some shares to its employees, and they deduct the cost from there wages. If working people new anything about running a busness then why not they go and start their own business, tell me that, they are workers because they dont know how to be business men, GET A GRIP, you ideals are the opposite of Milton freedman. IT IS A communist ideal, raise the proletariat, and destroy the bourgeoisie. you ideal are the same that start SOVIET russia
wowzinger 1 month ago
@CosmicFork What are you even talking about. I don't even know where to start, because every sentence is completely economically outrageous. Let's just focus on the last sentence: there's no such thing as corporate libertarianism. It's either libertarianism, which Friedman was an advocate of, or corporationism which was the economic regime of Fascist Italy.
zapasiewicz 2 months ago
@zapasiewicz Of Course There Is Such A Thing As Corporate Libertarianism! I'll define it very clearly for you. Corporate Libertarianism demands that all political, economic, civic and even cultural barriers to the free rein of Corporate Interests and Capital be removed. THAT'S NOT THE FREE MARKET! And that's what Friedman was really advocating, so stop the BullShit, and tell the truth! Now I'll just block your Von Hayek reading Austrian Ass, and move on. And you can Get Lost!
CosmicFork 2 months ago 2
@CosmicFork I'm sorry but you're talking an absolute balloney. Confusing Friedman's ideas with Hayek's you've showed your true, ignorant nature.
And no, there's no such thing as "corporate libertarianism", because corporationism is in a principal conflict with libertarianism. Please read more than you write, then we can talk.
zapasiewicz 2 months ago
@zapasiewicz Sounds like you need to read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"...
Reality is, progressives and socialists in America gave us WORKER'S RIGHTS, WOMEN'S RIGHTS, MINORITY RIGHTS, THE 8-HOUR WORKDAY, RIGHTS TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND DEMOCRATIC WORKPLACES, SAFETY/HEALTH RIGHTS, the list goes on... the right-wing has only sought to DESTROY workers' rights/protections via voodoo economics and naive market worship, which only serves the rich elites, I guarantee you!
CosmicFork 2 months ago 11
You forgot freedom.
zapasiewicz 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Rights, by definition, can never be given. They can only be taken away. You can rightly say that a corporation took someone's rights away when they coerced people to work 16 hour days, but I just as accurately say can say that the government took away my right to sell work for more than 8 hours daily at a mutually bargained rate.
KayamaTakeru 1 month ago
@KayamaTakeru Oh yeah, Big Bad Government taking away your "rights". Until "big government" intervened, corporations were free to exploit child labor. (Oh, I forgot they still can in 3rd World Nations!) Until "big government" protected workers' bargaining, corporations could pay less than a living wage. (Oh, I forgot they still do!) Until "big government" provided unemployment comp. and Social Security benefits, the worker cast off by a corporate employer had nowhere to turn, but the street!
CosmicFork 1 month ago
@KayamaTakeru government took away my right to sell work for more than 8 hours daily at a mutually bargained rate.
Actually Bush worked tirelessly to institute labor laws which took away overtime pay for upper level workers. In any case, the 8 hour work shift does stipulate that you can't work longer by your own choice. You are allowed to bargain your overtime with your employer
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Sounds like you need to read F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It was FDR statist/socialist policies that enacted a welfare-state capitalism model, that has inflated the budget and the national deficit, driving prices up through the limitation of competition. Only Keynesianism has favored the rich at the expense of the poor, not Austrian economics.
StAugustine79 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith
squamish4244 1 month ago
@StAugustine79 "What are the common wages of labor depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties (workmen - and masters), whose interests are by no means the same.The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are as disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor." - Adam Smith
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@CosmicFork every other conservative, libertarian, etc that I know, have no desire to stop you from having the opportunity to any of those things, or the right to pursue those things. I do wish to stop you from using the government to force people to grant you those things. If you have the RIGHT to say, an 8 hour workday, then someone has the obligation to give it to you. Where did you get the right to use the threat of physical force (police, army, etc.) to make people give you want you want?
apnwahoowa 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Great post. This is something I keep reminding right-wingers who can't stop telling us how liberalism and progressivism is ruining the world.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@CosmicFork And the germans got a wall and the GDR soldiers firing order from the socialist in the GDR.
joerndinkla 1 month ago
@CosmicFork
The middle class and the wealth and blessings of wealth came from the industrial revolution and from private enterprise. Government is now in the process of destroying that wealth but while it lasted it came from the private sector. The reason our standard of life has continually declined is because government has continually grown. All of those advancements you note could have been achieved without unions or government as is proven by non-union companies today.
casienwhey 1 month ago
@CosmicFork This isn't a one sided argument to your point. The fact is that BOTH parties pursue the SAME objectives in a different approach in increasing government control. It is mutually agreeable on all ends that Competition is GOOD for the market so long as it isn't subsidized and so long as the execs of that company cannot go to the government asking for assistance or bailouts.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@CosmicFork many of the problems people are complaining about are not looked into very clearly, It always ends up splitting it's self into two sides each bashing eachother. And from what i've seen. There are really shitty politicians on the left and right. We have to look at the effects. Not what a policy intends on doing.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@CosmicFork costco and many others are a great example of how nice guys finish first. we all LOVE costco. You rarely hear about employees being mistreated in that company. Whenever you treat your employees good. They give you say a buff. That buff is Loyalty which means they will put great hard effort into doing the best possible job they can. Treating those nice who deserve it will always get you where you want to go in life.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@CosmicFork when you realize that the market and social issues cannot be blended, you will be free to leave the temple... Until then, get back to studying liberty and capitalism, Grasshopper!
DannyDad208 1 month ago
@CosmicFork
The Jungle is such a fascinating and instructive example.
(watch?v=oQfpvQKUodY)
Apparently, to notice anything untoward going on at all, it took one socialist ideologue and a pair of inspectors who later admitted to being highly motivated to push through new regulations, and to knowing nothing of meat packing. The later, more comprehensive inspection, which took place after the inspection act had already been forced through Congress contradicted their accounts, -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 weeks ago
-
- and reaffirmed the opinion of the state and local regulators and officials, and the tens of thousands of visitors who had been touring the plant each year.
And even more damning: Upton Sinclair hated the meat inspection act which he had inspired. He correctly recognized it as a cartelizing measure, which only gave economies of scale to the big packers.
Your strawman is laughable. No one opposes those forms of compensation. Rather, some of us recognize that not -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 weeks ago
-
- everyone is at the level of productivity where they can earn them, and not everyone who can earn them prefers them over the other forms of compensation which they could instead have. Making it illegal to profitably hire someone who cannot earn them isn't empathy, it's just discrimination against marginal producers.
The lower you set the lowest rung on the ladder, the more people are able to start climbing, and the higher we can all reach in the long run.
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 weeks ago
That's bollocks and you know it. Friedman did not advocate a free rein for corporations; for example, he once wrote that the greatest enemy of capitalism was the capitalist. He said that when big business and big government gets together, the result will be negative. Libertarians despise corporations because most are a result of government intervention in the economy; they use governments to regulate their competitors out of business.
Bastiat90 1 month ago
@Bastiat90 Why would Libertarians despise corporations? After all, the corporations fund the Libertarian "Think Tanks" like The Cato Institute. Charles Koch was a primary founder of this Institute, and the chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc. the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States. From what I've researched professional libertarians tend to be reliant on right-wing welfare: i.e. corporate-funded employment by think-tanks. IMO...
CosmicFork 1 month ago
As far as I know, the Koch brothers never needed government help to achieve what they've achieved but you can correct me if I'm wrong.
And why shouldn't libertarians fund think tanks to propagate their ideas? The Left has a virtual monopoly over the higher education sector, so we need some forum for our ideas. Cato and Mises do not accept government funding; they are entirely reliant upon charitable donations.
Bastiat90 1 month ago
@Bastiat90 "Koch brothers never needed government help to achieve what they've achieved"
Koch employees were the largest oil and gas industry donors to Congressmen and women on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is responsible for legislation affecting the industry. For eg, Koch donated $20,000 to Upton, the Chairman for House Energy and Commerce activity which regulates fossil fuels. Upton had a position that carbon emissions need regulation. contd...
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
Their lobbying activities do not negate their success in business. They may be able to buy cockroaches on Congress but they were already billionaires before
Bastiat90 1 month ago
@Bastiat90 By April 2010, Upton position changed to, "he was "not convinced" that "carbon is a problem in need of regulation," and urging Congress to overturn EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.[21] He is the co-sponsor, with Ed Whitfield, of the “Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011”
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
From your research?! I assume you're one of those morons who has read Das Kapital and decided that he has learned everything there is to know about politics and economics.
Have you read any of the reports by Cato? Can you find me one that states its support for corporate welfare and government subsidies for big business? Instead of dealing in the usual leftist ad hominem, why don't you substantiate your claims with a little evidence.
Bastiat90 1 month ago
@Bastiat90 the point is that his idea can degenerate. In theory every system works (of course since it is designed in a theoretical world). The problem is that every system degenerates at some point. In my opinion the degeneracy of Friedman opinion is a plutocracy. The roman used to say the wisdom lies in moderation, and the way he expresses his opinion suggests a lack of it.
MrLecam21 1 month ago 2
Compared to Ayn Rand Friedman was a moderate. But if you stand in the middle of a road you get run over
Bastiat90 1 month ago
@Bastiat90 Corporation are good, as long as gov stays OUT corps were once small companies that were just successful
wowzinger 1 month ago
I don't think corporations are possible in a free market; certainly not to the exist of requiring antitrust laws. People are too different from each other to want the same thing: you see it with brothers... if one wants Apple, the other will want Microsoft just to be different.
Bastiat90 1 month ago
@CosmicFork well want a see what an unregulated market look like? Well look at the derivative market :)
MrLecam21 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Actually you are wrong on all points. It is ignorant Keynsian theories of gov't intervention that has caused ALL of our economic woes. Unions have bought power and in concert with extreme taxation and prohibitive regulation have forced jobs overseas. Carter's 1979 CRA and Clinton's expansions of it in '94 and '97 caused the housing bubble, and subsequent bursting of it. A free market would not have allowed any of these maladies, but fools like you refuse to learn.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 yes to an extent, but 2008 was caused by the .com bubble bursting in 2003, The fed didn't want a small recession then so it stimulated the economy by forcing interest to 1%, this made debt cheap, banks new the gov would bail them out if they failed, if the gov wasnt going to do that then the banks wouldn't have been risky, the housing started when a few people bundled subprime mortgages, and labeled them AAA because they were successful on small scale, but on large scale they FAILED
wowzinger 1 month ago
@wowzinger You are incorrect. 1) The dot-com bubble burst in '99-'00. 2) The CRA of '77, '93 and '95 is what caused the problems. You can make interest rates 0%, but if you have to have good credit and put 10-20% down you won't have much of a problem. The problem came when bad risks got loans because of gov't intervention. That is why the prices whent thru the roof (much increased demand). Banks bundled the notes hoping not to shoulder the whole risk themselves (not honorable,...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 yeas i know it but in 99, but the colapse when on to 2003, and 911 added to the decline. and we are both right, because both of what we said are true, but you are talking more long term causes im talking short term
wowzinger 1 month ago
@wowzinger No, you are incorrect.
It is like saying Japan had a tsunami because Haiti had one first.
You are misdiagnosing problems and making a logical fallacy of: Causation is not Correlation.
Your responses show a significant lack of understand the genesis and the underlying factors that went into the 2008 crash.
It does not make you dumb or a bad person, but your misinformation needs to be addressed.
swmichael1 is, for the most part, correct.
SquashDog01 1 month ago
@wowzinger ...but since the gov't forced them to take the risk, semi-understandable). When those bad-risk roaches defaulted in '06-'07-'08 it crushed the system. Paired with no oversight of Fannie/Freddie by the leftists we had a collapse. The people defaulting now are not the bad-credit risks, they are the ones destroyed by dropping home values, high unemployment that are results of leftist gov't intervention.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Talking about looking only at the surface without looking underneath.
JimmyRose1 1 month ago
@CosmicFork That is manifestly incorrect. Milton Friedman was a champion of free market enterprise and an opponent of the statist policies such as the inflationary federal reserve and corporate subsidies. There is a difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. The economic crisis of today is caused by mal-investment due to the federal reserve, excessive govt. spending, inflation, and the devaluation of the currency. Govt. Managed trade such as NAFTA and GAT is what has been causing job loss.
StAugustine79 1 month ago
Milton Friedman was all about fairness and equality. Like the rest of us libertarians, he wanted everyone to be treated fairly and equally by the same laws. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome (:
objectivistathlete 2 months ago
Why do you need regulations? The most important regulation we don't have for the special interest groups on wall street is failure. The past decade wouldn't have ended it this mess if it wasn't for: artificially low interest rates, inflation, and government involvment in guarunteeing mortages and student loans. The federal reserve made all of the above possible by controlling the money supply and interest rates. That is planning the economy. And we are heading to feudalism bc of these policies.
jneil2007 2 months ago
summers is a fuckin tool
MrGiggity890 3 months ago
"No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses."
Xantheus07 3 months ago
"His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record."
Xantheus07 3 months ago
There is a HUGE discrepancy between the ideal of "Free Markets" supported by strident libertarians, and their actual manifestations in the real world. Friedman denied any social responsibility and touted free rein for corporations. Look at Friedman's ideological consequences on the REAL world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years," and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down working people in England better! Economic freedom became a cover story for exploitation !!!
CosmicFork 3 months ago
@CosmicFork Also i got to laugh your dumb ass tries to knock me for using a m1911 as my icon when you us pink squiggly lines.
Xantheus07 3 months ago
Yes. Milton is more concerned with freedom than fairness. But in many cases freedom creates fairness! It certainly does it more effectually than government. To be specific, if there was a convenient store that had racist policies, that store would be run out of business due to its loss of business from blacks, a situation we saw with Rosa Parks and the bus strikes back in the mid 50's. This example runs across the board.
HansonjSolo 3 months ago
Larry Summers a "Devil Figure" !
sgwarrenb 3 months ago
What is "fairness"? Is "fairness" giving raises to union workers while we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers? Or is "fairness" raising taxes on business owners and pissing it away on government programs?
kriskats19 3 months ago
What is "fairness"? Is "fairness" giving raises to union workers while we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers?
kriskats19 3 months ago
Look at his flabby neck lol.
kriskats19 3 months ago
This guy is an assmunch. Join the sane party d com, spread the word, save the country; listen to my latest radio interview on my channel! Subscribe today.
brazenhubris 3 months ago
SOCIAL INDIVIDUALISM and ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM are 2 different things. I know people in Germany and Denmark who enjoy giving up economic individualism while maintain Social Justice. I plan on moving to Germany, and I have accepted the fact that pro-business people aren't in every country.
leftwingersunited 3 months ago
There is a HUGE discrepancy between the ideal of "Free Markets" supported by strident libertarians, and their actual manifestations in the real world. Friedman denied any social responsibility and touted free rein for corporations. Look at Friedman's ideological consequences on the REAL world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years," and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down working people in England better! Economic freedom became a cover story for exploitation !!!
CosmicFork 3 months ago