I am pleased to have one of my favorite economists talking about the philosophical principles of the man who did for capitalism as much as Karl Marx did for socialism.
People who thoughtlessly cite Adam Smith don't realize that what he wrote applies to a different time. In his time, people lived in villages and production and consumption were organized locally. In our times of huge production processes, we DO need the state to supervise the economy. Suppose a company dilutes its milk with water and the customer discovers it. The supermarket will tell him to f*** off. So of course people will organize a supra-individual entity to represent and defend them. Duh.
@ElenaXVI Laissez-faire capitalism is a timeless principle, like reason, liberty and justice. It is simply the principle that you and I can make a transaction without having to gain permission (licensing and regulation) from a third party (govt). It would allow you, for example, to transport folks for money with having to buy a taxi license. Economic liberty is as relevant an idea now as it was in Adam Smith's day. Government's only role should be to provide a court system to settle disputes.
@fzqlcs No wait... I think I just converted to capitalism. I thought I was thinking for myself, but now I see I was brainwashed by leninists like Obama. They're fucking evil and want to turn the world into a huge Gulag. You're right. Market good, state bad. Thank you, friend. I just saw the light.
"You mean trade is a phenomenon unique to our times...?"
No, but our society is so technologically advanced it now takes supra-individual forms and is consumption rather than production based. Just two minor differences.
The best butcher is one who cut the leanest meat, fastest, or cheapest, won the support of his buyers and also bring the most profit home. There are more than one butcher in the marketplace. Smith observation is of the survived of the fittest. The former butchers are left to explore the other fields. Is it wrong then not to specialize? are you right to control other's decisions? can a market place have the best butcher if it only have one ever since?
It's very interesting that people talk about Adam Smith and free markets this and division of labor that. Yet, they probably don't know that Adam Smith himself stated that division of labor creates the most ignorant, feeble minded human beings - just to mention one of the many things about him that are generally ignored or misconstrued.
Another fact that is overlooked is the fact that developed nations became developed through protectionism and still depend on it to a great degree.
@toseeornot2see Excellent points. Smith wasn't perfect-although who is-but he would have been appalled by the state of corporate capitalism in the US, UK and elsewhere. His invisble hand smashes people in the face everyday.
The glaring ommission is that Keynes fraud-theft system of the mass murdering Debt Syndicate had long ago overthrown the doctrine of Doctor Adam Smith.
@MultiSmartass1 They stand for freedom - which is the most important thing to stand for if there ever was a cause. The reason it is difficult for some Libertarians to agree on issues is because human nature is to take the path of the least resistance - meaning it's easier to disregard a persons rights because it doesn't fit yournpersonal tastes, as opposed to analyzing the consequence of an action.
All little kids that like Noam Chomsky should go watch one of his crappy pseudo-intellectual videos like good indoctrined communists that they are. Do us all a favor, quit trolling, start conversations in places and sites that were made for people to discuss such issues in depth, not a video-related site.
The same goes to all those who answer the flamers. Do not feed the troll people.
@redpyramid88 i agree but to a point; i feel that these youtube uncle miltie boards are the new battleground
it provides the opportunity to freely discuss free-market capitalism versus collectivism and to hone our chops in this fight that the statists had hoped to win by default
take on the collectivists and, through sound and simple reasoning, expose them for the trolls they inherently are
if we are to take back our country we "needz 2 win teh nternet fitez"
@redpyramid88 Are you not trolling yourself, by laying down adjectives and descriptions meant to demean your opposition? I see name calling, a request that you are leaving open to a specific group, that does not have clearly defined perimeters, and downplaying a very useful form of media and interaction. Do you gain freedom, by censoring your idealogical dissidents? Just a thought. I am not claiming to be an opponent, just asking how the bar is set, so I know how to continue forward. Peace.
@redpyramid88 Get your facts straight buddy. Noam Chomsky, is not, a communist. He is also one of the smartest people of our time. Also, did you know that Milton Friedman the man who told Reagan it was ok to come off the gold standard?
Libertarians-who are essentially right wingers and right wing conservatives always tout Adam Smith as if he would approve of the kind of corporatized state that we live in.
This is absolutely false.
Smith was anti-exploitation and essentially pro-consumer and even pro-worker in his orientation.
Also the conditions of capitalism have never really met Smith's condition which was "perfect markets" could only exist in conditions of "perfect liberty."
@MultiSmartass1 Do not make the mistake of lumping conservatives and libertarians in the same category (at least fiscally). Furthermore, Corporatism is not "Right Wing". It is Left wing. The next step is Fascism. (What's that? The government's already been buying corporations? uh oh.....
@MultiSmartass1 Pardon me; (quasi)libertarian here to question your gross equivocation and simplification fallacies. First, please stop using loaded language in your statements - it robs them of any real objective validity, in my opinion. Second, economic corporatism at its outset and source, eg political bribes and lobbying for legislation, occurs on both sides of the American political spectrum. Third, there is nothing wrong with corporations, assuming that the political system doesn't...
@MultiSmartass1 ...bend to the law-dodging avarice of said corporations (that same avarice that politicians, both left and right, have, mind you); as such, even assuming that your assertion regarding the political affiliation of the majority of CEOs is correct, it has no real impact in an argument. Third, libertarians stand for many things, primarily non-agression, and the list is lengthy. Further, your final equivocation is preposterous. You must be joking. Please support the "argument."
@Dactylus First, I don't use loaded language. I make clear, strong statements that are not rendered intentionally vague so as to be parsed for and lose all meaning unlike people of your ilk.
Second, there aren't two sides to corporate America. There only a right-perhaps moderated to an extent-wing or conservative side. Leftists don't run corporations. Organizations maybe. Non-profits, sure but not large-scale enterprises like corporations. The thought is laughable to any reasonable person...
@MultiSmartass1 You are a moron. Evidence #1: you claim liberals do not run corporations. The wealthiest man in the world, Bill Gates, is a liberal and runs a corporation. Evidence #2: You claim you make "clear, strong statement... so as to be parsed for and lose all meaning" which is unclear. Evidence #3: You claim libertarians don't "stand" for anything, then immediately refer to their "firm belief in the freedom of the marketplace" and their "political philosophy" of individualism.
@darwinkilledgod Let's just look at your pseudo-evidence shall we? #1: My exact quote was that "Leftists dont run corporations" not Liberals. Liberals are ot leftists despite what Fox News says. Liberals are establishment figures and in that way are similar to conservatives. Gates believes in the Free Market. Leftists dont. #2:I noted that I make statements "that are not rendered intentionally vague" and "lose all meaning." In other words-no ambiguity. Cont-
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@darwinkilledgod #3: Libertarians do not stand for any real, tangible, concrete issues. They dont care about racism, sexism, workplace discrmination, educational disparities, the state of poverty and hunger in the nation and on and on. The only thing they worship is the free market-that's it. Everything is subordinated to the Free Market. In short, Libertarians are no different from Right Wingers, Republicans and Tea Party members. Libs simply try to be hip and cool. It doesn't work.
@MultiSmartass1 The way that you can make false conclusions amazes me. First of all, WE STAND FOR LIBERTY AND LIBERTY IS A CONCEPT VERY TANGIBLE . Go and lock yourself in cell for 6 months than come back here and post if Liberty is tangible or not.
@MultiSmartass1 "They don´t care about racism". THIS IS A LIE! We care about racism. WE ARE AGAINST ANY FORM OF RACISM. Watch this video and educate yourself: watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0&feature=related
@MultiSmartass1 "They don´t care about sexism and workplace discrimination". Another LIE! Watch this video and educate yourself: watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE&feature=related
@MultiSmartass1 "They don´t care about educational disparities". Another LIE! Watch these videos and educate yourself: watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU watch?v=oMgz2W3taw8&feature=related watch?v=FdUHbs-x5sc&feature=related watch?v=BJtNJ5-Ma2w&feature=related watch?v=EkPfY5MJQZQ&feature=related
@MultiSmartass1 "They don´t care about the state of poverty and hunger in the nation". Another LIE! WE CARE ABOUT THE POOR!! Watch these videos and STOP MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS!! watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA
@Dactylus Third. Libertarians dont really "stand" for anything. Their own firm belief in the freedom of the marketplace. Beyond that, Libertarian political philosophy tends to be individualistic but non-substantive and non-committal. Real Liberatrians dont agree on anything because their viewpoints are so disparate and unable to cohere. If Libs wanted to believe insomething they would have remained Republicans.
are there any videos of friedman from his younger days (i.e. with a full head of pre-grey hair) or did he not become a public figure/commentator until his senior years?
Wow, am I nuts or is Uncle Milty? Adam Smith detested "the division of labor" and advocated that it had to be regulated therefore he was against what Uncle Milty just described.
@Marly61 No, you are nuts. Adam Smith correctly realized that the division of labor was the single most important factor in a modern economy and is key to growth. Smith recognized that while societies with divided labor consume more, they also produce more and have more leisure time, while primitive societies where people did just about everything for themselves were terribly poor and easily never more than one bad harvest away from starvation.
@kev3d A much more advanced society, morally, appreciates the worker by letting hime reap the full benefits of his produce by appreciating what he does, not USA.
@Marly61 That's what an entrepreneur does, he reaps according to what he produces and sells. But how is a person who is entering the market supposed to reap the "full benefit" of his labor? What does that even mean? If someone cooks some fries, who receives the "full benefit"? The potato grower? The Delivery guy? The Oil Supplier? The actual fry cook? The owner of the restaurant? Top-down economic planning never works.
@kev3d They're based on computers, for example. Computers were created at public expense and public initiative. In the 1950s when they were being developed, it was about 100% public expense. The same is true of the Internet. The ideas, the initiatives, the software, the hardware -- these were created for about 30 years at public initiative and expense, and it's just now being handed over to guys like Bill Gates.
@Marly61 Except that IBM was started in the 19th century. Charles Babbage's Analytical engine, though he did not live to see it work, was built before 1850 (ironically After he lost public funding for another project) But it is absurd to suggest that Eniac or Univac are anything close to what DELL, Apple, or HP produce. And even then, the first computers still used power, transistors and vacuum tubes, developed privately by the likes of Edison and Tesla among others.
@kev3d These publicly-subsidized systems have been the core of the dynamic sectors of the American economy ever since (much the same is true of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, etc., relying on different public sources). And that certainly leads right to Microsoft. So how does Microsoft achieve its enormous profits? Well, Bill Gates is pretty frank about it. He says they do it by "embracing and extending" the ideas of others.
@Marly61 No shit Bill Gates made his money by embracing and expanding the ideas of others. So did Newton and Einstein and anyone who has ever written or drawn something unique. So what? If I walk on a pavement and think of something brilliant, do I owe the pavement layer money? If someone writes an amazing piece of music or writing or software on Windows....do they owe Bill Gates money? Of course not. Those things were already paid for.
@kev3d You just contradicted your own theoretic bullshit by on the one hand saying Entrepreneurship then using the ideas of others LOL, thanks you are desperate
@Marly61 No I didn't. Entrepreneurs can certainly improve the ideas of others by making a better mouse trap, a better burger, writing better software...whatever. But, because entrepreneurs by definition start their own businesses, they reap their own rewards but they also assume the risk if they fail.
@Marly61 Yes, they have been. Even in cases where the military funded some early computers, (though the government did not "invent" computers) it was the largely free and voluntary market that made computers flourish, driven by consumer demand. From that software logically follows, along with networks. It should come as no surprise that the bailed out industries, like Finance and Autos are also the ones most often in trouble.
@kev3d Your support of Pragmatic Neoliberalism is at the most immoral level, so immature, have to go to work but I'll be back to bitch slap you again into reality from your hilarious "invisible hand"
@Marly61 Yeah, letting people enter into voluntary contracts, to buy and sell freely without interference, letting people engage in commerce regardless of their race, sex, personal views or political stance, self ownership and determination, personal responsibility, rights protection and impartial contract enforcement....how "immoral".
@kev3d D'Arge and I have labeled this process "the invisible foot" of the laissez faire ... market place. The "invisible foot" ensures us that in a free-market ... economy each person pursuing only his own good will automatically, and most efficiently, do his part in maximizing the general public misery. "
@Marly61 Ah, so the countries that trade the most ought to be the most miserable; the data prove otherwise. If free trade "hurt" or imposed undue costs on others, nations like Singapore and Hong Kong would be poverty stricken islands, not thriving, growing, dynamic metropolises.
@kev3d Love how you could not present exact sources on "data prove otherwise"; do you want more of the world's most authoritative and credible sources showing you are wrong?
@kev3d The more significant the social cost imposed upon his neighbor, the greater will be his reward in the bargaining process. It follows from the orthodox assumption of maximizing man that each man will create a maximum of social costs which he can impose on others.
@Marly61 The only way a person can impose a cost on his neighbor is through government intervention, which has nothing to do with capitalism. If a person buys a cheap lamp from china instead of his lamp-making neighbor, this does not constitute an imposition of cost, but rather a market challenge which the neighbor must meet either with better or cheaper lamps. This leads to competition, which on the whole, improves things.
@kev3d and if we assume the government establishes property rights and markets for these rights whenever an external diseconomy is discovered [the preferred "solution" of the conservative and increasingly dominant trend within the field of public finance], then each man will soon discover that through contrivance he can impose external diseconomies on other men, knowing that the bargaining within the new market that will be established will surely make him better off
@Marly61 We don't assume rights are established by government, rights are pre-existing and govt is SUPPOSED to protect them, though it often does the opposite.
@Marly61 The Invasion of Iraq was a result of Governments, not markets. Friedman himself opposed the war. Bastiat also knew that where trade goods did not flow, armies would. In other words, trade helps prevents war.
@kev3d You present some good clche ideas, to bad they dont exist, I hope we can try them someday. Some how you have not balanced history with theory in a way reflecting world reality.I dont usually suggest Wikipedia however if you search for "invisible hand wikipedia" you will see the following which applies to your deficiencies in this area : If we assume the maximizing economic man of bourgeois economics
@kev3d It destroys community, the environment, and human values generally—and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces
@Marly61 That is the most absurd thing you have written so far. You imply that market forces "destroy" human values? What the hell? Market forces ensure that men will trade REGARDLESS of racial, religious, cultural or national barriers. Ive never been to Peru, I don't know anyone from Peru...but bless them, they provided me grapes at a reasonable price during the middle of a northern hemisphere winter. That gets them money, me grapes and fosters peace.
@kev3d Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, destroys the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society."
@Marly61 Again, you are taking Smith out of context because he realized that despite its flaws, a free market creates vast wealth and raised the living standard for everyone so that a "peasant" in a country that engages in trade and the division of labor often lived better than the very best of "Savages". But still, of course there is a role for government, which protects rights, enforces contracts and little else. Everything else should be the choice of free people.
@kev3d For instance in Robin Hahnel's book Panic Rules the world's most credible sources state you are wrong. Even the wikipedia page lists sources saying data collected proved you wrong.
@kev3d I was in a meeting last night with 5 economists working on presentations that are so easy to put together because the data overwhelmlying counters Neoliberal economic policies as a failure.
@kev3d But seriously, you have to de-indoctrinate and re-educate yourself away from the propaganda you suck and a good video to start with is "Noam Chomsky - "Free Markets?" 1/9" were is reality presented and unanimously agreed on against all of your positions.
@Marly61 And again what was the Government using? Telephones invented by Bell and Grey, Power developed by Tesla and Edison, and so on. Yes, the government did have a role to play in the development of some internet and computer technologies, but the roots of those systems came from elsewhere. Plus we are ignoring other networks, like Radio, Television, even Walmart's pioneering of barcode scanners and stock replacement systems.
@kev3d Thats what an entrepreneur does in an theoretical world not reality in reality State Capitalism rules. Let me quess you dont understand the state's role in the US because you think the US is Free Markets, Entrepreneurship, etc ? After the Second World War, it was well understood in the business world that they were going to have to have state coordination, subsidy, and a kind of socialization of costs and risks.
@Marly61 No, I don't believe the US is a free Market, although it should be. At best it is a Free-ish market and at worst, corporatist. FDR was wrong, his central planning is a disaster.
@kev3d And if you where mature enought to have read the whole book you would have that Adam Smith totally condemns the division of labor hundreds of pages later but since you are an indoctrinated propagandist for US power and elites at the expense of your own life you just blindly accept the bullshit power institutions posit, that is the most primitive psychology.
@kev3d Adam Smith even wrote that govt should be used to regulate the immorality of "the division of labor". Ask you professor, if in school, why they lied.
@Marly61 Not exactly, Smith realized that in some cases, performing mundane tasks would create unhappy or uneducated workers, so he advocated public education. Of course he saw flaws in the system, all systems have flaws to find, but to suggest he "detested" that which he freely acknowledged created vast wealth is absurd.
@Marly61 So? To regulate or to modify something does not mean the entire concept should be discarded. It may well be that the divided labor will have some mundane jobs...but many more will not be. Actors, Athletes, Engineers, Doctors, Programmers and so forth...they do not grow their own food or build their own houses. Such as it is, in mature economies, people have far more options than Smith could have ever dreamed.
@kev3d To start to understand how badly you are manipulated may I suggest three sources all from Noam Chomksy 1 book Manufacturing Consent 2 article 10 strategies for control and manipulation of the masses and a You Tube video "PSYWAR - the battle of the mind"
1)About the terms ‘planning’ and market it´s often missunderstood today.The concept itself needs to be precisely defined. Planning is not equivalent to ‘perfect’ allocation of resources, nor ‘scientific’ allocation, nor even ‘more humane’ allocation. It simply means ‘direct’ allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post.
The sad truth for you is that despite your blathering, his brilliance lives on, shining brightly. On the other hand, your lack thereof will soon be forgotten. As Dr. Friedman well knew, a free market without government intervention would have not be in financial crisis. In my view, the yoke is clearly on you.
His brilliance can be found in all the countries he and The Chicago Boys laid to rest dead as his ideas failed in all the countries tried. In fact, you look at the countries world wide that implement the opposite policies in Asia for example you will find the fast rate of growth of per capita income in history. When I say Uncle Milty's policies failed I mean they failed for average people not elites. Look at what happened in the US under greater application of Neoliberalism, failure
I agree Friedman was the champion of economic liberty; for a small elite class to implement economic policies that gave people world wide, as in the US, the freedom to have the highest rates of poverty in the Advanced Industrialized World =AIW, highest rate of children in poverty in the AIW, the freedom to have life expectancy decreasing for the first time, the worst health care system in the AIW, the lowest quality of life in the AIW; the lowest retirement incomes, many more lowests
Funny how America has such an immigration problem. It is simply people voting with their feet. America is only country in the world founded on individual liberty, like the right to voluntary trade (what Friedman advocates). As such, it has become the most powerful country in the world. There is a world full of socialist countries if you seek to live as a dependent child. Why not pick one and move? Why do you insist on bringing down the world's only beacon of liberty?
Funny how when you look at immigration americans never talk about the fact that 1.7 to 1.9 million professional americans leave america every year for a better quality of life or standard of living, and the millions more americans who want to but cant for legal reasons, that can be found the world over then in the US like Norway, The Netherlands, France, Sweden, etc but american. And they also leave out the many of the people who go to america come from countries of lesser wellbeing
Tell me, what is it that keeps YOU here? Could it be that the power of your mind is unable to produce enough within a capitalistic system to buy a plane ticket out? You don't present as the sharpest tool in the shed if you hate our system but CHOOSE to continue subjecting yourself to it.
wow, i never met someone as stupid as you who assumes so many wrong things; I left the US to live in a more socialist country. Millions of professional americans are leaving every year like me to find a better quality of living or standard of living and millions more want to leave but cant because legally migrating is impossible for most.
Funny to is that many of the immigrants to america come from countries where american economic policies, actions and military operations destroyed their countries as in Mexico, Nicaragua and Central America in general
Since, of course, the US only has the greatest number of children in poverty is because we have the highest relative poverty standard in the world (and have the wealthiest "poor" on the planet); since life expectancy is driven by genetics and behavior (not poverty or health care); since studies of ACTUAL CARE unanimously show that the US has the finest actual health care in the world; pretending that things are so terrible in the US is pretty stupid.
You are wrong as you, being american, lied by assuming you understood the reports I was refering to. THe US, according all reports has the lowest standards of everything. Also, you dont even realize that the "greatest number of children in poverty" as you put it is not the point. Your understanding of these issues is so low that you have no credibility. example, the current decline in US life expectancy, according to US studies, is due to the lack of access to health care
That is actually incredibily immature that you dont even realize the effects of economics on life expectancy but you commented on it, as millions die, many in the US as the US is one of the biggest receivors of aid from third world aid organizations like Remote Area Access, from having such extremely low standards of quality of life and standard of living for the poor
I didn't argue that economics has no impact on life expectancy. In the Thord World where sanitary conditions and care rationing are the norm it has a significant impact. In the First World. however, it has NO discernable impact whatsoever and is driven entirely by genetics and behavior (as is widely recognized in the medical field). The rest of your fantasy is just too stupid to respons to (of course you find that moron Greg Palast to be credible so stupidity on your part is hardly shocking).
I never said I thought Greg Palast was credibile. You are not credible after stating putting forth so much demogagory with out even posting one source and its specifics.
Well, as Greggy is your highlighted favorite on your channel...
Sources ABOUND. Check out the statistics at the CIA World Factbook (that compiles the official statistics from each country). Search for any analysis of life expectancy data (or infant mortality if you wish to go there). The news reports about the decline in life expectancy (not for the total populace but among women) and its link to smoking are easily searched. YOU have not provided so much as a single source. Hypocrite.
There is also the CDC (a source I already provided, demonstrating your aversion to the truth). You can use their CDC Wonder search tool to get current mortality statistics by cause. And the US Census Bureau can give details about how the poverty level is defined (just as I said). Your credibility is simply nonexistent.
"By calculating years-of-life-lost due to obesity and combining that with estimates of the prevalence of obesity in younger generations, the authors were able to illustrate that in the coming decades the risk of death from obesity-related causes is about to rise. The hardest hit will be minorities, because of limited access to health care and because they have experienced the most rapid increases in obesity in recent years, according to the authors.
What I was quoting came from Science Daily, I know of thousands more sources saying the same, article "U.S. Life Expectancy About To Decline, Researchers Say"
"A team of researchers ... is PREDICTING a decline in life expectancy ... LATER THIS CENTURY ... based on the dramatic rise in obesity.
"Body weight is affected by many genetic, psychological and environmental factors that influence diet or physical activity levels.
The (certainly unbiased) researchers hope that the study will raise "awareness of the importance of increased funding for obesity research [such as they are conducting]."
"These adverse changes in diet have been driven by a multi-billion dollar marketing campaign by the food industry aimed at young children," said Ludwig. "Cutbacks in funding for regular, mandatory PE classes and limited insurance reimbursement for obesity prevention and treatment are also contributory."
oK that is just the first subject you SUCK on, do you want to know your stupidity on your other ideas?
Are you TRYING to look stupid?!?! That study PREDICTS a possible decline in life expectancy due to an increase in OBESITY (not a decline in care quality) and concedes that obesity, while a symptom of PROSPERITY has a significant GENETIC component.
In other words, you have just proven you were completely wrong about the ACTUAL trend in life expectancy, that you are incapable of looking at the official data and that you are incapable of understaning the study you chose.
You are right that it just predicts asshole, I want to slowly make you look stupid on this by starting from years ago on this subject as that demonstrates your incredible arrogance that you dont understand this but posted so confidently and arrogantly. Shall we continue? Like to the result of the analysis, slowly of course.
You argued that there had already been a decline in US life expectancy (that was wrong) and that it was attributable to poor health care (also wrong). To butress your (inaccurate) position, you provide a single (as yet unreplicated) study that predicts a decline at some nebulous point in the future and the opinion (not scientific conclusion) of one researcher that access to care would be a factor ... if his predictions hold up.
You have no grasp of statistics, research, reality, etc.
Oh no, obviously there had already been a decline in US life expectancy as many reports based on historical data are reporting that. You cant even stay on the subject as you are searching for a technical not substantive way out of this
Oh, no, in ffact the data on life expectancy in the US HAS NOT shown any decline. The historical reports (again, check the stats at the CIA World Factbook) EXPRESSLY REFUTE YOU. You are completely WRONG. Life expectancy in the US has continued to climb. Studies of the underlying data show that life expectancy for women in some areas have fallen (but not overall) and the gap between women and men has narrowed (attributable to smoking and more stressful lifestyles). The facts are against you.
Sorry, I actually DID realize that you were a blithering idiot indoctrinated to ideologuy and myths. I have no need to lie because I am an economist and researcher and have the facts on my side. I needn't cherry-pick studies that don't support my position and pretend that facts that don't fit my worldview are all LIES, LIES LIES.
It must really be pathetic to be as trapped in ignorance as you clearly are. Pity.
Not only are you an arrogant scum but you lie to as you purposely left out the phrase of my quote which was the most relevant bieng: "because of limited access to health care "
You really are scum, let me quess, immoral people who think like you believe in Free Markets also, you too?
That is their OPINION about an event that they PREDICT. It is not an assessment of anything that actually exists in the real world (as is obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of gravel).
Yes, I believe in free markets becasue I have a connection to reality and all the facts, without exception, show the superiority of free markets.
Oh shit, another omission by you which equates lying again. You omitted the eating habits ideas that marketing campaigns changed and targeted which can change genetics. You are so full of shit, start with the element that leads to all the other effects being the immoral marketing campaigns under laissez faire economics, dont start at one of the effects being genetics.
Oh shit, another example of your stupidity! You simply are incapable of grasping the difference between the scientific conclusions of the study (that if obesity trends continue a decline in life expectancy might occur) and the simple opinions of the researchers (which are NOT scientific conclusions) that they personally belive will occur IF the statistical conclusions hold up (which they conced mught not be the case).
I didn't assume anything about the reports you were referring to. I am referring to the actual data that is readily available (and an actual understanding of how the data is derived). According to the ACTUAL data, US lige expectancy has NOT fallen and, the decline for women is attributed to higher levels of smoking among the female population, not lack of care. Your assessment of these issues is completely wrong.
Your invalid rationalizations are not reality. Look at the scientific proof
I knew a 12 year old boy, tooth-ache, without health insurance, went to dentist who said I am too busy come back later, tooth became infected which spread to his brain and killed him.This happens to thousands and thousands every year in the US. You are so limited in your understanding of the US. THe US does have some of the best technology however services are not accessible to millions there
Your anecdotal (and not even remotely credible) "evidence" is worthless. The CDC reports that fewer than 3,000 people per year die from "delays receiving care" (the proxy for lack of insurance) in the US. (Other, less scientific studies have argued that lack of insurance has "contributed" to more deaths, but the butchers bill reported by Health Canada and the British National Health Service is at least as high. Again, official statistics trump your fairy stories.
Your making up stories does not help your case. And, yes, Chiona has become steadily more capitalistic, as Milton Friedman suggested, and, to the extent that it has, living standards for the Chinese people have dramatically improved. They are still far below those of Americans (because they remain predominantly socialist) but as they become more capitalistic and we become more socialistic, who knows what the future holds. Your ignorance on these issues is not my problem.
Japan is a perfect model of how deviating from Uncle Milty's ideas is disastrous. It grew from a post-war low because it OPENED its markets relative to its wartime stance and to many of its neighbors allowing RELATIVE improvement, but the continued intervention of govt turned its economic "miracle" into a nightmare. It has been in an economic funk for morte than a decade and its interventions have put it under crushing debt that dwarfs ours.
How does Uncle Milty's brilliance compare to the morons who still (inaccurately) blame his policies for the circumstances in Chile or do not recognize that adopting the opposite policies is why countries like Japan have been in a decade long economic crisis and has a debt level larger than their entire economy or fail to recognize that the greater adoption of his policies has, in fact, led to the greatest increase in living standards in countries like, say, China?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Friedman is full of shit. Principles are a guide to application of resources. Mind-fucking people into believing there's too big of a difference between Principles and applications (be it of anything other than principles) is to miss the concepts of both, regardless of circumstance.
It is a science, but depending on your favoured school, you may say that it is simply a science with a different methodology than other sciences. Positivistic economists, like Friedman, believe economists should emulate the physicists, analyse data and use the scientific method, while Austrians prefer to deduce economic truths from first principles, and create absolute rules applying to all cases. This is simply an epistemological question, though; they may still reach similar conclusions.
its a social science, often referred to as the bastard science. this inferiority complex i think drove them [particularly chicargo school] to try and square off a round peg by using mathematics to try and explain certain things.
all the sciences, social or otherwise analyse data with a scientific method. conclusions wouldnt be valid otherwise. everything else is trying to attach a moral philosophy to it eg. hayek et al.
yea astrology is wrapped in numbers and math galore.bull shit wrapped in formulas and so called facts is still bull shit.baseball has stats endles observations yet every game is just that.economics is more then 90 percent theroy 10 percent educated guess.
stealthgerm, was that rhetoric aimed at me? if it was its mis placed since its essentially what im saying. and that btw that isnt a theory, its just the way its always been. however it seems that mostly its only in academia that is understood to be the case. only in popular discourse does economic theory hold similar impirical understandings of fundamental laws, like pure maths and physics. the rest to paraprase shaw is to keep the lay man in a profound state of ignorance.
the principles of how bow and arrow work are the same as an automoble or horse and buggy. Besides free market doesnt serve everybody. Without regulations the rich get richer and poor get poorer. You end with an oligarchy and slave class similar to Latin American right wing dictatorships. You loose democracy in free market. Now in the USA, Big Corporations without regulations are dictating policy and we have market crashing. The populace has to bail out the institutions.
your comments are nonsense. the free market serves everyone, for it is simply the system of voluntary exchange. Nobody makes a voluntary exchange that is not in their own interest. And, no industry NEEDS a bailout. Politicians favor bailouts because it gives them leverage at taxpayer's expense. In a free market, failures are as important as success in directing resources to their best utilization. You are dupe. Slaves are the product of socialism, liberty is the product of capitalism.
This state corporatism you speak of is inherently against free market principles.
Corporations are only allowed to maintain there monopolisitic positions through government intervention, often in the form of regulation which creates barriers to entry into the market.
So sad that an overwhelming number of teachers at leading universities are still pushing for a re-evaluation of free market capitalism and more study in Marx...
If you think America is a free market you make your first mistake. There is government intervention all over the place with subsidies, bailouts, protectionist policies, etc. The invisible hand is phenomenon that works beautifully in a free market, It is far less effective in the bastardized version found in the U.S, today.
@LibertyPen I disagree with you, sir. Relative to the rest of the world, America is a free market, refining itself everyday in many ways. As Warren Buffet says, you cannot bet against the U.S. economy and win. The United States of America and its financial markets have added value to the human civilization at an exponential rate for many decades and more in the future. USA = #1
@trancenode What do you think happens if China, Japan etc sell all their american dollars? I think the dollar would sink like a stone. But they won't let that happen now, because they want to keep their trade surplus. In america you say: Yeah, we buy all this amazing stuff that they are producing and all they get is our currency that we are printing every day. If the asians decide so your dollar would probably half its value. I think your money supply is quite a big reason to this situation.
@LibertyPen Yes, there is govt intervention but you failed to mention that it is mostly in the interests of elite policy makers, as Adman Smith said, and that the average person and poor in the USA are supposed to be taught free markets are good for you not govt intervention.
@Marly61 Various sources, including taxpayers during WW2, in some cases people from other countries, like the UK vis-a-vis Alan Turing. Some of the Engineers and scientists who were brought in were paid by public and private universities or by private enterprise. Its a mix. But what is your point? Whatever investments were made in computers publicly were paid back long long ago, and private industry has invested far more over time.
um, the regulation is causing the crash course. there's no need for government to be meddling in our lives so much. I shouldn't be supporting teen pregnancy and sex out of wedlock with the money that I work hard to earn.
a walk in the park
hotguybmx760 2 weeks ago
Adam Smith (1723-1790)
watch?v=Z92pjQVgqmY
KenMacMillan 2 months ago
hehhe the fella is bullshiting his way through the answer.. what a shithead! a real scientist :-D
rbefanatic 2 months ago
I am pleased to have one of my favorite economists talking about the philosophical principles of the man who did for capitalism as much as Karl Marx did for socialism.
xXvolhvXx 2 months ago
People who thoughtlessly cite Adam Smith don't realize that what he wrote applies to a different time. In his time, people lived in villages and production and consumption were organized locally. In our times of huge production processes, we DO need the state to supervise the economy. Suppose a company dilutes its milk with water and the customer discovers it. The supermarket will tell him to f*** off. So of course people will organize a supra-individual entity to represent and defend them. Duh.
ElenaXVI 2 months ago
@ElenaXVI Laissez-faire capitalism is a timeless principle, like reason, liberty and justice. It is simply the principle that you and I can make a transaction without having to gain permission (licensing and regulation) from a third party (govt). It would allow you, for example, to transport folks for money with having to buy a taxi license. Economic liberty is as relevant an idea now as it was in Adam Smith's day. Government's only role should be to provide a court system to settle disputes.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
Comment removed
ElenaXVI 2 months ago
@fzqlcs No wait... I think I just converted to capitalism. I thought I was thinking for myself, but now I see I was brainwashed by leninists like Obama. They're fucking evil and want to turn the world into a huge Gulag. You're right. Market good, state bad. Thank you, friend. I just saw the light.
ElenaXVI 2 months ago
@ElenaXVI
"people lived in villages"
Everyone?
"production and consumption were organized locally"
You mean trade is a phenomenon unique to our times...?
WSWarthog 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WSWarthog "Everyone?"
Most.
"You mean trade is a phenomenon unique to our times...?"
No, but our society is so technologically advanced it now takes supra-individual forms and is consumption rather than production based. Just two minor differences.
ElenaXVI 1 month ago
@ElenaXVI you don't sue for diluted milk. you just don't buy that brand of milk anymore...
chadimus84 6 days ago
The best butcher is one who cut the leanest meat, fastest, or cheapest, won the support of his buyers and also bring the most profit home. There are more than one butcher in the marketplace. Smith observation is of the survived of the fittest. The former butchers are left to explore the other fields. Is it wrong then not to specialize? are you right to control other's decisions? can a market place have the best butcher if it only have one ever since?
UnitedPebbles 5 months ago
It's very interesting that people talk about Adam Smith and free markets this and division of labor that. Yet, they probably don't know that Adam Smith himself stated that division of labor creates the most ignorant, feeble minded human beings - just to mention one of the many things about him that are generally ignored or misconstrued.
Another fact that is overlooked is the fact that developed nations became developed through protectionism and still depend on it to a great degree.
toseeornot2see 8 months ago
@toseeornot2see Excellent points. Smith wasn't perfect-although who is-but he would have been appalled by the state of corporate capitalism in the US, UK and elsewhere. His invisble hand smashes people in the face everyday.
MultiSmartass1 8 months ago
Another glaring ommission is that David Ricardo smoothed over most of the wrinkles in his predicessor Doctor Adam Smith's theory.
centurion180ad 9 months ago
The glaring ommission is that Keynes fraud-theft system of the mass murdering Debt Syndicate had long ago overthrown the doctrine of Doctor Adam Smith.
centurion180ad 9 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 They stand for freedom - which is the most important thing to stand for if there ever was a cause. The reason it is difficult for some Libertarians to agree on issues is because human nature is to take the path of the least resistance - meaning it's easier to disregard a persons rights because it doesn't fit yournpersonal tastes, as opposed to analyzing the consequence of an action.
SoooooRich 9 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 I think this is the first time I've ever heard someone make the assertion that Libertarians don't stand for anything.
SoooooRich 9 months ago
All little kids that like Noam Chomsky should go watch one of his crappy pseudo-intellectual videos like good indoctrined communists that they are. Do us all a favor, quit trolling, start conversations in places and sites that were made for people to discuss such issues in depth, not a video-related site.
The same goes to all those who answer the flamers. Do not feed the troll people.
redpyramid88 11 months ago 12
@redpyramid88 i agree but to a point; i feel that these youtube uncle miltie boards are the new battleground
it provides the opportunity to freely discuss free-market capitalism versus collectivism and to hone our chops in this fight that the statists had hoped to win by default
take on the collectivists and, through sound and simple reasoning, expose them for the trolls they inherently are
if we are to take back our country we "needz 2 win teh nternet fitez"
2dum2getsocialism 8 months ago
@redpyramid88 Are you not trolling yourself, by laying down adjectives and descriptions meant to demean your opposition? I see name calling, a request that you are leaving open to a specific group, that does not have clearly defined perimeters, and downplaying a very useful form of media and interaction. Do you gain freedom, by censoring your idealogical dissidents? Just a thought. I am not claiming to be an opponent, just asking how the bar is set, so I know how to continue forward. Peace.
ObscurityBound 6 months ago
@redpyramid88 You shouldn't be encouraging people to watch and comment only on videos they agree with, that would be a very dangerous thing to do.
wowsa0 3 months ago
@redpyramid88 Get your facts straight buddy. Noam Chomsky, is not, a communist. He is also one of the smartest people of our time. Also, did you know that Milton Friedman the man who told Reagan it was ok to come off the gold standard?
radiobaseball 2 months ago
Libertarians-who are essentially right wingers and right wing conservatives always tout Adam Smith as if he would approve of the kind of corporatized state that we live in.
This is absolutely false.
Smith was anti-exploitation and essentially pro-consumer and even pro-worker in his orientation.
Also the conditions of capitalism have never really met Smith's condition which was "perfect markets" could only exist in conditions of "perfect liberty."
There has been no "perfect liberty' in the US
MultiSmartass1 11 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 Do not make the mistake of lumping conservatives and libertarians in the same category (at least fiscally). Furthermore, Corporatism is not "Right Wing". It is Left wing. The next step is Fascism. (What's that? The government's already been buying corporations? uh oh.....
Rensune 10 months ago
@Rensune Its not a mistake.
Libertarians are worshippers of the market and therefore commune to that same melody as conservatives.
The idea that corporatism is somehow left-wing is preposterous rubbish.
Corporations are run at the very least by conservatives not by communists, socialists or leftists.
Libertarians dont really care about anything at all.
They stand for nothing.
They are as anti-progressive and pro-racist as the right in this country.
Libs are klansman with economics degrees
MultiSmartass1 10 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 Pardon me; (quasi)libertarian here to question your gross equivocation and simplification fallacies. First, please stop using loaded language in your statements - it robs them of any real objective validity, in my opinion. Second, economic corporatism at its outset and source, eg political bribes and lobbying for legislation, occurs on both sides of the American political spectrum. Third, there is nothing wrong with corporations, assuming that the political system doesn't...
Dactylus 9 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 ...bend to the law-dodging avarice of said corporations (that same avarice that politicians, both left and right, have, mind you); as such, even assuming that your assertion regarding the political affiliation of the majority of CEOs is correct, it has no real impact in an argument. Third, libertarians stand for many things, primarily non-agression, and the list is lengthy. Further, your final equivocation is preposterous. You must be joking. Please support the "argument."
Dactylus 9 months ago
@Dactylus First, I don't use loaded language. I make clear, strong statements that are not rendered intentionally vague so as to be parsed for and lose all meaning unlike people of your ilk.
Second, there aren't two sides to corporate America. There only a right-perhaps moderated to an extent-wing or conservative side. Leftists don't run corporations. Organizations maybe. Non-profits, sure but not large-scale enterprises like corporations. The thought is laughable to any reasonable person...
MultiSmartass1 9 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 You are a moron. Evidence #1: you claim liberals do not run corporations. The wealthiest man in the world, Bill Gates, is a liberal and runs a corporation. Evidence #2: You claim you make "clear, strong statement... so as to be parsed for and lose all meaning" which is unclear. Evidence #3: You claim libertarians don't "stand" for anything, then immediately refer to their "firm belief in the freedom of the marketplace" and their "political philosophy" of individualism.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
@darwinkilledgod Let's just look at your pseudo-evidence shall we? #1: My exact quote was that "Leftists dont run corporations" not Liberals. Liberals are ot leftists despite what Fox News says. Liberals are establishment figures and in that way are similar to conservatives. Gates believes in the Free Market. Leftists dont. #2:I noted that I make statements "that are not rendered intentionally vague" and "lose all meaning." In other words-no ambiguity. Cont-
MultiSmartass1 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@darwinkilledgod #3: Libertarians do not stand for any real, tangible, concrete issues. They dont care about racism, sexism, workplace discrmination, educational disparities, the state of poverty and hunger in the nation and on and on. The only thing they worship is the free market-that's it. Everything is subordinated to the Free Market. In short, Libertarians are no different from Right Wingers, Republicans and Tea Party members. Libs simply try to be hip and cool. It doesn't work.
MultiSmartass1 8 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 The way that you can make false conclusions amazes me. First of all, WE STAND FOR LIBERTY AND LIBERTY IS A CONCEPT VERY TANGIBLE . Go and lock yourself in cell for 6 months than come back here and post if Liberty is tangible or not.
fefe74e 8 months ago 8
@fefe74e Aren't we locking ourselves in due to terrorism? We are farther from liberty than ever,
tgt305 5 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 "They don´t care about racism". THIS IS A LIE! We care about racism. WE ARE AGAINST ANY FORM OF RACISM. Watch this video and educate yourself: watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0&feature=related
fefe74e 8 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 "They don´t care about sexism and workplace discrimination". Another LIE! Watch this video and educate yourself: watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE&feature=related
fefe74e 8 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 "They don´t care about educational disparities". Another LIE! Watch these videos and educate yourself: watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU watch?v=oMgz2W3taw8&feature=related watch?v=FdUHbs-x5sc&feature=related watch?v=BJtNJ5-Ma2w&feature=related watch?v=EkPfY5MJQZQ&feature=related
fefe74e 8 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 "They don´t care about the state of poverty and hunger in the nation". Another LIE! WE CARE ABOUT THE POOR!! Watch these videos and STOP MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS!! watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA
watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4 watch?v=ULM_Y7JHdG8
fefe74e 8 months ago
@MultiSmartass1 Before you start criticize the Libertarianism, you should have studied what this movement stands for.
fefe74e 8 months ago
@Dactylus Third. Libertarians dont really "stand" for anything. Their own firm belief in the freedom of the marketplace. Beyond that, Libertarian political philosophy tends to be individualistic but non-substantive and non-committal. Real Liberatrians dont agree on anything because their viewpoints are so disparate and unable to cohere. If Libs wanted to believe insomething they would have remained Republicans.
Libertarians are essentially political hedonists.
MultiSmartass1 9 months ago
are there any videos of friedman from his younger days (i.e. with a full head of pre-grey hair) or did he not become a public figure/commentator until his senior years?
halladaylover 1 year ago
Wow, am I nuts or is Uncle Milty? Adam Smith detested "the division of labor" and advocated that it had to be regulated therefore he was against what Uncle Milty just described.
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 No, you are nuts. Adam Smith correctly realized that the division of labor was the single most important factor in a modern economy and is key to growth. Smith recognized that while societies with divided labor consume more, they also produce more and have more leisure time, while primitive societies where people did just about everything for themselves were terribly poor and easily never more than one bad harvest away from starvation.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d A much more advanced society, morally, appreciates the worker by letting hime reap the full benefits of his produce by appreciating what he does, not USA.
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 That's what an entrepreneur does, he reaps according to what he produces and sells. But how is a person who is entering the market supposed to reap the "full benefit" of his labor? What does that even mean? If someone cooks some fries, who receives the "full benefit"? The potato grower? The Delivery guy? The Oil Supplier? The actual fry cook? The owner of the restaurant? Top-down economic planning never works.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Also, reality not your ideological demagogeury, is found in David Harvey's You Tube video "A Brief History of Neoliberalism"
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d They're based on computers, for example. Computers were created at public expense and public initiative. In the 1950s when they were being developed, it was about 100% public expense. The same is true of the Internet. The ideas, the initiatives, the software, the hardware -- these were created for about 30 years at public initiative and expense, and it's just now being handed over to guys like Bill Gates.
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 Except that IBM was started in the 19th century. Charles Babbage's Analytical engine, though he did not live to see it work, was built before 1850 (ironically After he lost public funding for another project) But it is absurd to suggest that Eniac or Univac are anything close to what DELL, Apple, or HP produce. And even then, the first computers still used power, transistors and vacuum tubes, developed privately by the likes of Edison and Tesla among others.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d These publicly-subsidized systems have been the core of the dynamic sectors of the American economy ever since (much the same is true of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, etc., relying on different public sources). And that certainly leads right to Microsoft. So how does Microsoft achieve its enormous profits? Well, Bill Gates is pretty frank about it. He says they do it by "embracing and extending" the ideas of others.
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 No shit Bill Gates made his money by embracing and expanding the ideas of others. So did Newton and Einstein and anyone who has ever written or drawn something unique. So what? If I walk on a pavement and think of something brilliant, do I owe the pavement layer money? If someone writes an amazing piece of music or writing or software on Windows....do they owe Bill Gates money? Of course not. Those things were already paid for.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You just contradicted your own theoretic bullshit by on the one hand saying Entrepreneurship then using the ideas of others LOL, thanks you are desperate
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 No I didn't. Entrepreneurs can certainly improve the ideas of others by making a better mouse trap, a better burger, writing better software...whatever. But, because entrepreneurs by definition start their own businesses, they reap their own rewards but they also assume the risk if they fail.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d LOL oh sure computers and just about every dynamic US industry was made availalbe from free and voluntary markes? LOL
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 Yes, they have been. Even in cases where the military funded some early computers, (though the government did not "invent" computers) it was the largely free and voluntary market that made computers flourish, driven by consumer demand. From that software logically follows, along with networks. It should come as no surprise that the bailed out industries, like Finance and Autos are also the ones most often in trouble.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Your support of Pragmatic Neoliberalism is at the most immoral level, so immature, have to go to work but I'll be back to bitch slap you again into reality from your hilarious "invisible hand"
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 Yeah, letting people enter into voluntary contracts, to buy and sell freely without interference, letting people engage in commerce regardless of their race, sex, personal views or political stance, self ownership and determination, personal responsibility, rights protection and impartial contract enforcement....how "immoral".
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d D'Arge and I have labeled this process "the invisible foot" of the laissez faire ... market place. The "invisible foot" ensures us that in a free-market ... economy each person pursuing only his own good will automatically, and most efficiently, do his part in maximizing the general public misery. "
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 Ah, so the countries that trade the most ought to be the most miserable; the data prove otherwise. If free trade "hurt" or imposed undue costs on others, nations like Singapore and Hong Kong would be poverty stricken islands, not thriving, growing, dynamic metropolises.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Love how you could not present exact sources on "data prove otherwise"; do you want more of the world's most authoritative and credible sources showing you are wrong?
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d The more significant the social cost imposed upon his neighbor, the greater will be his reward in the bargaining process. It follows from the orthodox assumption of maximizing man that each man will create a maximum of social costs which he can impose on others.
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 The only way a person can impose a cost on his neighbor is through government intervention, which has nothing to do with capitalism. If a person buys a cheap lamp from china instead of his lamp-making neighbor, this does not constitute an imposition of cost, but rather a market challenge which the neighbor must meet either with better or cheaper lamps. This leads to competition, which on the whole, improves things.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d and if we assume the government establishes property rights and markets for these rights whenever an external diseconomy is discovered [the preferred "solution" of the conservative and increasingly dominant trend within the field of public finance], then each man will soon discover that through contrivance he can impose external diseconomies on other men, knowing that the bargaining within the new market that will be established will surely make him better off
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 We don't assume rights are established by government, rights are pre-existing and govt is SUPPOSED to protect them, though it often does the opposite.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d OH sure LOL free and voluntaryily is what the Iraqis got from US imperialism? LOL Have you ever heard of "externalities" ?
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 The Invasion of Iraq was a result of Governments, not markets. Friedman himself opposed the war. Bastiat also knew that where trade goods did not flow, armies would. In other words, trade helps prevents war.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You present some good clche ideas, to bad they dont exist, I hope we can try them someday. Some how you have not balanced history with theory in a way reflecting world reality.I dont usually suggest Wikipedia however if you search for "invisible hand wikipedia" you will see the following which applies to your deficiencies in this area : If we assume the maximizing economic man of bourgeois economics
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 "bourgeois economics" Whatever Karl.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Oh sure I have the same access to the markets as Goldman Sach to freely and volutarily trade ? LOL
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 And once again, much like Iraq, the bailouts have NOTHING TO DO WITH CAPITALISM.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d It destroys community, the environment, and human values generally—and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 That is the most absurd thing you have written so far. You imply that market forces "destroy" human values? What the hell? Market forces ensure that men will trade REGARDLESS of racial, religious, cultural or national barriers. Ive never been to Peru, I don't know anyone from Peru...but bless them, they provided me grapes at a reasonable price during the middle of a northern hemisphere winter. That gets them money, me grapes and fosters peace.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, destroys the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society."
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 Again, you are taking Smith out of context because he realized that despite its flaws, a free market creates vast wealth and raised the living standard for everyone so that a "peasant" in a country that engages in trade and the division of labor often lived better than the very best of "Savages". But still, of course there is a role for government, which protects rights, enforces contracts and little else. Everything else should be the choice of free people.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d YOU are damn right I am taking Adam Smith out the theretoric bullshit context you live in which if you read the book you would have know about
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d For instance in Robin Hahnel's book Panic Rules the world's most credible sources state you are wrong. Even the wikipedia page lists sources saying data collected proved you wrong.
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d I was in a meeting last night with 5 economists working on presentations that are so easy to put together because the data overwhelmlying counters Neoliberal economic policies as a failure.
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d But seriously, you have to de-indoctrinate and re-educate yourself away from the propaganda you suck and a good video to start with is "Noam Chomsky - "Free Markets?" 1/9" were is reality presented and unanimously agreed on against all of your positions.
Marly61 11 months ago
@kev3d When i used "immoral" I applied it to how the world actually functions and you applied it in a theoretical context.
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d The only question was how to do that. The method that was hit upon pretty quickly was the "Pentagon system" (including the DOE, AEC, NASA).
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 And again what was the Government using? Telephones invented by Bell and Grey, Power developed by Tesla and Edison, and so on. Yes, the government did have a role to play in the development of some internet and computer technologies, but the roots of those systems came from elsewhere. Plus we are ignoring other networks, like Radio, Television, even Walmart's pioneering of barcode scanners and stock replacement systems.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Thats what an entrepreneur does in an theoretical world not reality in reality State Capitalism rules. Let me quess you dont understand the state's role in the US because you think the US is Free Markets, Entrepreneurship, etc ? After the Second World War, it was well understood in the business world that they were going to have to have state coordination, subsidy, and a kind of socialization of costs and risks.
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 No, I don't believe the US is a free Market, although it should be. At best it is a Free-ish market and at worst, corporatist. FDR was wrong, his central planning is a disaster.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d And if you where mature enought to have read the whole book you would have that Adam Smith totally condemns the division of labor hundreds of pages later but since you are an indoctrinated propagandist for US power and elites at the expense of your own life you just blindly accept the bullshit power institutions posit, that is the most primitive psychology.
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d Adam Smith even wrote that govt should be used to regulate the immorality of "the division of labor". Ask you professor, if in school, why they lied.
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 Not exactly, Smith realized that in some cases, performing mundane tasks would create unhappy or uneducated workers, so he advocated public education. Of course he saw flaws in the system, all systems have flaws to find, but to suggest he "detested" that which he freely acknowledged created vast wealth is absurd.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Yes, and mundane work is exactly what he thought should be regulated and changed
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 So? To regulate or to modify something does not mean the entire concept should be discarded. It may well be that the divided labor will have some mundane jobs...but many more will not be. Actors, Athletes, Engineers, Doctors, Programmers and so forth...they do not grow their own food or build their own houses. Such as it is, in mature economies, people have far more options than Smith could have ever dreamed.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Sorry, gotta go to work
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d Flaws? You are joking or lying. He stated it was immoral and the lowest type of existence
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d Please read the text yourself and not from a professor, you obviously never read the whole text yourself
Marly61 1 year ago
@kev3d To start to understand how badly you are manipulated may I suggest three sources all from Noam Chomksy 1 book Manufacturing Consent 2 article 10 strategies for control and manipulation of the masses and a You Tube video "PSYWAR - the battle of the mind"
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 Why trust a linguist to do the job of an economist?
kev3d 1 year ago
Why isn't this information referenced today?
AroundSun 1 year ago
Milton Friedman was brilliant.
trancenode 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1)About the terms ‘planning’ and market it´s often missunderstood today.The concept itself needs to be precisely defined. Planning is not equivalent to ‘perfect’ allocation of resources, nor ‘scientific’ allocation, nor even ‘more humane’ allocation. It simply means ‘direct’ allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post.
zsylvana 1 year ago
Friedman is a Guru.
IrnBruFiend 1 year ago
informative clip, tedious comments.
samanthajmanniex 2 years ago
Uncle Milty adds new meaning to the phrase "egg on your face"
as we could fry an egg on that head of uncle milty's as it is probably so hot from embarassment from being so wrong.
He has "fried egg on his face"
Marly61 2 years ago 2
The sad truth for you is that despite your blathering, his brilliance lives on, shining brightly. On the other hand, your lack thereof will soon be forgotten. As Dr. Friedman well knew, a free market without government intervention would have not be in financial crisis. In my view, the yoke is clearly on you.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
fzqlcs,
His brilliance can be found in all the countries he and The Chicago Boys laid to rest dead as his ideas failed in all the countries tried. In fact, you look at the countries world wide that implement the opposite policies in Asia for example you will find the fast rate of growth of per capita income in history. When I say Uncle Milty's policies failed I mean they failed for average people not elites. Look at what happened in the US under greater application of Neoliberalism, failure
Marly61 2 years ago
Friedman was champion of the economics of liberty. You seem to favor socialism, the economics of slavery.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
fzqlcs,
I agree Friedman was the champion of economic liberty; for a small elite class to implement economic policies that gave people world wide, as in the US, the freedom to have the highest rates of poverty in the Advanced Industrialized World =AIW, highest rate of children in poverty in the AIW, the freedom to have life expectancy decreasing for the first time, the worst health care system in the AIW, the lowest quality of life in the AIW; the lowest retirement incomes, many more lowests
Marly61 2 years ago
Funny how America has such an immigration problem. It is simply people voting with their feet. America is only country in the world founded on individual liberty, like the right to voluntary trade (what Friedman advocates). As such, it has become the most powerful country in the world. There is a world full of socialist countries if you seek to live as a dependent child. Why not pick one and move? Why do you insist on bringing down the world's only beacon of liberty?
fzqlcs 2 years ago
fzqlcs,
Funny how when you look at immigration americans never talk about the fact that 1.7 to 1.9 million professional americans leave america every year for a better quality of life or standard of living, and the millions more americans who want to but cant for legal reasons, that can be found the world over then in the US like Norway, The Netherlands, France, Sweden, etc but american. And they also leave out the many of the people who go to america come from countries of lesser wellbeing
Marly61 2 years ago
Tell me, what is it that keeps YOU here? Could it be that the power of your mind is unable to produce enough within a capitalistic system to buy a plane ticket out? You don't present as the sharpest tool in the shed if you hate our system but CHOOSE to continue subjecting yourself to it.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
fzqlcs,
wow, i never met someone as stupid as you who assumes so many wrong things; I left the US to live in a more socialist country. Millions of professional americans are leaving every year like me to find a better quality of living or standard of living and millions more want to leave but cant because legally migrating is impossible for most.
Marly61 2 years ago
fzqlcs,
Funny to is that many of the immigrants to america come from countries where american economic policies, actions and military operations destroyed their countries as in Mexico, Nicaragua and Central America in general
Marly61 2 years ago
Since, of course, the US only has the greatest number of children in poverty is because we have the highest relative poverty standard in the world (and have the wealthiest "poor" on the planet); since life expectancy is driven by genetics and behavior (not poverty or health care); since studies of ACTUAL CARE unanimously show that the US has the finest actual health care in the world; pretending that things are so terrible in the US is pretty stupid.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchforFreedom;
You are wrong as you, being american, lied by assuming you understood the reports I was refering to. THe US, according all reports has the lowest standards of everything. Also, you dont even realize that the "greatest number of children in poverty" as you put it is not the point. Your understanding of these issues is so low that you have no credibility. example, the current decline in US life expectancy, according to US studies, is due to the lack of access to health care
Marly61 2 years ago
FletchForFalsey,
That is actually incredibily immature that you dont even realize the effects of economics on life expectancy but you commented on it, as millions die, many in the US as the US is one of the biggest receivors of aid from third world aid organizations like Remote Area Access, from having such extremely low standards of quality of life and standard of living for the poor
Marly61 2 years ago
I didn't argue that economics has no impact on life expectancy. In the Thord World where sanitary conditions and care rationing are the norm it has a significant impact. In the First World. however, it has NO discernable impact whatsoever and is driven entirely by genetics and behavior (as is widely recognized in the medical field). The rest of your fantasy is just too stupid to respons to (of course you find that moron Greg Palast to be credible so stupidity on your part is hardly shocking).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchForFalsey,
I never said I thought Greg Palast was credibile. You are not credible after stating putting forth so much demogagory with out even posting one source and its specifics.
Marly61 2 years ago
Well, as Greggy is your highlighted favorite on your channel...
Sources ABOUND. Check out the statistics at the CIA World Factbook (that compiles the official statistics from each country). Search for any analysis of life expectancy data (or infant mortality if you wish to go there). The news reports about the decline in life expectancy (not for the total populace but among women) and its link to smoking are easily searched. YOU have not provided so much as a single source. Hypocrite.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
There is also the CDC (a source I already provided, demonstrating your aversion to the truth). You can use their CDC Wonder search tool to get current mortality statistics by cause. And the US Census Bureau can give details about how the poverty level is defined (just as I said). Your credibility is simply nonexistent.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchForFreedom
"By calculating years-of-life-lost due to obesity and combining that with estimates of the prevalence of obesity in younger generations, the authors were able to illustrate that in the coming decades the risk of death from obesity-related causes is about to rise. The hardest hit will be minorities, because of limited access to health care and because they have experienced the most rapid increases in obesity in recent years, according to the authors.
Marly61 2 years ago
FletchForFreedom,
Oh my god, you are immature enough to conclude that if someone favorites a video that means they believe the author is credible?
Hilarious, how old are you?
Marly61 2 years ago
FletchforFalsey,
What I was quoting came from Science Daily, I know of thousands more sources saying the same, article "U.S. Life Expectancy About To Decline, Researchers Say"
Marly61 2 years ago
"A team of researchers ... is PREDICTING a decline in life expectancy ... LATER THIS CENTURY ... based on the dramatic rise in obesity.
"Body weight is affected by many genetic, psychological and environmental factors that influence diet or physical activity levels.
The (certainly unbiased) researchers hope that the study will raise "awareness of the importance of increased funding for obesity research [such as they are conducting]."
Yes, you are hilarious.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchforFreedom
Hilarious, you posted a source of what? I can garantee you that if I look up that source you will look so stupid
Marly61 2 years ago
FletchForFalsey
"These adverse changes in diet have been driven by a multi-billion dollar marketing campaign by the food industry aimed at young children," said Ludwig. "Cutbacks in funding for regular, mandatory PE classes and limited insurance reimbursement for obesity prevention and treatment are also contributory."
oK that is just the first subject you SUCK on, do you want to know your stupidity on your other ideas?
Marly61 2 years ago
Are you TRYING to look stupid?!?! That study PREDICTS a possible decline in life expectancy due to an increase in OBESITY (not a decline in care quality) and concedes that obesity, while a symptom of PROSPERITY has a significant GENETIC component.
In other words, you have just proven you were completely wrong about the ACTUAL trend in life expectancy, that you are incapable of looking at the official data and that you are incapable of understaning the study you chose.
Brilliant!
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FlecthforFreedom,
You are right that it just predicts asshole, I want to slowly make you look stupid on this by starting from years ago on this subject as that demonstrates your incredible arrogance that you dont understand this but posted so confidently and arrogantly. Shall we continue? Like to the result of the analysis, slowly of course.
Marly61 2 years ago
You argued that there had already been a decline in US life expectancy (that was wrong) and that it was attributable to poor health care (also wrong). To butress your (inaccurate) position, you provide a single (as yet unreplicated) study that predicts a decline at some nebulous point in the future and the opinion (not scientific conclusion) of one researcher that access to care would be a factor ... if his predictions hold up.
You have no grasp of statistics, research, reality, etc.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchforFreedom
Oh no, obviously there had already been a decline in US life expectancy as many reports based on historical data are reporting that. You cant even stay on the subject as you are searching for a technical not substantive way out of this
Marly61 2 years ago
Oh, no, in ffact the data on life expectancy in the US HAS NOT shown any decline. The historical reports (again, check the stats at the CIA World Factbook) EXPRESSLY REFUTE YOU. You are completely WRONG. Life expectancy in the US has continued to climb. Studies of the underlying data show that life expectancy for women in some areas have fallen (but not overall) and the gap between women and men has narrowed (attributable to smoking and more stressful lifestyles). The facts are against you.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FlethforFalsey,
Sorry, I didnt realize how indoctrinated to ideology and myths that you are. You are really waisting my time as you LIE your ass off
Marly61 2 years ago
Moron61
Sorry, I actually DID realize that you were a blithering idiot indoctrinated to ideologuy and myths. I have no need to lie because I am an economist and researcher and have the facts on my side. I needn't cherry-pick studies that don't support my position and pretend that facts that don't fit my worldview are all LIES, LIES LIES.
It must really be pathetic to be as trapped in ignorance as you clearly are. Pity.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchforFreedom,
Not only are you an arrogant scum but you lie to as you purposely left out the phrase of my quote which was the most relevant bieng: "because of limited access to health care "
You really are scum, let me quess, immoral people who think like you believe in Free Markets also, you too?
Marly61 2 years ago
That is their OPINION about an event that they PREDICT. It is not an assessment of anything that actually exists in the real world (as is obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of gravel).
Yes, I believe in free markets becasue I have a connection to reality and all the facts, without exception, show the superiority of free markets.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchforFreedom,
Oh shit, another omission by you which equates lying again. You omitted the eating habits ideas that marketing campaigns changed and targeted which can change genetics. You are so full of shit, start with the element that leads to all the other effects being the immoral marketing campaigns under laissez faire economics, dont start at one of the effects being genetics.
Marly61 2 years ago
Oh shit, another example of your stupidity! You simply are incapable of grasping the difference between the scientific conclusions of the study (that if obesity trends continue a decline in life expectancy might occur) and the simple opinions of the researchers (which are NOT scientific conclusions) that they personally belive will occur IF the statistical conclusions hold up (which they conced mught not be the case).
You simply are clueless.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I didn't assume anything about the reports you were referring to. I am referring to the actual data that is readily available (and an actual understanding of how the data is derived). According to the ACTUAL data, US lige expectancy has NOT fallen and, the decline for women is attributed to higher levels of smoking among the female population, not lack of care. Your assessment of these issues is completely wrong.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchForFalsy,
Your invalid rationalizations are not reality. Look at the scientific proof
I knew a 12 year old boy, tooth-ache, without health insurance, went to dentist who said I am too busy come back later, tooth became infected which spread to his brain and killed him.This happens to thousands and thousands every year in the US. You are so limited in your understanding of the US. THe US does have some of the best technology however services are not accessible to millions there
Marly61 2 years ago
Your anecdotal (and not even remotely credible) "evidence" is worthless. The CDC reports that fewer than 3,000 people per year die from "delays receiving care" (the proxy for lack of insurance) in the US. (Other, less scientific studies have argued that lack of insurance has "contributed" to more deaths, but the butchers bill reported by Health Canada and the British National Health Service is at least as high. Again, official statistics trump your fairy stories.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FletchForFalsey,
I also knew an elderly man who died on my block from hypotherma because in did not have money to pay his heating bill and he could not work.
Hilarious that you are mentionning China as a model of Uncle Milty's ideas, that proved you are clueless on these issues
Marly61 2 years ago
Your making up stories does not help your case. And, yes, Chiona has become steadily more capitalistic, as Milton Friedman suggested, and, to the extent that it has, living standards for the Chinese people have dramatically improved. They are still far below those of Americans (because they remain predominantly socialist) but as they become more capitalistic and we become more socialistic, who knows what the future holds. Your ignorance on these issues is not my problem.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Fletchy,
Then you actually mentionned Japan which is a model against Uncle Milty's ideas
Marly61 2 years ago
Japan is a perfect model of how deviating from Uncle Milty's ideas is disastrous. It grew from a post-war low because it OPENED its markets relative to its wartime stance and to many of its neighbors allowing RELATIVE improvement, but the continued intervention of govt turned its economic "miracle" into a nightmare. It has been in an economic funk for morte than a decade and its interventions have put it under crushing debt that dwarfs ours.
You are completely clueless.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
How does Uncle Milty's brilliance compare to the morons who still (inaccurately) blame his policies for the circumstances in Chile or do not recognize that adopting the opposite policies is why countries like Japan have been in a decade long economic crisis and has a debt level larger than their entire economy or fail to recognize that the greater adoption of his policies has, in fact, led to the greatest increase in living standards in countries like, say, China?
The egg is on YOUR face.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
What was Friedman's view on Land Speculation?
killuminati43 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Friedman is full of shit. Principles are a guide to application of resources. Mind-fucking people into believing there's too big of a difference between Principles and applications (be it of anything other than principles) is to miss the concepts of both, regardless of circumstance.
He word-dances like a lawyer.
psymon208 2 years ago
is economics a science or simply opinion opinated?.. what is economics.
stealthgerm 2 years ago
It is a science, but depending on your favoured school, you may say that it is simply a science with a different methodology than other sciences. Positivistic economists, like Friedman, believe economists should emulate the physicists, analyse data and use the scientific method, while Austrians prefer to deduce economic truths from first principles, and create absolute rules applying to all cases. This is simply an epistemological question, though; they may still reach similar conclusions.
KraljevicPavle 2 years ago
its a social science, often referred to as the bastard science. this inferiority complex i think drove them [particularly chicargo school] to try and square off a round peg by using mathematics to try and explain certain things.
all the sciences, social or otherwise analyse data with a scientific method. conclusions wouldnt be valid otherwise. everything else is trying to attach a moral philosophy to it eg. hayek et al.
justnotcricket 2 years ago
yea astrology is wrapped in numbers and math galore.bull shit wrapped in formulas and so called facts is still bull shit.baseball has stats endles observations yet every game is just that.economics is more then 90 percent theroy 10 percent educated guess.
stealthgerm 2 years ago
stealthgerm, was that rhetoric aimed at me? if it was its mis placed since its essentially what im saying. and that btw that isnt a theory, its just the way its always been. however it seems that mostly its only in academia that is understood to be the case. only in popular discourse does economic theory hold similar impirical understandings of fundamental laws, like pure maths and physics. the rest to paraprase shaw is to keep the lay man in a profound state of ignorance.
justnotcricket 2 years ago
The concept of an invisible hand requires a subtle and sophisticated understanding that escapes some who have posted.
fzqlcs 2 years ago 2
black hand too,
united fruit, Chiquita, Standard oil, in Latin America
U.S free market ? You explain fizqx's
dailycrow 2 years ago
Do you know about the amorphous ghost paralytics? It explains everything. A must 'read' - "Beelzebub's All and Everything."
dailycrow 2 years ago
that was non sense,
the principles of how bow and arrow work are the same as an automoble or horse and buggy. Besides free market doesnt serve everybody. Without regulations the rich get richer and poor get poorer. You end with an oligarchy and slave class similar to Latin American right wing dictatorships. You loose democracy in free market. Now in the USA, Big Corporations without regulations are dictating policy and we have market crashing. The populace has to bail out the institutions.
dailycrow 2 years ago
your comments are nonsense. the free market serves everyone, for it is simply the system of voluntary exchange. Nobody makes a voluntary exchange that is not in their own interest. And, no industry NEEDS a bailout. Politicians favor bailouts because it gives them leverage at taxpayer's expense. In a free market, failures are as important as success in directing resources to their best utilization. You are dupe. Slaves are the product of socialism, liberty is the product of capitalism.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
This state corporatism you speak of is inherently against free market principles.
Corporations are only allowed to maintain there monopolisitic positions through government intervention, often in the form of regulation which creates barriers to entry into the market.
bettertobealive 2 years ago
So sad that an overwhelming number of teachers at leading universities are still pushing for a re-evaluation of free market capitalism and more study in Marx...
yinzer38 2 years ago
excellent statement about the difference between principles and actions of principles. great dissection using logic.
oryxx 2 years ago
Adam Smith promoted the idea to harness greed as a tool to make a better life for more people.
However, greed got out of the barn long ago and ain't been seen in years. It's reverted back to the wild by now, I'm sure. =) thanks for your video.
uturniaphobic 3 years ago
Powerful. Wonderful. True.
ludocrat 3 years ago
I do not understand why this does not get a million views...
cascadan 3 years ago 4
I know. Just made a similar comment. This is an incredible crash course in economics.
danbison 3 years ago
Watch this video again and listen to the last sound effect
then google: "free market genocide" search through a few of the offered sites and read up
tube4play 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
free market is a crash course
look at our economy
dailycrow 2 years ago
If you think America is a free market you make your first mistake. There is government intervention all over the place with subsidies, bailouts, protectionist policies, etc. The invisible hand is phenomenon that works beautifully in a free market, It is far less effective in the bastardized version found in the U.S, today.
LibertyPen 2 years ago 31
@LibertyPen I disagree with you, sir. Relative to the rest of the world, America is a free market, refining itself everyday in many ways. As Warren Buffet says, you cannot bet against the U.S. economy and win. The United States of America and its financial markets have added value to the human civilization at an exponential rate for many decades and more in the future. USA = #1
trancenode 1 year ago
@trancenode What do you think happens if China, Japan etc sell all their american dollars? I think the dollar would sink like a stone. But they won't let that happen now, because they want to keep their trade surplus. In america you say: Yeah, we buy all this amazing stuff that they are producing and all they get is our currency that we are printing every day. If the asians decide so your dollar would probably half its value. I think your money supply is quite a big reason to this situation.
Gunnarssonsgate 1 year ago
@LibertyPen Hahaha, You're basically saying that you can spend my money more efficiently than I can, and that you have a right to.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@LibertyPen Our present system privatizes profits while socializing losses.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@LibertyPen >>> Agreed.
TommyWaters 1 year ago
@LibertyPen Yes, there is govt intervention but you failed to mention that it is mostly in the interests of elite policy makers, as Adman Smith said, and that the average person and poor in the USA are supposed to be taught free markets are good for you not govt intervention.
Marly61 1 year ago
@LibertyPen Except where did the public funding come from and when to make computers a usable?
Marly61 1 year ago
@Marly61 Various sources, including taxpayers during WW2, in some cases people from other countries, like the UK vis-a-vis Alan Turing. Some of the Engineers and scientists who were brought in were paid by public and private universities or by private enterprise. Its a mix. But what is your point? Whatever investments were made in computers publicly were paid back long long ago, and private industry has invested far more over time.
kev3d 1 year ago
um, the regulation is causing the crash course. there's no need for government to be meddling in our lives so much. I shouldn't be supporting teen pregnancy and sex out of wedlock with the money that I work hard to earn.