The Fallacy of Welfare State, Milton Friedman

[cannotbebothered100]

The reason that the welfare State and especially the NHS in Britain is disastrous for the provision of the poor with what they need, is that the tax system of payment according to means to pay and payout according to poverty, removes the system in which you will be paying more if you use the resources more, so that direct price signals to induce fewer inexpedient usages and to cause one to act in a way that makes less strain for the system to bear, r removed, and thus economisation of care falls

[cannotbebothered100]

If a private i.e. strictly voluntarily paid firm decides to gift healthcare service or a private subsidiser does, they suffer the loss signals that indicate the extent of the unproductivity they subside but if they are forced to pay out then how can they respond to those signals and choose to gain income instead, to maximise revenue rather than inducing others to overuse services and to underproduce?

[louiethegreater]

Ole, Milt carrying water for Hoover. Corporate money at work.

[lysol5555]

If welfare creates dependency, we should also ban charity!

[TimeWarp66]

@lysol5555

Charity teaches people to work. Most charities only help you if you're willing to learn a job skill. (Unless of course you're disabled, in which case they help you regardless.)

[sh4p3shifter]

if the government and banksters stopped fucking around with the economy then people on welfare would have jobs to go to.

[lysol5555]

@sh4p3shifter Friedman is a sham and a shame of the American people.

[TimeWarp66]

@lysol5555

Wrong. Friedman was a genius. And you are a drone.

[AndroidPolitician]

So lets say around 60% of Americans want single-payer healthcare, so they make a policy and choose to pool their resources to make it.

Does this through out the dumb premise of this video because the above statement is true?

[hannel19]

@AndroidPolitician No not at all. It is the bureaucrats that will still control the assets and administer the program. How would that throw* out the premise of the video. In fact it would just reinforce it by stating that your 60% majority would tyrannically implement a new program through force.

[AndroidPolitician]

@hannel19

You kind of need someone to administer it, and why does that even matter? It's like saying laws against killing are useless because of administrating them.

And no, it's part of a social contract, when a community organizes resources (defense, healthcare etc.) you live in that community and hence benefit off those programs so you need to pitch in.

If you don't want to then get the community to change its mind or leave.

This applies even if you live in an anarchist society.

[TimeWarp66]

@AndroidPolitician

A civilized society is not about the "community" it's about the individual. The individual is supreme in an advanced and moral society. Tyranny of the majority is no justification for government action. If the majority voted to kill you, would that be moral because a plurality of people support the motion? Of course not. Freedom works. Controls don't.

[AndroidPolitician]

@TimeWarp66

It's a social contract, if people come together and agree on resources (defense, police, roads etc.) and you live in that community you benefit off the resources so you pitch in via taxes. The only thing that that can't affect that are your rights, so no a majority of people can't vote to kill you.

Just because your isolated doesn't mean that's how a society works, even anarchist societies were based on community and the social contract.

[TimeWarp66]

@AndroidPolitician

Anarchy is as idiotic as statism. Things involving the use of force(courts, cops, soldiers) must be government run. Capitalism is the extraction of physical force from human interaction. Government serves as the extractor of that force. All other goods and services must be provided through the free market.

[AndroidPolitician]

@TimeWarp66

No one is talking about anarchy I'm talking about social contracts which exist whether or not a state or government exists.

And the idea that capitalism or markets are an extension of human nature or "human interaction" is ridiculous.

[TimeWarp66]

@AndroidPolitician

Capitalism human freedom. It is a natural by product of voluntary exchange. It's nearly a law of nature akin to gravity. Markets even existed in communist countries(which my family escaped from).

Check out Peter Schiff vs occupy wall street here on youtube.

[AndroidPolitician]

@TimeWarp66

It's a narrow freedom but it's not human nature, like families and friends don't try to profit off each other to maximize themselves.

Or to put it another way why don't people work half as long as in 1950 since GDP doubled?

And to your point about communist countries, compare how black markets were treated to how independent cooperatives and unions were, I'll give you a hint, the Bolsheviks destroyed all independent co-ops but let NEP and black markets to exist.

[davijeph]

"The lure of getting someones else's money is strong" This holds true for almost everybody not just bureaucrats. The past few years have shown how bankers, financiers, whole swaths of self serving groups have used their power and positions too feather their own nest. At least civil-servants are (or should be ) answerable to the elected representative that oversee their departments. Those representatives are answerable to the people. Who was Fred the shred and his ilk answerable to?

[ceoproperties]

know why the welfare class has so many children?

FOOD FOR WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHECKS BOUNCE

Destroy the evil machine 2011

[RaySquirrel]

My idea, replace the welfare state, states are impersonal slow to change and inefficient, with a welfare network, which are interpersonal dynamic and more efficient. Tax payers can subsidize recipients, individuals or organizations, directly using an online social network in exchange for tax credits. Ensuring the maximum utility out of all money invested, and exploiting the maximum empathetic capacity from every citizen.

[cybnblau]

@xvghinuvlo - yet another example of an incivil attitude from a leftist - cursing rather than reasoning.

[TimeWarp66]

@cybnblau

All they know how to do is curse. They think from the belly button down.

[animalvidsforyou]

I don't get it.

[davidmaren2000]

this is exactly the point. well meaning leftists who ignore human nature or say we are above it. of course we are not and as humans self interest always prevails in the end. human nature always ursurps socialist thinking. this is why the socialist state always fails.

[Darusdei]

yep living in a welfare state is soooo horrible :D

[McLovin2169]

@Darusdei You're clearly an example of someone who's ambitions and aspirations died through unuse because of the welfare state. If the welfare state weren't celebrated, you would be loathed as one who is being subsidized for your failure.

[Darusdei]

@McLovin2169 yeah, my country killed my dreams !

[McLovin2169]

@Darusdei I'm sorry you feel that way, I would simply say that you shouldn't blame the country. Blame the politicians.

[mba2ceo]

All this proves the "corruporation" should not have expense accounts ?

[mba2ceo]

Should the poor starve or revert to crime ?

[avdquick]

@mba2ceo

Well when you subsides corporate farms to plow under Tomatoes so prices can stay high, or to sell more of their wheat for animal feed instead of making bread thus causing bread prices to rise. Then you have problems, or the fact that even with 'handouts' crime is still high if not higher thus creating a dystopia and the notion that the rich guy wants to kick me out because I refuse to take responsibility for my own poor judgement and actions. Therefore securing Libs seats in gov.

[paleoton]

If you want to analyse laissez faire capitalism X welfare capitalism, why not show historical evidence? Because historicaly welfare capitalism has done better. People should let go sheer ideology, right x left and look to what really works.

[rareone4]

@paleoton

Not just better, significantly better.

[quadcatfly]

I LUV SPENDING SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY !!!! THE BEST CAR = COMPANY CAR !!!!

[luizcadu]

Friedman's rhetoric is brilliant, but it also simplifies reality.

The Scandinavian countries are the top in HDI (Norway, Denmark, Finland). They have maybe the highest tax rate on earth (close to 50% of their GDP), but they provide excellent services, universal education and health care, social security.

This hasn't made people there dependent and unable to make choices. Their economies are among of the most dynamic and free in the world. They've just managed to have the best of the two systems.

[ChristopherAdderley]

@luizcadu No they have not. Everyday life in those countries is horrendously expensive. You clearly have not understood the message in this video. Nothing is free. The people have to pay for that, subsidise that, if its a small, orderly and relatively well managed population (remember there are other factors besides economics) it can give all manner of impressions. But they pay for all those things you describe, whether they get good value for money is the point of this video.

[luizcadu]

@ChristopherAdderley I agree when you say nothing is free. Government does not create wealth, it reshuffles wealth. But history has proven that when it's done the right way, in the right measure, it creates a good environment for capitalism to flourish (infrastructure, skilled labour force, research subsidies, minimized inequality). I mentioned the Scandinavian countries but actually the vast majority of developed countries have gov't spending above the world average.

[Darusdei]

and this is why welfare states fail and countries like sweden are amongst the most competitive countries in the world... lulz

[jrsub3]

@Darusdei And why Greece is broke, why Portugal is broke, why there's riots in Britain and France, why Italy and Japan have horrendous Debt/GDP ratios, why India lagged economically for decades while soft-aligned w/ the USSR.

In the meantime, places like New Zealand and Canada have liberalized their economy, and are growing.

Sweden also scores top 25 in the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom index. So sweet example of a welfare state. Next time pick a real one.

[Darusdei]

@jrsub3 oh ffs it's almost embarrassing to listen to you... "why there are riots in france" LOL

but sweden ranks 25th for economic freedom!!! lol, do you even know what that means?

"my think tank says they're not free" hahahah, maby you should just go back to school?

[jrsub3]

@Darusdei So do you want a discussion or just to be a libtroll?

Sweden is a small scale country. Their people generally have the same needs (a high demand for heat/electricity, for urban infrastructure, etc), therefore the government becomes a far more efficient administrator of said needs than, say, a centralized US government (where different parts of the country have different needs). This is why Sweden works. The reason why the US is successful, despite its huge size, is de-centralization.

[ChristopherAdderley]

@jrsub3 Greece and Portugal are broke partially because their governments lied... partially because their governments adopted the EU ... how could they devalue in the crisis? Interest rates prior to the crisis? Look at Ireland.. EU intervention set interest rate low.. cheap money.. massive boom.. massive bust.

[jrsub3]

@ChristopherAdderley Yup, just like what the Fed does here.

The market should set the interest rate and demand for money, not some benevolent master who wants an artificial boom followed by an artificial bust (that they then turn around and blame on Wall St. greed, or something). Europe's problems are two-fold, governmental and monetary. To Britain's credit, at least they were smart enough to not go on the Euro.

[gentzelpwns]

There is no fallacy, the Nordic Nations with welfare states are doing far better than us. You assume humans are rational beings; which they are not at all times. If we were, the free market system would be perfect.  In behavioral economics you learn that instead of behaving rational and therefore selfish, people behave for species survival. Now make a new economic theory with that assumption.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

"nordic nations" have 5% of the US population or less. in friedman's debate in iceland 30 years ago he admitted that small homogeneous societies are more capable of minimizing the negative effects of gov't because gov't is doing what most people would do if they kept their money

large, heterogeneous societies are not comparable. plus, those "nordic nations" benefit from our military and technological advances. their welfare states weren't made in a vacuum

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster They also lack the big bussiness problems we do. If economics is really the study of satisfying unlimited wants with limited rescources; our system is failing miserably. We proliferate material wealth at the expense of the environment, yet don't get much happier. Once neccessities are taken care of, people's next desire becomes the emotional; relationships, socialization etc. The best economy would maximize prosocial interaction which capitalism destroys for productivity.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

they also lack the big labor problems we do! unions thrive on division between employees and employers! that's so anti-social, we should abolish the collective bargaining system.

see what i did there? don't put "big" on something as adhoc proof that its bad.

belief that gov't can cure what ails you is what crystallizes division. why bother to deal with people if you can just legislate your will onto those who disagree? free marketeering is the real cure here

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster I think it's funny how you linked the word Union with anti-social. If it were not for labor activists we would be working even longer days, living even more miserably, and squandering even more rescources in systems we don't have time to rethink do to the amout of busy work consuming us. Consider this, if everyone worked only 4 hours a day we would have everything we need to sustain ourselves and time to think about progress. What do we loose? Military and artificial needs.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

you exaggerate union influence, and union supporters neglect how it came from organized crime. union membership never reached anything close to a majority of workers, and now it's nearly isolated in the public sector which is an incestuous relationship between unions that feed on tax dollars and politicians who control spending, not to mention how its ruining the businesses that are still unionized (big3 autos legacy cost??). also, the military is necessary for survival...

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster Necessary for survival? Our military expenditure is 40% of the globe, now that maybe necessary to exploit everyone, but not to keep ourselves alive. The fact of the matter is that the state works more for big business than the people. Everything is blamed on the state so that no real action is taken against those who are really in control. No I'm not some conspiracy theorist, I'm just a realist that realizes campaign donations correlate to election likelihood.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

we tried isolationism up until the early 20th century. the rest of the world wouldn't let us be.

the conentrated interest (of anything) cannot be overcome by diffuse interest of the general public. there is no powerful state that favors diffusion over concentration. rid the business environment of constant state intervention and the state won't "work" for "big" business. playing business vs consumers only helps politicians, so your "realist" mentality is hilariously naieve.

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster We were shipping weapons, we provoked them. Granted that does not make it right.

You assume that the government has more power than business. Businesses WANT government to be involved, this allows them to make more profit through controlling the social factors. Granted, this is just my unique conception, but I would like you to follow that train of thought and find appropriate criticism. Currently, our disagreement seens to be locus of control or responsibility.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

we make treaties/agreements about weapons usage. if they use those arms for other reasons then we're not at fault.

voting for reps that're too afraid to intervene is the best way to fight bis interests. our gov't wasn't always this intrusive. can't expect bis to act against their own interest or sit idle when gov't begins attacking them, the root problem is the state.

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster Tell me, what periods did our government become so intrusive? Under Teddy Roosevelt to fight corupt business, in the World Wars to achieve economic solidarity, and with Reagan, when business took control of government. (Business expenditure now directly correlates with election. Advertisement, not independent decision, dictates victory.) One dollar, one vote. Of course blame is arbitraty; but in my opinion, it is our culture of conformity and percieved freedom.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

the intrusion began in the late 19th century. teddy rode the wave of collapsing monopolies, he didn't cause it to happen. our wars are about national security-- the losers like nazi germany and soviet russia were fighting for "economic solidarity" via various welfare states. lol

you can't blame businesses for there being a highly suggestable electorate, you're only mad that they get their message out more and better than you and yours.

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster collapsing? The only ones collapsing were the ones in mergers... becoming bigger yet. The name JP Morgan is still around today.

A state isn't a welfare state unless it operates for the welfare of it's people. When they switched to war time economies any of the positives that came from the extremists quickly vanished.

My only message is that people be tenative and think for themselves. The more you proclaim you are right, the more likely it is that you are wrong.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

1. how does that refute what i said about the increasingly intrusive nature of the gov't? bwah? on top of that, the financial sector spending so much on politics is a symptom of this underlying problem.

2. welfare states devolve into tyranny for a reason: an altruist gov't won't suffer limitation or dissent.

3. pesudo-philosophy of a loser. have fun demoralizing yourself.

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster 1. I am not refuting that, I am refuting the causation and therefore the target to focus on to fix the problem.

2. After 50 years are any of the nordic nations tyrannical?

3. I'm still talking, and it was Bertand Russell's philosophy.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

1. oppress business and you still have intrusive gov't; oppress gov't and no group can use law to plunder or otherwise dominate another. (listen to this very video again and learn something)

2. covered this already, read my previous comments and remember them this time. having to repeat myself is something i don't tolerate

3. no surprise, russell's philosophy is that of a demoralizing loser, as pointed out in freidman's book "critical assessments"

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster 1. People were plenty good at slavery and attrocity before large goevrnment. Nazi Germany, even in war, still had a far lower rate of death by human action than any primitive society.

2. Millions of people is no small group, and if they acheive such success with that scale then why not get rid of the federal government and let the states experiment and find the best way to run things?

3. Nice name calling, but from what I can get my hands on> continued

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster he only managed to describe Russell as negative; not wrong. The actual book costs over a thousand dollars on Amazon... Freidman argued for the system which profited him most... can you not see the bias?

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

1. bwah? i'm not going to deconstruct that garbage until you manage to make a coherent point

2. millions of people IS a small group compared to hundreds of millions. also, as groups homogenize in the name of political domination the central gov't naturally expands. you miss the forest for the trees

3. russel's "negative effect" is the key phrase there. also he benefited from gov't programs (growing up very poor) but he chose liberty because it's better

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster 1. That's cool, I make a perfectly valid point and your response boils down to:"I don't get it"

2. In the name of political domination? They do it to cooperate with less confusion, even if the former is the result.

3. Russell was born into English nobility... he was a Lord who travelled the world. The only point he was poor was when he couldn't transfer money from Engand when he got fired in the US for having "immoral beliefs." He was pessimistic, woop dee doo.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

1. rofl whatever helps you sleep

2. ... missing the forest for the trees.

3. i was talking about friedman, who you were talking about when mentioning his "bias." i can't take your critcism of my inability to "get it" when you make posts like this :/

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster 3. Learn English. If you you don't even say the name Friedman in your response there is no way to know he is the antecedent. Even if Friedman grew up poor, his arguments are mere derivitive from his egoism. He was a good student when he was young and got himself a good job. He acts as if anyone else could do the same, but knows little about the social factors that impact motivation. This is why he is applying profit motive to welfare logic.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

the topic was friedman's view of russel's work, as written in friedman's book. it's a simple linear point. ironically, you wouldn't be so confused if i didn't need to go back and correct you on nearly every point. lol

you're grasping at staws on the reason for friedman's support of free markets. you declare he is biased to discredit him, the cause of his "bias" being a footnote (which is lame since it's an empty attack without it!). go get some substance

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster Why he did it can only be speculation since neither of us personally know him and we are meerely argue for what is most likely. However I can cite behavioral economics as the reason why the profit motive logic used in this video is incomplete. Additional incentives decrease as rewards increase, yet cognitive performance decrease as incentives increase. This is why completely centrally controlled welfare systems will tend to fail, not profit motive.

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster The incentive in a welfare system is to help others as much as possible.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

governing systems don't have incentive any more than rocks or other non-sentient objects do. it's the people operating the system that have incentives, and by no means are they there to "help others as much as possible." go watch freidman's points on "the responsibility of the poor."

/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster I've watched that video as well. People's motivation as dictated by evolution is species proliferation and therefore if they do feel any sort of a empathetic connection to those whom they are trying to benefit, that is their incentive. If they are anti-social towards those concerned then the motive will become self interest and you won't have a welfare system at all now will you?

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

that was a lot of pseudo-psychobabble with as much substance as your failed attempt to discredit friedman for "bias." there is so much that is wrong in there i don't even WANT to begin.

i see you're flailing over in the other video, too. the other guy seems to care more so i'm going to stop banging my head on the brick wall that is you.

[gentzelpwns]

@SimulacrumMaster I love how this is the type of response I get everytime you don't understand what I am saying. Research evolution and biology yourself if you want to understand, I simply can't given enough evidence of anything in 500 words to convince you.

[trexasaurusrex]

@gentzelpwns Milton Friedman addresses those with "soft hearts" (and soft heads) who see programs like social security and welfare only for their intentions and not their results. While empathy is indeed implanted in us though biological evolution, our societies have evolved way faster than our biology ever could. Now, as Milton Friedman points out, these programs end up harming the intended recipients more than they help. You can still have empathy for others, that's why charity exists.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@gentzelpwns

1. i'm not going to deconstruct that garbage until you manage to make a coherent point

2. millions IS a small group compared to hundreds of millions. as groups homogenize in the name of political domination the gov't naturally expands. you miss the forest for the trees

3. russel's "negative effect" is the key phrase there. also he benefited from gov't programs (growing up very poor) but he chose liberty because it's better

[gentzelpwns]

It's not a fallacy... look at the Nordic countries, they are all doing better.

[gdbalck]

I've always said it, and will forever repeat it, socialism is feudalism by another name. The only people who support it are either aiming to take advantage and become part of the ruling elite or are sadly misguided and willfully surrender their freedom and lives into serfdom.

[gentzelpwns]

@gdbalck In socialism you own the land, in capitalism you may or may not, in fuedalism you don't... why did they have to change the definition of socialism to government ownership? Now none will ever strive for collective civilian ownership after seeing the Nazi and Soviet States. Key word STATES.

[gdbalck]

@gentzelpwns That was an interesting take, the problem is, you can't have socialism without the state. It is utterly dependent in people being coerced to do as the regime deems necessary. If socialism was voluntary and didn't need the state, and vise-versa, then it would be much more common place. Statists embrace socialism not from idealism, but for a thirst for power and a need to force their will on the people. Also, in socialism, the government takes all land in your name, allegedly.

[gentzelpwns]

@gdbalck Individuals are not productive in very large groups because they lose their sense of responsibility; and thus the acomplishment of large scale libertarian socialism is very difficult. However, if you base society on how humans evolved (huntergatherers) with small communes which can provide their own food, water, shelter, insurance, power, etc. and then structure such communes into a free market structure, I think you will get the best of both economic strategies. Somebody test it! lol

[gdbalck]

@gentzelpwns Your premise is ultimately challenged by history. If it worked so well, why has it not lasted past the elemental levels of societal development? Would love to debate further, but I'm much too tired and need rest. Farewell

[gentzelpwns]

@gdbalck It isn't a power structure, and likewise it cannot defend itself from predatory capitalism or socialism. The majority of the world is religious; but we are all born athiest; does that make the world right? Not at all. The system I describe isn't held together by force, dogma, or propaganda and that is why it is not as likely to proliferate as other systems. It can only be arived at when individuals posess some degree of free thought, when the influence of propaganda is minimized.

[mgore90]

I tend to agree that there will inevitably be waste on bureaucracy from welfare implementation - providing no product, profit or anything else directly useful to anyone. However, surely advertising falls into the same category, while also being as a percentage of U.S. G.D.P. far greater, 20% is the figure that I have many times seen sighted. I refuse to believe that the working poor would be worse off if the rich were taxed only 5% and had no obligation to pay a minimum wage.

[mgore90]

@mgore90

I mean why pay a teacher more than a dollar an hour, if the students whom she/he teachers haven't the money to pay for the education. If you argue that,' well the teacher must be a poor teacher, because if she was good then rich parents would employ her to teach at their kids school'. This would be all very well as a judgement of the teacher, but what about the poor kids that can't only afford this poor teacher, surely it follows that they will be poor in intelligence and hence wealth

[mgore90]

@mgore90

So those families will be tapped in poverty forever, Mr Friedman's ideas would work well and be truly meritocratic, if before starting the social experiment, every person was made equal in terms of capital. But, as it is the legacy of history will prevent any totally free market system to ever be fair. It will not create the equality of opportunity that Neo-Liberal, claim to strive for.

[locustsymphony]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it the way the people in power are able to gain from having large numbers of people on welfare is that welfare ruins ambition; people on welfare rarely get off of welfare, so it makes it easy for those in power to control them; promising greater benefits in exchange for a vote, for example. Am I way off there? How else does welfare help the higher-ups in society?

[joeycusack80]

Friedman, you Horrible Cunt..... for once I agree with you.

[AndroidPolitician]

@AdnanSoysal

Welfare has empirically shown to directly reduce poverty. All this ideology is well and good but it overlooks significant studies on the subject.

[TheWALOS]

@AndroidPolitician

Socialized countries tend to do better than countries operating under free market capitalism. Milton was definitely a smart guy, but I don't understand how he could defend capitalism so religiously.

Anywho, his claptrap amounts to little now that we have science and scientific analysis to tell us how economies fair under different circumstances. Socialism tends to win.

[AndroidPolitician]

@TheWALOS

State intervention tends to win. If it weren't for the government sector we wouldn't of built the ENIAC computer or had air ports.

[MrExcogitate]

I have explained this to dozens of liberals, and almost to the person the retort is an accusation that I want to keep group X oppressed. In their rush to condemn my poining out that their plan fails to help group X and in addition to leaving them oppressed removes the resources for me to do anything to help group X. Until basic economics and human nature are grasped by a larger segment of the population we seem doomed to wasteful spending that achieves nothing but continued oppression.

[RickAJarvis]

This is possibly the most brilliant thing I've ever heard. I must go now and pray to my Idols of Friedman, Hayek and von Mises, excuse me.

[MikeWBL]

Obama had the choice of two Chicago intellectuals to be his mentor. He could have chosen a Free Market expert such as Milton Friedman or he could have chosen a Marxist such as Saul Alinsky. Obama chose the Marxist Alinsky.

[eskimo1956]

Parliamentary Expense accounts

[CT27NX]

hard to understand unless you envision the usa in the 1970s

friedman seems to talk a lot "entre lineas":

- capitalism vs communism;

- inequality of blacks (both social [rights] and economic [poverty]);

- creation of minimum wage (and parallel increase of unemployment) and social security/welfare (and increase of people who remain in poverty [classification] for longer)

worthwhile understanding his theory/explanation (just keep looping the tape until you get what he's saying)

[idontgiveashit0930]

Any economic ideology that fails to acknowledge the incentive structure will fail ie socialism.

[CT27NX]

@idontgiveashit0930 mmm, so also minimum wage?

or then, wages without bonus schemes?

or then bonus schemes without perks?

or perks without enlightenment?

or enlightenment without ...

[ILGP]

But the problem would not be on a welfare state (wich is not the same thing as a socialist economy), but rather on the belief that human being always tend to try to get profit out of the other, wich is not necessarily true. Corruption is very problematic in a welfare state, that is true, but it's not a problem that appears only in a welfare state or in a socialist state.

[lashkaretoiba]

This break down of the welfare state was articulated to pure genius.

[krillin876]

Friedman does this on one of his videos

[Eikus89]

Great video! :)

[KevZen2000]

AdnanSoysal great upload.

[AdnanSoysal]

Thank you.

Enjoy,

[Maxx4446]

Good video!

[cpblackangel88]

Replace welfare and medicaid. With an optional job insurance program. Meaning at 18 years old you choose weather or not you want to participate. It's not in the federal budget and it can be raised or lowered, but it always has to be balanced. And it requires 40 hours of work per week,only enough for food, immigration check,and it only will give you money if you were laid off, because you shouldn't reward those who were fired for stealing office supplies or quit there job just to join the system.

[Richdanahuff]

@cpblackangel88 People used to save money for hard times and not depend on unemployment. Government controlled economy where THEY create the jobs is the problem. Government protected economy where WE create the jobs is correct. We are right now at the halfway point between a capitalist and a socialist system.A system that offers mo incentive I.E unlimited potential success is not going to improve anything it is a communistic idea.

[bettertobealive]

Is this a direct quote from the book i want to quote it for my essay?

[AdnanSoysal]

yes. Exact copy.

[MrExcogitate]

I have explained this to dozens of liberals, and almost to the person the retort is an accusation that I want to keep group X oppressed. In their rush to condemn my poining out that their plan fails to help group X and in addition to leaving them oppressed removes the resources for me to do anything to help group X. Until basic economics and human nature are grasped by a larger segment of the population we seem doomed to wasteful spending that achieves nothing but continued oppression.

[AdnanSoysal]

including the graph

[bettertobealive]

Brilliant, good job btw.

[AdnanSoysal]

Thank you. Enjoy.