Establish a government that is hard to control? Are you a fucking idiot? Why the fuck do you think we have the bill of rights, specifically the second amendment, dipshit? Pull your head out of your fucking ass you moron.
@Hodenkat You must first properly define a subsidy, and then yes, Friedman would agree with you. On principle, Farm subsidies play the same role in your quip, but for Democrats and Republicans, but mostly Democrats.
As friedman pointed out, a predominantly capitalist society has the tendency to control government for the capitalist's interest. Conversely, a planned economy tends to create a government with authoritarian power towards its own selfish political interests. But this whole idea of "small government" makes little sense, as it's role becomes increasingly necessary. The main contention is political, and the goal towards a better society is to establish a government that is hard to control.
@Aeros802 You are aware that SS in surplus and has been raided by the govt for decades. The future is bleak for future generations, as corporations now run the US Govt. This was the situation in Europe in the 1930s and we know how that turned out
@gtfan44 indeed, friedmanite economics is based on individualism. Currently america imports around 7 billion barrels of oil a year. Chindia (China and India) are fast catching up. Because Friedman is an individualist and his economics reflect that,it would be hard for America to get off oil with Friedmanite economics as any public transport would require public support. Any other questions?
@samyazza23 indeed, friedmanite economics is based on individualism. Currently america imports around 7 billion barrels of oil a year. Chindia (China and India) are fast catching up. Because Friedman is an individualist and his economics reflect that,it would be hard for America to get off oil with Friedmanite economics as any public transport would require public support. Any other questions?
@Papawill13 yep. and he got away with it too. i guess political correctness in those days was not as strong as some would have liked it to be, today :))
but in his defense , I think this vid was at a time where the serious majority of college grads were white...And that for many reasons (not that he 'liked it" ) "the others" were not well off, and came from the cycle of being not well off...Hence poor
combine that with the common perception at the time was..."if you didn't graduate college you were a nobody".....and I can see forgiving his comment
It's too bad there arn't more people like Milton Friedman today who can articulate economics in such a manner. Milton is 100% correct in describing the drain no matter what government involves itself in. If you take Social Security as just one example, Here we have liberals proclaiming how great it is, when in fact it's a pyramid sceme at best. The avg person who receives SS draws 2-3 times the amount they ever put into it. It relies on vast more workers than retirees at an unsustanable ratio.
The only thing I can't find myself agreeing with is the healthcare part. I really don't think people's health should be profiteered. Alas, I don't think the government run version is any better. I mean, Ron Paul said that in the 60s when they didn't have medicare,medicaid, nobody got turned away if they needed help but, according to Friedman, in that enviroment, who would pay? Since nothing is free I mean. Leaving the poor and very ill to the voluntary wim of random charity seems naive.
idealism - effective implementation of policy = liberalism
it's not evil, its just a little ignorant, one could just as easily accuse conservatives of lacking idealism. if conservatives lack idealism, whats the point in effectively implementing their policies? there is no point. democrats and republicans need to work together, its the only hope.
@heytootssweet Blaming the government for Industrialists taking it over? WTF??? Without government and Democracy there is NOTHING standing between corporations and our liberties.
@NoProbaloAmigo I agree. With Communism the opportunity for absolute power tnds to corrupt what could otherwise be a good system. When Corporations endlessly seek maximum profit the end game is maximum power whether they use a corrupt government or not. The fact that they have competition is irrelevant as it may stave off complete corporate control fow a while, but in the end there are so many factors that negate the law of competition that it is completely unreliable.
@Califacience Free market capitalism has historically shown to lead to monopolies. When one corporation controls a product, it leads to price gouging and opportunism which is the opposite of free market capitalism. Without government intervention and break up of monopolies, said corporations would over run government rule. The U.S. is a "democracy." It should not be a government controlled by corporations - sadly, this is the direction it is headed thanks to Friedman's theories.
@zorrostealth Free market capitalism is not what you're talking about. Just as Friedman states, monopolies are created through the partnership of the government. In an absolute free market system, monopolies, though capable of being formed, would be far fewer.
Your conclusion is flawed because your premise suggests that we've actually had a truly free market system. We have never, ever had such a thing.
The biggest problem with Friedman economics is that it will not work in a digital age. His concepts worked for another time in human history. Today, we download materials sometimes bypassing copyright. Machines are making machines, etc. The products are made today by very few people which leaves many out of work. And it is the government's duty to make sure that the owner's of those patents receive cash, yet they are unwilling to pay the same percentage of taxes as a daily worker. That's unfair.
@zorrostealth that is utterly false. The exact opposite is true—Friedman's ideas are based on the freedom of people to choose, based on their own judgment of what is an acceptable cost/benefit to themselves. The digital age provides a greater degree of information to the consumer, which, free of government intervention, would increase individual freedom to choose.
@apotherix Then how can the owner's of intellectual property be protected (i.e., copyright and patents) without government intervention? So you think we should do away with all intellectual property rights?
@apotherix But in your previous message, you said the consumer should be free of government intervention. Which is it? Government intervention to prevent theft? Or no intervention for free market? And if it is the function of gov't to prevent theft, how does the gov't get revenues to protect the corporations that benefit from protection if they don't pay their fair share?
@zorrostealth You're asking about five different questions. My answer to your first question is simply that I nor Friedman ever said government could NEVER intervene. He's not advocating anarchy. Intervention and the rule of law is necessary to protect a party from 'cheating' in the marketplace. That includes theft, fraud, misinformation, etc. Intervention is not justified, however, when the government wants to pretending it's an investment bank, giving loans, buying equities, etc.
@apotherix So how does a government pay or acquire revenues to up-hold the rule of law without taxation? I don't think that's possible. And it seems the ones who benefit most from this are the corporations and yet corporations are paying the LEAST amount of tax percentages.
@zorrostealth When did I ever say anything about taxation? You're taking things to the extreme here—government exists for a very limited purpose, and to carry out those ends, it should levy a tax. Its main purpose should be nothing more than ensuring that the free market and competition proceed unchecked (this includes preventing monopolies).
And there is no such thing as a corporate tax. It is always passed on to us, the people, as higher prices or lower wages. Corporate tax is a tax on you.
@JokersAce0 The poor have every freedom. If that were not the case, how do any poor people ever become rich? (which they do). They don't have the freedom to get things they didn't work for, but that isn't freedom. It doesn't concern personal agency.
The poor have far less opportunities and are often only limited to rap, sports, or crime to make their living... and the extremely small amount of people who actually do acquire fortunes from that do not justify the existence of the poor.
@zorrostealth Friedman's economics still works today. You can make the argument that efficiency kills jobs but it is always false. If you can get a robot to give you a soda then you can lower the cost of the soda to everyone receiving a soda, yes the soda dispensing job will no longer exist, but all the money saved goes right back into other areas of the economy which creates more jobs. Your argument seems to say we should ban efficiency to create more jobs which is simply counterproductive.
@thebestsumoeva In an idealist world the money saved goes right back into the economy. In our world, it doesn't. We can't assume that because the rich and powerful get more money that it means they'll always help us in return in exactly the way that is needed. It's a totally ridiculous thought. Hell, I've seen tons of corporations at this point simply say millions of dollars just "vanished" when confronted. DUNNO WHERE IT WENT.
@thebestsumoeva You missed my point. What I'm saying is that many products that corporations offer today are "information" and "services" which is not a concrete "thing" made by thousands of people. Much of this is automated which may or may not be better (debatable). However, these products are made by a handful of people which reap a great deal of income (i.e., Facebook). Ergo, less wealth is spread or "trickled down" and now more wealth is concentrated at the very top in the digital age.
@mikefiftynine We've (the West) followed Keynes for a hundred years and now look where we are. If Keynes was absolutely right, the West would be looking at tremendous economic dominance. Obviously, this is not the case.
@mtb416 Keynes for hundred years? You're wrong on that account. Keynes economics in the U.S. was primarily between 1945 until the 1970s. And in that period the U.S. experienced expansion and great wealth which was relatively egalitarian. In the 1970's came de-regulation and allowed corporations to do what it wanted and the system has been unraveling ever since.
@zorrostealth Hardly. He was extremely influential in the aftermath of WWI and the financial fallout that followed. It was there where his name was truly made, though at that point he already enjoyed quite a following.
"Laissez faire"- wasn't one of Hitler's talking points.
But, now I'm sure you'll tell me the Department of Education has substaintially increased general knowledge as opposed to teaching kids to Adolf Hitler was in favor of free enterprise.
I'm not going to make any jokes about a pipe because I have stoner friends with MBA's- so obviously it's not the bud. Lay off the MTV and you, just, might regain some of those brain cells.
one myth most orthodox economists rely on is that if government didn't intervine, competition would be so fierce that monopolies would be impossible. the problem is that captialism does not simply mean free market. it also means a certain institutional structure. it requires hierarchy which breeds class division. the whole rags-to-riches fable is the product of certain marginal cases. capitalism by it's very nature cannot allow everyone to be well off.
There is no system of government or economy known to man that provides absolute equality. That said, Capitalism is our best bet as only in a free market society can any man or woman rise in wealth and prosperity by fruits of his own labor and intellect. Now if only America adopted that model...
@Jester2415 this system can never be applied with wrong man and in a money system.The capitalism is more likely a Darwinism theory.Socialism is no better.USA believe in something that cannot by named.Liberty ! But liberty doesnt equal capitalism or socialism.Those two system emerge from feodalism.You are slave of the economy or the state.Simply
@Jester2415 i haven't mentioned "absolute" anything. the point is, as i've already pointed out, capitalism relies on *structural* inequality. again, capitalism is not reducible to the market.
and there are alternatives to this model. the zapatista army, the recovered factories in latin america, the anarchists during the spannish civil war; just a couple of functional examples of horizontally, non-hierarchical institutional organizations.
@fede2 - What exactly is wrong with inequality? People simply are not equal. A thief is not equal to a philanthropist. Look into human capital models, and it debunks the notion of equality of individuals. We're born equal, but investments into things like education, and constructive hobbies makes the individual unequal. Anyone can push a mop. Not everyone can run a business.
@Slipknotyk06 "What exactly is wrong with inequality?"
i've already adressed this. capitalism doesn't demonstrate some essential deterministic inequality among people. it creates ranks and hierarchies that breed and solidify disparities of power. the fact that people are diverse in terms of abilities and such does not justify capitalism any more than it would justify feudalism.
@fede2 Everyone cannot be well off no-matter what economic system we have. There are a scarce amount of resources.
Lets say that the government came up with a universal beach house plan. There is not enough land for everybody who wants a beach house to get one, so the houses are given away based on random selection or political favor. It doesn't change the fact that most of the people who want a beach house don't have one.
There isn't enough of everything to go around, NOTHING can change that.
@BrandonCRC What does "well-off" mean? Just because you want a beach house doesn't mean others do. However, egalitarian principles can apply to things like food, education for our children, roads (infrastructure), medical care and retirement. A predatory economic system that is opportunistic towards its working poor will eventually collapse. When people have no food, or shelter, or health then revolution occurs. History has proven this over and over again.
@zorrostealth It was an analogy... If we let education (college) compete in a free market without federal student loans, the tuition cost would be much cheaper. Without the loans, most people would not be able to afford college. Since the college needs to capture more people in order to make a profit, they would need to cut costs to non-education related things. This would drive down college costs, things such as school exercise rooms could still be offered, however at an additional fee.
Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Friedman. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
"One of the reasons why I am in favor of less government, is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer."- Milton Friedman. WOW Did history prove him right or what? Too big to fail, bank bailouts, lobbyists, Wall St. and DC working together today to steal from the ordinary worker and consumer.
@MCulpa which medicare comment? Prices have been outpacing inflation, but at least, yes, the part B premium has gone down, but not so much for the supplement plans.
@MCulpa which medicare comment? Prices have been outpacing inflation, but at least, yes, the part B premium has gone down, but not so much for the supplement plans.
@MCulpa which medicare comment? Prices have been outpacing inflation, but at least, yes, the part B premium has gone down, but not so much for the supplement plans.
Oh the good ol' days of television. when you could get a intellectual and civil discussion about economics and politics without polarizing partisan bullshit
Utopia will never exist. It takes away any motivation. What some of you call greed is really ambition. Usually people who call someone else greedy doesn't have the same ambition. Was Bill Gates greedy? Didn't his software change the world and make it better? Was Henry Ford greedy? His invention revolutionized the industrialized world. Those were some very ambitious people. Ambition is sometimes misinterpreted as greed by those who do not understand ambition. Get off your chair, get a job.
The profit motive, is not the best. humans are capable of altruism. We do not need to reward greed it is the road to environmental destruction and exploitation.
Wow, It only took me about 20 sec for me to start really disliking this guy. I get the feeling that older established conservatives like him could care less about public opinion and feel free to shit on what ever they want. Good for you, you know your views, now stfu and vote!
My wife has just been cured of cancer under a national health care system. We could not have afforded this privately . My twin 8 year old daughters and I will never be convinced that the markets or capitalism are the answer. I am for socialism. Capitalism favours capital , socialism favours labour. I stand with the many and not for the few.
@HelmetBlissta I'm glad your wife was able to recover from cancer. Who do you think found medicine for that cure? Who do you think did research to battle cancer? It wasn't socialist medicine. It wasn't Europe and their medicine. It was from a capitalist country who had economic freedom to do research to raise capital. The doctors who performed the procedures didn't get there as a socialist but as a capitalist. Only 1% of your wife's cure was from socialism, the other 99% came from Capitalists.
@jazernorth Please , I will not accept that all human ingenuity and brilliance is the result of capitalism or the profit motive. You may wish to live in a world like that , I do not.
@jazernorth Not completely true at all. Cancer research got started by ironically the Dept of Defense. Medical schools also played a major part on pioneering that effort.
@HelmetBlissta I echo jazernorth. But also want to you to look around the room and look for a product invented by social bureaucracy. What innovation was created by a socialist system? All of the socialist systems I've seen hijack capitalist innovations and "redistribute" them to the society. I'm glad your wife is better but I pray for the people like you who weren't so lucky in India in the 1990s when the government controlled the food supply and starvation skyrocketed.
@CommonSenseCap We;ve all seen what the markets capitalism and greed is doing to the world , i want a better world. Good luck with your self interest, I'm for co-operation, solidarity and equality.
@HelmetBlissta What of your self-interest have you sacrificed in exchange for cooperation, solidarity, and equality? It's easy to accuse others of self-interest, but much harder to look into the mirror.
@CommonSenseCap true, it is easy to accuse others. I don't really understand your question "What of your self-interest have you sacrificed in exchange for cooperation, solidarity, and equality?". Please explain.
@HelmetBlissta Truly, your self-interests are in purity with the interests or solidarity of a centralized government. When have the beliefs of the centralized government differed from your own and did you accept the loss of self-interest in order to achieve the needs of the whole?
@HelmetBlissta In a complex society, what are the needs of a group? Who determines these needs? What if their priorities are different than yours? Do you simply accept it and follow the government's policy?
@CommonSenseCap Ask the group. The group determines their needs. Tough shit if they are different to mine. Yes you accept the group needs or leave the group.
@HelmetBlissta There has been and always will be greed, a system that works is one that uses that factor for good such as innovation. If you say greed is a bad thing and make a system that is supposed to run without it, it will fail miserably as greed will still exist and the system wasnt built to have it, and therefore will collaspe.
Greed is fine if it's fair, if that is what you mean held in check. There is no need for encouragement for greed, its always there. Even in schools, 5 year old kid does his work, he gets a sticker. Self intrest in a positive way. Maybe he wants to beat his friend so works harder and gets more stickers. Greed is not fine if the means of him getting more stickers is taking other peoples stickers. With a communist society, no matter how much work you do, everyone takes turns to...
...receive one sticker, the lazy people feel happy, the hard working students get upset their work was for nothing and turn become lazy, as they dont loose anything. This is just a simple example why true communism can never be attained in a large scale. you cant disregard human behaviour.
True communism can be obtained in a small scale and it always has, i.e. a group of friends sharing food, giving money to someone if they need it etc. But in a large scale, things change, parasites get the reward of you hard work. It is not fair, the system cannot work.
@kingmafi6699 Really, let's look at the countries that don't have the financial incentive versus those that do. What new technology is coming out of North Korea or even China?
"What new technology is coming out of North Korea or even China?"
North Korea doesn't have a financial incentive problem it has a Stalinist dictatorship problem as for China the whole country is driven by financial incentive more so than America but as it's in an early stage of capitalism it won't be some time that it will catch up with the west.
These are NOT problems of finance. Most inventors have never been wealthy, rich or even really famous. Your argument is baseless.
@HelmetBlissta The only reason there is a few is because the many are dumb enough to follow them. If I was in charge of my healthcare I'd sack 75% of the healthcare professionals I have to deal with because they don't actually do a job. In the mind of some apparatchik they're all needed but in reality at best they just manage the work that the system itself creates. So yeah socialism favours labour; it creates far more work for everyone than need be.
Milton was a very polished speaker and skilled debater.
Whether you agree with his ideas or not, it is impossible not to concede his obviously great intellectual brilliance, passion, and sincerity.
And he was quite right about big business hijacking and working in cahoots with big government to fleece the ordinary worker. We've seen it all play out before us.
To all who call Friedman misinformed or dumb or a retard. These attack prove nothing against his arguments. People who use attacks against Milton Friedman like this have no counter to what he is saying. Which means one thing.. he must be right, and you can't stand the truth.
@Xavier 2 things.1)Friedman lived 94 yrs wife Rose 99 because they had access to 1st rate hcare under Medicare. US lifespan rises because seniors receive great care & live longer. 2nd.Milton asked about "cost effectivness" of Medicare which runs at 3% cost vs. priv ins @ 30%. My goodness how can the man question whether this bedrock program is cost effective. Would he have been able to buy ins after his 1st major illness? The Rep voucher plan will decrease US lifespan. Friedman was wrong.
@Loejyrrab How does the voucher plan decrease US Lifespans? Show the proof that is true. Deep down has medicare been cost effected isn't the issue, the question is does the government invention help or hurt the public and who is really benefiting from the government invention. What he is saying is that who is really benefiting is Corporations. The one thing it meant to prevent, and how in the long run the only people truly benefiting from it is the first generation on Medicare.
@Xavier If U have parents & grandp's,they'll benefit. Since corps don't need to see a doctor tell me how they'll benefit? Cost effectiveness was raised by Friedman. I responded to his false concern. Medicare is the most cost effective health plan in existence at only 3cents a dollar. I'm the 2nd gen on Med, and it works very well. Voucher plans, which passed congress will force old people to buy priv health ins. Impossible! People in their 70's & 80's will not get good care & will die sooner.
@Loejyrrab I can't argue that they benefit, but what happens after the 90th day? I work with an Estate Planning Lawyer, and he will tell you after the 90th, you either have to go on Medicaid, or have a medicare side kick. The problem is, even with the 90 day limit on medicare, it's going broke. What Friedman is saying is, the young will in the end have to pay for the program, and may never get the benefits that they pay into. that alone is not right in his viewpoint.
@XavierMarkus1 I don't think Friedman was dumb or a retard, he just chose not apply his critical intelligence to minor issues like what the Pinochet regime actually did to political prisoners in order to be able to help implement his policy recommendations
@UKfightback What does Pinochet's regime have to do with the thinking of Friedman on how Government and Business in the US interact with each other. Yes I know about his dealing with the Pinochet's regime. That is two totally separate arguments. Sort of like saying JFK wasn't worthy of being President because his father made statements about how the US shouldn't support Britain during the Battle of Britain. Sorry I don't see the connection.
@XavierMarkus1 - so if someone uses an uncalled for insult on Milton, that means milton is right and telling the truth? If you insult me, then will that mean I am correct and what I say is the truth?
@cosmicforums No what I am saying is, that when Person A uses a blanket insult as calling Person B retarded or dumb,etc without qualifying why Person B is those things, then Person A has no intellectual argument against Person B, and so Person B must be right. Understand what Friedman is saying a lot of person do not agree with, but have no counterargument on why he is wrong and so they just say he is dumb. What I am saying is, qualify why he is dumb.
@XavierMarkus1 Friedman believed in free market capitalism. Unfortunately, the use of free market capitalism has lead to opportunism for those at the very top of the chain. Chile? Russia under Yestsin? There is no such thing as a trickle down effect in an unregulated free market capitalistic system. Without government intervention of some kind (and I'm talking social programs here like public schools, etc.), it becomes a sort of "Wild Wild West" economics which leads to violence.
@diegodann Quite the opposite has happen when it comes to government regulating the free markets. Do you know because of government regulation, the chemical industry is damn near non-existence in America, and yet who benefits from these regs. Dow and Dupont who's lawyers and lobbyist make it harder for anyone to make a go in the US Chemical industry by having Congress make regs that only benefit them. Also please show me those examples of economics that leads to violence?.
@XavierMarkus1 Read "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein which explains beautifully how violence comes from unchecked capitalism. I agree that the U.S. has a great deal of problems with lobbyist. If elections were FREE and paid for ENTIRELY by tax-payers then there would be no lobbyists to corrupt the system or politicians with their money. But then that's a free market system, isn't it.
@diegodann I read it, and to be honest, Naomi Klein has no ideal what she talking about, and in some cases makes Friedman's case. She is neither schooled in History or Economics, is an ardent Socialist, who rails against any or all Capitalism, all the while benefiting from the very system has made her a celebrity. She will take what is bad, from her viewpoint without looking the real reason for very going to crap. She is a female Noam Chomsky, and I hate to insult Chomsky.
@XavierMarkus1 Chomsky's point is that while on paper people like Raegan and even Clintion are being praised for defending the free market, in reality, Friedman's ideas are being used to promote this idea of government/industrialist forming a "coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer.", or in Chomsky's words "Nanny state for the big corporations and free-market tough love for the rest of us". IMO socialism/capitalism are just as flawed in the real world.
@XXjazzfiend99xx Once again, Chomsky's is making the same point that is also the general argument of Friedman, that of the Nanny state for the big corporations and free-market tough love for the rest of us is wrong. But he is saying the government is the one that is keep perpetuating this scam. As for "socialism/capitalism are just as flawed in the real world", show anyone of us a prefect system?.
@diegodann While I do think she has a point in explaining the close ties government has with big business, I find her method of drawing parallels between shock therapy and disaster capitalism too loose to be credible. i.e Shock therapy is always administered by a perpetrator, but when Klein moves about disaster capitalism, she includes natural disasters as an example. It seems as if concepts like "shock" is so loosely define that it can be easily manipulated to describe any situation.
@XavierMarkus1 While I'm not going to refute anything Friedman said because I'm nowhere near educated enough to comment on it, I am going to agree with you in the sense that people saying that Friedman is dumb or retarded does nothing to dispute his arguments. Those would be ad hominems, and fallacies. However, you committed your own fallacy when you said that just because they are wrong that Friedman is right. That's a false dichotomy, and a flat out lie to say he's right because they're wrong.
@XavierMarkus1 them having no come backs does not mean he must be right. obvious logical fallacy. Even if someone is right, simply other having no counter arguments does nothing to prove them so
@Green01123Gold Again point taken, but the just to call someone misinformed, dumb or retarded without qualifying why, in that person viewpoint, only proves he has no counter argument. To me it's an insult to just call someone that because that person does not scribed to, or is counter to, the person making the blatantly false statement, and only shows the ignorance of the person making said statement.
@XavierMarkus1 Right, but using argument like yours is in itself a misinformation. It doesn't encourage conversation and ostracizes people into different camps. If you want a real debate, you're better off kindly asking for them for specific criticism of Friedman. Not that it will be effective, but at least it will open doors for more reasonable discussion.
@XavierMarkus1 also, this video is already inflammatory because of "president obama are you listening" line, which has nothing to do with the actual video. If anything, the poster is baiting for emotional response, and the intention is not sincere in the first place. It's no wonder that it would illicit such a negative response from people, like name-calling.
@JusticeVonBrandt Like his ideas or not, but he supports them with concrete facts and empirical evidence. If you can not see the logic he makes, and not at least respect it and give it thought, then I feel sorry you were not blessed with the abilities of complex and abstract thinking
@nflpro Friedman questioned cost effectiveness of Medicare.(Med) He didn't reveal that Med runs at a miniscule 3% overhead while priv.ins costs an average 30% He lived to 94, his wife to 99. Without the fine care afforded to seniors those ages would not have been reached. I see no logic in his approach. How would he have liked to have to buy health ins at 88 or 90 yrs old. With pre-ex conditions, he would have been shut out. No logic whatsoever, unless the US decides to let the old bastards die.
@JusticeVonBrandt He was worse than a retard, he was a fucking hypocrite. He questioned the costs of Medicare but lived to 94 because of the great care he recieved. His wife made 99. He considered Medicare socialism just as the scum sucker rightists do today. But the parents & grandparents of all these righties would disagree. They depend on it to live.
Why didn't he call out this twinkle-toed Communist twit on calling America's history the "bloodiest class struggle in all history?"
MakeEmEatTheirShoes 11 hours ago
This Country needs a huge dose of Milton Friedman or Von Mises economic views.
This whole Keyesian experiment has been a total failure
ronpaulforpresident6 19 hours ago
Establish a government that is hard to control? Are you a fucking idiot? Why the fuck do you think we have the bill of rights, specifically the second amendment, dipshit? Pull your head out of your fucking ass you moron.
covingtonium 1 day ago
Yeah...everybody hates a scocialist until it's a Republican who wants to give subsidies to oil companies, then it's not scocialism, it's patriotic.
Hodenkat 2 days ago
@Hodenkat No I still hate that. You lose
jowbowcow 2 days ago
@Hodenkat You must first properly define a subsidy, and then yes, Friedman would agree with you. On principle, Farm subsidies play the same role in your quip, but for Democrats and Republicans, but mostly Democrats.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 day ago
@Hodenkat Be careful what you wish for on oil and gasoline. In Europe, due to high consumption taxes, gasonline is 6.50-10 bucks a gallon!
NoProbaloAmigo 1 day ago
Yay Bob McKenzie!
Cnd1867 3 days ago
FDR saving the US
lulz
His social programs made everything worse (Obama) but was saved by WWII.
superbowlbound 3 days ago
As friedman pointed out, a predominantly capitalist society has the tendency to control government for the capitalist's interest. Conversely, a planned economy tends to create a government with authoritarian power towards its own selfish political interests. But this whole idea of "small government" makes little sense, as it's role becomes increasingly necessary. The main contention is political, and the goal towards a better society is to establish a government that is hard to control.
AllNightDayDream 4 days ago
"The young worker who pays into SS is going to get a very raw deal indeed"
Milton Friedman was right about SS and yet liberal statist like Harry Reid continue to push for the myth of the SS success.
Aeros802 6 days ago 5
@Aeros802 You are aware that SS in surplus and has been raided by the govt for decades. The future is bleak for future generations, as corporations now run the US Govt. This was the situation in Europe in the 1930s and we know how that turned out
steelhamster 6 hours ago
RON PAUL will save America from socialists!
Paladin1983PL 1 week ago
@Paladin1983PL
ron paul will create conditions so shitty in this country that a communist revolution will be inevitable
JokersAce0 4 days ago
Friedmanite capitalism is not common sense capitalism since if this was continued, to would lead to the collapse of the world
dancthegr 1 week ago
@dancthegr could you please explain how?
gtfan44 6 days ago
@gtfan44 indeed, friedmanite economics is based on individualism. Currently america imports around 7 billion barrels of oil a year. Chindia (China and India) are fast catching up. Because Friedman is an individualist and his economics reflect that,it would be hard for America to get off oil with Friedmanite economics as any public transport would require public support. Any other questions?
dancthegr 4 days ago
@dancthegr The only flaw I can think of in Friedman's school of thought is embracing fiat currency. If you'd please elaborate on your statement?
samyazza23 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@samyazza23 indeed, friedmanite economics is based on individualism. Currently america imports around 7 billion barrels of oil a year. Chindia (China and India) are fast catching up. Because Friedman is an individualist and his economics reflect that,it would be hard for America to get off oil with Friedmanite economics as any public transport would require public support. Any other questions?
dancthegr 4 days ago
Wow, this guy just said the
Working People
Poor People
Blacks
Hispanics
And the Like
are not the best people, only College Graduates are the Best People....
Papawill13 1 week ago
@Papawill13 back then, yes. Nowadays a degree is worthless since it's been subsidized by gov't.
kmelfina 1 week ago
@kmelfina Mmmmm I luv it when you talk dirty
GohModley 1 week ago
@Papawill13
it did sound terrible...I think he meant coming from the best circumstances, but it sounded awful
BrisbaneBruce 6 days ago
@Papawill13 yep. and he got away with it too. i guess political correctness in those days was not as strong as some would have liked it to be, today :))
MajorRugburn 6 days ago
@Papawill13 yeah....i caught that also
but in his defense , I think this vid was at a time where the serious majority of college grads were white...And that for many reasons (not that he 'liked it" ) "the others" were not well off, and came from the cycle of being not well off...Hence poor
combine that with the common perception at the time was..."if you didn't graduate college you were a nobody".....and I can see forgiving his comment
swordsman3000 4 days ago
It's too bad there arn't more people like Milton Friedman today who can articulate economics in such a manner. Milton is 100% correct in describing the drain no matter what government involves itself in. If you take Social Security as just one example, Here we have liberals proclaiming how great it is, when in fact it's a pyramid sceme at best. The avg person who receives SS draws 2-3 times the amount they ever put into it. It relies on vast more workers than retirees at an unsustanable ratio.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 week ago 3
it's*
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
Comment removed
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
Best Friedman quote: ''If the government nationalised the Sahara desert, in 5 years it would run out of sand.''
Bastiat90 1 week ago 20
Friedman is to be appauled for his plain and simple language and explanations. His points have all come true to this very day.
xChuckNorrisKickx 1 week ago
bombs*
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
one does not simply debate against friedman. Funny to see how his prediction became true.
okay, not really funny
IFrancyISantosI 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only thing I can't find myself agreeing with is the healthcare part. I really don't think people's health should be profiteered. Alas, I don't think the government run version is any better. I mean, Ron Paul said that in the 60s when they didn't have medicare,medicaid, nobody got turned away if they needed help but, according to Friedman, in that enviroment, who would pay? Since nothing is free I mean. Leaving the poor and very ill to the voluntary wim of random charity seems naive.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
Comment removed
Faerlon123 1 week ago
liberalism is pure evil!!!
heytootssweet 1 week ago
@heytootssweet Explain
SimpleMonday18241 1 week ago
@SimpleMonday18241 @heytootssweet
idealism - effective implementation of policy = liberalism
it's not evil, its just a little ignorant, one could just as easily accuse conservatives of lacking idealism. if conservatives lack idealism, whats the point in effectively implementing their policies? there is no point. democrats and republicans need to work together, its the only hope.
Jacob2Israel 1 week ago
@heytootssweet Blaming the government for Industrialists taking it over? WTF??? Without government and Democracy there is NOTHING standing between corporations and our liberties.
cobrompton 1 week ago
@cobrompton It's really about POWER vs liberties. Any other names usually tend to support forms of corporatism, communism, or socialism.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 week ago
@NoProbaloAmigo I agree. With Communism the opportunity for absolute power tnds to corrupt what could otherwise be a good system. When Corporations endlessly seek maximum profit the end game is maximum power whether they use a corrupt government or not. The fact that they have competition is irrelevant as it may stave off complete corporate control fow a while, but in the end there are so many factors that negate the law of competition that it is completely unreliable.
cobrompton 1 week ago
The last 5 seconds when Mr. Friedman is speaking has turned out to be 100% true!
WalangDiyos 1 week ago
he=Smith
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
magicthunder666 2 weeks ago
@Califacience Free market capitalism has historically shown to lead to monopolies. When one corporation controls a product, it leads to price gouging and opportunism which is the opposite of free market capitalism. Without government intervention and break up of monopolies, said corporations would over run government rule. The U.S. is a "democracy." It should not be a government controlled by corporations - sadly, this is the direction it is headed thanks to Friedman's theories.
zorrostealth 2 weeks ago
@zorrostealth Free market capitalism is not what you're talking about. Just as Friedman states, monopolies are created through the partnership of the government. In an absolute free market system, monopolies, though capable of being formed, would be far fewer.
Your conclusion is flawed because your premise suggests that we've actually had a truly free market system. We have never, ever had such a thing.
mtb416 2 weeks ago
This is interesting, The people who were on social security and medicare when it first came out got a really good deal.
heatbucspies55 2 weeks ago
The biggest problem with Friedman economics is that it will not work in a digital age. His concepts worked for another time in human history. Today, we download materials sometimes bypassing copyright. Machines are making machines, etc. The products are made today by very few people which leaves many out of work. And it is the government's duty to make sure that the owner's of those patents receive cash, yet they are unwilling to pay the same percentage of taxes as a daily worker. That's unfair.
zorrostealth 3 weeks ago
@zorrostealth that is utterly false. The exact opposite is true—Friedman's ideas are based on the freedom of people to choose, based on their own judgment of what is an acceptable cost/benefit to themselves. The digital age provides a greater degree of information to the consumer, which, free of government intervention, would increase individual freedom to choose.
apotherix 2 weeks ago 17
@apotherix Then how can the owner's of intellectual property be protected (i.e., copyright and patents) without government intervention? So you think we should do away with all intellectual property rights?
zorrostealth 2 weeks ago
@zorrostealth Not at all—a legitimate function of government is to prevent theft, intellectual or otherwise.
apotherix 2 weeks ago
@apotherix But in your previous message, you said the consumer should be free of government intervention. Which is it? Government intervention to prevent theft? Or no intervention for free market? And if it is the function of gov't to prevent theft, how does the gov't get revenues to protect the corporations that benefit from protection if they don't pay their fair share?
zorrostealth 2 weeks ago
@zorrostealth You're asking about five different questions. My answer to your first question is simply that I nor Friedman ever said government could NEVER intervene. He's not advocating anarchy. Intervention and the rule of law is necessary to protect a party from 'cheating' in the marketplace. That includes theft, fraud, misinformation, etc. Intervention is not justified, however, when the government wants to pretending it's an investment bank, giving loans, buying equities, etc.
apotherix 2 weeks ago
@apotherix So how does a government pay or acquire revenues to up-hold the rule of law without taxation? I don't think that's possible. And it seems the ones who benefit most from this are the corporations and yet corporations are paying the LEAST amount of tax percentages.
zorrostealth 2 weeks ago
@zorrostealth When did I ever say anything about taxation? You're taking things to the extreme here—government exists for a very limited purpose, and to carry out those ends, it should levy a tax. Its main purpose should be nothing more than ensuring that the free market and competition proceed unchecked (this includes preventing monopolies).
And there is no such thing as a corporate tax. It is always passed on to us, the people, as higher prices or lower wages. Corporate tax is a tax on you.
apotherix 2 weeks ago
@apotherix
the poor have no freedom
JokersAce0 4 days ago
@JokersAce0 The poor have every freedom. If that were not the case, how do any poor people ever become rich? (which they do). They don't have the freedom to get things they didn't work for, but that isn't freedom. It doesn't concern personal agency.
tablemountainhobbit 4 days ago
@tablemountainhobbit
The poor have far less opportunities and are often only limited to rap, sports, or crime to make their living... and the extremely small amount of people who actually do acquire fortunes from that do not justify the existence of the poor.
JokersAce0 4 days ago
@zorrostealth Friedman's economics still works today. You can make the argument that efficiency kills jobs but it is always false. If you can get a robot to give you a soda then you can lower the cost of the soda to everyone receiving a soda, yes the soda dispensing job will no longer exist, but all the money saved goes right back into other areas of the economy which creates more jobs. Your argument seems to say we should ban efficiency to create more jobs which is simply counterproductive.
thebestsumoeva 2 weeks ago
@thebestsumoeva In an idealist world the money saved goes right back into the economy. In our world, it doesn't. We can't assume that because the rich and powerful get more money that it means they'll always help us in return in exactly the way that is needed. It's a totally ridiculous thought. Hell, I've seen tons of corporations at this point simply say millions of dollars just "vanished" when confronted. DUNNO WHERE IT WENT.
DeathBringer769 2 weeks ago
@thebestsumoeva You missed my point. What I'm saying is that many products that corporations offer today are "information" and "services" which is not a concrete "thing" made by thousands of people. Much of this is automated which may or may not be better (debatable). However, these products are made by a handful of people which reap a great deal of income (i.e., Facebook). Ergo, less wealth is spread or "trickled down" and now more wealth is concentrated at the very top in the digital age.
zorrostealth 2 weeks ago
austrian school bs
zzzzzzz
tried that with hitler ... then what happened
mikefiftynine 3 weeks ago
@mikefiftynine We've (the West) followed Keynes for a hundred years and now look where we are. If Keynes was absolutely right, the West would be looking at tremendous economic dominance. Obviously, this is not the case.
mtb416 3 weeks ago
@mtb416 who said anything about keynes? i didn't
follow hamilton or lincoln, american system economists
mikefiftynine 3 weeks ago
@mikefiftynine You can't talk about free-market ideals without talking about how Keynes pissed on those ideals.
mtb416 3 weeks ago
@mtb416 We couldn't have followed Keynes THAT long, that would go back to 1912!
NoProbaloAmigo 3 weeks ago
@mtb416 Keynes for hundred years? You're wrong on that account. Keynes economics in the U.S. was primarily between 1945 until the 1970s. And in that period the U.S. experienced expansion and great wealth which was relatively egalitarian. In the 1970's came de-regulation and allowed corporations to do what it wanted and the system has been unraveling ever since.
zorrostealth 2 weeks ago
@zorrostealth Hardly. He was extremely influential in the aftermath of WWI and the financial fallout that followed. It was there where his name was truly made, though at that point he already enjoyed quite a following.
mtb416 2 weeks ago
@mikefiftynine
"Laissez faire"- wasn't one of Hitler's talking points.
But, now I'm sure you'll tell me the Department of Education has substaintially increased general knowledge as opposed to teaching kids to Adolf Hitler was in favor of free enterprise.
I'm not going to make any jokes about a pipe because I have stoner friends with MBA's- so obviously it's not the bud. Lay off the MTV and you, just, might regain some of those brain cells.
Cr3Nietzsche3n 3 weeks ago
@Cr3Nietzsche3n
"to" should go bye-bye. That's what happens when you rush through shit.
Cr3Nietzsche3n 3 weeks ago
Two words: Ron Paul
RocknRollaRevolution 3 weeks ago
raw deal indeed.
HorseWaterDrink 3 weeks ago
I dont like how cut this video is and how the context is half missing
electrohacker 3 weeks ago
one myth most orthodox economists rely on is that if government didn't intervine, competition would be so fierce that monopolies would be impossible. the problem is that captialism does not simply mean free market. it also means a certain institutional structure. it requires hierarchy which breeds class division. the whole rags-to-riches fable is the product of certain marginal cases. capitalism by it's very nature cannot allow everyone to be well off.
fede2 3 weeks ago
There is no system of government or economy known to man that provides absolute equality. That said, Capitalism is our best bet as only in a free market society can any man or woman rise in wealth and prosperity by fruits of his own labor and intellect. Now if only America adopted that model...
Jester2415 3 weeks ago
@Jester2415 this system can never be applied with wrong man and in a money system.The capitalism is more likely a Darwinism theory.Socialism is no better.USA believe in something that cannot by named.Liberty ! But liberty doesnt equal capitalism or socialism.Those two system emerge from feodalism.You are slave of the economy or the state.Simply
mattbell555 3 weeks ago
@Jester2415 i haven't mentioned "absolute" anything. the point is, as i've already pointed out, capitalism relies on *structural* inequality. again, capitalism is not reducible to the market.
and there are alternatives to this model. the zapatista army, the recovered factories in latin america, the anarchists during the spannish civil war; just a couple of functional examples of horizontally, non-hierarchical institutional organizations.
fede2 3 weeks ago
@fede2 - What exactly is wrong with inequality? People simply are not equal. A thief is not equal to a philanthropist. Look into human capital models, and it debunks the notion of equality of individuals. We're born equal, but investments into things like education, and constructive hobbies makes the individual unequal. Anyone can push a mop. Not everyone can run a business.
Slipknotyk06 3 weeks ago
@Slipknotyk06 "What exactly is wrong with inequality?"
i've already adressed this. capitalism doesn't demonstrate some essential deterministic inequality among people. it creates ranks and hierarchies that breed and solidify disparities of power. the fact that people are diverse in terms of abilities and such does not justify capitalism any more than it would justify feudalism.
fede2 3 weeks ago
@fede2 Everyone cannot be well off no-matter what economic system we have. There are a scarce amount of resources.
Lets say that the government came up with a universal beach house plan. There is not enough land for everybody who wants a beach house to get one, so the houses are given away based on random selection or political favor. It doesn't change the fact that most of the people who want a beach house don't have one.
There isn't enough of everything to go around, NOTHING can change that.
BrandonCRC 2 weeks ago
@BrandonCRC the completely misses the point i've been making ad nauseam.
fede2 2 weeks ago
@BrandonCRC What does "well-off" mean? Just because you want a beach house doesn't mean others do. However, egalitarian principles can apply to things like food, education for our children, roads (infrastructure), medical care and retirement. A predatory economic system that is opportunistic towards its working poor will eventually collapse. When people have no food, or shelter, or health then revolution occurs. History has proven this over and over again.
zorrostealth 2 weeks ago
@zorrostealth It was an analogy... If we let education (college) compete in a free market without federal student loans, the tuition cost would be much cheaper. Without the loans, most people would not be able to afford college. Since the college needs to capture more people in order to make a profit, they would need to cut costs to non-education related things. This would drive down college costs, things such as school exercise rooms could still be offered, however at an additional fee.
BrandonCRC 2 weeks ago
Let me guess... The socialist loses.
52000rightwing 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
president obama are you listening? FAIL FROM THE START
minimalist34 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
president obama are you listening? FAIL FROM THE START
minimalist34 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
president obama are you listening? FAIL FROM THE START
minimalist34 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
president obama are you listening? FAIL FROM THE START
minimalist34 3 weeks ago
president obama are you listening? FAIL FROM THE START
minimalist34 3 weeks ago
president obama are you listening? FAIL FROM THE START
minimalist34 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Friedman. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
IlirMr 3 weeks ago
THE SOCIALIST IS RIGHT
FRIEDMAN IS A DIPSHIT
matchbox555 3 weeks ago
There is a reason no one remembers the other guy...it's because he's an idiot.
32whatsup 3 weeks ago
great except for that president obama are you listening bit wtf?
RedtreeJoe 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
XXjazzfiend99xx 3 weeks ago
"One of the reasons why I am in favor of less government, is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer."- Milton Friedman. WOW Did history prove him right or what? Too big to fail, bank bailouts, lobbyists, Wall St. and DC working together today to steal from the ordinary worker and consumer.
Vindigary 3 weeks ago
That Medicare comment hasn't aged well...
MCulpa 3 weeks ago
@MCulpa which medicare comment? Prices have been outpacing inflation, but at least, yes, the part B premium has gone down, but not so much for the supplement plans.
NoProbaloAmigo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCulpa which medicare comment? Prices have been outpacing inflation, but at least, yes, the part B premium has gone down, but not so much for the supplement plans.
NoProbaloAmigo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCulpa which medicare comment? Prices have been outpacing inflation, but at least, yes, the part B premium has gone down, but not so much for the supplement plans.
NoProbaloAmigo 3 weeks ago
Oh the good ol' days of television. when you could get a intellectual and civil discussion about economics and politics without polarizing partisan bullshit
breedlove94 3 weeks ago 33
Ownd. "They're going to get a very raw deal indeed." The man was predicting what many in government are only now admitting.
jsminch 3 weeks ago
Personally I think you need to watch this Video when Milton Friedman was on Phil Donahue about the motivating force of Greed:
XavierMarkus1 4 weeks ago
Utopia will never exist. It takes away any motivation. What some of you call greed is really ambition. Usually people who call someone else greedy doesn't have the same ambition. Was Bill Gates greedy? Didn't his software change the world and make it better? Was Henry Ford greedy? His invention revolutionized the industrialized world. Those were some very ambitious people. Ambition is sometimes misinterpreted as greed by those who do not understand ambition. Get off your chair, get a job.
jazernorth 4 weeks ago
The profit motive, is not the best. humans are capable of altruism. We do not need to reward greed it is the road to environmental destruction and exploitation.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
Wow, It only took me about 20 sec for me to start really disliking this guy. I get the feeling that older established conservatives like him could care less about public opinion and feel free to shit on what ever they want. Good for you, you know your views, now stfu and vote!
streakfighter 4 weeks ago
If only people on taking opposite of an argument could interact this way in today's media. I guess it wouldn't contribute to ratings, though.
mathomas1962 4 weeks ago
My wife has just been cured of cancer under a national health care system. We could not have afforded this privately . My twin 8 year old daughters and I will never be convinced that the markets or capitalism are the answer. I am for socialism. Capitalism favours capital , socialism favours labour. I stand with the many and not for the few.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta I'm glad your wife was able to recover from cancer. Who do you think found medicine for that cure? Who do you think did research to battle cancer? It wasn't socialist medicine. It wasn't Europe and their medicine. It was from a capitalist country who had economic freedom to do research to raise capital. The doctors who performed the procedures didn't get there as a socialist but as a capitalist. Only 1% of your wife's cure was from socialism, the other 99% came from Capitalists.
jazernorth 4 weeks ago
@jazernorth Please , I will not accept that all human ingenuity and brilliance is the result of capitalism or the profit motive. You may wish to live in a world like that , I do not.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@jazernorth Oh thank you for your kind words about my wife, we too are very glad.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@jazernorth Not completely true at all. Cancer research got started by ironically the Dept of Defense. Medical schools also played a major part on pioneering that effort.
Antiks72 4 weeks ago 6
@HelmetBlissta I echo jazernorth. But also want to you to look around the room and look for a product invented by social bureaucracy. What innovation was created by a socialist system? All of the socialist systems I've seen hijack capitalist innovations and "redistribute" them to the society. I'm glad your wife is better but I pray for the people like you who weren't so lucky in India in the 1990s when the government controlled the food supply and starvation skyrocketed.
CommonSenseCap 4 weeks ago
@CommonSenseCap We;ve all seen what the markets capitalism and greed is doing to the world , i want a better world. Good luck with your self interest, I'm for co-operation, solidarity and equality.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta What of your self-interest have you sacrificed in exchange for cooperation, solidarity, and equality? It's easy to accuse others of self-interest, but much harder to look into the mirror.
CommonSenseCap 4 weeks ago
@CommonSenseCap true, it is easy to accuse others. I don't really understand your question "What of your self-interest have you sacrificed in exchange for cooperation, solidarity, and equality?". Please explain.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta Truly, your self-interests are in purity with the interests or solidarity of a centralized government. When have the beliefs of the centralized government differed from your own and did you accept the loss of self-interest in order to achieve the needs of the whole?
CommonSenseCap 4 weeks ago
@CommonSenseCap Correction (are not) in the first sentence as opposed to (are)
CommonSenseCap 4 weeks ago
@CommonSenseCap I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta I'm asking what you do when the needs of solidarity conflict with your own self-interests?
CommonSenseCap 4 weeks ago
@CommonSenseCap OK, I guess the needs of the group go before the needs of the individual.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta In a complex society, what are the needs of a group? Who determines these needs? What if their priorities are different than yours? Do you simply accept it and follow the government's policy?
CommonSenseCap 4 weeks ago
@CommonSenseCap Ask the group. The group determines their needs. Tough shit if they are different to mine. Yes you accept the group needs or leave the group.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta That was the core philosophy of governance when America was a colony of Great Britain.
CommonSenseCap 4 weeks ago
@CommonSenseCap Ok, if you say so, I am unaware of that. Your point is ?
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta There has been and always will be greed, a system that works is one that uses that factor for good such as innovation. If you say greed is a bad thing and make a system that is supposed to run without it, it will fail miserably as greed will still exist and the system wasnt built to have it, and therefore will collaspe.
1ohtaf1 4 weeks ago
@1ohtaf1 Greed need to be held in check , not encouraged.
HelmetBlissta 4 weeks ago
Greed is fine if it's fair, if that is what you mean held in check. There is no need for encouragement for greed, its always there. Even in schools, 5 year old kid does his work, he gets a sticker. Self intrest in a positive way. Maybe he wants to beat his friend so works harder and gets more stickers. Greed is not fine if the means of him getting more stickers is taking other peoples stickers. With a communist society, no matter how much work you do, everyone takes turns to...
1ohtaf1 4 weeks ago
...receive one sticker, the lazy people feel happy, the hard working students get upset their work was for nothing and turn become lazy, as they dont loose anything. This is just a simple example why true communism can never be attained in a large scale. you cant disregard human behaviour.
1ohtaf1 4 weeks ago
True communism can be obtained in a small scale and it always has, i.e. a group of friends sharing food, giving money to someone if they need it etc. But in a large scale, things change, parasites get the reward of you hard work. It is not fair, the system cannot work.
1ohtaf1 4 weeks ago
@CommonSenseCap
hahaha you know nothing.
All these innovations in industry came from government institutions including the computer you use and the Internet.
You are a moron if you believe that people require financial incentive to innovate.
kingmafi6699 4 weeks ago
@kingmafi6699 Really, let's look at the countries that don't have the financial incentive versus those that do. What new technology is coming out of North Korea or even China?
CommonSenseCap 4 weeks ago
"What new technology is coming out of North Korea or even China?"
North Korea doesn't have a financial incentive problem it has a Stalinist dictatorship problem as for China the whole country is driven by financial incentive more so than America but as it's in an early stage of capitalism it won't be some time that it will catch up with the west.
These are NOT problems of finance. Most inventors have never been wealthy, rich or even really famous. Your argument is baseless.
kingmafi6699 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta The only reason there is a few is because the many are dumb enough to follow them. If I was in charge of my healthcare I'd sack 75% of the healthcare professionals I have to deal with because they don't actually do a job. In the mind of some apparatchik they're all needed but in reality at best they just manage the work that the system itself creates. So yeah socialism favours labour; it creates far more work for everyone than need be.
ketsan 4 weeks ago
Milton was a very polished speaker and skilled debater.
Whether you agree with his ideas or not, it is impossible not to concede his obviously great intellectual brilliance, passion, and sincerity.
And he was quite right about big business hijacking and working in cahoots with big government to fleece the ordinary worker. We've seen it all play out before us.
djs259 4 weeks ago
What happened to these recorded intellectual discussions? Why aren't people today doing this?
tossThislnTrash 1 month ago
@tossThislnTrash what you never watch Big Brother?
KnowYourTeam 1 month ago
To all who call Friedman misinformed or dumb or a retard. These attack prove nothing against his arguments. People who use attacks against Milton Friedman like this have no counter to what he is saying. Which means one thing.. he must be right, and you can't stand the truth.
XavierMarkus1 1 month ago 30
@Xavier 2 things.1)Friedman lived 94 yrs wife Rose 99 because they had access to 1st rate hcare under Medicare. US lifespan rises because seniors receive great care & live longer. 2nd.Milton asked about "cost effectivness" of Medicare which runs at 3% cost vs. priv ins @ 30%. My goodness how can the man question whether this bedrock program is cost effective. Would he have been able to buy ins after his 1st major illness? The Rep voucher plan will decrease US lifespan. Friedman was wrong.
Loejyrrab 1 month ago
@Loejyrrab How does the voucher plan decrease US Lifespans? Show the proof that is true. Deep down has medicare been cost effected isn't the issue, the question is does the government invention help or hurt the public and who is really benefiting from the government invention. What he is saying is that who is really benefiting is Corporations. The one thing it meant to prevent, and how in the long run the only people truly benefiting from it is the first generation on Medicare.
XavierMarkus1 1 month ago
@Xavier If U have parents & grandp's,they'll benefit. Since corps don't need to see a doctor tell me how they'll benefit? Cost effectiveness was raised by Friedman. I responded to his false concern. Medicare is the most cost effective health plan in existence at only 3cents a dollar. I'm the 2nd gen on Med, and it works very well. Voucher plans, which passed congress will force old people to buy priv health ins. Impossible! People in their 70's & 80's will not get good care & will die sooner.
Loejyrrab 4 weeks ago
@Loejyrrab I can't argue that they benefit, but what happens after the 90th day? I work with an Estate Planning Lawyer, and he will tell you after the 90th, you either have to go on Medicaid, or have a medicare side kick. The problem is, even with the 90 day limit on medicare, it's going broke. What Friedman is saying is, the young will in the end have to pay for the program, and may never get the benefits that they pay into. that alone is not right in his viewpoint.
XavierMarkus1 4 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 I don't think Friedman was dumb or a retard, he just chose not apply his critical intelligence to minor issues like what the Pinochet regime actually did to political prisoners in order to be able to help implement his policy recommendations
UKfightback 1 month ago
@UKfightback What does Pinochet's regime have to do with the thinking of Friedman on how Government and Business in the US interact with each other. Yes I know about his dealing with the Pinochet's regime. That is two totally separate arguments. Sort of like saying JFK wasn't worthy of being President because his father made statements about how the US shouldn't support Britain during the Battle of Britain. Sorry I don't see the connection.
XavierMarkus1 4 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 - so if someone uses an uncalled for insult on Milton, that means milton is right and telling the truth? If you insult me, then will that mean I am correct and what I say is the truth?
cosmicforums 4 weeks ago
@cosmicforums No what I am saying is, that when Person A uses a blanket insult as calling Person B retarded or dumb,etc without qualifying why Person B is those things, then Person A has no intellectual argument against Person B, and so Person B must be right. Understand what Friedman is saying a lot of person do not agree with, but have no counterargument on why he is wrong and so they just say he is dumb. What I am saying is, qualify why he is dumb.
XavierMarkus1 4 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 Friedman believed in free market capitalism. Unfortunately, the use of free market capitalism has lead to opportunism for those at the very top of the chain. Chile? Russia under Yestsin? There is no such thing as a trickle down effect in an unregulated free market capitalistic system. Without government intervention of some kind (and I'm talking social programs here like public schools, etc.), it becomes a sort of "Wild Wild West" economics which leads to violence.
diegodann 3 weeks ago
@diegodann Quite the opposite has happen when it comes to government regulating the free markets. Do you know because of government regulation, the chemical industry is damn near non-existence in America, and yet who benefits from these regs. Dow and Dupont who's lawyers and lobbyist make it harder for anyone to make a go in the US Chemical industry by having Congress make regs that only benefit them. Also please show me those examples of economics that leads to violence?.
XavierMarkus1 3 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 Read "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein which explains beautifully how violence comes from unchecked capitalism. I agree that the U.S. has a great deal of problems with lobbyist. If elections were FREE and paid for ENTIRELY by tax-payers then there would be no lobbyists to corrupt the system or politicians with their money. But then that's a free market system, isn't it.
diegodann 3 weeks ago
@diegodann I read it, and to be honest, Naomi Klein has no ideal what she talking about, and in some cases makes Friedman's case. She is neither schooled in History or Economics, is an ardent Socialist, who rails against any or all Capitalism, all the while benefiting from the very system has made her a celebrity. She will take what is bad, from her viewpoint without looking the real reason for very going to crap. She is a female Noam Chomsky, and I hate to insult Chomsky.
XavierMarkus1 3 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 Chomsky's point is that while on paper people like Raegan and even Clintion are being praised for defending the free market, in reality, Friedman's ideas are being used to promote this idea of government/industrialist forming a "coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer.", or in Chomsky's words "Nanny state for the big corporations and free-market tough love for the rest of us". IMO socialism/capitalism are just as flawed in the real world.
XXjazzfiend99xx 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XXjazzfiend99xx Once again, Chomsky's is making the same point that is also the general argument of Friedman, that of the Nanny state for the big corporations and free-market tough love for the rest of us is wrong. But he is saying the government is the one that is keep perpetuating this scam. As for "socialism/capitalism are just as flawed in the real world", show anyone of us a prefect system?.
XavierMarkus1 3 weeks ago
@diegodann While I do think she has a point in explaining the close ties government has with big business, I find her method of drawing parallels between shock therapy and disaster capitalism too loose to be credible. i.e Shock therapy is always administered by a perpetrator, but when Klein moves about disaster capitalism, she includes natural disasters as an example. It seems as if concepts like "shock" is so loosely define that it can be easily manipulated to describe any situation.
XXjazzfiend99xx 3 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1
KERBLAM
MCulpa 3 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 While I'm not going to refute anything Friedman said because I'm nowhere near educated enough to comment on it, I am going to agree with you in the sense that people saying that Friedman is dumb or retarded does nothing to dispute his arguments. Those would be ad hominems, and fallacies. However, you committed your own fallacy when you said that just because they are wrong that Friedman is right. That's a false dichotomy, and a flat out lie to say he's right because they're wrong.
rickylefebvre 3 weeks ago
@rickylefebvre point taken...
XavierMarkus1 3 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 them having no come backs does not mean he must be right. obvious logical fallacy. Even if someone is right, simply other having no counter arguments does nothing to prove them so
Green01123Gold 3 weeks ago
@Green01123Gold Again point taken, but the just to call someone misinformed, dumb or retarded without qualifying why, in that person viewpoint, only proves he has no counter argument. To me it's an insult to just call someone that because that person does not scribed to, or is counter to, the person making the blatantly false statement, and only shows the ignorance of the person making said statement.
XavierMarkus1 3 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 Right, but using argument like yours is in itself a misinformation. It doesn't encourage conversation and ostracizes people into different camps. If you want a real debate, you're better off kindly asking for them for specific criticism of Friedman. Not that it will be effective, but at least it will open doors for more reasonable discussion.
XXjazzfiend99xx 3 weeks ago
@XavierMarkus1 also, this video is already inflammatory because of "president obama are you listening" line, which has nothing to do with the actual video. If anything, the poster is baiting for emotional response, and the intention is not sincere in the first place. It's no wonder that it would illicit such a negative response from people, like name-calling.
XXjazzfiend99xx 3 weeks ago
Friedman is a retard
JusticeVonBrandt 1 month ago
@JusticeVonBrandt Like his ideas or not, but he supports them with concrete facts and empirical evidence. If you can not see the logic he makes, and not at least respect it and give it thought, then I feel sorry you were not blessed with the abilities of complex and abstract thinking
nflpro1790 1 month ago
@nflpro Friedman questioned cost effectiveness of Medicare.(Med) He didn't reveal that Med runs at a miniscule 3% overhead while priv.ins costs an average 30% He lived to 94, his wife to 99. Without the fine care afforded to seniors those ages would not have been reached. I see no logic in his approach. How would he have liked to have to buy health ins at 88 or 90 yrs old. With pre-ex conditions, he would have been shut out. No logic whatsoever, unless the US decides to let the old bastards die.
Loejyrrab 1 month ago
@JusticeVonBrandt He was worse than a retard, he was a fucking hypocrite. He questioned the costs of Medicare but lived to 94 because of the great care he recieved. His wife made 99. He considered Medicare socialism just as the scum sucker rightists do today. But the parents & grandparents of all these righties would disagree. They depend on it to live.
Loejyrrab 1 month ago
The only question is: Was Friedman very naive, or just plain evil?
guslinton 1 month ago