Ich will lernen deutsch sprache, dann ich werden praxis deutsch auf Youtube, während ich höre diese video. Ich derken nicht ich bin ein konservativ, ich mag nicht die staat, ich lebe in Brasilien, und ich versucht lernen englisch bevor, und ich denke ich lernte *enough*. Ich will lernen deutsch sprache bevor 2013.
I disagree with Mr. Freidman. The New Deal ENDED the depression. The problem is not Government Regulation. The problem is how much regulation there is. If its there's too much then this would severly hurt businesses. If there's no regulation then workers will have no rights. They'll get paid low wages, poor health conditions, etc.
@pjmgame The myth that the New Deal ended the Great depression has been thoroughly obliterated. In fact, the economic research demonstrates conclusively that it prolonged the Depression for several years. And, it is no accident that the US, with lower union representation and fewer regulations created higher worker wages, better working conditions and improved worker health much FASTER than the more heavily regulated and unionized economies.
@FletchforFreedom Sir, its a FACT!!! Government regulation had ended the depression. If the Government did not get involved then the depression would've continued. The New Deal created higher worker wages, better worker conditions and improved workers' health. Without regulation, workers would not have any rights. The corporations would have all the power. The worker would basically be a slave
@pjmgame You apparently wouldn't know a fact if its incisors were buried in your gluteal muscles (look up the big words). The far worse economic downturn in 1920 resolved itself in 18 months while the milder-beginning Great Dpression was prolonged by wage foors which increased unemployment and condemned workers to things like the CCC (at LOWER wages). Also slaughtering thousands of pigs and plowing under crops while people were hungry was a stroke of genius!
@pjmgame The ACTUAL ECONOMIC RESESEARCH is conclusive. Not only didn;t the New Deal improve things, it made them far worse - this position isn;t even controversial! The brainless assertion that the worker would be a slave runs square into the fact that worker wages rose and working conditions improved fastest in the ABSENCE of regulation (and mostly in the US where regulations and union activity were comparatively less). Do some basic research and you won't look so ignorant.
@pjmgame Your belief about Ron Paul is factually wrong - he knows better and the FACT is that the vast majority of economists and a slight and rapidly growing majority of histprians agree that the New Deal PROLONGED the Depression rather than ending it. Read "America's Great Depression" or "FDR's Folly" or "The Roosevelt Myth" or a "Monetary History of the United States" or "The Forgotten Man". The history books are AGAINST your interpretation.
@pjmgame Not a chance. As Ron Paul has made clear countless times, he is an adherent to the Austrian School of economics. And there is no Austrian economist who does less than excoriate FDR for his disastrous economic policies. It is simply factually rong to assert that FDR ended the Depression. In fact, it is so wrong that not only do most economists dispute that assertion but a majority of historians now dispute that position. And historians as a rule are NOT right wing.
The New Deal cartelized several industries, rose wages above marginal productivity, imposed severe regulations that hindered economic growth, and was caused by government manipulation of credit (causing the Roaring Twenties & culminating in the Crash of 1929). The only reason the economy recovered was because the government controlled sectors were deregulated after WWII: no coupons for buying refrigerators and car tires; no more substitutes for cotton clothing; no more funding for ships to sink.
@Goodatconnect4 Your insane. Its in our American History Books. ONLY economists oppose the new deal. Why? Because economists are conservative. If a liberal has made progress then bash him.
Economists are not all "conservative." To believe that, and to believe that History Textbooks irrefutably tell the whole truth, is insane. Kind of odd to dismiss an entire profession, who's jobs are to understand how the economy works, as wrong.
@Goodatconnect4 Give credit where credit is due. As a conservtaive you'll probably hate to hear that FDR ended the depression. But sir thats the TRUTH
FDR does deserve some credit: he did try every big government method in the book & prolong the depression for 19 years. Have you ever studied the Depression of 1920? It lasted about 18 months total with signs of recovery starting to show 6 months into it despite, by many measures, the first year of the Depression of 1920 being far worse than the first year of the Great Depression. By and large, there was no intervention on any part by the government & the economy thrived.
@pjmgame In fact, numerous American history books (and a greater percentage every day) explode the myth that FDR ended the Depression. These range from "America's Great Depresssion" to "A Monetary History of the United States" to the more recent "FDR's Folly". Consider also "Pride, Prejudice, and Politics: Roosevelt Versus Recovery, 1933–1938" or the work of Robert Higgs or the excellent "Great Depression" entry in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" (available online)
@pjmgame In fact, numerous American history books (and a greater percentage every day) explode the myth that FDR ended the Depression. These range from "America's Great Depresssion" to "A Monetary History of the United States" to the more recent "FDR's Folly". Consider also "Pride, Prejudice, and Politics: Roosevelt Versus Recovery, 1933–1938" or the work of Robert Higgs or the excellent "Great Depression" entry in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" (available online). Do some research.
@pjmgame You seem to like Ron Paul based on recent favorites. This is good. He, too, has written on this topic, being an adherent to the Austrian School of Economics. He would (justifiably) laugh at the notion that the New Deal ended the Depression.
The problem w/free market policies is that they can only exist in a "utopian" society free from racism, sexism, poverty, greed, cronyism, and apparently sympathy and standard of living.
scum bag - yeah milton lots of people should not be working for nothing - people with low sklills are created by your scum bag mentality- these people are psychopaths
What is more, it does not make sense for jobs to exist where the employee does not earn enough to raise him or her above poverty. That would imply either that the employee is creating negative value (he or she produces less than is needed to maintain him or her) or that he or she is not receiving a fair wage. If, as Friedman claims, a minimum wage requirement destroys such jobs, that can only be a good thing.
There is a crucial flaw in Friedman's argument about minimum wages. He assumes that wages are determined by the skills of the employee, which is not the case. Wages follow the law of rent that Ricardo had discovered: wage levels are dependant upon the availability of alternative means of subsistence. If these are not available, employers will be able to push down wages even for employees whose skills generate enormous profit for the employer.
@sasoslacek there is a fatal flaw in your reasoning; the minimum wage is not based on market forces; it is an arbitration that ends up (like most government intervention) hurting they very people it was touted to help;
an employer's job is not to "raise the employee" above the "poverty line"-- this "social responsibility" nonsense is a slippery slope to say the least-- an employer's job is to make a profit (within the law) or go out of business--no more no less
@2dum2getsocialism I can't really see how any of this relates to what I have written. First of all, I claimed that wage levels are determined by the law of rent (legal minimal wage is obviously not determined by the market) and Milton fails to understand this. My second point was about the creation of value or lack thereof. It had absolutely nothing to do with "social responsibility". Employers want to maximise profits, employees want to maximise salaries. That can not be changed.
@sniped101 "nuff said"? And who are you to say that? Should everybody on this planet immediately stop talking about wages to accommodate your royal highness? Should your stupid comment be the last thing said or written about the matter? Does such an important question really deserve such a pathetic end? I beg to differ.
@sasoslacek All I was saying that if a person offers you a job without paying you, you have a choice to take it or not. Currently in 2011, if a person offers you a job a few pennies under minimum wage, they can be sent to jail.
Think about it, if I have no skills but I know how to flip burgers or run a cash register, I want to be as competitive as I can. By me being competitive, the cost to produce burgers would decrease.
@sniped101 You miss the point. Wages are determined by the yield from alternative means of subsistence that workers have at their disposal, and the alternative sources of labour that capital has at its disposal. "Don't work" is not an option. Wanting to be competitive is just pure masochism. You want to compete with Chinese wages? Be my guest and tell me how that turns out.
@sasoslacek Are you scared of a chinese man doing more work than you for a less price? If so, you are a racist.
Do you know if they had workers here for 1 dollar an hour, do you know how prices would drop significantly? that dollar burger at mac donalds would be 10 cents, if not less BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT i HAVE TO PAY LOWER WAGES TO MY EMPLOYEES.
Do you think about what you say before you say it? Think about what will happen as soon as a place starts hiring people for 5 cents an hour.
@sniped101 You miss the point because you confuse nominal and real wages. The point is that chinese labour is cheaper because real wages, that is the amount of goods and services that can be acquired with the wage, are lower. If you want to be competitive there is only one way: lower real wages, meaning lower the standard of living.
@sniped101 There is a name for the example you give. If both wages and prices decline that is called deflation. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can tell you that it is likely to decrease the competitiveness of a country since goods and services calculated in this currency become more expensive than goods and services calculated in a currency that has not suffered deflation. Before you accuse other people of not thinking you should try a bit of thinking yourself.
@sniped101 Heh, I guess it is "simple" to turn to sophism when your grasp of economics is so poor. That I am "scared" is entirely your fabrication, I have never claimed such a thing. All I have said is that it is lunacy to want to compete with Chinese wages. The ongoing massive strike wave in China - and strikes are illegal there - is proof enough that Chinese wages and working conditions are inhumane. I want their wages to rise, not mine to become "competitive".
@sasoslacek I want their wages to be whatever the person wants to be paid. If I had a business and paying people 5 dollars an hour ( which is illegal in the us) and I have 100,000 workers who wanted to work for 5 dollars an hour. If I had a strike ( me being the business owner) the people who didn't want to work for 5 dollars an hour would be fired and I will just hire someone else in their place. Easy game in my opinion. Is there anything wrong with this?
@sniped101 There is something very much wrong with this. You fail to realize that goods that are produced need to be sold in order to be of any use to the company. Sure, you would like to pay your workers a starving wage if you get away with it. But the problem is that if other businessmen do it as well, workers don't have the money to buy the goods being produced and you are all up shit creek without a paddle.
lol so is that why 30 to 50% of Americans were living in poverty during the 1800s? Was it all the welfare programs and regulations?
Is it just a coincidence that poverty now is nowhere near the 19th century and that it's been increasing since the elimination of regulations and welfare programs?
@ThePsychedelicMoose Now you finally understand. Friedman's economic theories produced the corporatists society that is America. Furthermore, I also live under a tyranny. It's called Plutocracy. Every four years, I get to exercise by democratic right to choose between two candidates which are both owned by corporate special interests. No matter which way I vote, neo-liberalism is what I get.
@ThePsychedelicMoose The main problem is that in Denmark or wherever it is you live, they don't really practice Friedman's style of capitalism. Friedman would consider your country to be too socialist to have real economic freedom. Here in the U.S. Friedman's theories have worked the wonderous magic of creating the greatest wealth disparity in history. The top 1% literally has over half of the wealth and of the top 100 economies in the world, over half are US corporations, not countries.
@ThePsychedelicMoose You don't live in America so you really have no basis to claim that periods of low unemployment are not rare. There were a few years during the Clinton administration when the largest section of the paper was the Help Wanted section. Subway was offering $12 to start for making sandwiches. Businesses complained aoub labor costs. The first thing Bush did in 2001 was to offer tax credits to companies who would lay off employees and move the jobs to India and China.
@ThePsychedelicMoose Your argument is based on the false premise that employees have a list of offered jobs to choose from but they don't. Most jobs don't require higher education adn are unskilled jobs that one an be trained for on the job. When more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs being offered, those jobs go to the ones willing to work for the least pay. Greed is NOT rational but it is a part of the human psyche. Whoever said humans were rational. War proves they are not.
@fzqlcs You failed to mount a successful counter-argument, contradicted yourself when you tried and then resorted to ad hominem out of frustration. If you had a logical leg to stand on, you wouldn't need to do that. I'll count that as a win.
@ThePsychedelicMoose Greed is not rational and your analysis doesn't hold water in the real world. Labor is a resourse and subject to supply and demand. When unemployment is low, companies must compete for workers. Wages go up. Those times are rare. When unemployment is high, workers must compete for available jobs. The system favors the employer. Jobs go to the ones willing to work for the least pay and benefits. Thats why wages have been stagnant for 40 years while per capita debt has tripled.
The biggest lie Friedman tells in this video is that employers pay people what they're worth. They're not that ethical. Employers pay people the lowest wage they can get away with. To say that Social security tax on the employer means that the employee gets a lower wage than he otherwise would is a laughable fallacy that only a rube would accept. Take away the social security tax on the employer and you will only increase the profits of the employer and screw the employees.
@Mugchgu Of course, people are paid what they are worth. People choose an employer generally because it represents the best offer they could get. Just like at any auction, the winning bid is the product's actual value. And the social security tax? If I can afford to pay $10 to hire help and I have to pay 50 cents to Social Security, the most I will offer you is $9.50. As Milton says, you are the one actually paying it. Try and dig your way out the public education snow job you received.
@fzqlcs You're the one snowed. Slave wages for skilled work is why many companies move to the 3rd world. You contradicted yourself about the SC tax. You said if you could afford $10 per hour and had to pay .50 for SC tax you could only pay the employee $9.50. That is based on the false premise that you would pay the most you could afford. This contradicts what you just said about people being paid the best offer they could get. Unemployment is used for coersion and doesn't dictate labor value.
If I can afford to pay $498,201,745.23 to hire some wily turd to run my bank into billion-dollar insolvency and I have to pay 50 cents to Social Security, the most I will offer you is $498,201,744.73. As Milton says, you are the one actually paying it.
Evidently, this is extremely unfair and creates upheaval in the market. Fortunately, my good friends in Government will buy any and all resulting debts with other people's money, no questions asked.
@noteworthiness I've already defeated his contradictory counter-argument. You can look back a page or two to find it. He got his friends to "thumbs up" his post so that it stays at the top, hiding his failure. The main flaw is that employers never pay the most they can afford. They pay the least they can get someone to work according to how many unemployed desparate people are looking for jobs. If you take away SC tax, the employer will still pay the least he can and pocket the difference.
That's an excellent argument, but it only holds true for the unpeople you employ. When it comes to rewarding friends and friends' friends, the rules are inverted and you always want to pay more than you can afford.
@Mugchgu That's actually incorrect, employers hire based on maximum efficiency. Creating a minimum wage is a price floor and in cases dealing with unskilled workers, the minimum wage causes the demand curve for labor to shift to the left. As such employers hire less people then they would if there was no minimum wage. If you get rid of the minimum wage, I guarantee you unemployment rates would surely drop, it is simple economics.
@buckeyesports1 That proves nothing. Get rid of the minimum wage and the exploitation and coersion will manifest in different ways. You will have lower unemployment because employers will hire more people for slave wages and have them all compete for hours based on individual productivity but that will only maximize profits for the owners and increase poverty overall. The current minimum wage is about 1/2 of a livable wage.
if employers no longer have to pay sc then employer 1 will pocket the differance as you said, and another with give that money to his employee. Employer 2 now will have the better worker because he is paying more. More people competing for the higher paying job=better employers.
Poverty is a necessary evil. They can only help themselves through education. Welfare, social secuirty and all other public works should be funnled into the education system. Thats the only way.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Where your logic fails is that workers don't compete for higher paying jobs. When unemployment is low, companies compete for workers by offering higher wages. During cycles of recession, the unemployed compete for available jobs which go to the ones willing to work for the lowest pay. During recesson employers often lay off their highest paid workers and replace them with those willing to work for less or push workers who fear layoffs to work harder, maximizing productivity.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp There is no such thing as a necessary evil. Your cop out argument that people should get a better education if they want better pay is one that plutocrats would love to see.The vast majority of jobs don't require a degree. For arguments sake, lets say that the masses were all able to get degrees. You'd have college grads working minimum wage jobs and since more people would be qualifed for the jobs that require a degree, the pay for those jobs would decrease a lot.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Your user name, OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp, touches on the best argument there is against free market capitalism. Friedman dishonestly describes capitalism in a way that sounds almost altruistic. Capitalism is simply the conflation of money with freedom. The more money you have the more freedom you have. In straightforward algebra, Money=Freedom=Power. By human nature, those who have power use it to dominate those who don't. That means freedom for a few and servitude for the rest.
i agree that Money=Freedom. Because all freedom is, is choice. Money gives people choices. The only way for one to get money is through education. America in my eyes, is all about equal opportunity and the best man gets the job. If we have a good education system people choose there own fate. People choose to be poor through there actions.
If capitalism means "servitude" for those that throw their lives away im ok with it.......
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "The only way for one to get money is through education. America in my eyes, is all about equal opportunity and the best man gets the job"
That's a very naive view of America. The vast majority of the wealthy in America were born wealthy. Education is funded mostly from local taxes so schools in poor neighborhoods are underfunded. It has created an eco-social caste system and equal opportunity is just an illusion.
first off, schools are underfunded, but that is why all welfare money should be re-invest in the american people through public education. Schools are also not mostly funded from local taxes, its from the state. My public, suburban, high school recieves no money from the state and my tax dollars go to fund inner city schools(property taxes fund local schools). Who despite having better facilities, perform much worse. I was also not saying we have reached a state of equal opportunity
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp " first off, schools are underfunded, but that is why all welfare money should be re-invest in the american people through public education."
What are the families on welfare supposed to eat and where will they live? Conservatives use purely observational research. You hear that about 2% of the population is on welfare and you think it's the same 2% ever year. People cycle through the welfare system. It helps them get back on their feet and be self supporting.
What families will do when they get kicked off welfare is suffer the consequences of thier own actions. They made their bed, and they should lie in it.
I never said private entity should provide a public education system or police protection or national defense. Private companies should be building roads and be doing "Public works". Yes i really do believe paying for a for profit company will be cheaper. The government spends tax dollars unwisely and is not responsible for its debt...
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "What families will do when they get kicked off welfare is suffer the consequences of thier own actions. They made their bed, and they should lie in it."
A capitalist is a lot like a rapist. Both gratify themselves at the expense of others and try to justify themselves by blaming their victims. When the people decide they will no longer suffer the injustices of a government run by the rich, the rich will suffer the consequences of their own actions and lose everything.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "I never said private entity should provide a public education system or police protection or national defense."
So, it's only called stealing when taxes are used for things that serve your own interests. If you don't think social safety nets serve your interests, you are sadly mistaken.
what other way is there than capitalism? If you have a better system then im all ears.
I truely believe that those that dont help themselves should suffer the consequences. If you are 65 years old and didn't plan for retirement then thats your fault and your neighbor shouldn't have to bail you out. He can and should(the neighbor) bail you out, but its his choice to give you help. You shouldn't be able to legally steal it through taxation.........
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Every government uses some form of capitalism simply because every nation has capital and the idea is to make more than you spend. Only by limiting how much wealth can be obtained can we have a system that is sustainable. Your opinion about the elderly is callouse and to call it stealing is just stupid. Before the social security act, employers were stealing their employees pensions. So necessity became the mother of invention. One day you'll be happy to have social security
There shouldn't even be pensions. People should be given all the money they earn and be responsible adults and spend it wisely, or save for the futer. The idea that people cant be responsible for themselves is rediculous. I'm sure i wont receive SS because ill probably be making to much money to get my own money back. The government is disincentivizing working by giving handouts. We should have a flat tax.
the entire world is about survival of the fittest. If in society their is equal oppertunity for all. I.E a level playing feild then those that dont have the qualification for any job will suffer the cosequences even if that is death/starvation. Its self regulating world where the weak are weeded out and everyone is living up to there full potential. uneducated people need to realize there are consequences to there apathy and thier parasitic lifestyle.
No, it isn't. Man evolves. If you look back through time you find more authoritaian govermnents and less "free governments" so it naturally follows that into the future, you will find more "free governments" in which the morality of people trumps their desire to dominate and people will care for each other because it is the right thing to do. Peope with your mentality will fade away and I'm ok with that.
How is calling Social Security, or any other form of taxation that redistibutes wealth, stealing wrong? The government is taking money that they didn't earn and giving it away to other people without their consent.. That is stealing.
Where is the personal responsibility in your ideology? Should i not plan for my retirement? Should i even bother with a job, if the government will give me other peoples hard earned money? The government is helping slackers.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp There are things that people are always going to need. Are you stupid enough to think paying a private entity for things like education, police protection, national defense, public works, road and bridge maintenance, fire protection etc will be any less compulsory? Do you really think there will be multiple companies competing with each other for you business? Do you really think paying a for-profit private entity will be cheaper than a non-profit government entity? Dream on
im confused with your logic on the last post. You claim that in the past we had more authoritarian/monarchy governments and less democracies. But you also claim that man has evolved from authoritaian governments. So your claiming we would devolve into authoritaian governments again?
People will never devolve, were always going forward. So we will never head back to an authoritaian like government. People with your mentality are already gone. Hence the decline in authoritaian rule.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I'm saying that Authoritarianism is fading away. America is the last great empire and empires always fall. The reason is simple. Empires are driven by greed, just like capitalism. When the disparity of wealth becomes so prominent that there's only a few rich and the rest poor, the people will right that wrong. I would prefer that America reformed into a real democracy but the rich are too short sighted to let that happen. The whiplash effect will probably be socialism.
how did it go when people relied on Morality to guide government?Did that lead to censorship,repression, the worst distribution of wealth in history. Exactly
By the way morality doesn't really exist.It is only what society dictates it as.By doesn't exist,i mean it is not a constent thought that men are born with.It is only the values you were taught as a child.I will be a politician in say 7 years, and my ideas will be realised. I have plans for this world. I hope your there to see it
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "I will be a politician in say 7 years, and my ideas will be realised. I have plans for this world."
There's nothing new about your politics. Your scenario has been played out many times. The poor in France invented the guillotine as an answer to your ideas. The Russian Czars faired no better. Your biggest flaw is not believing that morality exists. From your posts, it's easy to conclude that you have no moral center and so you can't imagine anyone else having one.
the government is not accountable to the tax payers even if they do spend it unwisely, while a company is. A company would go under while our government morgages our futer.
How am i a authoritarian? I want democracy, but i also want personal responsibility. By the way the nobles,lawyers docters and rich merchants lead the french rebellion not the poor. The poor never had any power.
My ideas have not been tried. The french had no free trade, russia had no free trade...
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp When you grow up and figure out who is actually responsible for poverty, you'll stop blaming the poor. You'll realize that "free trade" does not exist. Those who succeed in the market will attempt to control the market to protect their financial empires. Government regulations are the only way to stop that. Rubes like you will always see government as the enemy when it is unlimited wealth that is and always will be the enemy of freedom.
they were monarchies focused on mercantile ideals. the whole premise of a monachy was that a leader would look out for the people and make the best descicion for all of them. The guillotine was the response to those that believed that a monarchs could lead the people by choosing the most moral and ethical decision. The truth is people are better off ruling themselves. Socialism would be a reactionary response, but socialism will never work. Becuase greed fules all societies.....
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Free market capitalism won't work either. It's just going in the opposite direction. The only sustainable government IMHO is one that is semi-socialist in which you still have all the incentive for competition to become wealthy but at the same time, the penalty for losing that competition isn't homelessness and starvation. Every job that needs to be done, should be paid a livable wage and those that are content to do manual labor should not be stigmatized for it.
Explain to me how it can be semi socialist and still give people an incentive to work? If people anr't "penalised" for not working then why will they work? Why would i attempt hard work like becoming a doctor if ill get only a little more than a ditch digger. What manual labor stiga are you talking about?
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "Explain to me how it can be semi socialist and still give people an incentive to work?"
You think socialists have no incentive to work? My wife is from Eastern Europe and lived as a socialist for the first 36 years of her life. When everyone is paid the same, personal pride is what motivates people to do their best. The USSR were socialists and they beat us to the moon and competed with the US for world hegemony. Don't be fooled by cold war rhetoric.
you think workers will work for personal pride? That is ridiculous.
Then again, it did work out for the ussr right? Oh wait, the collapsed.
The only way they made people work was by forcing quotas which caused manufacturers to loose quality and increase quantity. People did not work as hard. Thats why farming out put decreased. So how would someone enforce quotas? They would take away the benifits away from those that dont meet them. Which is something you said you wouldnt do.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp you think workers will work for personal pride? That is ridiculous. Then again, it did work out for the ussr right? Oh wait, the collapsed.
Boy, your talking shit about something you know nothing about. The USSR collapsed because it was an empire. The US will collapse for the same damn reason and yes, they did work for personal pride. Being productive is a part of human nature. Please make sure you know what the hell you're talking about before your next post.
the biggest empire ever created was the british empire.Did they collapse?no they didn't.Im not saying their productivity single handedly caused the collapse of the USSR, bet it definitly helped.
Your naivete is amazing. You honestly believe all people are born with the same commen nature? Each person is an individual influenced by their surroundings. Some people are ok living off welfare and producing nothing for the world, some arnt.I guess we just have fundamental disagreements.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "the biggest empire ever created was the british empire.Did they collapse?no they didn't."
First of all, the biggest empire ever created is the American empire which currently has over 850 military bases in 130 countries. Second, The British Empire didn't collapse because it reformed into a commonwealth. You should read a book by Professor Chalmers Johnson called "Nemesis: The Last DayS of the American Republic." You'd really learn a lot from it.
just because we have military bases in other countries doesn't mean we control them. we have military bases around japan, do we control japan.We are not that big of an empire.
You should read "A Brave New World" and realise morals are what you make them.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "we have military bases around japan, do we control japan."
Yes, that's exactly what it means. Our military bases are to control trade routes and keep the worlds resources flowing in so that our cushy lifestyles can continue. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the US is trying to raise the standard of living for the rest of the world to that of the US through globalization of free market capitalism? US corporations would never allow that to happen.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp The US is only 5% of the world's population but we consume over 25% of the world's resources. Do you think China, who has 20% of the worlds population could achieve our standard of living?
Your views are childishly naive and impractical. Your beliefs about so many things are just wrong and I'm confident that you'll realize that after you get some real life experience under your belt. Good luck.
As opinionated as i sound i am completely open minded. I will lead the wold becuase its what i want and what i have a passion to do.I also believe arguments are the best way to draw a consenses.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Well, if you ever get to the point where you can be elected to a federal office such as congress or the senate, you'll realize that media exposure costs money and the only way you'll get elected is by selling your conscience to a large corporate industry. Then it won't be you leading the world, it'll be them still controlling the world and you'll just be the marionette getting his strings pulled.
i know. But once im in office i can do what i want,i.e. backstabbing. Sure congress will take a little longer to persuade but i'll make destroying corruption my war. Once i win, i've already made a name for myself and its that much easier to get re elected. Best case senerio i put a cap on corperate contribution,that is actually enforced. That also means changing the constitution so that a cap can be made. I enjoyed our debate. You made good counter points.
Whatever name you make for yourself can be unmade in the next election cycle. Without the support of the corporate owned media, you can be easily forgotten.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp You need the support of the corporate owned media to stay elected. Whatever name you make for yourself can be unmade in the next election cycle. The media can make you into whatever villain or hero they want by manipulating public opinion.
i wached the video and i have one question. Why can we not survive as a militaristic nation? As long as we are bringing in more money than we are spending on the defense of our trade routs, shouldn't we be able to continue forever?
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "As long as we are bringing in more money than we are spending on the defense of our trade routs, shouldn't we be able to continue forever?"
That is a question to ask Ceasar. Since empires are driven by greed, they must continue to expand, exploiting more people, consuming more resources creating a bigger and bigger disparity between those who have and those who don't have. Rome was a militaristic nation that could not be defeated. It still fell.
That is a good question for Ceasar. Empires are driven by greed and must continue to expand, exploiting more people and consuming more resources. Rome was a militaristic nation and they could not be defeated. It still fell.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "name one empire, or country or civilization or person that is not driven by greed and self preservat"
Greed and self preservtion are mutially exclusive. If under duress, I must choose for someone else to die or myself. I would choose the other person unless the other person was someone that I knew and loved. Greed is something different. Would I be willing to accept a life of luxury if it meant that others had to live in poverty? No, not ever.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Rome fell from within due to the centralization of wealth. The opportunities presented at the beginning through it's diverse culture were diminished by wealthy special interest seeking to become petty dictators.
There are many nations that are profitable without being driven by greed. Sweden is just one of them. They have a thriving economy, fairly free markets and a socialist government. That's just one of many examples.
but even sweeden is driven by greed. All greed is,is desire. If you want anything,if you show up to work, you are greedy.
if you even remember our first argument about social security, i talked to my dad,whos opinion i respect and have conceded that buisnesses calculates how little they can pay their employee and still get a decent employee. so in fact, i now believe an employer would pocket the extra money if social security was destroyed.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Sorry kid but that's not greed. Showing up for work so that I can provide for myself and my family is not greed. I dare say a person can be wealthy and still not be greedy. What makes a person greedy is wanting more than they have and not caring if others suffer as a result. If there is enough food for everyone to eat their fill, is everyone greedy for being full? No. But if one person is a glutton while others starve, that is greed.
@Mugchgu Another way to look at greed is this: a person who makes money fraudulently, irresponsibly, and/or unethically is (in my opinion) greedy (and probably a criminal also). He makes money he does not deserve. That's greed. Just making a lot of money does not make one greedy.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "just because we have military bases in other countries doesn't mean we control them. we have military bases around japan, do we control japan."
Yes, it means we control Japan. Our bases are located around the world to keep trade routes which are free to our country and restrictive to others open. We keep the worlds resources flowing into our country so that our cushy lifestyle can be maintained. It's not a sustainable model and is destined to collapse.
We're protecting our corporations from foreign competition. The WTO, IMF and World Bank are dominated by the US. Why is it that countries which produce 90% of the cocoa bean only get 5% of the chocolate market? Why are they taxed out of the market if they try to produce more than that? A garment made in Bangladesh is taxed 19 times more than one produced in the UK. Why?
It was Jefferson who said "Banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies." America is an empire. We keep our client states in line by threat of capital flight. Our government has brought down many other governments, some democracies, through covert subversion by the CIA or through direct military intervention. Do the names Augusto Pinochet, General Suharto or the Shah of Iran mean anything to you?
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I'm not the naive one here, kid. When did I ever say that "all people are born with the same common nature." I realize that people have varying degrees of human attributes. Some people are more productive by nature than others. Some people are more greedy by nature than others. The notion that people are poor because they are lazy is a canard. People strive to be rich so they won't have to work, not because they want to work harder. The richest in the world are the laziest.
(I know not currently, but close) do you think bill gates is lazy? he worked for all of his wealth. It should be his choice to donate his money and he is.
I'm not saying its just because their lazy, they could also come from a very poor area, or be not as qualified. Its their fault or their unlucky based on where they live.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "(I know not currently, but close) do you think bill gates is lazy? he worked for all of his wealth. It should be his choice to donate his money and he is."
An exception to the rule doesn't nullify the rule. Nice try kid but you'll have to do better than that.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Did anyone that you've named so far continue to work after making their fortunes? No. Has any descendant of Henry Ford worked to achieve success or has success been handed to them on a silver platter. The majority of the rich in America were born rich and have had soft ball pitches their whole life. None of them have really had to overcome adversity so, no they haven't earned their wealth.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp However, I said semi-socialist, meaning there would still be rich people, so there would still be the profit motive driving entrepreneurs to come up with new innovations. But since there would be limits to how big any single company could become, there would be no monopolies, and far less chance of exploiting the workforce for profits.
should a man not enjoy the fruits of his own labor? The government causes economic protection to the rich. Take Vaderbuilt for instance. He was given by the government the exclusive rights to shipping gold. By placing government in control and not using free trade economics you are insureing the economic dominence of the rich. greed will always run every economic system. With out greed nothing would ever get accomplished.
may dad is in the global data management for proctor and gamble. Does he not earn his 200,000 dollar salery? he works 10 hours a day. He brings his work home with him sometimes. He has earned his money. The government has no right to take that money away without his consent.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I didn't say IMOH. I said IMHO, which means "in my humble opinion." Congratulations to your dad. There are millions of people who work just as hard as your dad or harder who make 1/10 of that. The problem is not your dad or others like him. The culprits are the top 1% of the population. They trade over 50% of the stocks on Wall St. so they have puppet strings on the economy. Worldwide, the top 1% has the same combined wealth as the bottom 57% and that disparity is growing.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "By placing government in control and not using free trade economics you are insureing the economic dominence of the rich."
Not if the power of the government comes from the people. Blaming market corruption on the government is stupid. The fault is that the government is controlled by private interests. The only way to stop that is by limiting how big private power can grow. If cops are being paid off by criminals, you don't stop crime by getting rid of the cops.
i agree about lobbyists. But you dont punish all corperations just because a few are corrupting the government. What we should do is count on politicions to moraly object to corporate bribes. O,wait morality isn't something you can depend on.
How would you limit the size of a company? Tell it to split itself up once it makes a billion dollars? Soon instead of 1 company lobbying for whatever, it will just be a conglomerate of companies doing the same thing.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp The way to stop lobbying is, first repeal the section of the 14th amendment that says corporations are people. Then you make an example of one corporation that is guilty of cronyism by renouncing their corporate charter. Seize their holdings and sell the pieces of the company to smaller competitors. You do that once and the other corporations will keep their noses out of the government. As it stands, all they get is a slap on the wrist.
First off, we do have laws against monopolies, whether they are enforced is up to the government. By scaring coperations with the threat of seizer of their assests, compaines will leave and go to other countries leaving america jobless.
No by cronyism, I mean cronyism. Look up crony capitalism. You'd be hard pressed to find one single law maker in DC who doesn't have business connections to one or more of the big industries controlling the government, such as Energy, Food, Insurance, Pharmaceutical, Banking or the Military Industrial Complex.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "By scaring coperations with the threat of seizer of their assests, compaines will leave and go to other countries leaving america jobless."
There's not a bit of truth to that. Corporations will find that other countries, they don't have the rights that individuals have. Furthermore, any corporation that is seized by the government will have it's market share sold to competitors who will be more than willing to take it over, including the employment of it's workers.
Friedman is such a con-man. Talking about how the minimum wage ensures that the unskilled will be unemployed. Wage is determined by supply and demand and he knows that. If there was no minimum wage, employers would be using recession to a greater degree than they already do, by obtaining skilled workers for slave wages. Thats exactly what they do in third world countries alread. His propensity for painting the rich as society's saviors makes me glad that he's finally dead.
..."The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is the amount of goods and services produced in a year, in a country. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year."...Wikipedia. Market value of goods produced, created, made in a country.
norway contain enormous amount of oil and gas that's one of the reason they have little poverty if you think social spending utopia scandinavian can last forever sweden just elect solid far right minority in their parliment right now 'welfare state open border = disaster.
Unemployment appears to be as much of a creation as employment. Graduated certification ensures self-serving sociopaths will rise to the top and perpetuate the system while those creative people that can't conform are ensured a life of poverty in obscurity.
Jobs of authority are bestowed upon that tame that parrot the ideology of happy shoppers. You're just one big sale away from eternal happiness and joy so says the tell lie vision
.... environmental regulations protect the people, yet corporations and individuals like Friedman are always attempting to weaken those regulations. Like it or not, we need protection from people who think like Friedman - the rich, the dispassionate, the sociopathic, the greedy. There needs to be balance between regulations and free-markets. The real question is how to strike the balance. Right now, things are clearly out of whack, and Friedman's philosophy would have people dying in the St.
@boggywoman So you're saying that government has never killed anybody? Read the book "Death By Government" then tell me how great government is. You don't think people die waiting for government run healthcare treatments? You don't think governments commit genocide against their own people? Also, that's not what Friedman is saying. He believes the government should protect the rights of the individual from deceit, fraud, and abuse of any kind.
@boggywoman Freidman is for freedom! Why are liberals like you always against people being free to make their own choices in life? Are you one of those types that waits for government permission to wipe your ass? I just don't get how your type is so in love with the government telling everyone what to do. I may be wrong, but I think that YOU think that YOU are very smart and don't need govt help, but everyone else (besides you) is an idiot that needs govt to direct their lives. Wake up!!
how do I find out in what year this interview was conducted?
onmywaytooCHek 2 months ago
Ich will lernen deutsch sprache, dann ich werden praxis deutsch auf Youtube, während ich höre diese video. Ich derken nicht ich bin ein konservativ, ich mag nicht die staat, ich lebe in Brasilien, und ich versucht lernen englisch bevor, und ich denke ich lernte *enough*. Ich will lernen deutsch sprache bevor 2013.
Merken Der Illuminati.
VanXIInX 5 months ago
Milton Freidman even admitted that the New Deal saved his life
pjmgame 6 months ago
I disagree with Mr. Freidman. The New Deal ENDED the depression. The problem is not Government Regulation. The problem is how much regulation there is. If its there's too much then this would severly hurt businesses. If there's no regulation then workers will have no rights. They'll get paid low wages, poor health conditions, etc.
pjmgame 6 months ago
@pjmgame The myth that the New Deal ended the Great depression has been thoroughly obliterated. In fact, the economic research demonstrates conclusively that it prolonged the Depression for several years. And, it is no accident that the US, with lower union representation and fewer regulations created higher worker wages, better working conditions and improved worker health much FASTER than the more heavily regulated and unionized economies.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman
@FletchforFreedom Sir, its a FACT!!! Government regulation had ended the depression. If the Government did not get involved then the depression would've continued. The New Deal created higher worker wages, better worker conditions and improved workers' health. Without regulation, workers would not have any rights. The corporations would have all the power. The worker would basically be a slave
pjmgame 5 months ago
@pjmgame You apparently wouldn't know a fact if its incisors were buried in your gluteal muscles (look up the big words). The far worse economic downturn in 1920 resolved itself in 18 months while the milder-beginning Great Dpression was prolonged by wage foors which increased unemployment and condemned workers to things like the CCC (at LOWER wages). Also slaughtering thousands of pigs and plowing under crops while people were hungry was a stroke of genius!
cont
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@pjmgame The ACTUAL ECONOMIC RESESEARCH is conclusive. Not only didn;t the New Deal improve things, it made them far worse - this position isn;t even controversial! The brainless assertion that the worker would be a slave runs square into the fact that worker wages rose and working conditions improved fastest in the ABSENCE of regulation (and mostly in the US where regulations and union activity were comparatively less). Do some basic research and you won't look so ignorant.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I'm not ignorant. I did my research. Its all in the American History Books. The New Deal ENDED the depression.
pjmgame 5 months ago
@pjmgame Your belief about Ron Paul is factually wrong - he knows better and the FACT is that the vast majority of economists and a slight and rapidly growing majority of histprians agree that the New Deal PROLONGED the Depression rather than ending it. Read "America's Great Depression" or "FDR's Folly" or "The Roosevelt Myth" or a "Monetary History of the United States" or "The Forgotten Man". The history books are AGAINST your interpretation.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom iI disagree. I believe Ron paul admires FDR
pjmgame 5 months ago
@pjmgame Not a chance. As Ron Paul has made clear countless times, he is an adherent to the Austrian School of economics. And there is no Austrian economist who does less than excoriate FDR for his disastrous economic policies. It is simply factually rong to assert that FDR ended the Depression. In fact, it is so wrong that not only do most economists dispute that assertion but a majority of historians now dispute that position. And historians as a rule are NOT right wing.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@pjmgame FDR represents unconstitutional government intervention, so he probably doesn't admire FDR
ElJefer 2 months ago
The New Deal cartelized several industries, rose wages above marginal productivity, imposed severe regulations that hindered economic growth, and was caused by government manipulation of credit (causing the Roaring Twenties & culminating in the Crash of 1929). The only reason the economy recovered was because the government controlled sectors were deregulated after WWII: no coupons for buying refrigerators and car tires; no more substitutes for cotton clothing; no more funding for ships to sink.
Goodatconnect4 5 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Your insane. Its in our American History Books. ONLY economists oppose the new deal. Why? Because economists are conservative. If a liberal has made progress then bash him.
pjmgame 5 months ago
Economists are not all "conservative." To believe that, and to believe that History Textbooks irrefutably tell the whole truth, is insane. Kind of odd to dismiss an entire profession, who's jobs are to understand how the economy works, as wrong.
Goodatconnect4 5 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Give credit where credit is due. As a conservtaive you'll probably hate to hear that FDR ended the depression. But sir thats the TRUTH
pjmgame 5 months ago
FDR does deserve some credit: he did try every big government method in the book & prolong the depression for 19 years. Have you ever studied the Depression of 1920? It lasted about 18 months total with signs of recovery starting to show 6 months into it despite, by many measures, the first year of the Depression of 1920 being far worse than the first year of the Great Depression. By and large, there was no intervention on any part by the government & the economy thrived.
Goodatconnect4 5 months ago
@pjmgame Could you explain how FDR ended the depression?
ElJefer 2 months ago
@pjmgame Or let me amend my previous comment, do you believe that the policies enacted by FDR are good for the country long-term?
ElJefer 2 months ago
@pjmgame In fact, numerous American history books (and a greater percentage every day) explode the myth that FDR ended the Depression. These range from "America's Great Depresssion" to "A Monetary History of the United States" to the more recent "FDR's Folly". Consider also "Pride, Prejudice, and Politics: Roosevelt Versus Recovery, 1933–1938" or the work of Robert Higgs or the excellent "Great Depression" entry in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" (available online)
Do some research.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pjmgame In fact, numerous American history books (and a greater percentage every day) explode the myth that FDR ended the Depression. These range from "America's Great Depresssion" to "A Monetary History of the United States" to the more recent "FDR's Folly". Consider also "Pride, Prejudice, and Politics: Roosevelt Versus Recovery, 1933–1938" or the work of Robert Higgs or the excellent "Great Depression" entry in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" (available online). Do some research.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@pjmgame You seem to like Ron Paul based on recent favorites. This is good. He, too, has written on this topic, being an adherent to the Austrian School of Economics. He would (justifiably) laugh at the notion that the New Deal ended the Depression.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I believe Ron Paul would agree that the New Deal ended the depression.
pjmgame 5 months ago
The problem w/free market policies is that they can only exist in a "utopian" society free from racism, sexism, poverty, greed, cronyism, and apparently sympathy and standard of living.
ecalebw 6 months ago
This guy is spot on. I love this guy.
therealspikemike 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Cinnamonbuns13 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The path to hell is paved with good intention
Cinnamonbuns13 8 months ago
CHPL, ? Mr. Friedman makes simple, realistic, caring sense, you do not...hmmmm
lorinhart 8 months ago
scum bag - yeah milton lots of people should not be working for nothing - people with low sklills are created by your scum bag mentality- these people are psychopaths
ehpl 9 months ago
@ehpl where are these people who work for nothing? of course its not you or I is it?
sniped101 8 months ago
another brilliant asshole
stephgadda 9 months ago
What is more, it does not make sense for jobs to exist where the employee does not earn enough to raise him or her above poverty. That would imply either that the employee is creating negative value (he or she produces less than is needed to maintain him or her) or that he or she is not receiving a fair wage. If, as Friedman claims, a minimum wage requirement destroys such jobs, that can only be a good thing.
sasoslacek 9 months ago
There is a crucial flaw in Friedman's argument about minimum wages. He assumes that wages are determined by the skills of the employee, which is not the case. Wages follow the law of rent that Ricardo had discovered: wage levels are dependant upon the availability of alternative means of subsistence. If these are not available, employers will be able to push down wages even for employees whose skills generate enormous profit for the employer.
sasoslacek 9 months ago
@sasoslacek there is a fatal flaw in your reasoning; the minimum wage is not based on market forces; it is an arbitration that ends up (like most government intervention) hurting they very people it was touted to help;
an employer's job is not to "raise the employee" above the "poverty line"-- this "social responsibility" nonsense is a slippery slope to say the least-- an employer's job is to make a profit (within the law) or go out of business--no more no less
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism I can't really see how any of this relates to what I have written. First of all, I claimed that wage levels are determined by the law of rent (legal minimal wage is obviously not determined by the market) and Milton fails to understand this. My second point was about the creation of value or lack thereof. It had absolutely nothing to do with "social responsibility". Employers want to maximise profits, employees want to maximise salaries. That can not be changed.
sasoslacek 9 months ago
@sasoslacek if you don't want the job, then don't work. nuff said.
sniped101 8 months ago
@sniped101 "nuff said"? And who are you to say that? Should everybody on this planet immediately stop talking about wages to accommodate your royal highness? Should your stupid comment be the last thing said or written about the matter? Does such an important question really deserve such a pathetic end? I beg to differ.
sasoslacek 8 months ago
@sasoslacek All I was saying that if a person offers you a job without paying you, you have a choice to take it or not. Currently in 2011, if a person offers you a job a few pennies under minimum wage, they can be sent to jail.
Think about it, if I have no skills but I know how to flip burgers or run a cash register, I want to be as competitive as I can. By me being competitive, the cost to produce burgers would decrease.
understand what I am saying?
sniped101 8 months ago
@sniped101 You miss the point. Wages are determined by the yield from alternative means of subsistence that workers have at their disposal, and the alternative sources of labour that capital has at its disposal. "Don't work" is not an option. Wanting to be competitive is just pure masochism. You want to compete with Chinese wages? Be my guest and tell me how that turns out.
sasoslacek 8 months ago
@sasoslacek Are you scared of a chinese man doing more work than you for a less price? If so, you are a racist.
Do you know if they had workers here for 1 dollar an hour, do you know how prices would drop significantly? that dollar burger at mac donalds would be 10 cents, if not less BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT i HAVE TO PAY LOWER WAGES TO MY EMPLOYEES.
Do you think about what you say before you say it? Think about what will happen as soon as a place starts hiring people for 5 cents an hour.
sniped101 7 months ago
@sniped101 You miss the point because you confuse nominal and real wages. The point is that chinese labour is cheaper because real wages, that is the amount of goods and services that can be acquired with the wage, are lower. If you want to be competitive there is only one way: lower real wages, meaning lower the standard of living.
sasoslacek 7 months ago
@sniped101 There is a name for the example you give. If both wages and prices decline that is called deflation. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can tell you that it is likely to decrease the competitiveness of a country since goods and services calculated in this currency become more expensive than goods and services calculated in a currency that has not suffered deflation. Before you accuse other people of not thinking you should try a bit of thinking yourself.
sasoslacek 7 months ago
@sasoslacek dodging my questions doesn't answer my questions. Maybe your memory is failing you... so ill make it simple
Are you scared of a chinese man doing more work than you for a less hourly wage in your country?
sniped101 7 months ago
@sniped101 Heh, I guess it is "simple" to turn to sophism when your grasp of economics is so poor. That I am "scared" is entirely your fabrication, I have never claimed such a thing. All I have said is that it is lunacy to want to compete with Chinese wages. The ongoing massive strike wave in China - and strikes are illegal there - is proof enough that Chinese wages and working conditions are inhumane. I want their wages to rise, not mine to become "competitive".
sasoslacek 7 months ago
@sasoslacek I want their wages to be whatever the person wants to be paid. If I had a business and paying people 5 dollars an hour ( which is illegal in the us) and I have 100,000 workers who wanted to work for 5 dollars an hour. If I had a strike ( me being the business owner) the people who didn't want to work for 5 dollars an hour would be fired and I will just hire someone else in their place. Easy game in my opinion. Is there anything wrong with this?
sniped101 7 months ago
@sniped101 There is something very much wrong with this. You fail to realize that goods that are produced need to be sold in order to be of any use to the company. Sure, you would like to pay your workers a starving wage if you get away with it. But the problem is that if other businessmen do it as well, workers don't have the money to buy the goods being produced and you are all up shit creek without a paddle.
sasoslacek 7 months ago
the minimum wage rate is below the average so it doesn't have the impact he says it does. It's in your econ101 book.
girardbcp 9 months ago
Pure genius..
pismo10 11 months ago
A Great piece of History, that We the stupid people should have listen to.....
Fox2266able 11 months ago 2
scandinavian economics > american economics nuff' said
DanteWhite 1 year ago
Capitalism vs. Socialism is an argument that will continue until the end of time/mankind.
S24995 1 year ago
lol so is that why 30 to 50% of Americans were living in poverty during the 1800s? Was it all the welfare programs and regulations?
Is it just a coincidence that poverty now is nowhere near the 19th century and that it's been increasing since the elimination of regulations and welfare programs?
ConservingStupid 1 year ago
@ConservingStupid where did you come by that statistic please?
Wally773MTG 1 year ago
@ThePsychedelicMoose Now you finally understand. Friedman's economic theories produced the corporatists society that is America. Furthermore, I also live under a tyranny. It's called Plutocracy. Every four years, I get to exercise by democratic right to choose between two candidates which are both owned by corporate special interests. No matter which way I vote, neo-liberalism is what I get.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@ThePsychedelicMoose The main problem is that in Denmark or wherever it is you live, they don't really practice Friedman's style of capitalism. Friedman would consider your country to be too socialist to have real economic freedom. Here in the U.S. Friedman's theories have worked the wonderous magic of creating the greatest wealth disparity in history. The top 1% literally has over half of the wealth and of the top 100 economies in the world, over half are US corporations, not countries.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@ThePsychedelicMoose You don't live in America so you really have no basis to claim that periods of low unemployment are not rare. There were a few years during the Clinton administration when the largest section of the paper was the Help Wanted section. Subway was offering $12 to start for making sandwiches. Businesses complained aoub labor costs. The first thing Bush did in 2001 was to offer tax credits to companies who would lay off employees and move the jobs to India and China.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@ThePsychedelicMoose Your argument is based on the false premise that employees have a list of offered jobs to choose from but they don't. Most jobs don't require higher education adn are unskilled jobs that one an be trained for on the job. When more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs being offered, those jobs go to the ones willing to work for the least pay. Greed is NOT rational but it is a part of the human psyche. Whoever said humans were rational. War proves they are not.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@fzqlcs And yet, I outsmarted you.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@fzqlcs You failed to mount a successful counter-argument, contradicted yourself when you tried and then resorted to ad hominem out of frustration. If you had a logical leg to stand on, you wouldn't need to do that. I'll count that as a win.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@ThePsychedelicMoose Greed is not rational and your analysis doesn't hold water in the real world. Labor is a resourse and subject to supply and demand. When unemployment is low, companies must compete for workers. Wages go up. Those times are rare. When unemployment is high, workers must compete for available jobs. The system favors the employer. Jobs go to the ones willing to work for the least pay and benefits. Thats why wages have been stagnant for 40 years while per capita debt has tripled.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
The biggest lie Friedman tells in this video is that employers pay people what they're worth. They're not that ethical. Employers pay people the lowest wage they can get away with. To say that Social security tax on the employer means that the employee gets a lower wage than he otherwise would is a laughable fallacy that only a rube would accept. Take away the social security tax on the employer and you will only increase the profits of the employer and screw the employees.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu Of course, people are paid what they are worth. People choose an employer generally because it represents the best offer they could get. Just like at any auction, the winning bid is the product's actual value. And the social security tax? If I can afford to pay $10 to hire help and I have to pay 50 cents to Social Security, the most I will offer you is $9.50. As Milton says, you are the one actually paying it. Try and dig your way out the public education snow job you received.
fzqlcs 1 year ago 20
@fzqlcs You're the one snowed. Slave wages for skilled work is why many companies move to the 3rd world. You contradicted yourself about the SC tax. You said if you could afford $10 per hour and had to pay .50 for SC tax you could only pay the employee $9.50. That is based on the false premise that you would pay the most you could afford. This contradicts what you just said about people being paid the best offer they could get. Unemployment is used for coersion and doesn't dictate labor value.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@fzqlcs
Hi. Please get your numbers right:
If I can afford to pay $498,201,745.23 to hire some wily turd to run my bank into billion-dollar insolvency and I have to pay 50 cents to Social Security, the most I will offer you is $498,201,744.73. As Milton says, you are the one actually paying it.
Evidently, this is extremely unfair and creates upheaval in the market. Fortunately, my good friends in Government will buy any and all resulting debts with other people's money, no questions asked.
noteworthiness 1 year ago
@noteworthiness I've already defeated his contradictory counter-argument. You can look back a page or two to find it. He got his friends to "thumbs up" his post so that it stays at the top, hiding his failure. The main flaw is that employers never pay the most they can afford. They pay the least they can get someone to work according to how many unemployed desparate people are looking for jobs. If you take away SC tax, the employer will still pay the least he can and pocket the difference.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
That's an excellent argument, but it only holds true for the unpeople you employ. When it comes to rewarding friends and friends' friends, the rules are inverted and you always want to pay more than you can afford.
noteworthiness 1 year ago
@noteworthiness That's because taking care of those you care about is altruistic and therefore, the opposite of greed.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu That's actually incorrect, employers hire based on maximum efficiency. Creating a minimum wage is a price floor and in cases dealing with unskilled workers, the minimum wage causes the demand curve for labor to shift to the left. As such employers hire less people then they would if there was no minimum wage. If you get rid of the minimum wage, I guarantee you unemployment rates would surely drop, it is simple economics.
buckeyesports1 1 year ago
@buckeyesports1 That proves nothing. Get rid of the minimum wage and the exploitation and coersion will manifest in different ways. You will have lower unemployment because employers will hire more people for slave wages and have them all compete for hours based on individual productivity but that will only maximize profits for the owners and increase poverty overall. The current minimum wage is about 1/2 of a livable wage.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
if employers no longer have to pay sc then employer 1 will pocket the differance as you said, and another with give that money to his employee. Employer 2 now will have the better worker because he is paying more. More people competing for the higher paying job=better employers.
Poverty is a necessary evil. They can only help themselves through education. Welfare, social secuirty and all other public works should be funnled into the education system. Thats the only way.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Where your logic fails is that workers don't compete for higher paying jobs. When unemployment is low, companies compete for workers by offering higher wages. During cycles of recession, the unemployed compete for available jobs which go to the ones willing to work for the lowest pay. During recesson employers often lay off their highest paid workers and replace them with those willing to work for less or push workers who fear layoffs to work harder, maximizing productivity.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp There is no such thing as a necessary evil. Your cop out argument that people should get a better education if they want better pay is one that plutocrats would love to see.The vast majority of jobs don't require a degree. For arguments sake, lets say that the masses were all able to get degrees. You'd have college grads working minimum wage jobs and since more people would be qualifed for the jobs that require a degree, the pay for those jobs would decrease a lot.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Your user name, OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp, touches on the best argument there is against free market capitalism. Friedman dishonestly describes capitalism in a way that sounds almost altruistic. Capitalism is simply the conflation of money with freedom. The more money you have the more freedom you have. In straightforward algebra, Money=Freedom=Power. By human nature, those who have power use it to dominate those who don't. That means freedom for a few and servitude for the rest.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
im talking about Americe here.
i agree that Money=Freedom. Because all freedom is, is choice. Money gives people choices. The only way for one to get money is through education. America in my eyes, is all about equal opportunity and the best man gets the job. If we have a good education system people choose there own fate. People choose to be poor through there actions.
If capitalism means "servitude" for those that throw their lives away im ok with it.......
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "The only way for one to get money is through education. America in my eyes, is all about equal opportunity and the best man gets the job"
That's a very naive view of America. The vast majority of the wealthy in America were born wealthy. Education is funded mostly from local taxes so schools in poor neighborhoods are underfunded. It has created an eco-social caste system and equal opportunity is just an illusion.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
first off, schools are underfunded, but that is why all welfare money should be re-invest in the american people through public education. Schools are also not mostly funded from local taxes, its from the state. My public, suburban, high school recieves no money from the state and my tax dollars go to fund inner city schools(property taxes fund local schools). Who despite having better facilities, perform much worse. I was also not saying we have reached a state of equal opportunity
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp " first off, schools are underfunded, but that is why all welfare money should be re-invest in the american people through public education."
What are the families on welfare supposed to eat and where will they live? Conservatives use purely observational research. You hear that about 2% of the population is on welfare and you think it's the same 2% ever year. People cycle through the welfare system. It helps them get back on their feet and be self supporting.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
What families will do when they get kicked off welfare is suffer the consequences of thier own actions. They made their bed, and they should lie in it.
I never said private entity should provide a public education system or police protection or national defense. Private companies should be building roads and be doing "Public works". Yes i really do believe paying for a for profit company will be cheaper. The government spends tax dollars unwisely and is not responsible for its debt...
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "What families will do when they get kicked off welfare is suffer the consequences of thier own actions. They made their bed, and they should lie in it."
A capitalist is a lot like a rapist. Both gratify themselves at the expense of others and try to justify themselves by blaming their victims. When the people decide they will no longer suffer the injustices of a government run by the rich, the rich will suffer the consequences of their own actions and lose everything.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "I never said private entity should provide a public education system or police protection or national defense."
So, it's only called stealing when taxes are used for things that serve your own interests. If you don't think social safety nets serve your interests, you are sadly mistaken.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
what other way is there than capitalism? If you have a better system then im all ears.
I truely believe that those that dont help themselves should suffer the consequences. If you are 65 years old and didn't plan for retirement then thats your fault and your neighbor shouldn't have to bail you out. He can and should(the neighbor) bail you out, but its his choice to give you help. You shouldn't be able to legally steal it through taxation.........
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Every government uses some form of capitalism simply because every nation has capital and the idea is to make more than you spend. Only by limiting how much wealth can be obtained can we have a system that is sustainable. Your opinion about the elderly is callouse and to call it stealing is just stupid. Before the social security act, employers were stealing their employees pensions. So necessity became the mother of invention. One day you'll be happy to have social security
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
There shouldn't even be pensions. People should be given all the money they earn and be responsible adults and spend it wisely, or save for the futer. The idea that people cant be responsible for themselves is rediculous. I'm sure i wont receive SS because ill probably be making to much money to get my own money back. The government is disincentivizing working by giving handouts. We should have a flat tax.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
the entire world is about survival of the fittest. If in society their is equal oppertunity for all. I.E a level playing feild then those that dont have the qualification for any job will suffer the cosequences even if that is death/starvation. Its self regulating world where the weak are weeded out and everyone is living up to there full potential. uneducated people need to realize there are consequences to there apathy and thier parasitic lifestyle.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "the entire world is about survival of the fittest."
No, it isn't. Man evolves. If you look back through time you find more authoritaian govermnents and less "free governments" so it naturally follows that into the future, you will find more "free governments" in which the morality of people trumps their desire to dominate and people will care for each other because it is the right thing to do. Peope with your mentality will fade away and I'm ok with that.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
but it can be reached.
How is calling Social Security, or any other form of taxation that redistibutes wealth, stealing wrong? The government is taking money that they didn't earn and giving it away to other people without their consent.. That is stealing.
Where is the personal responsibility in your ideology? Should i not plan for my retirement? Should i even bother with a job, if the government will give me other peoples hard earned money? The government is helping slackers.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp There are things that people are always going to need. Are you stupid enough to think paying a private entity for things like education, police protection, national defense, public works, road and bridge maintenance, fire protection etc will be any less compulsory? Do you really think there will be multiple companies competing with each other for you business? Do you really think paying a for-profit private entity will be cheaper than a non-profit government entity? Dream on
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
im confused with your logic on the last post. You claim that in the past we had more authoritarian/monarchy governments and less democracies. But you also claim that man has evolved from authoritaian governments. So your claiming we would devolve into authoritaian governments again?
People will never devolve, were always going forward. So we will never head back to an authoritaian like government. People with your mentality are already gone. Hence the decline in authoritaian rule.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I'm saying that Authoritarianism is fading away. America is the last great empire and empires always fall. The reason is simple. Empires are driven by greed, just like capitalism. When the disparity of wealth becomes so prominent that there's only a few rich and the rest poor, the people will right that wrong. I would prefer that America reformed into a real democracy but the rich are too short sighted to let that happen. The whiplash effect will probably be socialism.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
how did it go when people relied on Morality to guide government?Did that lead to censorship,repression, the worst distribution of wealth in history. Exactly
By the way morality doesn't really exist.It is only what society dictates it as.By doesn't exist,i mean it is not a constent thought that men are born with.It is only the values you were taught as a child.I will be a politician in say 7 years, and my ideas will be realised. I have plans for this world. I hope your there to see it
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "I will be a politician in say 7 years, and my ideas will be realised. I have plans for this world."
There's nothing new about your politics. Your scenario has been played out many times. The poor in France invented the guillotine as an answer to your ideas. The Russian Czars faired no better. Your biggest flaw is not believing that morality exists. From your posts, it's easy to conclude that you have no moral center and so you can't imagine anyone else having one.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
the government is not accountable to the tax payers even if they do spend it unwisely, while a company is. A company would go under while our government morgages our futer.
How am i a authoritarian? I want democracy, but i also want personal responsibility. By the way the nobles,lawyers docters and rich merchants lead the french rebellion not the poor. The poor never had any power.
My ideas have not been tried. The french had no free trade, russia had no free trade...
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp When you grow up and figure out who is actually responsible for poverty, you'll stop blaming the poor. You'll realize that "free trade" does not exist. Those who succeed in the market will attempt to control the market to protect their financial empires. Government regulations are the only way to stop that. Rubes like you will always see government as the enemy when it is unlimited wealth that is and always will be the enemy of freedom.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
they were monarchies focused on mercantile ideals. the whole premise of a monachy was that a leader would look out for the people and make the best descicion for all of them. The guillotine was the response to those that believed that a monarchs could lead the people by choosing the most moral and ethical decision. The truth is people are better off ruling themselves. Socialism would be a reactionary response, but socialism will never work. Becuase greed fules all societies.....
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Free market capitalism won't work either. It's just going in the opposite direction. The only sustainable government IMHO is one that is semi-socialist in which you still have all the incentive for competition to become wealthy but at the same time, the penalty for losing that competition isn't homelessness and starvation. Every job that needs to be done, should be paid a livable wage and those that are content to do manual labor should not be stigmatized for it.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
what does IMOH mean?
Explain to me how it can be semi socialist and still give people an incentive to work? If people anr't "penalised" for not working then why will they work? Why would i attempt hard work like becoming a doctor if ill get only a little more than a ditch digger. What manual labor stiga are you talking about?
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "Explain to me how it can be semi socialist and still give people an incentive to work?"
You think socialists have no incentive to work? My wife is from Eastern Europe and lived as a socialist for the first 36 years of her life. When everyone is paid the same, personal pride is what motivates people to do their best. The USSR were socialists and they beat us to the moon and competed with the US for world hegemony. Don't be fooled by cold war rhetoric.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
you think workers will work for personal pride? That is ridiculous.
Then again, it did work out for the ussr right? Oh wait, the collapsed.
The only way they made people work was by forcing quotas which caused manufacturers to loose quality and increase quantity. People did not work as hard. Thats why farming out put decreased. So how would someone enforce quotas? They would take away the benifits away from those that dont meet them. Which is something you said you wouldnt do.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp you think workers will work for personal pride? That is ridiculous. Then again, it did work out for the ussr right? Oh wait, the collapsed.
Boy, your talking shit about something you know nothing about. The USSR collapsed because it was an empire. The US will collapse for the same damn reason and yes, they did work for personal pride. Being productive is a part of human nature. Please make sure you know what the hell you're talking about before your next post.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
the biggest empire ever created was the british empire.Did they collapse?no they didn't.Im not saying their productivity single handedly caused the collapse of the USSR, bet it definitly helped.
Your naivete is amazing. You honestly believe all people are born with the same commen nature? Each person is an individual influenced by their surroundings. Some people are ok living off welfare and producing nothing for the world, some arnt.I guess we just have fundamental disagreements.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "the biggest empire ever created was the british empire.Did they collapse?no they didn't."
First of all, the biggest empire ever created is the American empire which currently has over 850 military bases in 130 countries. Second, The British Empire didn't collapse because it reformed into a commonwealth. You should read a book by Professor Chalmers Johnson called "Nemesis: The Last DayS of the American Republic." You'd really learn a lot from it.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
just because we have military bases in other countries doesn't mean we control them. we have military bases around japan, do we control japan.We are not that big of an empire.
You should read "A Brave New World" and realise morals are what you make them.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "we have military bases around japan, do we control japan."
Yes, that's exactly what it means. Our military bases are to control trade routes and keep the worlds resources flowing in so that our cushy lifestyles can continue. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the US is trying to raise the standard of living for the rest of the world to that of the US through globalization of free market capitalism? US corporations would never allow that to happen.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp The US is only 5% of the world's population but we consume over 25% of the world's resources. Do you think China, who has 20% of the worlds population could achieve our standard of living?
Your views are childishly naive and impractical. Your beliefs about so many things are just wrong and I'm confident that you'll realize that after you get some real life experience under your belt. Good luck.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
what do you suggest i do? about my nievete.
As opinionated as i sound i am completely open minded. I will lead the wold becuase its what i want and what i have a passion to do.I also believe arguments are the best way to draw a consenses.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Well, if you ever get to the point where you can be elected to a federal office such as congress or the senate, you'll realize that media exposure costs money and the only way you'll get elected is by selling your conscience to a large corporate industry. Then it won't be you leading the world, it'll be them still controlling the world and you'll just be the marionette getting his strings pulled.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
i know. But once im in office i can do what i want,i.e. backstabbing. Sure congress will take a little longer to persuade but i'll make destroying corruption my war. Once i win, i've already made a name for myself and its that much easier to get re elected. Best case senerio i put a cap on corperate contribution,that is actually enforced. That also means changing the constitution so that a cap can be made. I enjoyed our debate. You made good counter points.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Once you're in office, you'll find that in order to stay in office, you've got to "play ball."
Do a Youtube search of "American Empire" posted by HottPott.
Then search for "THE CORPORATION [19/23] Taking The Right Side" posted by machbar
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
why would i have to play ball? Murder?Impeachment?what?
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "why would i have to play ball? Murder?Impeachment?what?"
Whatever name you make for yourself can be unmade in the next election cycle. Without the support of the corporate owned media, you can be easily forgotten.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp You need the support of the corporate owned media to stay elected. Whatever name you make for yourself can be unmade in the next election cycle. The media can make you into whatever villain or hero they want by manipulating public opinion.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
i wached the video and i have one question. Why can we not survive as a militaristic nation? As long as we are bringing in more money than we are spending on the defense of our trade routs, shouldn't we be able to continue forever?
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "As long as we are bringing in more money than we are spending on the defense of our trade routs, shouldn't we be able to continue forever?"
That is a question to ask Ceasar. Since empires are driven by greed, they must continue to expand, exploiting more people, consuming more resources creating a bigger and bigger disparity between those who have and those who don't have. Rome was a militaristic nation that could not be defeated. It still fell.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "Why can we not survive as a militaristic nation? "
That is a good question for Ceasar. Empires are driven by greed and must continue to expand, exploiting more people and consuming more resources. Rome was a militaristic nation and they could not be defeated. It still fell.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
i dont know much about rome, but i believe rome fell because of invaders of the north.So they did loose.
Also,America does not actualy invest or govern the lands they "Control" wich make our economic sphere of influence all the more effective.
You also insist on saying empire driven by greed......
name one empire, or country or civilization or person that is not driven by greed and self preservation.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "name one empire, or country or civilization or person that is not driven by greed and self preservat"
Greed and self preservtion are mutially exclusive. If under duress, I must choose for someone else to die or myself. I would choose the other person unless the other person was someone that I knew and loved. Greed is something different. Would I be willing to accept a life of luxury if it meant that others had to live in poverty? No, not ever.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Rome fell from within due to the centralization of wealth. The opportunities presented at the beginning through it's diverse culture were diminished by wealthy special interest seeking to become petty dictators.
There are many nations that are profitable without being driven by greed. Sweden is just one of them. They have a thriving economy, fairly free markets and a socialist government. That's just one of many examples.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
but even sweeden is driven by greed. All greed is,is desire. If you want anything,if you show up to work, you are greedy.
if you even remember our first argument about social security, i talked to my dad,whos opinion i respect and have conceded that buisnesses calculates how little they can pay their employee and still get a decent employee. so in fact, i now believe an employer would pocket the extra money if social security was destroyed.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Sorry kid but that's not greed. Showing up for work so that I can provide for myself and my family is not greed. I dare say a person can be wealthy and still not be greedy. What makes a person greedy is wanting more than they have and not caring if others suffer as a result. If there is enough food for everyone to eat their fill, is everyone greedy for being full? No. But if one person is a glutton while others starve, that is greed.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu Another way to look at greed is this: a person who makes money fraudulently, irresponsibly, and/or unethically is (in my opinion) greedy (and probably a criminal also). He makes money he does not deserve. That's greed. Just making a lot of money does not make one greedy.
mikebri527 11 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "just because we have military bases in other countries doesn't mean we control them. we have military bases around japan, do we control japan."
Yes, it means we control Japan. Our bases are located around the world to keep trade routes which are free to our country and restrictive to others open. We keep the worlds resources flowing into our country so that our cushy lifestyle can be maintained. It's not a sustainable model and is destined to collapse.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
who are we protecting our trade routs against?
Protecting trade routs doesn't make us an empire.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "who are we protecting our trade routs against?
We're protecting our corporations from foreign competition. The WTO, IMF and World Bank are dominated by the US. Why is it that countries which produce 90% of the cocoa bean only get 5% of the chocolate market? Why are they taxed out of the market if they try to produce more than that? A garment made in Bangladesh is taxed 19 times more than one produced in the UK. Why?
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "Protecting trade routs doesn't make us an empire."
It was Jefferson who said "Banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies." America is an empire. We keep our client states in line by threat of capital flight. Our government has brought down many other governments, some democracies, through covert subversion by the CIA or through direct military intervention. Do the names Augusto Pinochet, General Suharto or the Shah of Iran mean anything to you?
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
those names dont mean anything to me, but i know we have done that same stuff in panama and other countries, so i dont doubt it.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I'm not the naive one here, kid. When did I ever say that "all people are born with the same common nature." I realize that people have varying degrees of human attributes. Some people are more productive by nature than others. Some people are more greedy by nature than others. The notion that people are poor because they are lazy is a canard. People strive to be rich so they won't have to work, not because they want to work harder. The richest in the world are the laziest.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
(I know not currently, but close) do you think bill gates is lazy? he worked for all of his wealth. It should be his choice to donate his money and he is.
I'm not saying its just because their lazy, they could also come from a very poor area, or be not as qualified. Its their fault or their unlucky based on where they live.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "(I know not currently, but close) do you think bill gates is lazy? he worked for all of his wealth. It should be his choice to donate his money and he is."
An exception to the rule doesn't nullify the rule. Nice try kid but you'll have to do better than that.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
what about andrew carnegie? is that good enough how many do i have to name. Henry ford?
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Did anyone that you've named so far continue to work after making their fortunes? No. Has any descendant of Henry Ford worked to achieve success or has success been handed to them on a silver platter. The majority of the rich in America were born rich and have had soft ball pitches their whole life. None of them have really had to overcome adversity so, no they haven't earned their wealth.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
Rockefellerssss
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp However, I said semi-socialist, meaning there would still be rich people, so there would still be the profit motive driving entrepreneurs to come up with new innovations. But since there would be limits to how big any single company could become, there would be no monopolies, and far less chance of exploiting the workforce for profits.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
should a man not enjoy the fruits of his own labor? The government causes economic protection to the rich. Take Vaderbuilt for instance. He was given by the government the exclusive rights to shipping gold. By placing government in control and not using free trade economics you are insureing the economic dominence of the rich. greed will always run every economic system. With out greed nothing would ever get accomplished.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "should a man not enjoy the fruits of his own labor?"
The rich enjoy the fruits of other people's labor.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
may dad is in the global data management for proctor and gamble. Does he not earn his 200,000 dollar salery? he works 10 hours a day. He brings his work home with him sometimes. He has earned his money. The government has no right to take that money away without his consent.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I didn't say IMOH. I said IMHO, which means "in my humble opinion." Congratulations to your dad. There are millions of people who work just as hard as your dad or harder who make 1/10 of that. The problem is not your dad or others like him. The culprits are the top 1% of the population. They trade over 50% of the stocks on Wall St. so they have puppet strings on the economy. Worldwide, the top 1% has the same combined wealth as the bottom 57% and that disparity is growing.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "By placing government in control and not using free trade economics you are insureing the economic dominence of the rich."
Not if the power of the government comes from the people. Blaming market corruption on the government is stupid. The fault is that the government is controlled by private interests. The only way to stop that is by limiting how big private power can grow. If cops are being paid off by criminals, you don't stop crime by getting rid of the cops.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
i agree about lobbyists. But you dont punish all corperations just because a few are corrupting the government. What we should do is count on politicions to moraly object to corporate bribes. O,wait morality isn't something you can depend on.
How would you limit the size of a company? Tell it to split itself up once it makes a billion dollars? Soon instead of 1 company lobbying for whatever, it will just be a conglomerate of companies doing the same thing.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp The way to stop lobbying is, first repeal the section of the 14th amendment that says corporations are people. Then you make an example of one corporation that is guilty of cronyism by renouncing their corporate charter. Seize their holdings and sell the pieces of the company to smaller competitors. You do that once and the other corporations will keep their noses out of the government. As it stands, all they get is a slap on the wrist.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@Mugchgu
by cronyism,you mean monopolies, correct?
First off, we do have laws against monopolies, whether they are enforced is up to the government. By scaring coperations with the threat of seizer of their assests, compaines will leave and go to other countries leaving america jobless.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "by cronyism,you mean monopolies, correct?"
No by cronyism, I mean cronyism. Look up crony capitalism. You'd be hard pressed to find one single law maker in DC who doesn't have business connections to one or more of the big industries controlling the government, such as Energy, Food, Insurance, Pharmaceutical, Banking or the Military Industrial Complex.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "By scaring coperations with the threat of seizer of their assests, compaines will leave and go to other countries leaving america jobless."
There's not a bit of truth to that. Corporations will find that other countries, they don't have the rights that individuals have. Furthermore, any corporation that is seized by the government will have it's market share sold to competitors who will be more than willing to take it over, including the employment of it's workers.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
Friedman is such a con-man. Talking about how the minimum wage ensures that the unskilled will be unemployed. Wage is determined by supply and demand and he knows that. If there was no minimum wage, employers would be using recession to a greater degree than they already do, by obtaining skilled workers for slave wages. Thats exactly what they do in third world countries alread. His propensity for painting the rich as society's saviors makes me glad that he's finally dead.
Mugchgu 1 year ago
..."The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is the amount of goods and services produced in a year, in a country. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year."...Wikipedia. Market value of goods produced, created, made in a country.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
I love this man.
hollrahd 1 year ago
@nfwvideo1 huh? sorry im not following you here.
trigger0704 1 year ago
@nfwvideo1 Nonsense.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
i wish this man had been president
trigger0704 1 year ago
Good, nice.
NeoJimCat 1 year ago
norway contain enormous amount of oil and gas that's one of the reason they have little poverty if you think social spending utopia scandinavian can last forever sweden just elect solid far right minority in their parliment right now 'welfare state open border = disaster.
kyotoloto 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kyotoloto 70% of their GDP is private so again you are wrong. Try again.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
Unemployment appears to be as much of a creation as employment. Graduated certification ensures self-serving sociopaths will rise to the top and perpetuate the system while those creative people that can't conform are ensured a life of poverty in obscurity.
Jobs of authority are bestowed upon that tame that parrot the ideology of happy shoppers. You're just one big sale away from eternal happiness and joy so says the tell lie vision
Slavestorms 1 year ago
What about student loans? How does it give the opposite effect it seeks to achieve?
MinGophers 1 year ago
@MinGophers it rises tuition prices bro.
BrettDunbar 1 year ago
@BrettDunbar How? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I;m curious.
MinGophers 1 year ago
.... environmental regulations protect the people, yet corporations and individuals like Friedman are always attempting to weaken those regulations. Like it or not, we need protection from people who think like Friedman - the rich, the dispassionate, the sociopathic, the greedy. There needs to be balance between regulations and free-markets. The real question is how to strike the balance. Right now, things are clearly out of whack, and Friedman's philosophy would have people dying in the St.
boggywoman 1 year ago
@boggywoman So you're saying that government has never killed anybody? Read the book "Death By Government" then tell me how great government is. You don't think people die waiting for government run healthcare treatments? You don't think governments commit genocide against their own people? Also, that's not what Friedman is saying. He believes the government should protect the rights of the individual from deceit, fraud, and abuse of any kind.
mikebri527 1 year ago
@boggywoman Freidman is for freedom! Why are liberals like you always against people being free to make their own choices in life? Are you one of those types that waits for government permission to wipe your ass? I just don't get how your type is so in love with the government telling everyone what to do. I may be wrong, but I think that YOU think that YOU are very smart and don't need govt help, but everyone else (besides you) is an idiot that needs govt to direct their lives. Wake up!!
TheFreethinker71 1 year ago