Milton Friedman Interview: A Productive Global Economy

[RockSprinkle]

"You don't have to say that" - What a douche!

[BoniusRx]

so let me get this straight its 2005, the height of the bubble created by counterfeit (fiat)money pumped into the economy by the Fed and he thinks they saved the economy? yeah right he's a genious.

Capitalism doesn't work when their are counterfeiters at the top... pay attention stupid.

[1888junkteam]

excellent work!

[imstillalive0331]

that highjacking has very little to do with the free market. it is government regulation that gave them their advantages because they paid for those kinds of regulations.

[parrotsnest]

Dumbest comment I've read in a loooong time. Congrats.

[liber8me]

actually im sorry to burst your bubble but it was the government forcing banks to give loans to people who obviously could not afford them that created the GFC. government interference in the free market created the GFC, not the other way around.

oh, and that's big of you to criticize the australian economic system when we were pretty much the only country in the world not to go into recession.

[liber8me]

i didnt say anything about the minimum wage - i said that it was the government forcing the banks of wall street to give loans to people who could not afford them. that's the opposite of the free market and caused the GFC

[liber8me]

when you have the government forcing banks to give loans to people who obviously cannot afford them because the government is trying to appear "caring" its not wall street fucking things up - its the government interfering in the free market and fucking things up.

[liber8me]

first of all a free market is the opposite of a dictatorship - no one tells you what to buy or who to work for.

secondly, the new deal did not make one bit of difference and in many ways it made things worse. the only thing that brought america out of the depression was the second world war.

finally - society always prospers when the gap between rich and poor is reduced? you'll find it most societies what happens is EVERYONE is better off. you'd rather everyone be poorer and close together

[FCmagic01]

@jaguarclaw if you believe we have a free market, capitalistic system right now then you are just plain wrong. Third world countries have sweatshops because....look at their gov't, all far left statist regimes! If these countries had minimum wage levels, they would have no jobs at all!! Take China for example, the gov't holds down the value of the Yuan, keeping the people impoverished. If free markets were allowed to work, and the peg on their currency was removed, those workers wages go up.

[FCmagic01]

@jaguarclaw a free market dictatorship, what planet are you living on?

Obama is a joke, just like Bush was.

[DarthKazi]

Wow. Milton Friedman is totally wrong. Too bad he died before he could see this "stable monetary policy on the behalf of the Fed" erupt into what we have today.

Give me a break.

If you want genius, watch Murray Rothbard

[michaelpshipley1]

i agree. he was wrong.

[DarthKazi]

Funny how all the fraudulent economic illiterates who love Friedman gave me negative comments. If they would just research his Chicago School (including neocon nuts like Strauss), they'd realize that the "free" market they advocate is a fascist corporate state.

What about Friedman's "minimum income floor" welfare program he considered in the 1970's?

Hardly a "government off our backs" laissez-faire guy.

[magdamagda999]

darthkazi no, friedman does not advocate a facist corporate state. facism is when there is private ownership but state control. only those who "go along" with what the gov wants can be in business. this is characteristic of musolini's brand of facism; it is not a free market philosophy.

friedman was an advocate of separation of business and state, i.e., private/public ventures, etc.

[rczeien]

@DarthKazi Nothing could be further from the truth. He supported the negative income tax because it's less economically harmful then other programs, because people would be spending their own money. Also, He fought special interest and privileges for corporations for years. Watch his interviews about special interests. Watch free to choose. He helped get rid of the draft. He helped get rid of all sorts of special privileges for industry insiders.

[Justbeatit999]

Yes I have to agree. Alot of ideas of mr Friedman sound very pro freedom. But his beliefs about government and central banking are simply wrong and anti freedom. Anarcho capitalism like Murray Rothbard advocated it, sounds more like TRUE freedom to me.

[magdamagda999]

justbeatit

anarcho-capitalism? anarchism is not a stable form of governance. you need stability to a certain degree in order for people to engage in trade to begin with.

i would propose you consider that there is no absolute "freedom," and that freedom exists within boundaries. that boundary in this regard is a social contract with a limited governing body and the rule of law.

[Justbeatit999]

You statist fascists always crack me up.

First: I agree that anarchism is not a stable form of governance is. That is because anarchists DON'T advocate governance. Where do you get the right to govern someone elses life.

Second: If a constitution kept a government small and limited then why does government always freaking grow? And why shoud I live the laws that a few old man made up for a entire people about 300 years ago. I believe that the earth belongs to the living, not the dead.

[321lawc]

@Justbeatit999 Please go to a protest and video tape yourself getting beat up. That always gives me a good laugh.

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

What are you talking about? How are you contributing something to this discussion?

[321lawc]

@Justbeatit999 Anarchy deserves nothing but ridicule. And that is my contribution to society.

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

So you hate freedom? Because that is what the word anarchism means in latin; without rulers. The believe that every human being owns his or her own life and should be in total control of his/here own destiny.

[321lawc]

@Justbeatit999 Hilarious. So can an anarchist society put up a satellite into space? Can it provide all the functions that society does now? If so, what's the fucking difference? You just want to get rid of the cops lol?

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

Clearly you don't know anything about anarchism but reject it just from your own ideas about it. I wonder where mankind would be if we all thought like you. We would probably still be living in caves and admire some kind of nature-god (not that there is anything wrong with religion). I reject socialism/communism, but atleast I have read enough about it to know what socialism/communism means. My advice to you; go read something.

[321lawc]

@Justbeatit999 I really haven't found any evidence that your pipe dream is worth wasting my time reading about. It seems nothing but absurd. A dream that no one can really define ,but portray it as legitimate nonetheless. Though, I guess I could for a laugh. Point me in the direction of your best Anarchist "intellectual" and I'll give it a shot.

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

Murray Rothbard.

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

And then all was quiet....

[321lawc]

@Justbeatit999 You're so silly.

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

I thought you were going to go for a debate to refute my insane theory. I quote "Point me in the direction of your best Anarchist "intellectual" and I'll give it a shot.". I did my part; Murray Rothbard.....

[321lawc]

@Justbeatit999 To debate your theory you need to give me what you think its goals are. If the only goal of anarchy is to have anarchy then, well, I guess it's a great success. Now, if you want to claim that anarchy will usher in world peace and man's manifest destiny of ruling the universe through technological progress then we'd have something to debate about. But it appears that anarchists are just sort sighted and want to get rid of "the state" for the sake of it.

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

The goal of anarchism is a just world. Already read up on murray rothbard?

[321lawc]

@Justbeatit999 Well fuck that, I don't want a just world. I want exterminate Islam, barbarians; and create a global technocracy.

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

You wan't to kill people just because you simply don't agree with them?

[321lawc]

@Justbeatit999 Yes. It's called survival. Now run along and go masturbate to anarchist culture.

[Justbeatit999]

@321lawc

There is something really wrong with you, do you know that?

[tuntitommosille]

@Justbeatit999 Free market economy with a minimal amount of government is the closest you will get to a just world. Any other type of "just" involves stealing from one person and giving it to someone else, as well as deterioration of society because there is no incentive for anyone to do anything.

[SantaBarbaraDianne]

@tuntitommosille sounds like common sense to me.

Government depends on corp america to elect the leaders, get the taxes to pay for it, and then they stab it in the back by telling ppl it is corrupt and must be regulated (to death so socialism can slip in via bailouts) Only the biggest cronies can survive--see how GE and Boeing is being helped w/the India trip.

[unfad1ng]

@tuntitommosille

as far as we know we are yet to come up with a better system

[unfad1ng]

@Justbeatit999

Anarchism wount work because it would create a society much like nature where only the strongest survive and where you constantly have to fear for you life and struggle for survival and if you want that you might aswell go live in the forest.

[Nintendomanwill]

Anarcho capitalism is the natural estate of mankind.Study of the workings of market forces made people advocate utter liberalism because those forces work best when the product of no intervention in the economy of profitable individuals. But as market forces exist in a non capitalist world wherein mercantilism, communism and even liberal states distort the free market. Constitutionally liberal govt must destory the fetterers of capitalsim, then the state can go, then we can all be free/wealthy

[GirlyVoice]

It would have been nice to see his response if he was asked this today.

[ilkkavu]

he had about one year life left on that video.

[Thrice13]

Milton Friedman is a genious

[sony8877]

genius

[yahoovisitor]

USA is taking the line of creating political, financial, social, & religious stunts that play a vital role in moving forward for its global destruction policies to carry out. US govt has slaved its own nation. Born free taxed to death. $ will not be the global currency any more as declared in G-20 meeting. Internationally global policies of politics & trade are quickly changing. If USA wants to keep standing where it was it will have to leave the war track & not violate global peace any more.

[Galt425]

Yeah, sticking the twin towers up in the way of those poor terrorists was the kind of aggression that must be stopped.

(Don't just feel the sarcasm, realize that a good portion of the Jihadists actually believe that US success, that US ability to construct a financial center is actually "the problem"...)

[FUZZYisBIG]

Really? I mean, having US forces in your country conducting regulalr bombing runs can't have anything to do with it. Fundamentialist movements like the Islamic ones today thrive on interventionism like that of the US. Do you really think someone dumb enough to be a fundamentalist Muslim who takes Jihad seriously has enough intelligence to think 'the US financial centre is the problem'

Please...

[Galt425]

Go watch al jazeera or any other outlet used by the organizations who lauded the bombing and take them at their word. (You're welcome).

[FUZZYisBIG]

Again, why are you Americans incapable of just applying some basic logic to anything?

Read this very slowly. Islamic fundamentalism exists today for one reason: US interventionism. Radicilastion of a people is relatively easy when you have foreign forces interfering all the time.

Is this graspable for you? Or does al Jazeera represent the etire Arab world and Barack Obama is a Muslim...

[zudoz]

How does that account for the constant attacks by Islamic fundamentalists throughout Indonesia for years?

No, their goal has been the same for centuries: SUBMIT (which is the english translation of the word Islam). That U.S. culture is a large threat to their quest for global domination makes it big target, too. Perhaps the only one You see.

[Bearny29]

Really Genius,,,,The US has only been around 230+ yrs, Jihad and the islamic fundamentalist has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. It might be that that they can't get along with anyone because their belief system is such that no one that believes differently than them deserves to continue to walk on this earth. Stop slamming the greatest country and experiment in Freedom that the world has ever known and educate yourself on what the poor picked on Muslims real problem is. Them.

[FUZZYisBIG]

Im not even going to qualify your neopatriotism with a proper answer. My post made it all very clear to understand. Let me guess, you're from Texas and watch Fox news?

The morality if Islam is irrelvent, I disagree with it because to me absolulte subervience is not faith. Christianity is a bit closer because part of the process is is faith through doubt. For Islam doubt itself is sin. But thats another argument.

Radicalism thrives when you give a few ragheads a reason to piss everyone off.

[magdamagda999]

oh good lord you are 24 and think you understand geopolitical gyrations that began before you were even born. good lord!

go read eric hoffer's book, "true believer: thoughts on mass movements."

[FUZZYisBIG]

Having lived in the middle easta nd spent a considerable time there, I think I am far better qualified to judge what creates fundamnetalist movements then reneck political theorists on youtube.

But the good Lord don't want you admitting that/

[08MVPyouKnowWho]

This guy looks like a younger Donald Rumsfeld

[primelimelite]

oops! is right -- you've just subtly demonstrated how land is a separate factor of production and yet a form of capital!

[ourearthhome]

I know that those who insist that land is not a separate factor of production and instead is merely a kind of capital do not like to hear that one of the results of economics progress, i.e. productivity, is that land values are driven up. This explains why the benefits of economic progress have never been shared broadly enough to quell all disaffection with the status quo. Land is owned by no more than half the people and all the truly valuable land and natural resources is monopolized. Oops!

[1978RDC21]

Why would you say "monopolized"? Isn't land bought and sold regularly? In fact I bet you could get a pretty decent bargain on some land at the moment.

And you are forgetting land that is nationalized, or private land that has government enforced restrictions.

Does your statement about land being owned by half the people reference the entire world, or your own country, or a specific set of countries?

[ourearthhome]

Good questions. More precisely land is highly concentrated in ownership in the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations. This applies to the most valuable land under cities world wide and natural resources. The percentage mentioned was regarding the US where between 50-60% of people are said to own homes which necessarily means ownership of at least a small piece of land. The point is that all land VALUE is created 100% by the community as a whole and not by individual "owners".