Milton Friedman Debunking Myth Of The Great Depression part 3

[laughingtiger123]

Due to the destruction of the family unit and the importation of the dregs of 3rd world countries and their differing ethics... and the 60's Great Society that made government the bread winner instead of a father, we have a young population of semi-literate, unskilled, intellectually lazy, child-minded (running on vague impressions and appearances, a rather unemployable public of limited value to the workforce and the market.

[vkorchnoifan]

Now I know what is going on in Washington and why.

[smithwicktom]

milton friedman is insightful. his libertarian view on empowerment of the individual and the corrilation between free markets and this empowerment are accurate. time and again he sides with sytems that give more power to the individual. check out milton friedman & thomas sowell on equality, 3/3 6:28...listen to a minute or so to get the set up for his answer. the individual is the empowerment of god! this man was spiritual as heck. thanks for watching all. thanks for reading. be well.

[tessler6868]

LOL. no "part 4" -- the discussion of experts that take apart friedman's theory! typical "free market" manipulation ;)

[timberwulfzero]

Notice how he never makes mention of the Federal Reserve being a private corporation.

The Federal Reserve is bound by a profit motivation, just as all other Capitalist businesses are. Might this have been a good motivator for the strange behaviour of the Federal Reserve Bank. No gold standard, no limit to printing.

Milton made money off this notion of Capitalism being great, how is it any wonder that he defends it with lies of omission and half-truths?

He's defending his class interest. D'uh.

[tessler6868]

noticing your avitar, ahem,...i'd say soviet union proved pure communism won't fly, and friedman's free market economics eventually theories proved unregulated capitalism doesn't fly either.

[timberwulfzero]

My avatar is that of a hammer and sickle; the universal symbol of Communism.

The USSR had serious deficiencies from its onset, however, the post-1952 reforms shifted its economic policy to closely mirror a State-Monopoly Capitalism.

There hasn't been an actual Communist society aside from nomadic tribes and some Communes; primitive Communism.

However, that the USSR failed is no reason to conclude that Socialism is a failure. It means that the Soviet model doesn't work; I agree with that.

[tkwelge]

There is no official description of a pure communist country or pure capitalist country. It's not that these two ideologies worship a perfect idea, but they draw outlines for philosophy. Libertarianism doesn't refer to any specific government or the absence of it. It simply refers to some basic beliefs of private property and how a free market is supposed to operate. There are no promises of a perfect or smooth running system, and in some metrics it isn't even the best. But it is virtuous

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero How about Greece? That socialism has failed.

[timberwulfzero]

@LordoftheKaty; Greece is a Socialist state? I'd be all too pleased to hear you publically defend this statement.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero Panhellenic Socialist Movement is a Greek centre-left political party and the current majority party in the Greek Parliament. In 1981 PASOK formed the first socialist government in Greece's history, and subsequently governed the country for most of the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. PASOK served as the main opposition party between 2004 and 2009.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero It is a member of the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International. In the European Parliament it has 8 out of 22 Greek MEPs. On 31 January 2006, the party's president, George Papandreou, was elected President of the Socialist International, the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties. Following the 2009 legislative election, PASOK became the majority party and Papandreou became Prime Minister.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero In June 2009, PASOK won the 2009 European Parliament election in Greece. Four months later, the party enjoyed a resounding victory in the October 2009 general elections with 43.92 % of the popular vote to ND's 33.48 %, and 160 parliament seats to 91.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero There are the facts buddy.

[timberwulfzero]

@LordoftheKaty;

Socialism doesn't have as much to do with parlimentary compostion as it does with the economic structure of a society.

If you are suggesting that the principal means of production and distribution of wealth are being held in common ownership, then I would say that you are incorrect. Thus, Greece is not a Socialist society.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero So you flag one of mmy comments explaining how the political party in control is socialist and its membership with the European socialists and so on... Wow, bias much? lol, if that is your way of debate, hiding facts from everyone to further your argument then you aren't worthy to debate with.

[timberwulfzero]

@LordoftheKaty; I didn't flag any of your statements. To what end would I do this?

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero If not you then someone did, it doesn't matter.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero Yes, Greece is socialist! Becuase PASOK has majority rule they transformed the nation with broad socialistic policies. For instance, during A. Papandreou's leadership, wages were substantially boosted and capital gains were progressively taxed.

[timberwulfzero]

@LordoftheKaty; Greece is not Socialist because it does not meet the economic requirements to be considered a Socialism.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero It is because of socialism why Greece is in the state of calamity it is now! I've shown you how it is, now show me how it is not.

[timberwulfzero]

@LordoftheKaty; I have stated on multiple occasions that Greece does not fit the definition of a Socialist economy. You are illustrating the logical fallacy of "Converting a conditional."

Socialist societies have welfare measures. The Greek society has welfare measures. Therefore the Greek society is Socialist.

As you can see, this reasoning is flawed.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero Greece as well as many European nations are socialist and thats that.

[timberwulfzero]

@LordoftheKaty; Neither Greece, nor any other European country conform to the definition of a Socialism. Stating the contrary does not make it so.

My friendly advice is to study Socialism (at least know some definitions), and work to avoid logical fallacies in the future.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero And I bid thee farewell!

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero Obviously greece has a largely uncoerced segment of its economy. However, the government coercion, which you believe will free us all from "tyranny," drove their free economy into the toilet. Violent, government coercion is not a "natural" part of free markets, no matter how hard you try to make it so through mental gymnastics. The worldwide credit crunch is the natural result of the crime of fractional reserve banking combined with government thuggery.

[wizardjokes]

@tkwelge;

If you can explain how this conforms to the definition of Socialism, then I might take your ranting seriously.

Also, can you explain how wage slavery is uncoerced?

[tkwelge]

@wizardjokes Ranting? I'm not here to attack an ideology of "socialism." I'd rather talk about specific policy decisions and their effects. Wage "slavery" is uncoerced as nobody is being violently forced to comply. True, somebody may "need" a job, but one cannot complain that they are being forced to get a job anymore than they can complain that they are being forced to breathe oxygen. Sorry. I do recognize that Socialism is different from socialism, which is usually what I am talking abou

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero Because of their deficits from expanded welfare and social programs, they were forced to cut spending and programs, which I think you are refering to as justification for Greece not being "socialist."

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero Due to an enormous deficit, in 2010 the prime minister and leader of PASOK has promoted cuts in social welfare, cuts in salaries in both private and public sectors, and a further shift of the tax base to lower quintiles, which are not traditionally social democratic policies.

[LordoftheKaty]

@tkwelge ROTFLMFAO XD!!! Do you also know that anyone can edit anything on wikipedia. Simply because of that I am not allowed to do research from it for my college courses. lol, and yes, the Fed is privately owned, try doing actual independent research into it.

[tkwelge]

@LordoftheKaty Except wikipedia has been statistically shown to be more accurate than most "true" encyclopedias. Dude, you can go fuck yourself. I'm don't see why you had to get all bitchy with me. It's hard to see exactly how the Federal reserve is operating as a completely private institution. It is quasi government. Would you call fannie and freddie private institutions? I'm not trying to defend the federal reserve by calling it a public institution. THe opposite is the case.

[LordoftheKaty]

@tkwelge Those are just the facts, and Freddie and Fannie are government run institutions as is the post office and Amtrak, all under the red right now. But yes, collectively several banking institutions own the Fed, I highly recommend you do research into its begining.

[tkwelge]

@LordoftheKaty Oh, so fannie and freddie are public but the fed is private? You are drawing some pretty fuzzy lines. Fannie and Freddie were private corporations almost completely until the credit crunch. THey existed with an unspoken air of government support, but had no direct government control. I've done research into the fed. What is your argument? You haven't mentioned one direct fact to me. All you have said is, "the fed is private, do some research dummy."

[LordoftheKaty]

@tkwelge Yes the Fed is private, and yes, at the begining Fannie and Freddie were private subprime mortgage institutions until the crash. But you said it yourself, they had government support, or a government sponsered enterprise (GSE), which was made for the purpose of toxic subprime loans, which the gov with the Community Reinvestment act of 77 forced banks to make to unqualified people. Then the Fed took over it.

[tkwelge]

@LordoftheKaty Fannie and Freddie are still run as private corporations for the benefit of private shareholders. The Fed receives more government support than anybody else, as it has special permissions that nobody else has. The Fed is a public institution that appears to be privately owned, however it is not run as a true corporation, nor is it subject to the realities of true market economics.

[LordoftheKaty]

@tkwelge Here are some of the Feds owners: Rothschild Bank of London, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York....

[LordoftheKaty]

@tkwelge After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation.

[LordoftheKaty]

@tkwelge When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied refering to the FED, "I have unwittingly ruined my country."

[nosajsmas]

@timberwulfzero Speaking of omission, you fail to mention the fact that the fed's board of directors is appointed by elected officials. Should I use pejorative terms such as "lies of omission"?

[timberwulfzero]

@nosajsmas;

I fail to see the relevancy of these appointments in relation to my comments. Since when are the people being appointed not already tight with financial capitalism?

Thanks for the trivia.

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero It's all part of your two step. Government involvement doesn't make something "not capitalism." However, any market involvement makes something "not socialism."

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; The crudest way of determining the economic structure of a country is simply to ask, "who owns the principal means of production?" There are other factors to be considered, but the answer to this question is a decent indicator.

I expect that you have another method for making this determination? Perhaps you come to your conclusions by watching Fox News?

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero Dude F u. I don't watch fox news. You are such a doofus. If people are using the government apparatus to control the means of production in a way that wouldn't occur in a truly free market, than it can be said that the factors of production are being socialistically directed. Whether it is an elite from a wealthy class that is doing the directing via government or just a government bureaucracy acting alone, the result is the same and it is both socialistic.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; Your definition of socialism seems to define a plutocracy; rule by the wealthy. This is congruent with our observations of state monopoly capitalism.

What you seem unwilling to accept is that this form of capitalism has evolved naturally from its lower forms. Upon its founding, the government of the United States of America was responsible for foreign relations and postal service.

How can you explain the current state of affairs based on the libertarian beginnings of the USA?

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero No, my definition of socialism is more akin to rule by an elite. An elite will often be wealthy, but that is happenstance. You can call something "state monopoly capitalism" all that you like, but it is simply just conservative socialism. "State monopoly capitalism" didn't evolve from its "lower form" as it preceded better systems of classically liberal free markets being realized.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; Your definition is poor. Why not use a more precise word, such as an oligarchy, or plutocracy?

State monopoly capitalism fits the current conditions very well. It describes a merger of the state and monopoly enterprises under the economic system of capitalism.

Are you suggesting that the current material conditions have sprung forth from nothingness?

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero If one defines capitalism as a free market system, you cannot call a system in which a group of elites are backed up by the coercion of government violence "capitalism." I never said that current material conditions have sprung forth from nothingness. You are making lots of rhetorical arguments and are trying to draw me into a purely rhetorical discussion. Oligarchies backed by government force are not capitalism. Pure and simple.

[tkwelge]

@tkwelge State monopoly is socialism pure and simple. Anything involving state (supposedly "public") control of factors of production is socialism. Even if the factors of production are being controlled for the benefit of a minority, socialism is still occurring.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; You're right, which is why I refer to it as a "state monopoly capitalism."

To elaborate, I call it capitalism because that is how this group of ruling elites has come to power. It is also the underlying mechanism by which this ruling elite continues to expropriate the value created by workers.

This is why I find it bizzare for you to refer to oligarchy as "socialism." How can you justify this use of the word?

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero Ruling elites may have been "capitalists" at some point, but they clearly used the PUBLIC sphere to elevate and maintain their power. That is why I use the word socialism. PUBLIC control of factors of production maintains their power, where competition and a real market would have put them into the poorhouse decades ago. Oligarchy's can be socialist or "capitalist." Hardly a bizarre concept.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; What metaphysical process have these capitalists gone through to become budding Bolsheviks? The ruling elite have out-competed the competition, though they have done so through (what could be seen as) unorthodox methods.

Is it really your position that there are "rich, greedy people" and then there are capitalists?

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero The Federal Reserve does not represent "capitalism", it represents a form of mercantilism and an oligarchy to control the economy of the US. Of course, guess who owns a majority of interests in the fed? The Rothchilds who own most of the central banking cartels of the world in order to rule everyone.

[timberwulfzero]

@LordoftheKaty;

State Monopoly Capitalism is a natural evolution of earlier stages of Capitalism. The drive towards accumulation and condensation, which are central to Capitalism, have given rise to powerful families and cartels which own the majority of Earth's resources.

In my opinion, the best way out is the abolition of the private ownership of the primary means of production and distribution of wealth. After this is accomplished, these common means must be placed under democratic control.

[LordoftheKaty]

@timberwulfzero State monopoly capitalism is not even true capitalism, its corporatism or protectionism or mercantilism, that is the system we have. I am not going to change your opinion because it is YOUR opinion and if that is what you want to think, then go ahead, I'm not going to force you to change.

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero Wow, so anything that is remotely related to capitalism is capitalism. Anything that isn't "the true definition of socialism," is capitalism. You've built yourself a tight little ideological box there sir....

[wizardjokes]

@tkwelge;

If it doesn't fit the definition, then it doesn't fit the definition. The definitions of Capitalism and Socialism deal primarily with the ownership of the means of production.

In Greece, are the principal means of production and distribution of wealth held in common ownership through the state? No.

In Greece, are the principal means of production and distribution of wealth held in private ownership? Yes.

Conclusion, Greece is a Capitalist economy regardless of social spending.

[tkwelge]

@wizardjokes It really depends on what you consider "private ownership." A government protected elite that owns at the behest of government technocrats and legislators who deprive some for the sake of others and routinely rigs the market system can hardly be called "capitalism." The definition of socialism doesn't say that all of the factors of production have to be publicly controlled. Any control of the factors of production by public institutions can be considered socialistic.

[tkwelge]

@tkwelge Can it really be said that the factor of production are "privately owned" when the government tells property owners what they can and can't build on their property, who they can and can't sell their property to, what they can and can't do on their property, and how much the government will receive at time of sale of the property? Not to mention that the government regularly expropriates value from the property to spend on things that the "owner" may or may not agree with.

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero The best way to fix the problems created by a federal reserve whose creation was backed by government force is to use more force and expropriate more property rights from rightful owners? The best way out to me is to return to a natural gold standard in which the people of a nation control the money supply and not elitist minders backed by government force. The rise of true modern capitalism actually came after the destruction of mercantilism that held it back.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; To what end would a government create an unaccountable, non-government agency which controls its currency (and thus, effectively the government)?

This question is answered fairly easily once we understand the class composition of the American political elite.

It can be understood intuitively that politics is a game for "rich, white men." These wealthy characters are from the Capitalist class, and they use their government authority to enrich themselves.

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero The federal reserve is backed up by the treasury and is full of government appointees. There is no such thing as "the capitalist class" as all classes, especially the poor, engage in capitalistic behavior. If by capitalist class, you mean the rich, I agree, but the rich who are rich due to government manipulation are different from the the rich who would become rich under actual, non coerced competition.

[tkwelge]

@tkwelge To answer your first question, I'd point out that the purpose of the federal reserve has always been to control markets, create an apparatus for the mass pyramiding of credit on a small amount of reserves, and to create a guaranteed customer for the government debt. The purpose of the federal reserve is to create a publicly directed banking cartel that makes the mass printing of fiat currency possible. These are all socialistic goals.

[tkwelge]

@tkwelge The only way that a government could create a successful fiat currency and borrow money to infinity is through the creation of a federal reserve. The federal reserve doesn't need to be directly controlled, as it can be expected to do what it was created to do: purchase government debt and create money out of thin air while creating an illusion of solvency in the largely made up banking system.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; Perhaps you haven't heard of the "revolving door" in politics? I suggest you bulk up on your real world observations.

The working class is coerced into operating in a capitalist market economy. Non-participation might mean misery in North America, however it can mean death in many other parts of the world. This is the coercive nature of capitalism; thinly veiled death threats.

You seem to be unaware of the profit motivation. All things are subbordinate to profit under capitalism.

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero SO if you don't produce anything and you can't force somebody to give you stuff, then you are coerced into operating in a capitalist market economy? Not all things are subordinate to "profit" as what determines profit is what people desire, which is a purely subjective matter. You have a purely objectivistic view of markets. I've heard of the revolving door in politics, but I prefer that most decisions aren't made politically, but via markets.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; It doesn't matter if we are going to discuss the objective or subjective value of a commodity. The working class produces the vast majority of consumer goods; if not for the working class, then the capitalists would exchange mere sweet nothings into eachothers ears, flutter their eyelashes, and call it "value." (see financial capitalists.)

I admit the usefulness of supply and demand, as well as other market mechanisms, in determining price. However, only Human labour can create value.

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero It isn't just commodities that are exchanged. Most the things that the rich make profit from involve selling to the poor or middle class. The poor and middle class have amazing amounts of power as consumers. The wealthy don't just exchange with eachother. They especially couldn't exchange sweet nothings into each others ears and call it value, as value is based on the subjective view of the recipient. Human labor doesn't create value, only subjective views of recipients can.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; Actually, only commodities can be exchanged in a market. (To be a commodity something has to have an exchange value and a use value.)

The "poor" and "middle" classes have no ability to choose outcomes outside of the capitalist market. I'm not sure how the qualifies as "amazing amounts of power."

The fruit of a tree which remains unpicked has no value. The machine on a shop floor creates not value while idle. Human labour can create value though; it is the only source of value.

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero Nobody forces them to work in any specific capacity and nobody forces the poor or middle class to purchase anything against their will. That gives them tremendous personal power. Anything has value as long as somebody desires it. "Use value" is largely an imaginary concept, as the value of anything is determined subjectively by the recipient. Why the recipient values something is neither here nor there. It is purely personal. Nothing has objective value.

[tkwelge]

@tkwelge If you mean "commodity" by anything that can be exchanged, than I guess that anything could be a commodity. Nothing "has" to have a use value. The reasons why somebody values something is purely personal to them. Human labor doesn't create any value. Only human desire creates value. WHat a person creates is irrelevant. How much somebody desires their creation is the main determining factor for undertaking the creation in the first place.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; No one is directly coercing people to work, no. Though, on the other hand, people have no choice but to work. How else will people satisfy their needs and desires?

Use value is "subjective" value. It is "the want-satisfying power of a good or service in classical political economy."

[tkwelge]

@timberwulfzero Nobody is free from that level of coercion. The only way to obtain resources for use is 1)to produce them yourself, 2)to exchange personal production for the productions of others, or 3) to take them by force. You can argue that your stomach coerces you into eating food, but I don't think your stomach will care much. No man is an island, and under any system, people are "forced" to do things that they may not want to do just to survive.

[tkwelge]

@tkwelge Yes, the entire concept of use value is purely subjective.  It can't be measured or quantified. It really can't be defined in any concrete way. What's the point of even discussing use value then, as the only measurable value is exchange value? Any valuation other than exchange value is useless to the cooperative economic structure. The government can try to impose a "societal use value" on goods and services, but that would just be backed up with government violence.

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; Naturally, exchange value is quantifiable; it is the sum of its inputs. Those inputs are constant capital (factories, tools, raw materials) and variable capital (labour power).

This being said, how can value spring from equal exchange? Does it stand to reason that an exchange of 3 dollars in currency for 3 dollars of bread creates value?

What is a "societal use value"?

[timberwulfzero]

@tkwelge; You're leaving out the most common method of obtaining the means of subsistance: wage labour. (Not the same as number two, as workers tend to be alienated from their own labour.)

Is it your position that it is impossible to reach the level of production required to eliminate scarcity of the means of subsistance?

[donteatthefishsticks]

@tkwelge If you live under a banana tree in the caribbean with plentiful fish and other food around you you will find you don't need to work much in order to live. And you can work at your leisure. The system of landed property and more specifically the condition of propertylessness has destroyed the right of the people to live in this way and is the reason people are forced to work for others at terms dictated by others, to pay rent or mortgage to some other. Propertylesness is slavery.

[tkwelge]

@donteatthefishsticks Yes, when resources are superabundant, property rights make little sense. It isn't like we can get rid of property and then BAM we'd all be sunning ourselves under banana trees. In our world, resources are not super abundant, so one person ignoring another's property rights is infringing upon that person's right to support themselves.

[donteatthefishsticks]

@tkwelge I agree. Thomas Paine proposed something called "agrarian justice," whereby the propertied pay a small indemnity to the dispossessed, in the form of everyone receiving a guaranteed minimum income. This is the simplest, fairest and most effective way of "redistributing wealth" and of sustaining demand in times of recession. It's a dividend paid out based on everyone owning shares of the country. Alaska has a similar program except the dividends paid out aren't big enough to live on.

[IstilGotGame]

a clever plan by the fed to abolish the gold standard