Rumsfeld is the head of a corporation. It's in his interests for the govt to be able to defend him from "unfair trade" so that he personally can make more money.
I can't believe that anyone up on that stage, aside from Milton Friedman, was taken seriously. Listening to the nonsense that these people are spewing, it's no wonder why so many people believe that there is this academic conspiracy to turn us all into Marxists.
Like a typical Jew he brings up the "homogeneous" argument for why certain cultures are able to perform seemingly successful government partnership with business, like Japan at the time of this video and China today. Our society would be more homogeneous if it weren't for the Jew working to undermine cultural unity. Not to mention, it is really based on racism. In India, Japan, China, etc. there is plenty diversity. Only if you see "homogeneous" as more racially aligned doe this make sense. BS
Milton kills it at the end. He explains what the entire Occupy movement needs to understand at 55:50. Capitalism and free markets are not the problem. Rather it is crony-capitalism and special interest.
Milton was right, look at Britain, it didnt take long after this video was made, for taxpayers to say enough, we dont want to pay for something that is not profitable!
Another Nobel-winning economist, James Buchanan, proposed the same constitutional restrains on the power of the government to regulate trade. Buchanan invented public choice theory, a field which uses economic analysis to study political systems. Buchanan showed that it is impossible to fix things through government--that is, through clown in Washington.
stupid socialist, if he listened like the twat he is he would have heard Prof (Free your stupid counuuntry liberal ass) own his cunt face with a five yeurrrrr "phase yo ass out" plan. Uncle Milty then proceeded to hand you your intellectually migitizing presents for the year fillin yo strrrrkkins wit reason, stats and stanky logic. Signed, Lil' Free
For long I had been influenced by Marx. In India our school syllabus advertises marxism. Our history and political science textbooks glorify communism and blind equality. Economics glorify Keynesian methodologies. Its here that I was introduced to Friedman's lectures. I feel I am very fortunate to get a dose of reality. He was 1 million times better than many of the people who are automatically treated as intellectual just for being leftist.
Rugby736. Did you listen to your own words? If the US didn't subsidize farming , Mexican farmers could prosper! It's not the freemarket.thats the enemy, its government involvement that's the problem
I agree with Deason at 50:00. Mexican agriculture has suffered as the result of the removal of tariffs because the U.S. subsidizes agribusiness making difficult for Mexican farmers to compete. This result is unemployment in Mexico and subsequent illegal immigration to the U.S. That process has turned people to lawlessness. That situation is an example of the real world consequences of government promoting free trade at the expense of the working and middle classes.
And look at things now? has centralisation of economy gotten us any better? no it has gone down the pan. Friedman and the business man stand corrected. A government is incompetent at understanding what people want. My only regret is that it took people this fucking long to understand his logic....and now he is gone...
Free trade will lead to higher unemployment, there is no doubt about that. But, in my opinion, since people will be free to buy cheaper products, they can spend their money on other products, which would create employment opportunities with the other expanding industries. High tariffs lead to less purchasing power, which increases unemployment anyway, yet no one seems to really care since the left view this as a "just and moral" response to "protecting the workers." I'd rather have free trade.
The reason being that the world's natural resources are not distributed uniformly. Certain nations have direct access to rare earth elements (China) while others have access to fertile ground (Midwest USA) while still others have access to oil. Increasing free trade makes those resources more freely available, thus allowing the world as a whole to be more productive.
I find it interesting that @30:11 The Director of Economic Studies at The World Bank says: "It is true that in the long run we would all be better off with free trade, I agree With Milton; but it's the short run that matters". I would ask, how then, can we do what's best for the long run by only focusing on what's best in the short run? We cant. The statement she made is an oxymoron in complete contradiction of itself. The short term solutions are usually socialistic and emotionally driven.
All the arguments against free markets is actually true for socialism. Ever since socialist policies were implemented in North America, the wealth has all gone to the top.
I was surprised at how intelligent he was back then...
It's also ironic the way that as a government worker be turned into the exact kind of inefficient worker that he talked about back in this video from the standpoint of an efficient businessman.
@RonDukeSilverSwanson Anyone who, for any reason whatsoever, doesn't like someone in a position of authority can say what you said about Rumsfeld. One could even call it a cheap shot.
This one debate was particularly messy from both sides. No big argument was done, as opposed to the previous one. Even Friedman played a little with the viewers' minds when he said there were no big corporations in sight in Hong Kong. Free trade may be part of the reason, but another might be that no business in that little piece of land can grow big enough to exploit resources. Since, as he said, there are no natural resources there.
this idiot is in electronics? tell me his brand i will avoid it. how can someone argue against rumsfeld and actually make him look smart? this is amazing.
I feel bad and a little embarrassed for the IBEW union guy. He' s clearly in over his head and sometimes doesn't seem to be following the conversation.
@DK0526 Do you know how far Leninism/Stalinism/Bolshevism is from Marx's ideas? Have you even read anything he wrote? I don't even agree with him but I have to defend him from this crazy misrepresentation, it's retarded. He thought certain stages of sociological development were inevitable (wrong), he thought an uprising of the proletariat was the only way forward (wrong). He never advocated anything like Stalin's totalitarianism. Authoritarianism can be left or right, as can libertarianism!
@Nihilarity Yes I have read Marx and it is his system that is the source of corruption. It is common to constantly defend the marxist philosphy by saying that it just was tried by the right guy or that it was Stalin or whoever that screwed up true marxism...The fact remains that everytime it is tried it fails. Everyone who trys to implement marx fails. Millions get killed, ecomonies are ruined, freedoms crushed and there continues to be defenders who will try and blame the evil on capitalism!
@DK0526 Marx was not the beginning (and is not the end) of socialism. Why are most examples of communism authoritarian? Maybe because they were spread by the USSR? Maybe because any state that developed any socialist leanings, at all, was instantly set upon by the two super-powers? Tell me, what is the specific, major flaw in the idea of collective ownership?? What is sacred about private ownership? Can you just not countenance anything other than what you've been brought up with?
@Nihilarity Its as simple as non zero sum game theory and evolutionary survival of the fittest. Any system of trade that ignores these concepts is doomed to failure. The gov or socialist role should be limited to enforcer of law that make the initial economic situation fair from the start, There is no role to see equality of out come. There is only a very limited role to make sure basic laws arent broken. Beyond that the gov is an active player and a punisher of success. Society then fails.
@DK0526 Nice repetition of your views, what in that proves any premise? Evolution is an emergent regulatory system for non-intelligent entities - we're a bit beyond that now, don't you think? Do you imagine that you'd end up on top in a darwinistic system - is that it? Your own self-interest?? Should we allow any dirty trick from whomever is smart enough to learn and exploit it? Is the parasitism of the rich somehow good for our ecosystem? The emporer is naked and you won't admit it! Seriously!
@Nihilarity You just can't deny reality just because you don't like it! Socialism is a failure its as simple as that. You will just have to accept the truth or continue to sound like a left wing fool.
@DK0526 Socialism isn't about simply paying out to people who haven't earned it. 'Redistribution' is a total misnomer. Redistribution is what businesses do, they siphon the wealth of products from the people who produced them through their hard work, to the free-riding capitalist owners. Socialism is about stopping this vicious cycle, whereby the rich get richer and the poor poorer. It's about giving people back some of what they have created together, and what has been stolen from them.
@Nihilarity Perhaps in theory that is what socialism is about but not in practice. Case in point. I knew a gov worker who had a very bad problem with alcohol. He missed work often and when he worked he was usually drunk. He did contribute about 20% of what the avg person did. He last for almost 20 yrs. He was terminated and put on disability retirement for alcoholism. He died 6mts later. At work he needed to be sober some what at some times. On the SSI he didnt have to do anything but drink>
@DK0526 That's a tragic tale, but it's much sadder for him and his family than for you or any other tax-payer. As an alcoholic he'd have been totally f*cked in a free-market with no protection for those with problems. Work doesn't solve problems like that, it creates them through it's unrewarding, unhealthy, unprofitable, unpleasant drudgery. That's the problem of marxists and labour movements; they glorify work. There isn't enough work and never will be. It's the flaw of your system and theirs.
@Nihilarity No its sad for me because I knew the guy and tried to help him. He was a friend and SSI enabled him to waste his life away it took away any possible reason for him to "in his mind to remain sober" He was on easy street. No more job to be sober for. No reason to be a productive member of society. He really was trying to sober up he hated the way he felt in the mornings at work. On SSI he just slept it off. Out of benevolence the system killed him. I have many more life examples.
Another words you need government compliance, tinkering, "management", or corruption to make a bad monopoly happen. Without Gov tinkering you could get a good natural monopoly but thats not a bad thing. However, if they become bad then natural competition and will eventually run them out of business. If they break laws then the gov has an oblegation to step in. I do believe in some government but a very limited gov. Since they have so much power to corrupt. They make and enforce absolute law.
To your previous point that rich people get richer...I forgot to mention another type of monopoly (a natural monopoly) which occurs when 1 company does better then anyone else at providing a product/service within the bounds of quality and price that are most efficient. Natural monopolys are good and last as long as they are the best. All other monopolys including formerly natural ones are coercive and need government manipulation to crush competitors. Absent gov corruption u get competition>>
@DK0526 Natural, good monopolies?! Innovation helps businesses grow, but it's sheer size that maintains monopolies. The economies of scale and the dependence of their suppliers on their business locks out competition. A competitive environment has to be actively maintained - it's like a garden, weeds grow too fast and choke out more desirable plants. Of course government does a terrible job of this, but it's because of the monopolists' tendrils, politics is crawling with them. Money is power.
@Nihilarity I guess it boils down to a chicken and the egg argument. Which came first corrupt business or corrupt government. You maintain the business. I dont see money or trade as evil to me they are tools devoid of emotion. Money can be used to buy a life saving surgery or hire a hit man. The same applies to trade and capitalism which is to me the same. It is people who are moral or immoral. They make the choices of good and evil. While business controls trade, Gov controls people and >>>
>>and business and everything for that matter. The implied limit on a businesses power is competition from other businesses. and yes gov in the form of laws regs and courts. Who puts the gov in check? There really isnt much competition. 2 parties that look very much like a bi-monopoly. Ask your self what company can run on trillion dollar deficets and still give itself bonuses for such a fine job. The recent banking crisis is a direct result of fed policy and freddie mac, fannie mae, the CRA.
@Nihilarity even with economies of scale and size competition keeps all businesses in check. The rail roads may have been run by monopolists like JP Morgan with help from the Gov but out of left field came the car and ford. There was many who thought Block buster needed anti-monopoly regulation then came red box and then net flix. We all benefit from these new technologies as a result of the competition. The gov monopoly that is the post office is being erased by email. No monopoly is safe!
@DK0526 So it's okay for oligarchs to run the world as long as it's only for a few decades at a time? I share your distrust of government, I don't think their authority is legitimate - but I don't think the power that accumulated wealth can give a person is legitimate either. Politicians are accountable, and they are responsible for ensuring the well-being of all their citizens, especially those at the bottom of the stack. Most of these laws that friedmanites want rid of are there precisely >>>
@Nihilarity Its better to have a monopoly for a few decades rather then a few centuries. I'd rather be controlled in my train choices then in every aspect of my life. Not that I want anyone telling me what to do or taking my freedoms away. Freedom to choose is what makes life worth living. Governments are the single greatest infringment of human freedoms every where in the world through out most of civilized history.
@DK0526 ...to ensure that people don't suffer and die because of the wealth-concentrating and exploitative actions of business and the market. The only reason to remove these laws is so that business owners can skim off that little bit extra from those beneath them, to add to their own wealth. That's what greed, ie. the profit motive, inevitably leads to, even more exploitation, more inequality, more suffering. There is nothing in the free-market to prevent this apart from blind, zealous faith.
@Nihilarity How do you seperate greed from ambition. To me ambition and accomplishment must be rewarded otherwise we reward failure and sloth. Greed is when you break the laws or use them to harm others for your gain. The law tends to be on the side of monopolies because the gov is the enforcers of laws that crush competition.
@DK0526 So what are these laws that stop competition unseating monopolies? I know of none and I can imagine none. There's no Tesco bill compelling suppliers to sell to them cheaply, market forces and economies of scale do that. There's no law preventing rivals setting up stores nearby, they buy up eligible sites to prevent that.
There's no evidence suggesting that paying someone £2m instead of £200,000 improves performance. People have many motivations beyond greed, none of them are rewarded.
@Nihilarity Given Option 1.... greater inequality or wealth gaps and greater overall prosperity for all vs. Option 2...more equality, less of a wealth gap and less prosperity for all I clearly choose option 1. I will not let envy blind me from a better society. Option 1 is capitalism its not perfect but it sure beats option 2 socialism. I don't want to suffer equally in 3rd world conditions. Try how you will socialism always produces less overall wealth & freedom then free markets.
@DK0526 False dichotomy. More collectively-based systems do often produce less growth overall. But if we wanted to maximise growth we wouldn't go for a free-market, far too much wealth and resources are squandered; on the egos of the rich, & the endless stream of useless baubles for consumers. Envy doesn't motivate socialism. It's the belief that we're all equal, that accumulation isn't the meaning of life, that no man should be able to exploit another and that suffering should be minimised.
@Nihilarity I am all for equality of opportunity but not of out come. Socialism ignores sloth laziness stupidity and does not reward hardwork and ingeniuty. The problem with socialism is that it goes against the physical reality that we live in. Evolution is based on the fittest premise. Now before you say I want to crush the weak understand that I dont want to encourage weakness, sloth and ignorance. I work with the poor I have directly saved many of their lives yet I see choices being made>>
>>>Choices that frankly in many cases are not of some poor down and out guy..... but out of real evil and selfishness and this is from the poor guy not the CEO's you read about. I have much more contact with the poor then you can imagine and from my direct hand knowledge most poverty is from choice made in regards to drugs and alchohol. Some is because of mental illness and generational social system dependence. But about 80% is out of pure selfish choice. This is a fact not a theory.
@DK0526 I'd expect more empathy from such a person. Who cares how someone came to be in a situation, even if they chose it? They should be helped, always. You made the allegation of darwinian thinking yourself, but you didn't excuse it, you just phrased it differently. Do you really think so low of people? Idleness is not a natural state. It is imposed on people by a system that discourages free thought, encourages obedience, forces people into lives of drudgery and low horizons. Capitalism!
@Nihilarity I do help them always thats my job and I do it well without comprimise. However the system imposed on the poor is dependence through socialist hand outs like slop in a pig trough. That is the system that treats them as one size fits all animals. I don't think they are helpless animals rather can compete if allowed to. If they dare rise up and get a job thier benefits are cut. But if they dont work and make babies they get fatter checks that they can spend on drugs and alcohol.
@Nihilarity and besides "who care how they got there" I do. I want to find real solutions to the problems of the poor not just to keep them comming to the trough so I can feel good about myself and all I've done for them. To treat them as the socialist system does is to treat them like animals. It is also elitest to think that they can't ever be pushed into a job. As if they are not worthy of the pressures & challenges we all face. Along with those pressures come accomplishment and pride.
@DK0526 What a noble position, and a totally dishonest one. We're having the same argument in the UK about the 'benefits trap'. Our government is pushing people off of welfare, reassessing those on disability benefits as 'fit to work' (even terminally ill patients, the blind, people with severe physical disabilities). They do this at a time of record unemployment, they know there's no chance in hell these people will get jobs. It's not about people & their capabilities, it's all about money.
@Nihilarity Perhaps that is your experience in the UK where socialism works very well and capitalists want to work terminally Ill patients to death. That is not my experience and I have plenty of contact with the poor. What exactly is your contact with the poor? How do you help them? I find it hard to believe any western industrial nation would require a terminal patient to work...where is your evidence for this? I think you are the one being dishonest here but go ahead enlighten me..Please!
@DK0526 Youtube won't let me link. Look it up or take my word for it.
Disability benefits are abused by a tiny minority, but the government's reassessment scheme wasn't about that, it was all about saving money at the cost of the most vulnerable. Those assessed as capable of work included people who needed constant, expensive support, & there's no jobs for them anyway. The number of successfully contested cases says it all, as do the testimonies of those affected. It's classic scapegoating.
@Nihilarity The poor lie like there is no tomarrow...testimonials.lol.I have been lied to so many times by them that It is almost laughable. I dont know what line of work you do but I get my facts from real life experiences and not out of some BS testimonial from a crack head or some government study. You can chose to ignore me and believe what you want but You will not change reality just because you are uncomfortable with the facts as presented to you. Walk in my shoes then get back to me.
@DK0526 Kick them all out on their arses and let them die then. Good solution. Don't need the poor anyway, they're all lazy, feckless, money-grabbing liars. It's their choice to be the way they are, they could have 'worked hard' and got rich like anyone else, social problems are just an excuse invented by the trots - like the lady said, there's no such thing as society.
These 'facts' of yours are prejudice. Your isolated experience does not constitute 'reality'. Stop taking such a narrow view.
@Nihilarity Seriously you never have worked with the poor have you? You read about them in the papers or see them on TV but you really just dont have a clue. as to real lfe experience...just what you've been fed and what you've swallowed. It's funny when you show people the folly of thier logic how they try and repaint the argument to frame me as a heartless bastard who would let the poor die. Yet I have saved more poor then you will ever care to know. You need to earn your opinions in the hood.
@DK0526 Your experience working with 'the poor' doesn't automatically validate your opinions. Maybe over-exposure to certain types has led you to these generalisations - I have a police officer friend who thinks all people are potential criminals because that's all he sees in his work. The system has indeed dehumanised some people but it's not just welfare, it's the wage system, the reserve army of labour, ghettoisation, education inequality etc. - products of capitalism, along with state power.
@Nihilarity Your non experience not working with the poor not only does nothing to validate your opinions it helps to validate mine. If you have no experience then what is left to guide your judgement if you have not been fed by leftwing commie nut jobs? In life you either get your own experience or you read about it from someone else. I have not only gained huge amounts of 1st hand experience I have read many left and right leaning philosophies. Logic and reality lean twards libitarianism.
@Nihilarity What would be non logical is chalking up all my experiences up to some sort of generalisation while ignoring them for what I have read by someone else. All I am saying is get some experience to back up your claims. Don't just hand a bum 5$ try and help several of them to get work or education do follow ups. Get out there and help heal the sick both physically and/or mentally. See how the socialist network operates and follow it to its conclusions. Same with business and finance.
>>> I am confident that if you had experience in these areas that you would start to see the logic and simple beauty of laissez faire. You would see with your own 2 eyes how intrinsically efficient this system is at helping not just the poor but most human beings. Sure the system isnt perfect but it is far better the socialism...just look at what it has done for africa and almost all other 3rd world nations. Its no wonder its leaders have to blame 200yr old imperialism lest they be hung outright
@DK0526 One kind of direct interaction with poor people can't inform a whole philosophy, it's bordering on an ad-hominem to reject my views because I lack your specific experience. We actually seem to agree on some things, but I think you're looking for something simple to blame for societies problems. There was poverty, crime and addiction long before there was welfare you know and much more of it. Thinking that the approach of free-market ideologues will make things better rather than worse...
@Nihilarity Sure we can agree that we both want to help the poor and to lift their suffering. Its just that we have almost completely different ways of getting there. Would I remove the gov and all its socialist protections? No I would just drastically reduce its power because it has not only become a bigger problem then corrupt business it has also become a tool of corrupt business while surpressing honest business and creating a dependent class of poor who are striped of ambition to suceed.
@DK0526 ..is pretty naive I think. I mean, who is it trying to peddle these ideas? It's the rich! They know how much they and they alone stand to benefit from a removal of their obligations to others. They want the 'freedom' to make fortunes from the sweat of lower classes while compensating them as little as they can get away with. If you want the benefits of the free market in terms of pricing, innovation, competition etc. there's no reason you can't have that and retain social protections.
@Nihilarity Perhaps it is naive for me to trust all my experiences and what I have learned from all I have read but If thats the yard stick you use to measure naivity then how naive is it to base all your ideas on just what you've read and limited experience and judge that as less naive then my position???
@Nihilarity Perhaps it is naive for me to trust all my experiences and what I have learned from all I have read but If thats the yard stick you use to measure naivity then how naive is it to base all your ideas on just what you've read and limited experience and judge that as less naive then my position??? Also do you draw a line between gov intrusion into good businesses and small businesses who cant hire lawyers to circumvent gov regulation making gov a tool of corrupt businesses?
@DK0526 Your presumptions about my opinions are hardly worth responding to. They're my own, and they're very much against the prevailing 'wisdom' - they certainly haven't been fed to me by a bunch of tea-party nutjobs. I don't speak from any kind of ivory tower either, that's for sure. You're the one who sounds out of touch with reality, thinking the magic invisible hand will somehow take care of everything, that capitalists will ever help anyone but themselves. I see lots of faith but no logic.
first of all, im an average american mouth breather (not really). but, what ive taken from this, is that centralized government intervention in its every sense is very bad and naturally is a chaotic system for nations with high population. and are required to move to a more of an free market based system. i mean look at india and china! it was inevitable!! while nations with lower populations, are much better off with a centralized governemt. so whatever fits you i guess.
And here was I thinking that imperial colonialism was what made Britain rich. Silly me, of course it was the free market. So that means that it was also the free market that led to the brutalisation of natives and theft of natural resources..?
@Nihilarity Yes the starving cannibalistic flea bitten primitives where given work, food, clothing, shelter and medicine. We may think that the natives had it good but make no mistake there existance was far more brutal in the caves then in the worst of swet shops. Yes the swet shops of yesterday were not as luxurious as are present working conditions but it is only because of the advancement of technology and capitalism that we have such adancements...the future will bring more wealth for all!
@DK0526 Wealth for all? Get a grip. Wealth is concentrated through exploitation, and only by those who are already wealthy. It's a positive-feedback loop that means any net increase in wealth overall goes almost exclusively to the rich. The average person sees improvement in their life only because of collective action and state intervention. If there was none - i.e. a free market - then the exploited workers would be no better off now than they were 100 years ago.
@Nihilarity So you attribute all the wealth of the last 100 yrs to who then if not the trillions and zillions of trades between individuals and companies and each other. If not the free market then who??? Some government loser or the big business loser who uses the government lacky to stiffle competition. Do you enjoy monopolys? Since they are all,,,every single one a result of government intervention on behalf of the welfare company or welfare union. Check your history all monopolys use gov!
@DK0526 Pssst.. wealth isn't magically created when people trade. The price system hides the fact that value is only really added when things are made into more valuable things. Trading puts things where they're needed but it doesn't add anything - it also provides a great opportunity for people to accumulate wealth at the expense of the rest of the system. Here in the UK we pretty much have a state healthcare monopoly - the NHS - and it's great. Free-market doesn't prevent monopolies anyway.
@Nihilarity actually trading does create additional wealth beyond newly build products or rendered services. suppose you have twice the corn you need to eat and I have 2 houses. I can't eat my house and your corn doesnt provide you much shelter. after the trade however we are both much wealthier even though nothing knew was actually built or grown. And dont even get me started on how messed up your NHS is. I work in medicine and have direct knowledge of health care economics. The NHS kills!
@DK0526 The stats compare pretty favourably internationally (even on cost) and the NHS is free for everyone at the point of use. Beats people dying because they can't afford basic treatment.
In that example x amount of corn is worth 1 house. They have stuff they need instead of stuff they don't, but the stuff they have still equals the same value - where's the wealth that's created? Such a bad example.
@Nihilarity This illustrates that you dont understand wealth. Look up zero sum fallacy and see how economies really work rather then sticking to what you learned while playing monopoly as a child. As for NHS it kills there is plenty of evidence of the fact. The US system is far superior.
@DK0526 The zero-sum fallacy is a giant straw-man. I've already acknowledged wealth can be created, but your scenario doesn't produce any. Utility isn't wealth. Growth in the money supply isn't wealth either, and that's the only thing that keeps the current system ticking over. Debt to generate interest, printing to feed the debt. I always hated Monopoly but this game is much worse (though both are winner-takes-all). Yeah, US healthcare is great, if you're not one of the 50m without insurance.
@Nihilarity well we can agree that growth in the money supply doesnt equal an increase in wealth so much as it means an increase in inflation. But I disagree that utility is not wealth. I clearly see the the farmer with a roof over his head as wealthier despite no net gain in products. IE a house traded for corn. Inversely, I also dont see a simple net increase in products or services as wealth. IE Fed lending that resulted in newly built empty houses all over the realestate market isnt wealth.>
>Those empty new house aren't wealth they are a liability. When a Government office hires a new paper pusher to file a newly minted stack of department of motor vech documents I see this as a service but it destroys wealth unlike a haircut, a paint job, or a back message which create wealth. Now as for the US Health care system there is no such thing as 50m without insurance. Unless again you are arguing semantics rather then fact. Anyone in America can get emergency HC for free for any reason!
>>>People with insurance get billed to thier insurance, those with out still get 100% high quality treatment. I know I work in emergency medicine. The problem is not the hospitals, the doctors, the drug companies ect....it is the drug addicts, alcoholics that abuse the benevolent system. They are multiplying and yet we have a the best service and treatment. No long waiting to get in while people die which has been documented by the BBC and other such news entities.
@DK0526 That is not the way it's portrayed. I suspect there's a lot of propaganda about both systems, there's been a lot of bullsh*t spread about the NHS in America, 'death panels' etc, all because it's a 'socialized' system. I can assure you it works quite well enough, and I don't believe for a second that the US has the best healthcare in the world. It is certainly not 'benevolent', it's profiteering. Oh, and addicts are not villains, they're victims of your country's huge social problems.
@DK0526 I totally agree that things only have any value insofar as they are needed. That doesn't mean there's any extra wealth from people having things they need rather than things they don't. GDP still rises while people are starving. I think that trust in free-markets is ultimately based on sheer faith, and when that fails it's easy to confuse the issues with such fuzzy definitions of wealth, or growth, or by rejecting inequality as a social problem.
@Nihilarity I think we can also both agree that we dont want to see people starving. I don't think starving people is a result of the rich getting richer at least in free countries. To the contrary it seem that when the rich get richer so do the poor albeit not as much. But when the rich lose money the poor always suffer most. My conclusion is that for us all to prosper we need the rich to get richer. This may seem counterintuitive but it fits nonzerosum economic theory. >>>
The only answer to free capitalism seems to be government intervention in the name of a managed economy. I have a big problem with that. Why? Because what makes the politician any more trust worthy then a CEO? Nothing inherently. History actually shows that government beurocrats tend to be more corrupt because they can launder there motives much like a criminal launders money. I can think of not 1 monopoly that has ever existed that did not have goverment support. Competition kills monopolies!
@DK0526 Free-market competition creates and maintains monopolies. Really, it does. The positive-feedback loops are unavoidable, the concentration of wealth is unavoidable. Rising inequality is unavoidable. The increasing divide between those who actually produce and those who exploit that production without doing any real work themselves is unavoidable. Because you reward the successful by making success easier for them, and punish the unsuccessful by making it even harder for them to succeed!!
@Nihilarity suppose for sake of argument I agree with you that CEOs are inherantly corrupted by success. They are no different that politicians with the same human traits. So what makes the politicians immune from the corruption? What makes you think they will manage business any more honestly then the CEO's? Encumbents are entrenced and with democracy we can only vote every 4 yrs or so. With the free market we can vote many times every day with our dollars over and over for what we want or dont
@DK0526 I wouldn't trust politicians to hold my trash either. But as utterly flawed as representative democracy is, at least everyone has a guarantee of an equal vote. If we are all to vote with our dollars/pounds/euros, then the people with more money have more power, and more influence to twist the system to their own advantage. Doing away with the illegitimate 'authority' of government is a great idea, but not if the authority of money and advantage is it's replacement! Money=Power=Tyranny
@Nihilarity your same argument applies to government authority...in that the most money will sway via election advertising the most votes. But this will happen only once within a defined election cycle and you are forced to combine all your beliefs behind one of 2 lesser evils. With market competition you can vote over and over amoung many candidates. The more the better which is why your service at a restruant is better then the dept of Motor vech. Where ya gonna go if they fail you...too bad>
Jagdish Bhagwati have since moved to Milton's direction. He know favours unilateral free trade(as fas as I know). And it is so shocking how ECONOMICALLY IGNORANT development economists (like that woman) wer in the early 80s. Donald Rumsfeld - a non-economist knew more economics than some economists(here I'm not talking about Bhagwati). As an econ student I am glad that due to people like Milton Friedman the economics profession improved a lot since then.
India is a wonderful example. If we see today the more free the indian economy becomes the better off the people are. Just an absolutly brilliant case study to do for any grad student.
Rumsfeld is the head of a corporation. It's in his interests for the govt to be able to defend him from "unfair trade" so that he personally can make more money.
mikef179 3 weeks ago
He's like a little yoda just sitting there waiting until he decides to wipe the floor with everyone.
AnonymanForeverlol 3 weeks ago 4
@AnonymanForeverlol lol
MrPeterl747 2 days ago
Comment removed
AnonymanForeverlol 3 weeks ago
I can't believe that anyone up on that stage, aside from Milton Friedman, was taken seriously. Listening to the nonsense that these people are spewing, it's no wonder why so many people believe that there is this academic conspiracy to turn us all into Marxists.
TheManiacalSatanist6 3 weeks ago
Be great to have Ron Paul argue positions with Romney, Gingrich, & Santorum in a setting like this.
wellingtonian 4 weeks ago
I want to know what was said from 56:20 onwards!
skydome29 1 month ago
Like a typical Jew he brings up the "homogeneous" argument for why certain cultures are able to perform seemingly successful government partnership with business, like Japan at the time of this video and China today. Our society would be more homogeneous if it weren't for the Jew working to undermine cultural unity. Not to mention, it is really based on racism. In India, Japan, China, etc. there is plenty diversity. Only if you see "homogeneous" as more racially aligned doe this make sense. BS
happydelicious 1 month ago
Comment removed
GalacticMuppet 1 month ago in playlist Milton Friedman's Free to Choose
23:51 - I was hoping to see Milton bust some moves! I am disappointed in you master Milton.
GalacticMuppet 1 month ago in playlist Milton Friedman's Free to Choose
"Because it's only in the general interest, and in no one's special interest" Well Said
hokieneer17 1 month ago
Rumsfeld! That just happened...
ariuszarim 1 month ago
Milton kills it at the end. He explains what the entire Occupy movement needs to understand at 55:50. Capitalism and free markets are not the problem. Rather it is crony-capitalism and special interest.
sceva13 1 month ago
ugh! Rumsfeld? That's like inviting a demon to dinner.
blueguitarblue 1 month ago
Milton was right, look at Britain, it didnt take long after this video was made, for taxpayers to say enough, we dont want to pay for something that is not profitable!
artyvv 1 month ago
After this discussion, Don decided to get into politics rather than remain a businessman... :)
MrVanxarp 2 months ago
Another Nobel-winning economist, James Buchanan, proposed the same constitutional restrains on the power of the government to regulate trade. Buchanan invented public choice theory, a field which uses economic analysis to study political systems. Buchanan showed that it is impossible to fix things through government--that is, through clown in Washington.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
wow. rumsfeld sounds, in his typical goofy sort of way, downright hayekian.
communeofone 2 months ago
@communeofone yeah.. too bad he turned into a neo-con
DREwestcoast 2 months ago
stupid socialist, if he listened like the twat he is he would have heard Prof (Free your stupid counuuntry liberal ass) own his cunt face with a five yeurrrrr "phase yo ass out" plan. Uncle Milty then proceeded to hand you your intellectually migitizing presents for the year fillin yo strrrrkkins wit reason, stats and stanky logic. Signed, Lil' Free
eorobinson3 2 months ago 2
milton friedman is the manifestation of human intelligence.... and is a boss
aaronon1 2 months ago 11
holy shit, Donald Rumsfeld...
TheMarksmenCat 3 months ago
I'm so angry watching this. Angry because we don't get to see the level of debate happen like this often anymore. It's sad.
testmark1 3 months ago 16
For long I had been influenced by Marx. In India our school syllabus advertises marxism. Our history and political science textbooks glorify communism and blind equality. Economics glorify Keynesian methodologies. Its here that I was introduced to Friedman's lectures. I feel I am very fortunate to get a dose of reality. He was 1 million times better than many of the people who are automatically treated as intellectual just for being leftist.
sadrihsihs 3 months ago 11
@sadrihsihs I like your comment. Where abouts from India are you from?
PumpkinMan1031 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Awesome. Put up or shut up
tatsumakisempyukaku 3 months ago
Rugby736. Did you listen to your own words? If the US didn't subsidize farming , Mexican farmers could prosper! It's not the freemarket.thats the enemy, its government involvement that's the problem
marksuave25 3 months ago 3
I agree with Deason at 50:00. Mexican agriculture has suffered as the result of the removal of tariffs because the U.S. subsidizes agribusiness making difficult for Mexican farmers to compete. This result is unemployment in Mexico and subsequent illegal immigration to the U.S. That process has turned people to lawlessness. That situation is an example of the real world consequences of government promoting free trade at the expense of the working and middle classes.
rugbyjefe710 4 months ago
Robert McKenzie, yes I will join you next week!
stebecool 4 months ago 6
Why do these people even try to debate Friedman on economic policy? Do they just enjoy public humiliation?
stebecool 4 months ago 6
Friedman is like the Buddha of economics
SkepticThink 4 months ago 4
And look at things now? has centralisation of economy gotten us any better? no it has gone down the pan. Friedman and the business man stand corrected. A government is incompetent at understanding what people want. My only regret is that it took people this fucking long to understand his logic....and now he is gone...
Silversong88 4 months ago
Don Rumsfeld is obviously the model for Don Draper of MadMen fame.
llangennith 4 months ago
The thick Unionscummer explains the decline of union memebership in non government industries today.
llangennith 4 months ago
No teleprompters, lots of honest thoughts, simply expressed.
Why can't programmes like this get made today?
llangennith 4 months ago 4
Pathetic...the union boss has to refer to a FICTIONAL MOVIE to find substance on which to base his argument...
Absolutely pathetic.
And that is the gist of the pro-union, pro-protectionist argument...it is based on pure fantasy.
dafunkmonster 4 months ago 3
Free trade will lead to higher unemployment, there is no doubt about that. But, in my opinion, since people will be free to buy cheaper products, they can spend their money on other products, which would create employment opportunities with the other expanding industries. High tariffs lead to less purchasing power, which increases unemployment anyway, yet no one seems to really care since the left view this as a "just and moral" response to "protecting the workers." I'd rather have free trade.
groam6666 4 months ago
@groam6666 Wrong. Free trade, all other things constant, leads to lower unemployment and higher productivity.
dafunkmonster 4 months ago
The reason being that the world's natural resources are not distributed uniformly. Certain nations have direct access to rare earth elements (China) while others have access to fertile ground (Midwest USA) while still others have access to oil. Increasing free trade makes those resources more freely available, thus allowing the world as a whole to be more productive.
dafunkmonster 4 months ago
Dude's got a good point at 37:54.
9P9T6 4 months ago
Down with Collectivism!!
00puddles00 4 months ago
Thank you Based God
AJx408x 4 months ago
Thank you csp for posting these videos. I'd never even heard of Milton F. Until I started listening to The great one.
cathrasher1974 4 months ago
I find it interesting that @30:11 The Director of Economic Studies at The World Bank says: "It is true that in the long run we would all be better off with free trade, I agree With Milton; but it's the short run that matters". I would ask, how then, can we do what's best for the long run by only focusing on what's best in the short run? We cant. The statement she made is an oxymoron in complete contradiction of itself. The short term solutions are usually socialistic and emotionally driven.
hmfmi 4 months ago 3
54:40 onwards is just absolutely brilliant. Milton just nails it.
dtmoura 5 months ago
All the arguments against free markets is actually true for socialism. Ever since socialist policies were implemented in North America, the wealth has all gone to the top.
UponInfinity 5 months ago 6
Milton grabs them all by the ear and schools them on logic.....love it.
stephenwism 5 months ago
Rummy held them spell bound but didn't say anything. He knew a lot about 100% unemployment as he downsized Searle employment by 60%
SFConifer 5 months ago
Every time I think Milton's opposition makes a good argument he comes right back and refutes it lol wish this man were alive today!
mrjercan2 6 months ago
it's the short run that matters? Who even thinks that way? Oh yeah, mindless socialists.
RightWingCon81 6 months ago
Awesome cameo by Rumsfeld!
phil8888 6 months ago
It's so much fun listening to Friedman.
Atreus21 6 months ago 83
@Atreus21 It's so much fun listening how Friedman answers numerous criticism's without doubting and the simple yet delightful way he speaks.
guilledmartin 5 months ago
Union people and left-wing activists are so full of sh*t.
They shouldn't be allowed any TV time.
seppsters 7 months ago
@seppsters Scatalogical laziness won`t do. A how,why,when,where,et.al. is needed. Elementary procedure of dialogue,or,if you like,even polemic.
mattwilliamwhite 6 months ago
Comment removed
seppsters 7 months ago
It all boils down to facts.
seppsters 7 months ago
Reaction: INCREDIBLE!!! : )
TechHost 7 months ago
MILTYYYYY YOU DOG....!!!! You show those socialist!!!!
MAM1000W 7 months ago
Does anyone else think its ironically funny that Rumsfeld is in the "Tyranny of Control" episode?
RonDukeSilverSwanson 7 months ago 54
Comment removed
briandee 6 months ago
@RonDukeSilverSwanson
I was surprised at how intelligent he was back then...
It's also ironic the way that as a government worker be turned into the exact kind of inefficient worker that he talked about back in this video from the standpoint of an efficient businessman.
briandee 6 months ago
@RonDukeSilverSwanson Just goes to show they're a bunch of hypocrites.
zdrux 5 months ago
@RonDukeSilverSwanson Anyone who, for any reason whatsoever, doesn't like someone in a position of authority can say what you said about Rumsfeld. One could even call it a cheap shot.
RoboSlater 3 months ago
30:00 What? Short run matters? Is she insane?
Visfen 7 months ago in playlist Free to choose
This one debate was particularly messy from both sides. No big argument was done, as opposed to the previous one. Even Friedman played a little with the viewers' minds when he said there were no big corporations in sight in Hong Kong. Free trade may be part of the reason, but another might be that no business in that little piece of land can grow big enough to exploit resources. Since, as he said, there are no natural resources there.
Frenchyification 7 months ago
rumsfeld is still and was a sore spot on the heel.
Lunartechno 8 months ago
What kind of spinning wheel are they using there in the India clip?
Lurker1979 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this idiot is in electronics? tell me his brand i will avoid it. how can someone argue against rumsfeld and actually make him look smart? this is amazing.
spyletu 8 months ago
Comment removed
spyletu 8 months ago
I feel bad and a little embarrassed for the IBEW union guy. He' s clearly in over his head and sometimes doesn't seem to be following the conversation.
flyoverjoe 8 months ago 2
@flyoverjoe You can't blame him. He couldnt understand basic economic concepts such as supply and demand
TheSummitnatural 8 months ago
I don't understand why something that seems crystal clear to me is just disregarded as immorality and greed. It's not about greed at all.
Helping people is great. I've given money to charity, as well as small loan to friends, but I NEVER did it with other peoples money.
Ultimately, regardless of governments intentions, that is the way it is.
ScionAscendant 9 months ago
Comment removed
madscientistify 9 months ago
I cant believe Donny Rumsfeld is in this video....look at him!!
robrigo80 9 months ago
also, i have new respect for don rumsfeld; he was brilliant
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
how did they get adam smith to do a vo @ 1:33?
thanks to commonsensecap for getting the full length vids out
the modern paul revere
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
look up you tube Karl Marx -racist and the ancestor of modern genocide
Learn just how close to Hitler Karl Marx and his philosphy was.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Do you know how far Leninism/Stalinism/Bolshevism is from Marx's ideas? Have you even read anything he wrote? I don't even agree with him but I have to defend him from this crazy misrepresentation, it's retarded. He thought certain stages of sociological development were inevitable (wrong), he thought an uprising of the proletariat was the only way forward (wrong). He never advocated anything like Stalin's totalitarianism. Authoritarianism can be left or right, as can libertarianism!
Nihilarity 9 months ago
@Nihilarity Yes I have read Marx and it is his system that is the source of corruption. It is common to constantly defend the marxist philosphy by saying that it just was tried by the right guy or that it was Stalin or whoever that screwed up true marxism...The fact remains that everytime it is tried it fails. Everyone who trys to implement marx fails. Millions get killed, ecomonies are ruined, freedoms crushed and there continues to be defenders who will try and blame the evil on capitalism!
DK0526 9 months ago
@DK0526 Marx was not the beginning (and is not the end) of socialism. Why are most examples of communism authoritarian? Maybe because they were spread by the USSR? Maybe because any state that developed any socialist leanings, at all, was instantly set upon by the two super-powers? Tell me, what is the specific, major flaw in the idea of collective ownership?? What is sacred about private ownership? Can you just not countenance anything other than what you've been brought up with?
Nihilarity 9 months ago
@Nihilarity Its as simple as non zero sum game theory and evolutionary survival of the fittest. Any system of trade that ignores these concepts is doomed to failure. The gov or socialist role should be limited to enforcer of law that make the initial economic situation fair from the start, There is no role to see equality of out come. There is only a very limited role to make sure basic laws arent broken. Beyond that the gov is an active player and a punisher of success. Society then fails.
DK0526 9 months ago
@DK0526 Nice repetition of your views, what in that proves any premise? Evolution is an emergent regulatory system for non-intelligent entities - we're a bit beyond that now, don't you think? Do you imagine that you'd end up on top in a darwinistic system - is that it? Your own self-interest?? Should we allow any dirty trick from whomever is smart enough to learn and exploit it? Is the parasitism of the rich somehow good for our ecosystem? The emporer is naked and you won't admit it! Seriously!
Nihilarity 9 months ago
@Nihilarity You just can't deny reality just because you don't like it! Socialism is a failure its as simple as that. You will just have to accept the truth or continue to sound like a left wing fool.
DK0526 9 months ago
@DK0526 Socialism isn't about simply paying out to people who haven't earned it. 'Redistribution' is a total misnomer. Redistribution is what businesses do, they siphon the wealth of products from the people who produced them through their hard work, to the free-riding capitalist owners. Socialism is about stopping this vicious cycle, whereby the rich get richer and the poor poorer. It's about giving people back some of what they have created together, and what has been stolen from them.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Perhaps in theory that is what socialism is about but not in practice. Case in point. I knew a gov worker who had a very bad problem with alcohol. He missed work often and when he worked he was usually drunk. He did contribute about 20% of what the avg person did. He last for almost 20 yrs. He was terminated and put on disability retirement for alcoholism. He died 6mts later. At work he needed to be sober some what at some times. On the SSI he didnt have to do anything but drink>
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 That's a tragic tale, but it's much sadder for him and his family than for you or any other tax-payer. As an alcoholic he'd have been totally f*cked in a free-market with no protection for those with problems. Work doesn't solve problems like that, it creates them through it's unrewarding, unhealthy, unprofitable, unpleasant drudgery. That's the problem of marxists and labour movements; they glorify work. There isn't enough work and never will be. It's the flaw of your system and theirs.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity No its sad for me because I knew the guy and tried to help him. He was a friend and SSI enabled him to waste his life away it took away any possible reason for him to "in his mind to remain sober" He was on easy street. No more job to be sober for. No reason to be a productive member of society. He really was trying to sober up he hated the way he felt in the mornings at work. On SSI he just slept it off. Out of benevolence the system killed him. I have many more life examples.
DK0526 10 months ago
stupid mustache guy... :(
WorldAsWiIl 10 months ago
Another words you need government compliance, tinkering, "management", or corruption to make a bad monopoly happen. Without Gov tinkering you could get a good natural monopoly but thats not a bad thing. However, if they become bad then natural competition and will eventually run them out of business. If they break laws then the gov has an oblegation to step in. I do believe in some government but a very limited gov. Since they have so much power to corrupt. They make and enforce absolute law.
DK0526 10 months ago
To your previous point that rich people get richer...I forgot to mention another type of monopoly (a natural monopoly) which occurs when 1 company does better then anyone else at providing a product/service within the bounds of quality and price that are most efficient. Natural monopolys are good and last as long as they are the best. All other monopolys including formerly natural ones are coercive and need government manipulation to crush competitors. Absent gov corruption u get competition>>
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Natural, good monopolies?! Innovation helps businesses grow, but it's sheer size that maintains monopolies. The economies of scale and the dependence of their suppliers on their business locks out competition. A competitive environment has to be actively maintained - it's like a garden, weeds grow too fast and choke out more desirable plants. Of course government does a terrible job of this, but it's because of the monopolists' tendrils, politics is crawling with them. Money is power.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity I guess it boils down to a chicken and the egg argument. Which came first corrupt business or corrupt government. You maintain the business. I dont see money or trade as evil to me they are tools devoid of emotion. Money can be used to buy a life saving surgery or hire a hit man. The same applies to trade and capitalism which is to me the same. It is people who are moral or immoral. They make the choices of good and evil. While business controls trade, Gov controls people and >>>
DK0526 10 months ago
>>and business and everything for that matter. The implied limit on a businesses power is competition from other businesses. and yes gov in the form of laws regs and courts. Who puts the gov in check? There really isnt much competition. 2 parties that look very much like a bi-monopoly. Ask your self what company can run on trillion dollar deficets and still give itself bonuses for such a fine job. The recent banking crisis is a direct result of fed policy and freddie mac, fannie mae, the CRA.
DK0526 10 months ago
@Nihilarity even with economies of scale and size competition keeps all businesses in check. The rail roads may have been run by monopolists like JP Morgan with help from the Gov but out of left field came the car and ford. There was many who thought Block buster needed anti-monopoly regulation then came red box and then net flix. We all benefit from these new technologies as a result of the competition. The gov monopoly that is the post office is being erased by email. No monopoly is safe!
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 So it's okay for oligarchs to run the world as long as it's only for a few decades at a time? I share your distrust of government, I don't think their authority is legitimate - but I don't think the power that accumulated wealth can give a person is legitimate either. Politicians are accountable, and they are responsible for ensuring the well-being of all their citizens, especially those at the bottom of the stack. Most of these laws that friedmanites want rid of are there precisely >>>
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Its better to have a monopoly for a few decades rather then a few centuries. I'd rather be controlled in my train choices then in every aspect of my life. Not that I want anyone telling me what to do or taking my freedoms away. Freedom to choose is what makes life worth living. Governments are the single greatest infringment of human freedoms every where in the world through out most of civilized history.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 ...to ensure that people don't suffer and die because of the wealth-concentrating and exploitative actions of business and the market. The only reason to remove these laws is so that business owners can skim off that little bit extra from those beneath them, to add to their own wealth. That's what greed, ie. the profit motive, inevitably leads to, even more exploitation, more inequality, more suffering. There is nothing in the free-market to prevent this apart from blind, zealous faith.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity How do you seperate greed from ambition. To me ambition and accomplishment must be rewarded otherwise we reward failure and sloth. Greed is when you break the laws or use them to harm others for your gain. The law tends to be on the side of monopolies because the gov is the enforcers of laws that crush competition.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 So what are these laws that stop competition unseating monopolies? I know of none and I can imagine none. There's no Tesco bill compelling suppliers to sell to them cheaply, market forces and economies of scale do that. There's no law preventing rivals setting up stores nearby, they buy up eligible sites to prevent that.
There's no evidence suggesting that paying someone £2m instead of £200,000 improves performance. People have many motivations beyond greed, none of them are rewarded.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Given Option 1.... greater inequality or wealth gaps and greater overall prosperity for all vs. Option 2...more equality, less of a wealth gap and less prosperity for all I clearly choose option 1. I will not let envy blind me from a better society. Option 1 is capitalism its not perfect but it sure beats option 2 socialism. I don't want to suffer equally in 3rd world conditions. Try how you will socialism always produces less overall wealth & freedom then free markets.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 False dichotomy. More collectively-based systems do often produce less growth overall. But if we wanted to maximise growth we wouldn't go for a free-market, far too much wealth and resources are squandered; on the egos of the rich, & the endless stream of useless baubles for consumers. Envy doesn't motivate socialism. It's the belief that we're all equal, that accumulation isn't the meaning of life, that no man should be able to exploit another and that suffering should be minimised.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity I am all for equality of opportunity but not of out come. Socialism ignores sloth laziness stupidity and does not reward hardwork and ingeniuty. The problem with socialism is that it goes against the physical reality that we live in. Evolution is based on the fittest premise. Now before you say I want to crush the weak understand that I dont want to encourage weakness, sloth and ignorance. I work with the poor I have directly saved many of their lives yet I see choices being made>>
DK0526 10 months ago
>>>Choices that frankly in many cases are not of some poor down and out guy..... but out of real evil and selfishness and this is from the poor guy not the CEO's you read about. I have much more contact with the poor then you can imagine and from my direct hand knowledge most poverty is from choice made in regards to drugs and alchohol. Some is because of mental illness and generational social system dependence. But about 80% is out of pure selfish choice. This is a fact not a theory.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 I'd expect more empathy from such a person. Who cares how someone came to be in a situation, even if they chose it? They should be helped, always. You made the allegation of darwinian thinking yourself, but you didn't excuse it, you just phrased it differently. Do you really think so low of people? Idleness is not a natural state. It is imposed on people by a system that discourages free thought, encourages obedience, forces people into lives of drudgery and low horizons. Capitalism!
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity I do help them always thats my job and I do it well without comprimise. However the system imposed on the poor is dependence through socialist hand outs like slop in a pig trough. That is the system that treats them as one size fits all animals. I don't think they are helpless animals rather can compete if allowed to. If they dare rise up and get a job thier benefits are cut. But if they dont work and make babies they get fatter checks that they can spend on drugs and alcohol.
DK0526 10 months ago
@Nihilarity and besides "who care how they got there" I do. I want to find real solutions to the problems of the poor not just to keep them comming to the trough so I can feel good about myself and all I've done for them. To treat them as the socialist system does is to treat them like animals. It is also elitest to think that they can't ever be pushed into a job. As if they are not worthy of the pressures & challenges we all face. Along with those pressures come accomplishment and pride.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 What a noble position, and a totally dishonest one. We're having the same argument in the UK about the 'benefits trap'. Our government is pushing people off of welfare, reassessing those on disability benefits as 'fit to work' (even terminally ill patients, the blind, people with severe physical disabilities). They do this at a time of record unemployment, they know there's no chance in hell these people will get jobs. It's not about people & their capabilities, it's all about money.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Perhaps that is your experience in the UK where socialism works very well and capitalists want to work terminally Ill patients to death. That is not my experience and I have plenty of contact with the poor. What exactly is your contact with the poor? How do you help them? I find it hard to believe any western industrial nation would require a terminal patient to work...where is your evidence for this? I think you are the one being dishonest here but go ahead enlighten me..Please!
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Youtube won't let me link. Look it up or take my word for it.
Disability benefits are abused by a tiny minority, but the government's reassessment scheme wasn't about that, it was all about saving money at the cost of the most vulnerable. Those assessed as capable of work included people who needed constant, expensive support, & there's no jobs for them anyway. The number of successfully contested cases says it all, as do the testimonies of those affected. It's classic scapegoating.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity The poor lie like there is no tomarrow...testimonials.lol.I have been lied to so many times by them that It is almost laughable. I dont know what line of work you do but I get my facts from real life experiences and not out of some BS testimonial from a crack head or some government study. You can chose to ignore me and believe what you want but You will not change reality just because you are uncomfortable with the facts as presented to you. Walk in my shoes then get back to me.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Kick them all out on their arses and let them die then. Good solution. Don't need the poor anyway, they're all lazy, feckless, money-grabbing liars. It's their choice to be the way they are, they could have 'worked hard' and got rich like anyone else, social problems are just an excuse invented by the trots - like the lady said, there's no such thing as society.
These 'facts' of yours are prejudice. Your isolated experience does not constitute 'reality'. Stop taking such a narrow view.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Seriously you never have worked with the poor have you? You read about them in the papers or see them on TV but you really just dont have a clue. as to real lfe experience...just what you've been fed and what you've swallowed. It's funny when you show people the folly of thier logic how they try and repaint the argument to frame me as a heartless bastard who would let the poor die. Yet I have saved more poor then you will ever care to know. You need to earn your opinions in the hood.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Your experience working with 'the poor' doesn't automatically validate your opinions. Maybe over-exposure to certain types has led you to these generalisations - I have a police officer friend who thinks all people are potential criminals because that's all he sees in his work. The system has indeed dehumanised some people but it's not just welfare, it's the wage system, the reserve army of labour, ghettoisation, education inequality etc. - products of capitalism, along with state power.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Your non experience not working with the poor not only does nothing to validate your opinions it helps to validate mine. If you have no experience then what is left to guide your judgement if you have not been fed by leftwing commie nut jobs? In life you either get your own experience or you read about it from someone else. I have not only gained huge amounts of 1st hand experience I have read many left and right leaning philosophies. Logic and reality lean twards libitarianism.
DK0526 10 months ago
@Nihilarity What would be non logical is chalking up all my experiences up to some sort of generalisation while ignoring them for what I have read by someone else. All I am saying is get some experience to back up your claims. Don't just hand a bum 5$ try and help several of them to get work or education do follow ups. Get out there and help heal the sick both physically and/or mentally. See how the socialist network operates and follow it to its conclusions. Same with business and finance.
DK0526 10 months ago
>>> I am confident that if you had experience in these areas that you would start to see the logic and simple beauty of laissez faire. You would see with your own 2 eyes how intrinsically efficient this system is at helping not just the poor but most human beings. Sure the system isnt perfect but it is far better the socialism...just look at what it has done for africa and almost all other 3rd world nations. Its no wonder its leaders have to blame 200yr old imperialism lest they be hung outright
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 One kind of direct interaction with poor people can't inform a whole philosophy, it's bordering on an ad-hominem to reject my views because I lack your specific experience. We actually seem to agree on some things, but I think you're looking for something simple to blame for societies problems. There was poverty, crime and addiction long before there was welfare you know and much more of it. Thinking that the approach of free-market ideologues will make things better rather than worse...
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Sure we can agree that we both want to help the poor and to lift their suffering. Its just that we have almost completely different ways of getting there. Would I remove the gov and all its socialist protections? No I would just drastically reduce its power because it has not only become a bigger problem then corrupt business it has also become a tool of corrupt business while surpressing honest business and creating a dependent class of poor who are striped of ambition to suceed.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 ..is pretty naive I think. I mean, who is it trying to peddle these ideas? It's the rich! They know how much they and they alone stand to benefit from a removal of their obligations to others. They want the 'freedom' to make fortunes from the sweat of lower classes while compensating them as little as they can get away with. If you want the benefits of the free market in terms of pricing, innovation, competition etc. there's no reason you can't have that and retain social protections.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Perhaps it is naive for me to trust all my experiences and what I have learned from all I have read but If thats the yard stick you use to measure naivity then how naive is it to base all your ideas on just what you've read and limited experience and judge that as less naive then my position???
DK0526 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Perhaps it is naive for me to trust all my experiences and what I have learned from all I have read but If thats the yard stick you use to measure naivity then how naive is it to base all your ideas on just what you've read and limited experience and judge that as less naive then my position??? Also do you draw a line between gov intrusion into good businesses and small businesses who cant hire lawyers to circumvent gov regulation making gov a tool of corrupt businesses?
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Your presumptions about my opinions are hardly worth responding to. They're my own, and they're very much against the prevailing 'wisdom' - they certainly haven't been fed to me by a bunch of tea-party nutjobs. I don't speak from any kind of ivory tower either, that's for sure. You're the one who sounds out of touch with reality, thinking the magic invisible hand will somehow take care of everything, that capitalists will ever help anyone but themselves. I see lots of faith but no logic.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
It's very interesting to see my friend, Donald Rumsfeld, in this video.
skoobalon 10 months ago
first of all, im an average american mouth breather (not really). but, what ive taken from this, is that centralized government intervention in its every sense is very bad and naturally is a chaotic system for nations with high population. and are required to move to a more of an free market based system. i mean look at india and china! it was inevitable!! while nations with lower populations, are much better off with a centralized governemt. so whatever fits you i guess.
Gold3nStat3KiD 10 months ago
Rummy!!!
scottysmo88 10 months ago
And here was I thinking that imperial colonialism was what made Britain rich. Silly me, of course it was the free market. So that means that it was also the free market that led to the brutalisation of natives and theft of natural resources..?
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity Yes the starving cannibalistic flea bitten primitives where given work, food, clothing, shelter and medicine. We may think that the natives had it good but make no mistake there existance was far more brutal in the caves then in the worst of swet shops. Yes the swet shops of yesterday were not as luxurious as are present working conditions but it is only because of the advancement of technology and capitalism that we have such adancements...the future will bring more wealth for all!
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Wealth for all? Get a grip. Wealth is concentrated through exploitation, and only by those who are already wealthy. It's a positive-feedback loop that means any net increase in wealth overall goes almost exclusively to the rich. The average person sees improvement in their life only because of collective action and state intervention. If there was none - i.e. a free market - then the exploited workers would be no better off now than they were 100 years ago.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity So you attribute all the wealth of the last 100 yrs to who then if not the trillions and zillions of trades between individuals and companies and each other. If not the free market then who??? Some government loser or the big business loser who uses the government lacky to stiffle competition. Do you enjoy monopolys? Since they are all,,,every single one a result of government intervention on behalf of the welfare company or welfare union. Check your history all monopolys use gov!
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Pssst.. wealth isn't magically created when people trade. The price system hides the fact that value is only really added when things are made into more valuable things. Trading puts things where they're needed but it doesn't add anything - it also provides a great opportunity for people to accumulate wealth at the expense of the rest of the system. Here in the UK we pretty much have a state healthcare monopoly - the NHS - and it's great. Free-market doesn't prevent monopolies anyway.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity actually trading does create additional wealth beyond newly build products or rendered services. suppose you have twice the corn you need to eat and I have 2 houses. I can't eat my house and your corn doesnt provide you much shelter. after the trade however we are both much wealthier even though nothing knew was actually built or grown. And dont even get me started on how messed up your NHS is. I work in medicine and have direct knowledge of health care economics. The NHS kills!
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 The stats compare pretty favourably internationally (even on cost) and the NHS is free for everyone at the point of use. Beats people dying because they can't afford basic treatment.
In that example x amount of corn is worth 1 house. They have stuff they need instead of stuff they don't, but the stuff they have still equals the same value - where's the wealth that's created? Such a bad example.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity This illustrates that you dont understand wealth. Look up zero sum fallacy and see how economies really work rather then sticking to what you learned while playing monopoly as a child. As for NHS it kills there is plenty of evidence of the fact. The US system is far superior.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 The zero-sum fallacy is a giant straw-man. I've already acknowledged wealth can be created, but your scenario doesn't produce any. Utility isn't wealth. Growth in the money supply isn't wealth either, and that's the only thing that keeps the current system ticking over. Debt to generate interest, printing to feed the debt. I always hated Monopoly but this game is much worse (though both are winner-takes-all). Yeah, US healthcare is great, if you're not one of the 50m without insurance.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity well we can agree that growth in the money supply doesnt equal an increase in wealth so much as it means an increase in inflation. But I disagree that utility is not wealth. I clearly see the the farmer with a roof over his head as wealthier despite no net gain in products. IE a house traded for corn. Inversely, I also dont see a simple net increase in products or services as wealth. IE Fed lending that resulted in newly built empty houses all over the realestate market isnt wealth.>
DK0526 10 months ago
>Those empty new house aren't wealth they are a liability. When a Government office hires a new paper pusher to file a newly minted stack of department of motor vech documents I see this as a service but it destroys wealth unlike a haircut, a paint job, or a back message which create wealth. Now as for the US Health care system there is no such thing as 50m without insurance. Unless again you are arguing semantics rather then fact. Anyone in America can get emergency HC for free for any reason!
DK0526 10 months ago
>>>People with insurance get billed to thier insurance, those with out still get 100% high quality treatment. I know I work in emergency medicine. The problem is not the hospitals, the doctors, the drug companies ect....it is the drug addicts, alcoholics that abuse the benevolent system. They are multiplying and yet we have a the best service and treatment. No long waiting to get in while people die which has been documented by the BBC and other such news entities.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 That is not the way it's portrayed. I suspect there's a lot of propaganda about both systems, there's been a lot of bullsh*t spread about the NHS in America, 'death panels' etc, all because it's a 'socialized' system. I can assure you it works quite well enough, and I don't believe for a second that the US has the best healthcare in the world. It is certainly not 'benevolent', it's profiteering. Oh, and addicts are not villains, they're victims of your country's huge social problems.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@DK0526 I totally agree that things only have any value insofar as they are needed. That doesn't mean there's any extra wealth from people having things they need rather than things they don't. GDP still rises while people are starving. I think that trust in free-markets is ultimately based on sheer faith, and when that fails it's easy to confuse the issues with such fuzzy definitions of wealth, or growth, or by rejecting inequality as a social problem.
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity I think we can also both agree that we dont want to see people starving. I don't think starving people is a result of the rich getting richer at least in free countries. To the contrary it seem that when the rich get richer so do the poor albeit not as much. But when the rich lose money the poor always suffer most. My conclusion is that for us all to prosper we need the rich to get richer. This may seem counterintuitive but it fits nonzerosum economic theory. >>>
DK0526 10 months ago
The only answer to free capitalism seems to be government intervention in the name of a managed economy. I have a big problem with that. Why? Because what makes the politician any more trust worthy then a CEO? Nothing inherently. History actually shows that government beurocrats tend to be more corrupt because they can launder there motives much like a criminal launders money. I can think of not 1 monopoly that has ever existed that did not have goverment support. Competition kills monopolies!
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526
Isn't it the caste system that holds India back?
sluv2600 10 months ago
@sluv2600 it doesnt help them but that is just one facet of many things the hurt business in India. In other ways india is comming around.
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Free-market competition creates and maintains monopolies. Really, it does. The positive-feedback loops are unavoidable, the concentration of wealth is unavoidable. Rising inequality is unavoidable. The increasing divide between those who actually produce and those who exploit that production without doing any real work themselves is unavoidable. Because you reward the successful by making success easier for them, and punish the unsuccessful by making it even harder for them to succeed!!
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity suppose for sake of argument I agree with you that CEOs are inherantly corrupted by success. They are no different that politicians with the same human traits. So what makes the politicians immune from the corruption? What makes you think they will manage business any more honestly then the CEO's? Encumbents are entrenced and with democracy we can only vote every 4 yrs or so. With the free market we can vote many times every day with our dollars over and over for what we want or dont
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 I wouldn't trust politicians to hold my trash either. But as utterly flawed as representative democracy is, at least everyone has a guarantee of an equal vote. If we are all to vote with our dollars/pounds/euros, then the people with more money have more power, and more influence to twist the system to their own advantage. Doing away with the illegitimate 'authority' of government is a great idea, but not if the authority of money and advantage is it's replacement! Money=Power=Tyranny
Nihilarity 10 months ago
@Nihilarity your same argument applies to government authority...in that the most money will sway via election advertising the most votes. But this will happen only once within a defined election cycle and you are forced to combine all your beliefs behind one of 2 lesser evils. With market competition you can vote over and over amoung many candidates. The more the better which is why your service at a restruant is better then the dept of Motor vech. Where ya gonna go if they fail you...too bad>
DK0526 10 months ago
@DK0526 Nihilarity is an IDIOT.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 5 months ago
@UCSDEngineerDoctor Clearly!
DK0526 5 months ago
@Nihilarity You are a moron.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 5 months ago
@UCSDEngineerDoctor Possibly, but I like to think I argue my case a little better than just calling people stupid.
Nihilarity 5 months ago
Jagdish Bhagwati have since moved to Milton's direction. He know favours unilateral free trade(as fas as I know). And it is so shocking how ECONOMICALLY IGNORANT development economists (like that woman) wer in the early 80s. Donald Rumsfeld - a non-economist knew more economics than some economists(here I'm not talking about Bhagwati). As an econ student I am glad that due to people like Milton Friedman the economics profession improved a lot since then.
GrandOldPete 10 months ago
Milton Friedman. Wow. A national treasure. So much genius and common sense packed into one little body.
david4china 10 months ago
Wow, Rumsfeld looks young but he still sounds the same.
ptevans01 11 months ago
lol the MIT professor talks like a gay clothing designer.
shaqdaddy11 11 months ago
India is a wonderful example. If we see today the more free the indian economy becomes the better off the people are. Just an absolutly brilliant case study to do for any grad student.
shaqdaddy11 11 months ago
Wow, Rummy hitting the IBEW schmuck hard. Bravo.
Rensune 1 year ago
don't feel bad, "plagiarism is the highest form of compliment"
-Milton Friedman
just tell youtube that if they ever try to take these videos down--you rock.
ZamolxisReborn 1 year ago
Greatest moment of the debate: when the union president invoked the film "Rollerball" as a counter-argument against Dr. Friedman.
TavaresDelanis 1 year ago 26
@TavaresDelanis I laughed so hard at that one
TheSummitnatural 8 months ago
@TavaresDelanis You would be surprised of how obsessed socialists are with that movie
s0beit 8 months ago
rumsfeld eyeing off that chic at the start lol
MclovinIrishRnB 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheCodeWright 1 year ago