Milton Friedman vs the 'Spread the Wealth' Mentality

[MrCipriani18]

Anarcho-syndicalism rules!!!

[homersparents]

Milton Friedman for President 2012

[bootiack]

sick  --- just awesome

[ColBrokov]

There seems to be a disconnect here between the right and the left. When the right say "the rich" they mean a hard working entrepreneur who builds things and contributes to society; they think of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc. When the left thinks of "the rich" they think Paris Hilton, and Justin Beiber. Thus the two sides speak past each other and assume their opposition to be "idiots". We should try to understand each other, not demonize people who commit no other crime than disagreeing with us.

[stebecool]

Milton mastered the method of defeating liberal statists back in the 70s. Ask them why it is they believe what they believe and dig down to their logic. They end up proving THEMSELVES wrong. Classic.

[Joe11Blue]

@stebecool Friedman was a Liberal. He referred to himself as the Classical Liberal. That woman was not a Liberal, she was a Socialist. Now a lot of Socialists are running around lying their faces off and calling themselves Liberal, but they are the direct opposite of what Jefferson was when he called himself Liberal.

[MaxwellGreene1]

Just posted below...

Through their inherited wealth and privilege, they maintain their own status and privilege through no hard work or entrepreneurship of their own, in most cases. If we lived in a vacuum, you work for what's yours and they work for what's theirs works. Life is way, way too complicated for that. We live in an inherently unjust society, however slight it may be, and we should find a deeper, more expansive way of life for society at large.

[NoProbaloAmigo]

@MaxwellGreene1 The plain fact is that the rich are responsible for most advancements in technology due to their investment in risky ventures. Once you begin to induce "the rich" NOT to do so, the people hurt most, in proportion, are the poor. Some poor bastard can buy a 10 dollar cell phone because some rich bastard in 1970 probably forked over a couple million to motorola. All the alternatives proposed have only caused damage.

[MaxwellGreene1]

@NoProbaloAmigo Your logic has no faults at all. The rich are responsible for the majority of important inventions. Read your history book.

And just because money can go into R&D when inventing something, does not mean that the wealth needs to be concentrated in the few. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever, none.

[NoProbaloAmigo]

@MaxwellGreene1 It does not have to be? Yes, ideally, I agree with you, but you will find most "concentrations" of wealth come from legislation effectively helping entrenched businesses at the expense of smaller ones. I just don't know what is an "optimal" concentration of wealth, and I don't think legislation to "regulate" it to make it better would do any good.

[MaxwellGreene1]

Here exactly is the fundamental misunderstanding of philosophy of those opposed to Friedman. He claims that money of the rich is invested into things that employ the poor and that that is the main reason for an increase in the standard in living and is somehow a justification of it. Sure, they may invest and slightly increase the living of the poor through their ventures. But the fact is, through inherited wealth and......continued below is my ridiculous rant........

[treysparker]

Its true

Think about 600 years ago - not even the richest kings had toilets to shit in. Nor did they have electricity to light up a room.

Today even the poorest among us do. That is because of capitalism. There will always be poor because poor is relative, nothing more. 

[jrwel14]

Several of the wealthy have said that the spread the wealth is being done by the rich against the middle class.

[ZombiBuddy]

Wow... I never new a man promoting individualism would have such a devoted following of internet fanatics.

[98wongjf]

Kyle's mom!

[Waoush]

it is so amazing to see how little things have changed over the past 40 years or so...

[Keeban3]

That is a really annoying opening, but a great vid

[JimBowie1133]

Its not about spreading the wealth, its about opening opportunity for the little guy. Its about not allowing corporate oligarchs to dictate political and economic decision-making.

[weavermama]

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." -winston churchill (Please forgive me for quoting a statist)

[JimBowie1133]

@weavermama , I think the true vice of capitalism is that market values replace human values. The values of the machine - efficiency and cost productiveness, and value of all things reduced to monetary terms - rule our thought process in all aspects of life.

[FletchforFreedom]

@JimBowie1133 Capitalism doesn't DETERMINE human values - NO economic system does (least of all socialism/communism). That people value things is a given; that exists before an economic system or even a monetary system, which are nothing more than tools that facilitate the process (and make us all better off in the end). capitalism has brought us modern medicines, better working conditions, more prosperity, resulting in better health and longer life and more charity - aren't they human values?

[JimBowie1133]

@FletchforFreedom , First off , I'm not anti capitalist, but I would be a fool to pretend that the dominant economic system would not have an effect on human values. I didn't say the system DETERMINES values but it STRONGLY influences values and behavior. For example When I wanted to study Philosophy, I was told by MOST that it was a worthless endeavor, because in the common reasoning the market value of the course of study determines the TOTAL 'worth' of the course of study.

[FletchforFreedom]

@JimBowie1133 It is neither foolsih nor pretense. Neither capitalism nor any other economic system makes the determinations you suggest. The study of philosophy may be of significant value to you, but that taking it up as a profession likely does not yield sufficient benefit to society to sustain you in it is not an aspect of the economic system; it is a reflection of reality. No economic system can alter the fact that resources are limited or that human beings act according to sef-interest.

[JimBowie1133]

@FletchforFreedom , so in our modern world Philosophical study is called 'worthless' or 'useless' because it does not easily translate to market consumption value and so many marginalize, ignore and disregard it. This is an example of market values replacing human values. When we say such and such person is worth x amount of money, we really mean that in a concrete way. Capitalism DID NOT create modern medicine, science did. Capitalism just determines the cost and distribution of modern meds.

[FletchforFreedom]

@JimBowie1133 Again, it is not the study of philosophy that is worthless, nor is it made so by any economic system. Rather, if you have the means to sustain yourself, it is as valuable to you as you choose it to be (value being entirely subjective, despite Marx's debunked contentions). Capitalism is an absolute necessity for modern technology to come into being. Without it there are no complex machines and no modern medicine. Absent labor distribution and money they're impossible.

[JimBowie1133]

@FletchforFreedom ,Capitalism did NOT create better working conditions. Capitalism actually introduced inhumane working conditions in factories (noted in works of writers like Charles Dickens or Upton Sinclair) -better working conditions developed later as a result of guess what?- MARX"S SOCIALIST IDEAS - unions and strikes are what led to better working conditions, wages, child labor protection, weekends and various workers rights. I

[FletchforFreedom]

@JimBowie1133 And your "history" (butressed by ficytion authors trying to make a point, not reflect actual conditions) is completely refuted by the facts. In fact, wages, working conditions, living stabdards and child labor ALL improved from the very beginning of the Industrial Revoltion long BEFORE either unions or laws intervened and did so fastest thereafter where union power and laws were weakest (notably the US). In fact, unions have been a HUGE economic drain, rather than aiding workers.

[JimBowie1133]

@FletchforFreedom ,

Unions have gotten out of control yes, but working conditions and workers' rights did not improve on their own accord. For example:The American Coal Miners Wars that took place around the turn of century and early 1900s were bloody battles fought tooth and nail for rights that we now take for granted . They were fought against the greed and exploitation and inhumanity that was being perpetrated by Capitalists against workers.

[FletchforFreedom]

@JimBowie1133 The facts are entirely against you. Working conditions and wages improved dramatically from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution until the 1890s long before such interventions. Child labor declined from nearly 100% to less than a quarter over the same period. Each of the benefits supposedly "won" by unions (40 hour weeks, higher wages, week-ends) were all offered FIRST by the private sector in order to attract the best workers.

cont

[FletchforFreedom]

@JimBowie1133 In fact, at one time the only steel mill in the country with an 8-hour day (not to mention a hospital for workers and their families and college courses in metallurgy, chemistry and other related fields) was a NON-union shop. The stories of what unions have "won" for American workers are overwhelmingly debunked mythology. And conservative estimates but what unions have cost the US economy at $50 TRILLION that could otherwise have been used to create jobs.

[FletchforFreedom]

@JimBowie1133 Finally, the notion that ANY of the conflicts between unions and company officials or their designees, including those in Matwean, were primarily or even generally the downtrodden worker peacefully engaging in protest and being accosted by a blood-thirsty opposition is not mere mythology but pure bovine fecal matter.

[JimBowie1133]

@FletchforFreedom ,, Its nice how you are able to completely ignore or trivialize any historical truth that doesn't fit your ideology. Capitalism is not a perfect system, it has many flaws. The flaws are rooted in an underlying antihuman philosophy which elevates profit over anything , including human life. The evidence can be found all over the world. You can continue to shine the light on the benefits it has created while ignoring the miseries it has created .

[FletchforFreedom]

@JimBowie1133 I never claimed that capitalism (or anything that involves human beings) is perfect. That doesn't change the FACT that your assessment of unions is utterly and completely wrong. Nor am I responsible for your baseless delusions about "anti-human philosophy" that is pure bovuine fecal matter. If you have a REAL argument, I'll be happy to address it (as I have your other factual inaccuracies), but that nonsense isn't worthy of further comment.

[grecorivera941]

Everyone should be punished for crime. Because Milton Freidman puts forth sound economic free markets principles in not a reason to pardon the wall street bankers who have committed frauds as well as anyone else in the economic chain including other professionals in the finance industry and members of the government.

[Playboysmurf1]

It is amazing how long this video has been around and still we have thousands of idiots just like that woman running almost every government on earth.

[cionnathomathuna]

thats womans statement is about as attractive as her accent

[Bdsb024]

We are not in the seventies, and our problems today are more complex and entrenched in corruption then this segment by milton freedman talks about.

[disclaimer05]

This clip is hardly relevant to our current economic situation. Do some wealthy individuals invest their money and create jobs for lower income workers? Of course. However, many of the new industrial jobs being created are not in this country, but places like China, Pakistan, and Mexican. Why? Their workers have no rights. So while I agree with Friedman to a point, using his talking point today is hardly relevant.

[mudbert]

@disclaimer05

Follow your train of thought to the next logical conclusion.

American companies have and are opening industry overseas BECAUSE goverment is stifling them HERE with corperate TAXES. The more taxes companies have to pay, the higher the goods and services rendered. All U.S. coperate taxes are ultimately taxes on the american consumers. Any demand for higher corperate taxes is essentially a demand on further taxing the consumer.

Friedman's logic is always unwavering. Capitalism!

[Shwaggetyshfifty]

Y SO MANY AMILLIONAIRES?

[Z3Lasher]

MF's black and white view of the world is simplistic to understand but does not apply to reality.

[OhmgrownCron]

These people are dumb, your going against a Nobel winning Doctor, do these people know what it's like to stand in front of a committee and defend your thesis, while be criticized left and right lol.

[grandslam1998]

F is a prigg.Everthing to him is clear cut.

[Cornampoo]

Ow come on, that lady just didn't know any better. Give her a break, she was willing to learn, wasn't she?

[xit1254]

This hatred of successful people is driven by envy, ignorance, and willful stupidity. The “progressives” don’t believe anyone can become wealthy by honest hard work and intelligence. They believe all successful people are criminals who have stolen their wealth, and they must be punished by the government.

[xit1254]

Basic economics is not that hard. It’s incredible that so many are so ignorant.

[hXcDiedWithHitler]

This idiot woman is probably out occupying Wall Street nowadays.

[tehatemachine]

@hXcDiedWithHitler or shes probably dead since this is a VERY old film.

[eimb1999]

@tehatemachine :Yeah. It's too bad that some people can become so old and remain so stupid. But she won't be missed.

[gyajoe]

@hXcDiedWithHitler Probably Friedman would not support the "Occupy Wall street movement (it is not productive)", but he definetely wasn't agree with this "partership" capitalism. The losers should fall, but bankers are also losers, just as some capitalists. The problem for Friedman is exactly the same in everywhere, the keynesian model it's just betting to the losers there's just not end of the cost. 100x100 :)

[Jynx20101]

@hXcDiedWithHitler She's too old. Her children probably are.



[jrwel14]

@hXcDiedWithHitler How's the nazis party doing?

[justforpoox]

@hXcDiedWithHitler i wouldnt say shes an idiot... the people that dont understand economics see someone who has alot... and dont see how they got it, and wonder why its so hard for them to achieve the same thing. good for her asking a question that she felt was important and she asked someone who new what they were talking about.

[VtjeP]

@hXcDiedWithHitler You understand that most OWS people are protesting corporatism not capitalism (for instance when bankers are lobbying for laws that will limit compitition or lobbying for bailout money). The OWS and tea party primarly want the same thing which is to destroy this system were politicians are bought by enterprises to misuse goverment power to help them. The difference is that OWS blames wall street/big business and the tea party blames washington.

[tehatemachine]

@VtjeP I will agree with most who want a competitive free enterprise system. But on the other hand I see a large portion of those protestors going at it in the Wrong way and wrong direction. They want more government to step in. Which isn't a solution. Reducing government is. The less amount fo government there is. the fewer chance those crones will be able to grab onto it with special interest.

[tonytocanova]

Actually Friedman was wrong, "they" (the rich) do not invest it in factories as he mentiones in this video. The rich ended up investing mostly in sophisticated financial instruments which create no real product or value to the economy. Of course, he felt like a big man, picking on this poor lady, punk...

[Sheltonsummons]

@tonytocanova, and how exactly do you think financial instruments make money since they create no 'real product or value to the economy', magic? smh

[TheVideo5094]

@tonytocanova the 70's vs today is different

[andersint]

"Nirvana is not on this earth". Americans please look to the Scandinavian welfare model and be shocked:

Free healthcare

Free education

Money if you are unemployed

And the best thing: you can have it the same way, if you stop being afraid to be called a socialist ;)

[rockon6191]

@andersint Nothing is free. Just because you can't see the cost doesn't mean there isn't one. I know, economic literacy is hard, but it's also really important.

[andersint]

@rockon6191 hehe of course there is costs. The tax are high. But you can have it if you want :) it sounds great, right? :)

[rockon6191]

@andersint No, it doesn't sound great at all. Nor is that actually how it works.

[andersint]

@rockon6191 Well okay, I like free education! :) But what do you mean with "that's not how it works" The tax are really high, I can tell you. The education is really free, you don't pay - actually you get money from the government if you are a student. Sounds great, right :) try to google "SU - The Danish students' Grants and Loans Scheme"

[rockon6191]

@andersint I suppose it sounds great if you have no economic comprehension. It's not free, and it comes out of more than just taxes. I don't have time to explain basic economics to you, so look up the broken window fallacy and the seen vs. unseen sides of economics, and look up the effect of government spending vs. free market enterprise. Just because you've reconciled yourself with your system and can enthusiastically endorse it doesn't mean it's actually better.

[andersint]

@rockon6191 Well.. Lets say the education cost 1000 dollars. In US you pay by yourself, right. In Scandinavia it is the rich that pays for this. So the education is fully payed of course, not by you but by those with money. Just glad to introduce you to other ways of organizing things.. have fun :)

[rockon6191]

@andersint No, in the US we have public education. And it's also payed for by our high taxes, primarily by the rich. And I'm aware of 'other ways of organizing things.' I've been studying this stuff for years, all over the world in Europe, Africa, SE Asia, etc. You haven't introduced me to new ideas, just tired old ones that you believe work perfectly for your country because you don't understand the hidden side of economics and you don't see a problem with forcibly taking money from others.

[andersint]

@rockon6191 At the moment I am in a class with other US students and they are talking about debt of 100.000 $ to take the education at their respective universities. That does not sound very free to me. I do not see the big problem in taking money from the rich, no. Because ultimately normal they have not being able to earn all the money themselves, they have employed people. Which is a good thing bt also means that they are earning money on others behalf.. and we are taking some of that back :)

[rockon6191]

@andersint University in America is not free, no. Nor should it be: if everyone got a college education than the value of a degree would be diluted, as it already has been. As you've said, the rich employ people. The less money they have, they less people they can employ and the less they can pay their employees. And I don't think the wealth of an individual should determine your ability to steal from him.

[andersint]

@rockon6191 Well I believe education is the way to prosperity.. And don't worry it will take a long time before everybody has a university degree.. look to Africa, South America and such.. as you already do :)

Glad that I predicted your comment ;)

Also I am not sure that rich people try to pay their employees more.. they rather move the production to China.. wonder why that is.. better education? :)

[rockon6191]

@andersint No, they move their manufacturing to China because their businesses are taxed less there and it's illegal to pay workers here what a Chinese worker is willing to work for. And it's only the dilution of a degree within your own country or where you seek employment that's relevant. Here in America you need a master's degree at least to get a good job, because in a competitive market where virtually everyone has a BA, a BA doesn't mean much.

[andersint]

@rockon6191 Of course.. so you see, the rich don't want to pay the workers more money even if the owners are getting rich. So first you say that if everybody get a degree it is not good, then you say that everybody need a degree to get a good job.. so everybody should not have a good job? :)

[andersint]

@andersint Also.. Sometimes those measures that will earn most money are not the way that will benefit most people. Some will say that it is good that the rich get richer because they invest the money and therefor the poor probably maybe benefit. But what if you directly take some of the money from the rich and give to the poor. Then the effect will be immediately. Capitalism has it ways of putting the money in the top, if you dont take those money to the buttom again, it will stay at the top.

[rockon6191]

@andersint To take money from the top and move it to the bottom does not produce anything. As you continue to do this wealth slowly diminishes until neither those at the top or bottom have any money left. So the idea that you're making the same wealth move faster is fallacious. You want wealth to grow as it spreads, and you want it to spread to the right areas. A market economy is best at doing this.

[andersint]

@rockon6191 Yes it does, in the sense of consumption a rich man will not have 10 Iphones, but 10 poor people would like to have that.

And well actually it is not a market economy you are talking about here. Yes the market economy will make the money go where it is needed. But the capitalist system will make those money be owned by the top. The ownership will go to the top, and even more and more.

[rockon6191]

@andersint Capitalism encompasses a market economy. All capitalism refers to is a system of private ownership. A market economy is contained within that concept. It is not a contradictory aspect. Virtually all the wealth in the world was created and spread through natural functions within capitalism. Socialism creates distortions within the system that make people think they need socialism to get their fair share because it crowds out the other options.

[rockon6191]

@andersint As for what you said about education, the sad fact is that we're not all equal. Not everyone is smart enough to be an effective doctor, lawyer, or scientist. Everyone has a right to an education to a certain degree; past this degree an education must be earned. If you can't afford college or get a scholarship or financial aid, it's probably because you haven't earned it. Unfortunately, too many of those people still find a way into college and do nothing with their degrees after.

[andersint]

@rockon6191 See now it is getting funny so you are saying that two persons in the beginning of their twenties where one has the money to take an university degree and the other does not, it is because the latter did not earn it? Don't you think it has something to do with those two persons parents? But I agree with you about having education to a certain degree... the university degree :)

[rockon6191]

@andersint Well let's take me for example: I'm at school on a full scholarship. That's how I earned it. My brother had to take out loans, but received excellent grades and got a job upon graduating, then paid his loans. He earned it. A lot of students take out huge loans, perform poorly, don't get a job, and blame the banks for their debt. They did not earn their education. 

[andersint]

@rockon6191 Well forexample you can make high demand to either grades from highschool or a test because sure not everyone can take a university degree and not everyone can be a good carpenter og painter. But I don't think money should be the barrier.. Okay we are off topic. Lets end here, has being a pleasure. Take care.

[viletree]

@rockon6191 The usage of personal anecdotes will not suffice for the massive amount of debt topping 1 trillion dollars for those who took the loans out. You think your quaint personal story will account for the various reasons people take out loans and are unable to pay them back? I think you are delusional if you think yourself represents the country as a whole. The banks speculate and stand to gain off of individuals, you've hit a new low shilling for them.

[rockon6191]

@viletree I think you shouldn't read something out of context. My only point in that anecdote was to illustrate that specifically for college students, if you can't pay for it yourself, you need to be very careful about how you intend to finance it and not assume that a degree will fix your debt. Many students pick soft majors and get mediocre grades and then complain that they still have to pay the loan back when they don't get good jobs. They haven't earned anything, they just feel entitled.

[rockon6191]

@viletree And yes, there are a variety of reasons people take out loans, but only one reason banks give them- to make the money back with increase. Everyone knows this, and yet everyone acts surprised when it happens. There are certainly major exceptions where taking out a loan is necessary even if you have no plan to pay it back, but expensive four year college is not one of them unless you intend to do very, very well there.

[gyajoe]

@rockon6191 It is not that easy. You're missing the point of Friedman, if that bank was broken and the FED saved it, that's the real problem. You're not earned it because you are playing with advantege in relation to the banks that couldn't be saved. People just take the "Pro rich" Friedman statements, but at the end, they are just to happy with that socialism in disguise. And of course, they use Friedman to "Free" their minds of the moral issues.

[rockon6191]

@gyajoe I completely agree; it's why I was vocally against the bailouts. All they did was further create a moral hazard and prevent proper market function.

[ColossalCollapse]

@rockon6191 how about the state provodes the brunt of the price of third level education and even if your parents income is below a certain treshold you may even recieve a maintenance grant. In my opinion everyone is intitled to a chance at third level education based on their school grades and it sieses to be an elitest system anymore. It seems to be working fine here in Ireland.

[rockon6191]

@ColossalCollapse One of the problems we have in America is that the state is willing to pay a huge cost of education, so schools raise their tuition exponentially-- since most students pay for college with fed aid and loans the school gets the huge amount they ask for. The problem is kids that can't get aid but could otherwise afford college can't pay the full cost of tuition, and lots of kids have to take out massive loans to compensate for the aid they can't get. It distorts the market.

[ColossalCollapse]

@rockon6191 a catch 22 situation. I worked there for the summer and saw the huge debts these young people were facing in their early 2o's was sicking, to be honest I think its just sad. Also I dont think the american high school curiculim is tough enough compared to European one's. Lets be honest unless you live in a semi communist state education isnt going to entirley free. But if you take the approach Ireland dose it works out for a better educated population.

[Harrymfink]

Your argument leaves no room for social influence on any persons. It's assumed that everyone is born on equal grounds. So I'd like to read an explanation as to why minorities have a much higher drop out rate in college? Do they just no work hard enough?

[rockon6191]

@Harrymfink Speaking carefully and from limited experience (as I am not a minority), minority students are often handed the short end when it comes to education from K-12. They tend to be pushed through the system at the worst schools and thus even the ones that performed well in high school make it to college are not adequately prepared. This is one of the greatest reasons why American public education so badly needs reform. Of course, there are a myriad of reasons that can't fit on youtube.

[Harrymfink]

Thank you for refuting your own statement. 

[rockon6191]

@Harrymfink I've refuted nothing. I never said anything previously about k-12 public education. I spoke strictly of higher education.

[Harrymfink]

So the misfortune of being born into a lower-class minority family and going to the public school K through 12 that offers the minimal service to students has no influence on the decisions one would make? (e.i. "earning it")

[rockon6191]

@Harrymfink Of course it matters, but that's a minority case in what I was referring to with my previous comments, considering the vast majority of those students don't make it to college to begin with.

[TimeWarp66]

@rockon6191

It's actually government backed student loans that are causing these outrageously high prices. Before the government got involved with providing student loans, college tuitions were far cheaper, the vast majority of people didn't need loans.

But at that time you didn't even need a college degree to a decent job.

[SkepticThink]

"why do we have so many millionaires in the United States, and, such as?"

[2dum2getsocialism]

"dont get off the subject...."

every conversation with a leftist should be filled with this expression as the desire to leave the subject and fill the air with as many drive by talking points eventually ending in "you're racist..." is the only way these people can speak

[atlasman55]

Milton Friedman is very good at demonstrating his intellectual superiority to old housewives and young students. What a hero, what a colossus.

[billhicks8]

@atlasman55

Who and where the fuck did you want to him demonstrate his intellect? He's in a room here debating academics and ordinary folk alike! Are you saying that 'old housewives' and 'young students' aren't worth the time? I'm sure you feel your views support the voice of the common man more than Friedman so it can't be that!

[billhicks8]

@atlasman55

'Oh sorry, did you think I was being ironic? You misunderstand, I was being perfectly sincere. '

I believe this is what you were saying! if you're going to be glib, you might as well stand by it, it's all you seem to have going for you after all.

[atlasman55]

@billhicks8 Sorry for removing my comment, I wasn't aware that it would mean so much to you. I realise now that you have a deep concern for the opinions of the common man. Which is presumably why you enjoy watching those opinions being cleverly manipulated by a disingenuous intellectual fraud. Like you, I admire the way in which Friedman is so adept at perverting an intellectual debate. It is a truly magnificent spectacle

.

[billhicks8]

@atlasman55

Just thought you might want to retain some level of faith in your opinion. I notice that you haven't or can't address my first response regarding your attempt to portray Friedman as some kind of simpleton-slaying coward, so I'm guessing any other points you are nodding towards possessing in regards to Friedmans' 'fraudulence' are similarly piss-weak sarcastic drivel.

[atlasman55]

@billhicks8 I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. You appear to be quite upset. Don't worry about it so much. Just keep watching these videos of Friedman 'schooling' kids and old ladies and keep admiring his obvious brilliance, his obvious ability to win debates with inexperienced non-academics. After all, what harm can it do, its just an irrelevant passtime after all.

[billhicks8]

@atlasman55

You're right, and the feeling you've irritated is the one regarding common sense. You alone are merely a harmless annoyance, but unfortunately there are many silly people like you that mistake attempts at wit as salient point making. So, now you know the room was full of intellectuals as well as poor, defenceless ordinary people you love to condescend to will you admit you were wrong? I'm sure I'll be amused by canny expectation!

[atlasman55]

@billhicks8 I refer you to my previous response.

[billhicks8]

@atlasman55

Okay I will take this part of your first response:

'Oh sorry' ... 'being perfectly sincere'

You are forgiven.

[iluvpoliticzz]

dont listen to women...

[shananagans5]

I love his tactic of asking questions until people answer their own questions and use self discovery to understand his side. This is a very powerful technique and he uses it frequently. Brilliant man on many levels.

[atlasman55]

@shananagans5 It's true, I agree that he is a very manipulative and disingenuous debater.

[shananagans5]

@atlasman55 If you are stuck, and can't get past your own flawed thinking then yes, you might call him manipulative and disingenuous.

[atlasman55]

@shananagans5 Good to hear that even Friedman supporters have such a low estimation of his intellectual honesty.

[shananagans5]

@atlasman55 Are you even aware you are being insulted and your comebacks make no sense whatsoever?

[atlasman55]

@shananagans5 Oh, I'm sorry that you didn't understand my response.

[OddRobb]

She just got put in her place.

[hamjam40]

She sounds like she wants to be on top ........this would require looking at her...te he!

[pcc68]

Friedman is full of sh*t. The wealthiest Americans invest that money in themselves and their friends, not in opportunities for other Americans. It's never been more clear than it is now. Unemployment is so high despite low taxes on billionaires for 10 years.

[johnsurs22]

@pcc68 Yeah and what do you mean by invest it in themselves? Do they spend it on goods and services? Don't people get their money when they buy those goods and services? If a billionaire buys a Ferrari, he has made a car salesman's life a whole lot better. If you want to address current unemployment, you have to address the boom created by the Federal Reserve. That's an entirely different story

[GiddyFilms]

@johnsurs22 I have no degree in economics, nor a strong base in the legal system but I do support free trade. With that, I believe pcc68 has some truth to be said, if one applies his example to the current banking industry. Untaxed derivatives by large account for trillions of dollars that are spent in a gamble between investors with no stake in the bank's businesses, and a vast majority of this money is not re-deposited in industry, but held onto. All other cases, billionaires help the economy.

[johnsurs22]

@GiddyFilms I'm having a tough time understanding your post. Could you clarify what you mean by "investors with no stake in the bank's businesses" and what exactly they do?

[GiddyFilms]

@johnsurs22 From what I take, derivatives are securities that derive their values from underlying assets (commodities, stocks, bonds, etc.), are good for hedgers because they reduce the risk for one party, and are good for speculators (If they are sure that oil prices will rise, etc). But, in today's market, derivatives have no underlying assets, allowing one guy to bet against another in a deal where neither one of them has a stake in the original transaction. In this sense, free market fails.

[johnsurs22]

@GiddyFilms Can you give an example of a derivative with no underlying asset?

[GiddyFilms]

@johnsurs22 This is where my limited knowledge hits a dead end - and I made a fallacy by saying no underlying asset - as all derivatives start with some asset. However, in the cases today, the derivative contract is traded but not the underlying asset, so one does not have to own the asset before one could sell a derivatives contract. This is where the gambling starts. To quote a knowledgeable man in the business world, Warren Buffet once called them "financial weapons of mass destruction." O_O

[johnsurs22]

@GiddyFilms Oh okay I see what you mean now. So you are talking about people trading the derivative on paper, right? People gambling and getting burned? There are two problems in our current system that allow for this behavior. The first problem is the Federal Reserve- right now the Fed keeps interest far lower than the market rate; they keep it at about 2%. But you and I can't borrow from the Fed; we have to borrow from banks or private individuals. This is where the second problem comes in-

[johnsurs22]

@GiddyFilms The Fed and the federal government both have a savior mentality. Even though you and I can't borrow from the Fed, if a speculative investor makes a bad investment and his investment crashes, the Fed will bail him out directly. Combine this with the artificially low 2% interest rate, and it means that investors can gamble at no cost, because even paying back interest on bail out loans is so cheap. These are both anti-free market policies that Friedman opposed vehemently

[inso99]

and what do you suppose low income and middle class do? invest them too, MINUS buying ten cars and a second yatch built in another country. they literally spend it right away, cause they have too. the top two percent are sitting on oodles of money right now because of "uncertainty" which means that money is not being spent.

[johnsurs22]

@inso99 Buying those ten cars and the yacht help employ a lot of people and give those people money to keep their businesses alive. It is true that the wealthiest people have the lowest propensity to consume, but even if they keep it in the bank, that is more money for the bank to invest without the Fed having to increase money supply. That means that rich people banking their money makes sure that my dollar and your dollar keep their purchasing power.

[inso99]

@johnsurs22 - only if they are spent in the country the buyer/rich guy is living in, which is more than often not the case because labour is cheaper in poor countries. 2 - what good does that do when the economy chills down because the rich get richer and don't spend the majority of their money (certainly what they get in tax relief). if the wealth is distributed more evenly (I'm not taking communism, but a fair tax burden) everybody wins in the end, the rich included, because the economy grows.

[inso99]

@inso99 ... cont. instead of people getting laid off and the wealth disparity grows in a negative spiral ---> more crime, economy dries out and shrinks etc.

in free to choose friedman talks about hong cong. if you read up on wikipedia for example, you can see how the difference between the rich and poor has increased.

[johnsurs22]

@inso99 The misconception that you have is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. No, that is not the case. The wealth gap is getting larger, but simply, the poor are becoming richer and the rich are becoming richer at a faster rate. Everybody is winning; crime rates are going down. Hong Kong is still one of the most successful countries in the world economically. So what is the problem exactly? If you want more people to buy from and invest in America...

[johnsurs22]

@inso99 you simply stop the over-regulation. I live in California and every business is leaving us to go to Arizona where it is cheaper to run business. That's how you encourage growth and improve the economy. As for China, everyone benefits from cheap labor from China, not just the rich. If a country makes products that are significantly cheaper, that means that the consumer gets cheaper products. How is this bad? You are only looking at it from the job loss aspect and not the money saved

[johnsurs22]

@inso99 The money that the rich person saves from buying cheaper products from China, he will use to fund the service industry in the U.S. Manufacturing will come and go, but the service industry will always be here, because it is not possible for someone to provide a restaurant or movie theater from abroad. Instead of shunning this part of our economy, we should encourage it. Hong Kong has been service based for 150 years and it is one of the most successful countries in the world.

[AmandaFeetJeansFan]

that woman's opinion was as attractive as her accent



[AsymmetricalWarfare]

@AmandaFeetJeansFan And her face.

[92spectrum]

@AmandaFeetJeansFan brilliant comment

[EarthBeautifull]

Liberals talk out of there ass

[NRPBrute]

What a twit that woman was.

[AlexNOSAM]

@NRPBrute The simple primitive "I didn't get something I deserve by right" mentality instead of actually doing something for themselves. Most of the people the place I come from are like it...