Politicians don't care about voters, they care about donors. They will pay lip service to the grievances of the ever increasing mass of poor voters but when it comes to the crunch after they are elected who do they listen to the people or their wealthy donors? If they play ball these crooks get jobs with their donors when the mostly stupid and poor voting populace throws them out for some other crook who will rob them blind. You ever heard of the term disenfranchised before? That is the poor.
@SuperThe86 You can't build anything you want in the freemarket. well you can but it must to conform to what customers demand. Meaning if they want it that way and that safe then it must be that way and that safe.
@SuperThe86 "you should not be allowed to buy for your kid a toy gun that makes a similar noise to a real gunshot." And this points to miltons primariy principle about others trying to do good for others by FORCE. I've been shooting REAL guns since I was a kid. You deciding what's best for parents in making choices on their own kids is what's sickening, A toy gun that makes a gun shot noise isn't going to influence that kid later on in life to go randomly kill people.
@SuperThe86 Same thing as retarded gun control having no effect on reducing crime. It's nothing more than fear and lack of understanding about the reality of the situation.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind
a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” 29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.
35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” 37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
you're just changing the sense of the word "greed", putting it in place where "curiosity", "intellectual stimulation" make more sense. That's Friedman problem; it's truly a "totalitarian" mind like in "1984", where "black is white", "peace is war", etc: you play with words so long as you come to see greed everywhere ("cooperation IS competition", "altruism IS self-interest",etc.). But this proves only that you efficiently close out the real world and the diversity of human motives
mean,evil,greedy,capitalist, waitresses, cashiers,clerks,cooks,gardeners,janitors, these are the people that socialist hate the most. they are not trying to take money away from the rich, they are trying to starve the poor. and it's working. stop socialism now.
if you ever read this, just think about it: what is the connection between Einstein's work and greed??? None. The great scientific discoveries were ALL driven by other motives than profit, this can be easily verified in history books. True, the business applications of these discoveries are mostly driven by greed/profit, but the relay on Einstein-minded motives.... That's where Friedman turns out to be SOOOOOOO normative.....
@maxime75012 Dear, of course Einstein work was based on greed. Was it based on a greed for money? Who knows. But either it was his greed for more luxury, for praise and recognition or even the greed of succeeding, it was greed.
@John20xd6 What was the "sense" friedman talked into Donahue? can you enumerate the points? ...because all I heard was "Greed is Good"... what did I miss?
Wasn't friedman an Ayn Rand cult member?
Didn't Ayn Rand end up a welfare-queen on social security getting free health care and welfare?
@Shroommduke First of all, to the "Ayn Rand cult" point you make, no. Friedman agreed with Rand on some things, but certainly not everything. They were allies in the political world for sure, but that's about it. How Ayn Rand finished her life is of zero consequence to the validity of Friedman's points, so I don't even know why you brought it up.
@Shroommduke As for "greed is good," I got a little more than that. My take from this is that "greed" is a word that Bob uses to describe Charlie's interests when they conflict with Bob's interests. Friedman said that all people base their decisions on self-interest, and that no legislative system can change that. We can call it "greed" when the person is a rich person we'll never meet, but we can't say we'd behave differently. Politics doesn't solve the problem. It can't cure "greed."
Virtue is its own reward but there is nothing virtuous about a man who preaches Lust, Greed Gluttony Envy, and Pride, Money is not evil, but the love of money is.
A little capitalism can be a good thing when it's kept in balance, like anything it needs to be regulated monitored and controlled.
Unfortunately Capitalism has become a large cult with many mindless zealots who, instead of adjusting their theology when logic dictates, attacks anyone who questions their steadfast beliefs.
(I will find a way to keep the promises of the Democratic Party.) It's just amazing; what a few "intellectual libertarian punks" with a few bottom feeder lobbyists; can do to to our beautiful country. ( It's just purely amazing)
@1awareness Most who believe in liberty wouldn't consider being called an "Intellectual libertarian punk" an insult. If you think about what the government can do, it has a very limited range of tools: force and coercion.
Whenever the government provides opportunities and privileges for white people and rich people they call it ‘subsidies.’ When they do it for Negro and poor people they call it ‘welfare.’ The fact is that everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit
And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with federally subsidized money to the tune of ninety percent. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem." -Martin Luther King Jr.
douche. He presumes to measure the wellbeing and happiness off all people throughout history in economic terms, thus presupposing the correctness of both his argument and of the capitalist system. European history is not world history. Read a book.
Well, it is true though that the poorest in America are much more able to control their lives, than the poor in other countries.
Having a system which makes clean water, cheap food, oppurtunity and education a little easier to get is better than living in 3rd world squalor. Anyone who rejects that, should take a trip to India and see the difference.
The problem is force being used on peaceful people.
Unfortunately we´ll see rather sooner than later what 7.000.000.000 greedy consumers manage to accomplish within such a simplistic and short term economic system.
I love how instead of answering the question of rewarding virtue instead of manipulation he simply compares capitalism to worse systems, it's the same type of flaw as comparing the U.S. to worse countries and then saying "just be glad you live in this country" fuck no, we can do better
Pure technocrats like Friedman should all burn in hell, he is one mother fucker double talker who loves to be a smart ass and never answers a question criticizing him, he is like all the bastards in history who enable the bigger bastards by justifying some how the nature of their evil. If some one executed every neo-lib I would not lose any sleep. Friedman is a disgusting PIG who expressing his views without any sense of need aesthetic ethics morality beyond the vague individual.
@daydreamingsince1990 That's a useless comment unless u explain the basis for why you said it. It would be the same if I said Stalin and Chairman Mao would be proud of you simply because you disagree with this video.
Here is the crux of the American decision in 2012: do we think that political self-interest (big government) will be better than economic self-interest (limited govt.)?
@kwente1 I have. I would invite you to look at and listen to what Obama said before he got elected. He said all kinds of good things. Get the lobbyists out of the government. More transparency. Then once he got elected, he did the opposite. What makes you think Ron Paul wouldn't do the same?
@beauxq Because he has been saying the same exact things for 30 years, even when it didn't get him elected. Because he gets booed at debates but doesn't budge. Because he refuses to take a government pension. There is NO guarantee that anyone will do what they say they're going to do, but given his track record, there is overwhelming evidence that he will follow through to the best of his ability. I must note too, that he constantly reminds people that the president SHOULD be limited.
@beauxq Then you haven't followed either Obama or Paul. You could say it, and you could think it was reasonable, but it would be untrue. AND--remember, Obama promised bigger government and look what we've got!? Bigger government....so he has followed through on some things.
@kwente1 off-topic, but... It's a bad idea to think people are entitled to any opnion. An opinion is the only thing people have to act on. So people are forced to act on their opinion, and if they act on a untrue opinion, they can hurt people. So if you think someone's opinion is wrong, you shouldn't tell them they're entitled to it.
@beauxq It's disturbing that you think that way. If your logic is followed through to its conclusion here's how it works: the infinite number of opinions different from yours are untrue, the people holding those opinions aren't entitled to them because they might hurt people, and thus it's your obligation to forcefully eliminate all other opinions other than yours to prevent people from being hurt. This is essentially the model for every dictator and tyrannical government on earth.
@electroplate No. What you're saying has no relation to what I said, because you're talking about my opinion and I didn't say anything about my opinion. No one is entitled to any opinion, not even me.
@beauxq My point is that being entitled to one's opinion equates to free speech and expression. Your assertion that no one is entitled to their opinions implies that opinions should be shut down and restricted.
Here's another thought on the vice of wild excess that is greed, from James Madison, the author of the U.S. Constitution: "If men were angels there would be no need for government."
@followthefleet1 I agree with James Madison. This quote applies just as much to men IN the government as it does to those being governed. This quote underscores the reason why the government must be kept small and limited in scope to those powers specified in the constitution. When the government grows too large and powerful you start seeing very clearly why men are not angels. When too much power is available they can't resist using it for their own objectives.
@electroplate A thoughtful response. I don't really agree with it but thoughtful nonetheless. Here's another from Madison: "The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the had of the few. When that day comes we must rely on the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation." In our mega-corporate national and supra national global economy, with so many powerful private players....How?
@followthefleet1 I appreciate your thoughtful response in return. Unlike your first quote from Madison, your most recent one isn't genuine. Setting aside the quote's authenticity, I understand the fear that many people have of corporations and that they feel government protection from them is necessary. However, I ask you to consider a few points in deciding whether corporations or governments are a greater threat. (continued)
(cont from previous) 1.Throughout human history the most heinous acts of oppression, killing, and violation of the natural rights of people have come from governments. This is still evident today. 2.Corporations get their power from either producing something of value that someone is willing to pay for or by lobbying the government for special privileges (think about the bailouts of banks and GM). 3.Corporations that produce something of value create wealth and jobs.
(cont. again) That's just a sampling of why government power should be more feared than corporate power. Corporations are the most dangerous when they use lobbyists to buy off politicians and gain special advantages. The answer: take away the power of the politicians to hand out those advantages to their corporate and union cronies.
@electroplate It's you apply it to men in government. Madison clearly applies it to those outside. And my sources tell me that Madison's second quote is indeed genuine. It shouldn't be a surprise. And yes, I can think of good that corporations do.as well as bad. And I agree that government and corporate power are separate. When they are together, then we have the potential for a powerful oppression. Democracies historically act in support, or opposition, to forces within society.
@followthefleet1 This is aside from the main point we're discussing but I'm close to 100% certain the second quote you gave from Madison isn't genuine. I did some research and found out why that quote has been mistakenly attributed to him. The first quote about men not being angels if from the Federalist papers (which argues against a strong and overreaching central government). I'm glad we at least agree on how dangerous it is when big government and big business join forces.
It's not profit making that's the fault, it's the wildly excessive profit making. It's not self interest that's at fault, it's the wildly excessive self interest, that pays no heed to the social contract. Instead of the Friedman version of selfishness, we need a culture that balances self interest with public good. There will be no genuine peace until America comes closer to this balance. Sorry, but "the government of the people, by the people, and for the people" plays an important role.
That is so so wrong: "Greed runs the world." Through out history humans have fought against each other for survival due to one reason: scarcity of the necessary resources to have a decent life. What a painful past. But the fact is that we already have the technology to produce abundance of everything for everyone. Our production capabilites far exceed our needs, but they are short to supply our "wants" generated by this sick consumerist culture. We have to change our ways if we want to survive.
Friedman is using the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Whatever isn't capitalism must be something that has done poorly in the past.
Capitalism encourages scarcity. Fiat currency requires scarcity. Einstein's developments and Ford's developments don't require or encourage scarcity. Those developments did not come from capitalism.
@beauxq He is not saying that whatever isn't capitalism is something poorly executed in the past. He says, in multiple ways mind you, that there is no *discovered* system that can measure up to capitalism. So he is admitting there may well be a better system, but retrying failed systems in an act of insanity.
Capitalism encourages people to make money. Ford's developments made him a ton of money. Those developments were driven precisely by a profit motive, and therefore capitalism.
@TangoKilo3 Invention cannot be motivated by profit. Invention is something that comes about by mistake. It's just stumbling across something, some idea. Ford's developments were not driven by capitalism. Capitalism just gave him a way to make money from his stumbling across ideas.
@beauxq Then why do companies spend billions on R&D? Sure, some inventions happen by mistake, or are stumbled across. Most come about through trial and error and finding the solution for a chosen problem. Capitalism illuminates those problems that are most pressing, by offering the greatest rewards for them. Do you think the inventions of Apple or IBM were not motivated by trying to obtain profits? The iPhone wasn't made by accident. It was made to secure a market share.
@TG1212able The R&D is just trying to find which way of implementing the invention will be able to make the most profit. No invention has ever been motivated by profit, because it CAN'T be.
@beauxq Oh. Ok. Because you put can't in all caps, that makes it a rock solid argument. Some of R&D is turning known technologies into products, but that is only part of it. Are you telling me that when a business develops new technology, it wasn't done in attempts to attain new profits? That when they see a problem and develop a solution, that was just for the hell of it? That's not to say all inventions were motivated by profits. But most have been.
@TG1212able Research has always shown that money doesn't motivate any creative or critical thinking. Can you imagine saying to your boss? "If you paid me just this much more, I'd be able to think of a way to deal with this problem we've been dealing with for so long." It's a rediculous idea. Money can't motivate someone to think of something.
@beauxq I think you are arguing semantics. It's true that you can't buy an idea, but it's also true that if you hire a lot of very intelligent engineers they can solve a lot of problems or produce (invent) the iPhone.
@TangoKilo3 Yes, engineers would be happy to give you the best smartphone possible, for free. Unfortunately, they can't. They don't have time because capitalism makes them do mindless inefficient work. And they don't have the resources because capitalism makes them use their resources to take care of themselves and their families.
@beauxq So if the engineers were given unlimited resources to do with what they wish, they would make a smartphone and give it too me for free? Don't you think they might take the chance, given that they are now not wasting their time making money to provide for their family, to go on vacation? to spend time with their kids? to build a model railroad?
I know if I had a free ride I would not spend my time doing much work, such as inventing something new.
@TangoKilo3 They would be able to do all that and help make the world a better place. Maybe you don't care about making the world a better place. I can see that.
@beauxq I think you are very naive about human nature. There are very few people who would bend over backwards to make other people lives easier. You mentioned earlier that all the politicians this election cycle are essentially the same. All the politicians in question have millions of dollars in their personal accounts, certainly enough that they don't need more. So why are they not making the world a better place? Why do they bailout their wall street friends?
@TangoKilo3 I think you are very gullible about human nature. What leads you to believe that this greed is part of human nature? Is it because all the humans you can see around you exhibit it? You have to remember that all of the humans you see around you were raised in the system that promotes greed. So if we change the system to not promote greed, what makes you think the greed would still be there?
@beauxq And people raised after the cultural revolution in China are not greedy? People raised in Communist Cuba are not greedy? No person previous to the conception/invention of capitalism ever greedily killed his neighbor for something he had? The fact is that people have always been greedy. The beauty of American style capitalism is that it doesn't go against human nature like communism or socialism, it allows us to pursue our own self interests often improving other lives in the process.
@TangoKilo3 I don't think it wouldn't matter for you to know what system does not promote greed if you still think that greed is part of human nature.
@beauxq People were bashing each other's heads in land, possessions, food, etc. for many years before capitalism/communism came around. Native American tribes got into wars over land and hunting grounds before the west came over so we know it wasn't something environmental in the "Old World". If you would prefer a more evolutionary delve into human nature it would make sense that in order to ensure our own survival we would seek to obtain as many resources as possible.
@TangoKilo3 It is exactly evolution that would prove greed is not part of human nature. Everything that evolution has given us is something that we needed at some point (even if we don't need it currently). But the definition of greed is wanting more than we need. Evolution can only deal with what we need. It cannot have any relation with anything that goes beyond what we need.
@beauxq So who was the first greedy human? Did early humans who were greed-free and happy to work to better humanity accidentally create a system where greed was suddenly introduced to the system?
@TangoKilo3 A group of 10 people don't know how to get more than 9 meals from the land they have, so they have to figure out a way to decide who gets the meals... You can probably get a sufficient idea of how things went from there.
But every system developed from that is now obsolete, since we have the technology and the resources to provide food and all needs for every person on the planet.
@beauxq You defined greed before as wanting more than one needed; obviously if there are only 9 meals among 10 people and no one is greedy, no one is taking 2 meals. So if one person dies off because there is not enough food there was still no greed by your definition.
@TangoKilo3 Did you only read the first phrase of that post? "so they have to figure out a way to decide who gets the meals..." From there a system is developed. You said it earlier. They inadvertently developed a system that promotes greed.
But every system developed from that (including capitalism) is now obsolete, since we have the technology and the resources to provide food and all needs for every person on the planet.
@beauxq I just don't understand how greed comes into being in that situation, one goes hungry from eating 1/9th less than normal and takes more than what he needs? If people without greed are happy to work for the benefit of others without incentive, it doesn't make sense that a person would just suddenly be greedy and start grabbing as much food as possible. What would make sense is people are born with greed and will try to take as much food as possible to ensure their own survival.
@TangoKilo3 You're still only thinking about the first part of that post. Think about the system that gets developed. The concept of value gets invented. The concept of status gets invented. These things change humanity drastically. Aquiring things with value becomes a representation of status.
@beauxq From the very beginning the things that would ensure survival would have value whether or not there was a scarcity. Food has intrinsic value greater than that of say a leaf. If there were 10 meals for 10 people, one person would not give up a meal because someone was willing to trade a pound of leaves for a pound of food.
Aside from the point of whether it is human nature or not, how would you propose getting rid of it from our current society so we could have your better system?
@TangoKilo3 For starters, stop reinforcing the idea that it's human nature. We are in the dark ages right now. It would be an enlightenment, about people becoming aware.
@beauxq See I disagree about being in the dark ages right now, I think the USA has been behind some of the greatest technological advances and advances in liberty. Now you may think that the advances we've made could have been greater if greed was not involved, but sadly I don't see any way in which we could measure given that we have yet to find a society free from greed. And given that we will probably never agree I bid you farewell.
@TangoKilo3 People would have thought all of that about themselves 800 years ago. If someone would have told them they were in the dark ages, they would have disagreed.
@TangoKilo3 It just so happens that, right now, I'm watching someone on a live stream over the internet do some hard, complex work without getting paid anything, without any self-benefit, only because it helps other people.
@beauxq And that's great for him but he is being paid. His ego is being stroked having people watch his live stream and I bet he'll put his name on whatever he is making earning him praise and recognition. It's not money, but it's still incentive.
@TangoKilo3 It's not "his live stream" and it's only to pass someone else's message, so there's nothing in it for the ego. There's no possibility of putting a name on it because it's not "his live stream."
@beauxq Yes money will not improve someones ability to be creative or critically think. But money/profits does motivate people to undertake creative and critical thinking. A company like Bic is not going to spend 10,000 hours trying to develop a better type of ink if there wasn't something in the long run that makes it worth it. That, my friend, is profit.Capitalism gives people a reason to invent, not the ability. You miss 100% of the opportunities you don't take.
@TG1212able "Bic" is not "developing" a "better type of ink". One person, that works for Bic because he is FORCED to, to put food on the table and a roof over his head, stopped being motivated by money for a few seconds (not 10,000 hours) to invent a better type of ink. You are using the reasoning of religous fanatics. Point to something good that happened and say "Look! God did that." Just because something gets invented within the market system doesn't mean money motivated it.
@beauxq Inventions don't just form in someone's head. They come about through the application of known science and engineering in different combinations to achieve a solution. Inventions don't come from luck, they come from persistence. They cost time, which is fleeting and thus valuable. Someone might bear the cost of time for invention because the invention itself is valuable. Capitalism provides an additonal motivating reason. Profit. 2 reasons to invent will lead to more inventions than 1.
@beauxq It might take 5 years to figure out the new formula. During that time, our inventor doesn't produce any food for his family, because he is inventing. Thus, he will only spend his time in the lab instead of the field if someone provides him with food while he invents. No one is going to take food off of their plate to give to him without expecting something in return. Of course, the inventor might fail, so you would want more than you give to balance the risk. That's called profit.
@TG1212able You pointed out the flaw of the system we live under: "No one is going to take food off of their plate to give to him without expecting something in return." That's the idea that capitalism promotes. (They don't have to take food off of their own plate, because we have the technology and resources to provide food and all the needs for every person on the planet.)
@beauxq So capitalism fails because capitalism has created such wealth? That's a bit odd. In 1978, farmers in the rural Chinese village of Xiaogang secretly converted their farming practices from the communal system to one of private ownership. The CCP found them out because in that year, they produced more food that the previous 5 years combined. Capitalism might have flaws (or expounds the flaws of human nature), but its clearly the best system. Arguing otherwise ignores reality and history.
@TG1212able Again, pointing to something good and saying "See? Capitalism did that!" If there's wealth, it must have been created by capitalism, but if there's poverty, that can't have been created by capitalism, right?
@beauxq Poverty is the absence of wealth, like dark is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat. In its natural state, man is poor, the earth is dark, and everything is cold. Man's ingenuity creates wealth, like the sun creates light and warmth. You're sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and saying 'lalala', to try and shield yourself from the reality that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else ever conceived. Let's hide from observations.
@TG1212able You haven't shown anything that shows that capitalism has brought people out of poverty. Just because someone is brought out of poverty where there is capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism did it.
@beauxq Doesn't it suggest something that a greater number of people rise above poverty in places that make use of capitalism as opposed to those that don't? That this is true across different cultures and different times, that doesn't hint at capitalism as the underlying cause? Please tell me why all societies that have embraced capitalism have done better than those that haven't. China was once unbelievably poor, but have prospered since adopting capitalistic principles. Why?
@TG1212able Do you think that capitalism only affects the countries that have adopted capitalistic principles? The countries that adopt capitalistic principles gather more wealth because they exploit other countries. And what you call "doing better" is quite subjective. The U.S. is has some of the highest inequality in the world. And China's inequality has increasing drastically. What good is having wealth in a country if only a few people in the country have that wealth?
@beauxq Wealth isn't a zero sum game. It comes from making more efficient uses of resources. Some exploitation exists, but it isn't the reason why rich countries are rich. The rich countries make better use of their own resources, especially time, because that's what capitalism promotes so well. And as far as inequality goes, who cares as long as everyone is generally better off? 500 million people have come out of poverty in China. Should that be thrown away because a few have much more?
@TG1212able Notice how you didn't answer the question? and so you still haven't shown anything that shows that capitalism has brought people out of poverty. Just because someone is brought out of poverty where there is capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism did it.
@beauxq Capitalism doesn't cause the individual inventor to think any better. It gives reasons for the people around him to support him while he invents. Of course the government could support him, but Mr. Bureaucrat isn't risking his own money, so he will be less careful than if he was risking his own. This failure buy him causes an increase in overall waste. Thus, we accept the waste or need to give Mr. Bureaucrat a reason to do a better job, like a gulag. Geez. Capitalism sounds much better.
@beauxq yah--I;m sure good 'ol Henry was just sitting there in his factory playing with toy cars when all of a sudden it hit him--let's make cars faster, more efficiently, with less overhead and more reliability just because.......
Deceptive fucking piece of cum. Capitalism is shit. Communism is shit. ANYTHING LIKE THESE EXAMPLES ARE BULLSHIT!!! WHY? Capitalism. YOU CAN NEVER PAY OFF YOUR DEBTS U LITTLE FAG! Because YOU HAVE TO PAY INTEREST BUT WTF? THE MONEY DOESN'T EVEN EXIST U LIL BITCH JEW SATANIST PROPAGANDA QUEER. DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON COMMUNISM ALL OF THEM R TEH SUXZ!!
I think it's funny how people demonize greed. Like my dad for example, always crying about other old people his age still having to work and society should "help" them. I say ok dad donate your social security check to them. He says oh God no I didn't say I'd do it, it should be the younger working generation. What does he do once he starts collecting social security? He buys a new car. So much for that altruistic high road. This behavior is typical.
@tehatemachine all of this people is the same: Aznar, Thatcher, Bush, Uribe, and this "economist"... They are very democratic and respectful, but, really they murder, support dictatorships, invade countries...
@SUPERNIAPER Libertarians are against government having control over the peoples lives. Milton is a libertarian. The only way to have a dictatorship is to have power concentrated in the hands of the few.
@tehatemachine yes, the theory is wonderful, but really, that type of "democratic and libertarian" person, have justified or support war and dictatorship, like Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher with Pinochet, Aznar with Franco, Donald Rumsfeld with Sadam...
@SUPERNIAPER The whole assertion that Milton was friends with Pinochet are complete unjustified myth. He only met Pinochet once in person and that was very brief, Milton clearly stated that he doesn't condone what the Chilean government has been doing to it's people. But he was right, Chile is alot freer than it used to be.
By rewarding work that results in sustainability, we open up the economy to those poor souls that wander the streets on trash-pickup day, scrounging through "worthless" recyclables. They should be paid. By valuing the work that contributes to healthier living for all of us, we honor life and our time, in the full awareness that we are providing for the future.
Friedman haughtily draws extreme comparisons with repugnant regimes as if there's no alternative to greed. Thirty-two years later, behold a planet in severe decline, his words reek, the flatulence of a horse's ass. Now we know, enterprise that respects the Earth and contributes to the sustainability of Earth's ecosystem deserves our respect and reward. An expanding population must uphold and protect that which all humankind has in common.
@allannus For example..Quantum mechanics made its first steps in europe.Heisenberg,one of its fathers studied in the university of Göttingen,Berlin,Munch etc..Guess what,all of them public.The MIT University in its firts steps adopted the german research polytechnic model..A public model not a private one.The Charlatan and liar on this video can ignore Historical facts but I dont
@alalas78 So what if 100% of the people attend University and 75% study subjects which do not contribute to their productivity? Sustainable system? Where does the resources come from for those "public" Universities... you may have said "free" instead. Of course on both counts you would likely try to discard the fact that they are not free at all... and the resources have come from somewhere...
@alalas78 We can keep listing examples of govt and private educated scientists, but Friedman is right: Einstein didn't develop his theory bcs govt told him so. I recognize there are public school-educated people who helped advance science, but I believe private school educ. will always be better, bcs private schools risk their capital to educate ppl and will have more reasons to excel than public schools that can be mediocre but still receive taxpayer funding anyway.
@alalas78 Perhaps the point that private education is better than public education can be illustrated by the Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai ranking), which has in its top 10 seven private universities (its top 3 are all private). Other university rankings like the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings have more private than public universities in their top 10 lists.
@scotty2hotty240193 But in a country without decent goverment education the percentage of analphabitism is gonna go very high.And let me tell you something.SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT AS WE KNOW IT IN THE WEST WAS BORN IN CLASSICAL GREECE AND ESPECIALLY IN DEMOCRATIC ATHENS..AND ITS EDUCATION WAS GOVERMENTALL NOT PRIVATE...
scotty2hotty240193 WALKING ON THE MOON MAY IT WAS A WASTE OF TIME FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PROFIT. BUT MANKIND(AND IN THIS CASE THE US) ACHIEVED MANY BREAKTHROUGHTS IN THE FIELDS OF PHYSICS, MATERIALS TECHNOLLOGY ETC ETC. SO PLEASE WALKING ON THE MOON IT WAS A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT AND AS A TAX PAYER IN MY COUNTRY I VE PAYED TAXES ON MANY MORE USELLESS THINGS THAN THAT
@allannus DO YOU UNDERESTIMATE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF GERMANY BEFORE THE SECOND WORLD WAR? LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. AT LEAST IN THE FIELD OF PHYSICS BEFORE WW2 THE GERMAN UNIVERSITIES WERE BETTER THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF US. OF COURSE AFTER WW2 THIS CHANGED. SO EINSTEIN IN THE END EDUCATED IN VERY HIGH STANDARD SYSTEM LIKE THE GERMAN ONE AND GUESS WHAT...IT WAS MOSTLY GOVERMENTAL. SO MISTER MILTON CHARLATAN FRIEDMAN "MISSED " THE POINT OR DOING IT ON PURPOSE
@scotty2hotty240193 THERE WAS AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE HUMAN PERIODS THAT EDUCATION WILL BE ON VERY HIGH STANDARDS EVEN WITHOUT PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES AND SCHOOLS ON THE OTHER HAND.BUT WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT EINSTEIN WAS A PRODUCT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.SO THIS NOBEL PRIZED LIAR HAS TO KNOW IT OR PRETEND THAT HE DOESNT KNOW
The classic canard of comparing Randroid capitalism to Soviet communism when asked to compare it to social democracy. This is how asspies actually think.
AND GUESS WHAT EINSTEIN WAS EDUCATED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AND IN FACT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES ACROSS EUROPE THIS ERA PRODUCE MANY TOP SCIENTISTS LIKE HIM..BUT GUESS WHAT MR MILTON FRIEDMAN(SOMETHING LIKE JESUS FOR HIS RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS) DOESNT LET A SMALL DETAIL TO RUIN A GOOD STORY...
@scotty2hotty240193 True. One would wonder what else Einstein would have done if he studied in the likes of Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Stanford or Columbia, all of which are private universities.
The great achievements of civilisation come from free market...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.So man went to moon from free market and not from goverment spendings and the same happened with internet..hahahaha.only free market gave technology but in fact SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT WAS ESTABLISHED IN ANCIENT GREECE THROUGHT ITS CLASSICAL ERA AND GUESS WHAT MR MILTON CHARLATAN FRIEDMAN...THEY DIDNT HAVE FREE MARKET BECAUSE THEY DIDNT HAVE THE NEED TO INVENT IT..THEY HAD FILOSHOPHERS NOT CHARLATANS LIKE YOU...
@alalas78 Who's to say going to the moon was great achievement? What exactly did it achieve besides wasting tax payers income when it could be put to a better use.
"In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries."
@HealthyPlanet Only a couple of problems - Klein's outright lies have been completely debunked; Friedman never argues that people are "evil" (which isn't the case; capitalism has done more to ease needless suffering than any other system ever devised by the mind of Man and those who cannot grasp these points are typically undereducated, confused and terrified.
I truly hope fanatical people like Mr Friedman - that when they physicially die - are born on another planet with fanatical people like themselves. Those who imply like Mr Friedman did, that people are evil and are looking primarily out for themselves, create needless suffering and are projecting. Their viewpoint is skewed. They believe they are evil thus they are justified in doing harm. The thing is, he and those like him, are not evil. They are only undereducated, confused and terrified.
These words are as true today as they were in 1979. Note the year: 1979, the tail-end of another failed president’s single term.
dthomas9444 12 hours ago
Politicians don't care about voters, they care about donors. They will pay lip service to the grievances of the ever increasing mass of poor voters but when it comes to the crunch after they are elected who do they listen to the people or their wealthy donors? If they play ball these crooks get jobs with their donors when the mostly stupid and poor voting populace throws them out for some other crook who will rob them blind. You ever heard of the term disenfranchised before? That is the poor.
Spentastic 21 hours ago
Milton Friedman is very unbiased
GiveMeABloodyUser 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck this guy
sek3ymisek3ymi 2 days ago
@sek3ymisek3ymi
upvote
schmoborama 14 hours ago
Milton Friedman = free market fundamentalist
Free market is good but not 100% free.
Some regulations are bad others are good.
Imagine the consequences of Chile earthquake without strict regulations when everyone is allowed to build the way he likes.
Toy guns that look and sound similar to real weapons would be very popular among kids.But they can be confused easy to real weapons.
Higher audience = more money
Do you think kids would not enjoy seeing porn movies on kids channel?
SuperThe86 2 days ago
@SuperThe86 You can't build anything you want in the freemarket. well you can but it must to conform to what customers demand. Meaning if they want it that way and that safe then it must be that way and that safe.
tehatemachine 2 days ago
@tehatemachine As I said, you should not be allowed to buy for your kid a toy gun that makes a similar noise to a real gunshot.
In Europe anti lock brakes(ABS) are mandatory on all new cars since 2007.
Search on youtube "chinese crash test" to see how miserably they fail. Cars made 30-40 years ago were safer.
Because they failed safety regulations, Chinese cars are not accepted on the European market.
SuperThe86 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperThe86 "you should not be allowed to buy for your kid a toy gun that makes a similar noise to a real gunshot." And this points to miltons primariy principle about others trying to do good for others by FORCE. I've been shooting REAL guns since I was a kid. You deciding what's best for parents in making choices on their own kids is what's sickening, A toy gun that makes a gun shot noise isn't going to influence that kid later on in life to go randomly kill people.
tehatemachine 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tehatemachine
"A toy gun that makes a gun shot noise isn't going to influence that kid "
No, it will just get him shot by a cop who thinks it's real.
schmoborama 14 hours ago
@SuperThe86 Same thing as retarded gun control having no effect on reducing crime. It's nothing more than fear and lack of understanding about the reality of the situation.
tehatemachine 2 days ago
Amun-RA
1awareness 3 days ago
Luke 10:25-37
New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind
1awareness 3 days ago
a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” 29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
1awareness 3 days ago
A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.
1awareness 3 days ago
35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” 37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
1awareness 3 days ago
Miltys a cunt...
bongoloid77 4 days ago
you're just changing the sense of the word "greed", putting it in place where "curiosity", "intellectual stimulation" make more sense. That's Friedman problem; it's truly a "totalitarian" mind like in "1984", where "black is white", "peace is war", etc: you play with words so long as you come to see greed everywhere ("cooperation IS competition", "altruism IS self-interest",etc.). But this proves only that you efficiently close out the real world and the diversity of human motives
maxime75012 4 days ago
mean,evil,greedy,capitalist, waitresses, cashiers,clerks,cooks,gardeners,janitors, these are the people that socialist hate the most. they are not trying to take money away from the rich, they are trying to starve the poor. and it's working. stop socialism now.
halloranedward 4 days ago
if you ever read this, just think about it: what is the connection between Einstein's work and greed??? None. The great scientific discoveries were ALL driven by other motives than profit, this can be easily verified in history books. True, the business applications of these discoveries are mostly driven by greed/profit, but the relay on Einstein-minded motives.... That's where Friedman turns out to be SOOOOOOO normative.....
maxime75012 4 days ago
@maxime75012 Dear, of course Einstein work was based on greed. Was it based on a greed for money? Who knows. But either it was his greed for more luxury, for praise and recognition or even the greed of succeeding, it was greed.
MrWehe12 4 days ago
@John20xd6 What was the "sense" friedman talked into Donahue? can you enumerate the points? ...because all I heard was "Greed is Good"... what did I miss?
Wasn't friedman an Ayn Rand cult member?
Didn't Ayn Rand end up a welfare-queen on social security getting free health care and welfare?
Shroommduke 5 days ago
@Shroommduke First of all, to the "Ayn Rand cult" point you make, no. Friedman agreed with Rand on some things, but certainly not everything. They were allies in the political world for sure, but that's about it. How Ayn Rand finished her life is of zero consequence to the validity of Friedman's points, so I don't even know why you brought it up.
DarkDefender1024 5 days ago
@Shroommduke As for "greed is good," I got a little more than that. My take from this is that "greed" is a word that Bob uses to describe Charlie's interests when they conflict with Bob's interests. Friedman said that all people base their decisions on self-interest, and that no legislative system can change that. We can call it "greed" when the person is a rich person we'll never meet, but we can't say we'd behave differently. Politics doesn't solve the problem. It can't cure "greed."
DarkDefender1024 5 days ago
Virtue is its own reward but there is nothing virtuous about a man who preaches Lust, Greed Gluttony Envy, and Pride, Money is not evil, but the love of money is.
A little capitalism can be a good thing when it's kept in balance, like anything it needs to be regulated monitored and controlled.
Unfortunately Capitalism has become a large cult with many mindless zealots who, instead of adjusting their theology when logic dictates, attacks anyone who questions their steadfast beliefs.
Shroommduke 5 days ago
I think that Friedman could have answered a bit better by differentiating greed from want. There IS a difference.
PlutoPowered 6 days ago
(I will find a way to keep the promises of the Democratic Party.) It's just amazing; what a few "intellectual libertarian punks" with a few bottom feeder lobbyists; can do to to our beautiful country. ( It's just purely amazing)
1awareness 1 week ago
@1awareness Most who believe in liberty wouldn't consider being called an "Intellectual libertarian punk" an insult. If you think about what the government can do, it has a very limited range of tools: force and coercion.
electroplate 6 days ago
Whenever the government provides opportunities and privileges for white people and rich people they call it ‘subsidies.’ When they do it for Negro and poor people they call it ‘welfare.’ The fact is that everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit
1awareness 1 week ago
And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with federally subsidized money to the tune of ninety percent. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem." -Martin Luther King Jr.
1awareness 1 week ago
douche. He presumes to measure the wellbeing and happiness off all people throughout history in economic terms, thus presupposing the correctness of both his argument and of the capitalist system. European history is not world history. Read a book.
pinkzillarock 1 week ago
@pinkzillarock
Well, it is true though that the poorest in America are much more able to control their lives, than the poor in other countries.
Having a system which makes clean water, cheap food, oppurtunity and education a little easier to get is better than living in 3rd world squalor. Anyone who rejects that, should take a trip to India and see the difference.
The problem is force being used on peaceful people.
RyanR3volution 6 days ago
Unfortunately we´ll see rather sooner than later what 7.000.000.000 greedy consumers manage to accomplish within such a simplistic and short term economic system.
krause79 1 week ago
I love how instead of answering the question of rewarding virtue instead of manipulation he simply compares capitalism to worse systems, it's the same type of flaw as comparing the U.S. to worse countries and then saying "just be glad you live in this country" fuck no, we can do better
MrSkate4weed 1 week ago
Pure technocrats like Friedman should all burn in hell, he is one mother fucker double talker who loves to be a smart ass and never answers a question criticizing him, he is like all the bastards in history who enable the bigger bastards by justifying some how the nature of their evil. If some one executed every neo-lib I would not lose any sleep. Friedman is a disgusting PIG who expressing his views without any sense of need aesthetic ethics morality beyond the vague individual.
AndrewStergiou 1 week ago
@AndrewStergiou so mad
CaptainSkeletor 1 week ago
@AndrewStergiou you should probably provide an ounce of proof that Friedman is as disgusting as you claim if you want to be taken seriously...
zeppelin2224 1 week ago
@zeppelin2224 templeofreason(dot)org/news/?p=2792
AndrewStergiou 1 week ago
@AndrewStergiou I wouldn't label him a technocrat though.
focista6 6 days ago
All the dislikes are from people who deny reality and who have developed some sort of Stockholm Syndrome toward the state.
sheepOG 1 week ago
Gordon Gekko would be proud of him
daydreamingsince1990 1 week ago
@daydreamingsince1990 That's a useless comment unless u explain the basis for why you said it. It would be the same if I said Stalin and Chairman Mao would be proud of you simply because you disagree with this video.
electroplate 1 week ago
@electroplate xD you jerk, it was a joke!. Gordon Gekko is a fictional character of a movie called Wall Street.
daydreamingsince1990 1 week ago
Here is the crux of the American decision in 2012: do we think that political self-interest (big government) will be better than economic self-interest (limited govt.)?
kwente1 1 week ago
@kwente1 That decision is an illusion. All canidates available will be for the same end.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq I would invite you then to look at and listen closely to Ron Paul.
kwente1 1 week ago
@kwente1 I have. I would invite you to look at and listen to what Obama said before he got elected. He said all kinds of good things. Get the lobbyists out of the government. More transparency. Then once he got elected, he did the opposite. What makes you think Ron Paul wouldn't do the same?
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Because he has been saying the same exact things for 30 years, even when it didn't get him elected. Because he gets booed at debates but doesn't budge. Because he refuses to take a government pension. There is NO guarantee that anyone will do what they say they're going to do, but given his track record, there is overwhelming evidence that he will follow through to the best of his ability. I must note too, that he constantly reminds people that the president SHOULD be limited.
kwente1 1 week ago
@kwente1 You could reasonably say all the same things about Obama before he got elected.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Then you haven't followed either Obama or Paul. You could say it, and you could think it was reasonable, but it would be untrue. AND--remember, Obama promised bigger government and look what we've got!? Bigger government....so he has followed through on some things.
kwente1 1 week ago
@kwente1 Yeah, Paul would follow through on some things too. Just not the things that are good for the people.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq And that is your opinion, which you're completely entitled to and should follow.... but I'd consider your conclusion carefully. Good luck
kwente1 1 week ago
@kwente1 off-topic, but... It's a bad idea to think people are entitled to any opnion. An opinion is the only thing people have to act on. So people are forced to act on their opinion, and if they act on a untrue opinion, they can hurt people. So if you think someone's opinion is wrong, you shouldn't tell them they're entitled to it.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Ok--I'll remember that. Thank you.
kwente1 1 week ago
@beauxq It's disturbing that you think that way. If your logic is followed through to its conclusion here's how it works: the infinite number of opinions different from yours are untrue, the people holding those opinions aren't entitled to them because they might hurt people, and thus it's your obligation to forcefully eliminate all other opinions other than yours to prevent people from being hurt. This is essentially the model for every dictator and tyrannical government on earth.
electroplate 1 week ago
@electroplate No. What you're saying has no relation to what I said, because you're talking about my opinion and I didn't say anything about my opinion. No one is entitled to any opinion, not even me.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq My point is that being entitled to one's opinion equates to free speech and expression. Your assertion that no one is entitled to their opinions implies that opinions should be shut down and restricted.
electroplate 1 week ago
@electroplate No, it does not imply that.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq He wouldn't because the guy has been consistent for MANY years saying the same thing.
tehatemachine 1 week ago
if you don't think this is truth than something wrong in your head
chillaxer1993 1 week ago
Milton's a very under rated intellectual thinker
mrgarlicbread100 1 week ago
@mrgarlicbread100 it's because all the schools teach Keynesian! lol!
amzinasain 1 week ago
Here's another thought on the vice of wild excess that is greed, from James Madison, the author of the U.S. Constitution: "If men were angels there would be no need for government."
followthefleet1 1 week ago
@followthefleet1 I agree with James Madison. This quote applies just as much to men IN the government as it does to those being governed. This quote underscores the reason why the government must be kept small and limited in scope to those powers specified in the constitution. When the government grows too large and powerful you start seeing very clearly why men are not angels. When too much power is available they can't resist using it for their own objectives.
electroplate 1 week ago
@electroplate A thoughtful response. I don't really agree with it but thoughtful nonetheless. Here's another from Madison: "The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the had of the few. When that day comes we must rely on the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation." In our mega-corporate national and supra national global economy, with so many powerful private players....How?
followthefleet1 1 week ago
@followthefleet1 I appreciate your thoughtful response in return. Unlike your first quote from Madison, your most recent one isn't genuine. Setting aside the quote's authenticity, I understand the fear that many people have of corporations and that they feel government protection from them is necessary. However, I ask you to consider a few points in deciding whether corporations or governments are a greater threat. (continued)
electroplate 1 week ago
(cont from previous) 1.Throughout human history the most heinous acts of oppression, killing, and violation of the natural rights of people have come from governments. This is still evident today. 2.Corporations get their power from either producing something of value that someone is willing to pay for or by lobbying the government for special privileges (think about the bailouts of banks and GM). 3.Corporations that produce something of value create wealth and jobs.
electroplate 1 week ago
(cont. again) That's just a sampling of why government power should be more feared than corporate power. Corporations are the most dangerous when they use lobbyists to buy off politicians and gain special advantages. The answer: take away the power of the politicians to hand out those advantages to their corporate and union cronies.
electroplate 1 week ago
@electroplate It's you apply it to men in government. Madison clearly applies it to those outside. And my sources tell me that Madison's second quote is indeed genuine. It shouldn't be a surprise. And yes, I can think of good that corporations do.as well as bad. And I agree that government and corporate power are separate. When they are together, then we have the potential for a powerful oppression. Democracies historically act in support, or opposition, to forces within society.
followthefleet1 1 week ago
@followthefleet1 This is aside from the main point we're discussing but I'm close to 100% certain the second quote you gave from Madison isn't genuine. I did some research and found out why that quote has been mistakenly attributed to him. The first quote about men not being angels if from the Federalist papers (which argues against a strong and overreaching central government). I'm glad we at least agree on how dangerous it is when big government and big business join forces.
electroplate 6 days ago
It's not profit making that's the fault, it's the wildly excessive profit making. It's not self interest that's at fault, it's the wildly excessive self interest, that pays no heed to the social contract. Instead of the Friedman version of selfishness, we need a culture that balances self interest with public good. There will be no genuine peace until America comes closer to this balance. Sorry, but "the government of the people, by the people, and for the people" plays an important role.
followthefleet1 1 week ago
Greed is a terrible thing, it causes insurance companies to wrong many people and it's all for the love of money.
insurancegame 1 week ago
nobody today has that gift of knowledge and ability to deliver it
dagobaker 1 week ago
That is so so wrong: "Greed runs the world." Through out history humans have fought against each other for survival due to one reason: scarcity of the necessary resources to have a decent life. What a painful past. But the fact is that we already have the technology to produce abundance of everything for everyone. Our production capabilites far exceed our needs, but they are short to supply our "wants" generated by this sick consumerist culture. We have to change our ways if we want to survive.
giancarlo3000 1 week ago
Comment removed
giancarlo3000 1 week ago
Friedman is using the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Whatever isn't capitalism must be something that has done poorly in the past.
Capitalism encourages scarcity. Fiat currency requires scarcity. Einstein's developments and Ford's developments don't require or encourage scarcity. Those developments did not come from capitalism.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq He is not saying that whatever isn't capitalism is something poorly executed in the past. He says, in multiple ways mind you, that there is no *discovered* system that can measure up to capitalism. So he is admitting there may well be a better system, but retrying failed systems in an act of insanity.
Capitalism encourages people to make money. Ford's developments made him a ton of money. Those developments were driven precisely by a profit motive, and therefore capitalism.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 Invention cannot be motivated by profit. Invention is something that comes about by mistake. It's just stumbling across something, some idea. Ford's developments were not driven by capitalism. Capitalism just gave him a way to make money from his stumbling across ideas.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Then why do companies spend billions on R&D? Sure, some inventions happen by mistake, or are stumbled across. Most come about through trial and error and finding the solution for a chosen problem. Capitalism illuminates those problems that are most pressing, by offering the greatest rewards for them. Do you think the inventions of Apple or IBM were not motivated by trying to obtain profits? The iPhone wasn't made by accident. It was made to secure a market share.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able The R&D is just trying to find which way of implementing the invention will be able to make the most profit. No invention has ever been motivated by profit, because it CAN'T be.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Oh. Ok. Because you put can't in all caps, that makes it a rock solid argument. Some of R&D is turning known technologies into products, but that is only part of it. Are you telling me that when a business develops new technology, it wasn't done in attempts to attain new profits? That when they see a problem and develop a solution, that was just for the hell of it? That's not to say all inventions were motivated by profits. But most have been.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able Research has always shown that money doesn't motivate any creative or critical thinking. Can you imagine saying to your boss? "If you paid me just this much more, I'd be able to think of a way to deal with this problem we've been dealing with for so long." It's a rediculous idea. Money can't motivate someone to think of something.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq I think you are arguing semantics. It's true that you can't buy an idea, but it's also true that if you hire a lot of very intelligent engineers they can solve a lot of problems or produce (invent) the iPhone.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 The "lot of very intelligent engineers" do that without any motivation from money or profit.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq so they would be happy to work for free? I'm going to go and not pay me a few engineers to make the rival to the iPhone.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 Yes, engineers would be happy to give you the best smartphone possible, for free. Unfortunately, they can't. They don't have time because capitalism makes them do mindless inefficient work. And they don't have the resources because capitalism makes them use their resources to take care of themselves and their families.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq So if the engineers were given unlimited resources to do with what they wish, they would make a smartphone and give it too me for free? Don't you think they might take the chance, given that they are now not wasting their time making money to provide for their family, to go on vacation? to spend time with their kids? to build a model railroad?
I know if I had a free ride I would not spend my time doing much work, such as inventing something new.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 They would be able to do all that and help make the world a better place. Maybe you don't care about making the world a better place. I can see that.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq I think you are very naive about human nature. There are very few people who would bend over backwards to make other people lives easier. You mentioned earlier that all the politicians this election cycle are essentially the same. All the politicians in question have millions of dollars in their personal accounts, certainly enough that they don't need more. So why are they not making the world a better place? Why do they bailout their wall street friends?
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 I think you are very gullible about human nature. What leads you to believe that this greed is part of human nature? Is it because all the humans you can see around you exhibit it? You have to remember that all of the humans you see around you were raised in the system that promotes greed. So if we change the system to not promote greed, what makes you think the greed would still be there?
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq And people raised after the cultural revolution in China are not greedy? People raised in Communist Cuba are not greedy? No person previous to the conception/invention of capitalism ever greedily killed his neighbor for something he had? The fact is that people have always been greedy. The beauty of American style capitalism is that it doesn't go against human nature like communism or socialism, it allows us to pursue our own self interests often improving other lives in the process.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 Do you think the systems in China and Cuba don't promote greed? Capitalism isn't the only greed-promoting system.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq And what system does not promote greed? I'd honestly like to know.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 I don't think it wouldn't matter for you to know what system does not promote greed if you still think that greed is part of human nature.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq An answer like that tells me you have no answer or you are afraid I'd point out flaws in the system.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 I could point out some of the flaws in the system for you. You think I'd imagine that a system was flawless?
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Well at least explain why it is better than capitalism? Is there a web site or something?
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 Can you demonstrate your understanding that greed is not part of human nature? Show some reasoning that I haven't given you?
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq People were bashing each other's heads in land, possessions, food, etc. for many years before capitalism/communism came around. Native American tribes got into wars over land and hunting grounds before the west came over so we know it wasn't something environmental in the "Old World". If you would prefer a more evolutionary delve into human nature it would make sense that in order to ensure our own survival we would seek to obtain as many resources as possible.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 It is exactly evolution that would prove greed is not part of human nature. Everything that evolution has given us is something that we needed at some point (even if we don't need it currently). But the definition of greed is wanting more than we need. Evolution can only deal with what we need. It cannot have any relation with anything that goes beyond what we need.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq So who was the first greedy human? Did early humans who were greed-free and happy to work to better humanity accidentally create a system where greed was suddenly introduced to the system?
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 A group of 10 people don't know how to get more than 9 meals from the land they have, so they have to figure out a way to decide who gets the meals... You can probably get a sufficient idea of how things went from there.
But every system developed from that is now obsolete, since we have the technology and the resources to provide food and all needs for every person on the planet.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq You defined greed before as wanting more than one needed; obviously if there are only 9 meals among 10 people and no one is greedy, no one is taking 2 meals. So if one person dies off because there is not enough food there was still no greed by your definition.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TangoKilo3 Did you only read the first phrase of that post? "so they have to figure out a way to decide who gets the meals..." From there a system is developed. You said it earlier. They inadvertently developed a system that promotes greed.
But every system developed from that (including capitalism) is now obsolete, since we have the technology and the resources to provide food and all needs for every person on the planet.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq I just don't understand how greed comes into being in that situation, one goes hungry from eating 1/9th less than normal and takes more than what he needs? If people without greed are happy to work for the benefit of others without incentive, it doesn't make sense that a person would just suddenly be greedy and start grabbing as much food as possible. What would make sense is people are born with greed and will try to take as much food as possible to ensure their own survival.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 You're still only thinking about the first part of that post. Think about the system that gets developed. The concept of value gets invented. The concept of status gets invented. These things change humanity drastically. Aquiring things with value becomes a representation of status.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq From the very beginning the things that would ensure survival would have value whether or not there was a scarcity. Food has intrinsic value greater than that of say a leaf. If there were 10 meals for 10 people, one person would not give up a meal because someone was willing to trade a pound of leaves for a pound of food.
Aside from the point of whether it is human nature or not, how would you propose getting rid of it from our current society so we could have your better system?
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 For starters, stop reinforcing the idea that it's human nature. We are in the dark ages right now. It would be an enlightenment, about people becoming aware.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq See I disagree about being in the dark ages right now, I think the USA has been behind some of the greatest technological advances and advances in liberty. Now you may think that the advances we've made could have been greater if greed was not involved, but sadly I don't see any way in which we could measure given that we have yet to find a society free from greed. And given that we will probably never agree I bid you farewell.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 People would have thought all of that about themselves 800 years ago. If someone would have told them they were in the dark ages, they would have disagreed.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq From a Christian standpoint the Bible points out that we are fallen, and therefore sinful in nature. By extension we are greedy.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 It just so happens that, right now, I'm watching someone on a live stream over the internet do some hard, complex work without getting paid anything, without any self-benefit, only because it helps other people.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq And that's great for him but he is being paid. His ego is being stroked having people watch his live stream and I bet he'll put his name on whatever he is making earning him praise and recognition. It's not money, but it's still incentive.
TangoKilo3 1 week ago
@TangoKilo3 It's not "his live stream" and it's only to pass someone else's message, so there's nothing in it for the ego. There's no possibility of putting a name on it because it's not "his live stream."
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Yes money will not improve someones ability to be creative or critically think. But money/profits does motivate people to undertake creative and critical thinking. A company like Bic is not going to spend 10,000 hours trying to develop a better type of ink if there wasn't something in the long run that makes it worth it. That, my friend, is profit.Capitalism gives people a reason to invent, not the ability. You miss 100% of the opportunities you don't take.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able "Bic" is not "developing" a "better type of ink". One person, that works for Bic because he is FORCED to, to put food on the table and a roof over his head, stopped being motivated by money for a few seconds (not 10,000 hours) to invent a better type of ink. You are using the reasoning of religous fanatics. Point to something good that happened and say "Look! God did that." Just because something gets invented within the market system doesn't mean money motivated it.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq He isn't forced to work for Bic you retard, he can quit whenever he wants... Money is definitely the motivation
wowzabowza123 1 week ago
@beauxq Inventions don't just form in someone's head. They come about through the application of known science and engineering in different combinations to achieve a solution. Inventions don't come from luck, they come from persistence. They cost time, which is fleeting and thus valuable. Someone might bear the cost of time for invention because the invention itself is valuable. Capitalism provides an additonal motivating reason. Profit. 2 reasons to invent will lead to more inventions than 1.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@beauxq It might take 5 years to figure out the new formula. During that time, our inventor doesn't produce any food for his family, because he is inventing. Thus, he will only spend his time in the lab instead of the field if someone provides him with food while he invents. No one is going to take food off of their plate to give to him without expecting something in return. Of course, the inventor might fail, so you would want more than you give to balance the risk. That's called profit.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able You pointed out the flaw of the system we live under: "No one is going to take food off of their plate to give to him without expecting something in return." That's the idea that capitalism promotes. (They don't have to take food off of their own plate, because we have the technology and resources to provide food and all the needs for every person on the planet.)
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq So capitalism fails because capitalism has created such wealth? That's a bit odd. In 1978, farmers in the rural Chinese village of Xiaogang secretly converted their farming practices from the communal system to one of private ownership. The CCP found them out because in that year, they produced more food that the previous 5 years combined. Capitalism might have flaws (or expounds the flaws of human nature), but its clearly the best system. Arguing otherwise ignores reality and history.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able Again, pointing to something good and saying "See? Capitalism did that!" If there's wealth, it must have been created by capitalism, but if there's poverty, that can't have been created by capitalism, right?
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Poverty is the absence of wealth, like dark is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat. In its natural state, man is poor, the earth is dark, and everything is cold. Man's ingenuity creates wealth, like the sun creates light and warmth. You're sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and saying 'lalala', to try and shield yourself from the reality that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else ever conceived. Let's hide from observations.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able You haven't shown anything that shows that capitalism has brought people out of poverty. Just because someone is brought out of poverty where there is capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism did it.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Doesn't it suggest something that a greater number of people rise above poverty in places that make use of capitalism as opposed to those that don't? That this is true across different cultures and different times, that doesn't hint at capitalism as the underlying cause? Please tell me why all societies that have embraced capitalism have done better than those that haven't. China was once unbelievably poor, but have prospered since adopting capitalistic principles. Why?
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able Do you think that capitalism only affects the countries that have adopted capitalistic principles? The countries that adopt capitalistic principles gather more wealth because they exploit other countries. And what you call "doing better" is quite subjective. The U.S. is has some of the highest inequality in the world. And China's inequality has increasing drastically. What good is having wealth in a country if only a few people in the country have that wealth?
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Wealth isn't a zero sum game. It comes from making more efficient uses of resources. Some exploitation exists, but it isn't the reason why rich countries are rich. The rich countries make better use of their own resources, especially time, because that's what capitalism promotes so well. And as far as inequality goes, who cares as long as everyone is generally better off? 500 million people have come out of poverty in China. Should that be thrown away because a few have much more?
TG1212able 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TG1212able Notice how you didn't answer the question? and so you still haven't shown anything that shows that capitalism has brought people out of poverty. Just because someone is brought out of poverty where there is capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism did it.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq Capitalism doesn't cause the individual inventor to think any better. It gives reasons for the people around him to support him while he invents. Of course the government could support him, but Mr. Bureaucrat isn't risking his own money, so he will be less careful than if he was risking his own. This failure buy him causes an increase in overall waste. Thus, we accept the waste or need to give Mr. Bureaucrat a reason to do a better job, like a gulag. Geez. Capitalism sounds much better.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@beauxq Profit isn't necessarily money.
And again you fail to make an argument, you just make a bare assertion.
crazypants88 1 week ago
@crazypants88 Is it more than a bare assertion to say that Einstein's and Ford's developments were the result of capitalism.
beauxq 1 week ago
@beauxq yah--I;m sure good 'ol Henry was just sitting there in his factory playing with toy cars when all of a sudden it hit him--let's make cars faster, more efficiently, with less overhead and more reliability just because.......
kwente1 1 week ago
Deceptive fucking piece of cum. Capitalism is shit. Communism is shit. ANYTHING LIKE THESE EXAMPLES ARE BULLSHIT!!! WHY? Capitalism. YOU CAN NEVER PAY OFF YOUR DEBTS U LITTLE FAG! Because YOU HAVE TO PAY INTEREST BUT WTF? THE MONEY DOESN'T EVEN EXIST U LIL BITCH JEW SATANIST PROPAGANDA QUEER. DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON COMMUNISM ALL OF THEM R TEH SUXZ!!
mofine4ever 1 week ago
Friedman y los suyos han destruido la esperanza de la Humanidad en en mundo más justo y más humano, sus teorías son la mayor estafa de la Historia
clostermonk 1 week ago
I think it's funny how people demonize greed. Like my dad for example, always crying about other old people his age still having to work and society should "help" them. I say ok dad donate your social security check to them. He says oh God no I didn't say I'd do it, it should be the younger working generation. What does he do once he starts collecting social security? He buys a new car. So much for that altruistic high road. This behavior is typical.
jpete3027666 2 weeks ago
the best friend of Pinochet
SUPERNIAPER 2 weeks ago
@SUPERNIAPER No he is not. Amazing how myth spreads in high volumes of misconception.
tehatemachine 1 week ago
@tehatemachine all of this people is the same: Aznar, Thatcher, Bush, Uribe, and this "economist"... They are very democratic and respectful, but, really they murder, support dictatorships, invade countries...
only by one reason: GREED GREED and GREED
SUPERNIAPER 1 week ago
@SUPERNIAPER Libertarians are against government having control over the peoples lives. Milton is a libertarian. The only way to have a dictatorship is to have power concentrated in the hands of the few.
tehatemachine 1 week ago
@tehatemachine yes, the theory is wonderful, but really, that type of "democratic and libertarian" person, have justified or support war and dictatorship, like Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher with Pinochet, Aznar with Franco, Donald Rumsfeld with Sadam...
I don't mind the theory, I want the reality.
I'm from Spain and I meet them very well
SUPERNIAPER 1 week ago
@SUPERNIAPER The whole assertion that Milton was friends with Pinochet are complete unjustified myth. He only met Pinochet once in person and that was very brief, Milton clearly stated that he doesn't condone what the Chilean government has been doing to it's people. But he was right, Chile is alot freer than it used to be.
tehatemachine 1 week ago
Comment removed
xsumuhdihx 2 weeks ago
he was a true evil man...
analucuta 2 weeks ago
@analucuta your right, phil is quite evil! :D
xsumuhdihx 2 weeks ago
We need to humanize greed, if we are to believe it's necessary for human progress.
3DRafael 2 weeks ago
By rewarding work that results in sustainability, we open up the economy to those poor souls that wander the streets on trash-pickup day, scrounging through "worthless" recyclables. They should be paid. By valuing the work that contributes to healthier living for all of us, we honor life and our time, in the full awareness that we are providing for the future.
3DRafael 2 weeks ago
Friedman haughtily draws extreme comparisons with repugnant regimes as if there's no alternative to greed. Thirty-two years later, behold a planet in severe decline, his words reek, the flatulence of a horse's ass. Now we know, enterprise that respects the Earth and contributes to the sustainability of Earth's ecosystem deserves our respect and reward. An expanding population must uphold and protect that which all humankind has in common.
3DRafael 2 weeks ago
@3DRafael What is more economical? Horse and cart or the automobile?
ChristopherAdderley 2 weeks ago
@allannus For example..Quantum mechanics made its first steps in europe.Heisenberg,one of its fathers studied in the university of Göttingen,Berlin,Munch etc..Guess what,all of them public.The MIT University in its firts steps adopted the german research polytechnic model..A public model not a private one.The Charlatan and liar on this video can ignore Historical facts but I dont
alalas78 2 weeks ago
@alalas78 So what if 100% of the people attend University and 75% study subjects which do not contribute to their productivity? Sustainable system? Where does the resources come from for those "public" Universities... you may have said "free" instead. Of course on both counts you would likely try to discard the fact that they are not free at all... and the resources have come from somewhere...
ChristopherAdderley 2 weeks ago
@alalas78 We can keep listing examples of govt and private educated scientists, but Friedman is right: Einstein didn't develop his theory bcs govt told him so. I recognize there are public school-educated people who helped advance science, but I believe private school educ. will always be better, bcs private schools risk their capital to educate ppl and will have more reasons to excel than public schools that can be mediocre but still receive taxpayer funding anyway.
allannus 2 weeks ago
@alalas78 Perhaps the point that private education is better than public education can be illustrated by the Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai ranking), which has in its top 10 seven private universities (its top 3 are all private). Other university rankings like the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings have more private than public universities in their top 10 lists.
allannus 2 weeks ago
@scotty2hotty240193 US has thrown tax money on uselless wars,covert operations,supporting false regimes and your first concern is the moon race?
alalas78 2 weeks ago
@scotty2hotty240193 But in a country without decent goverment education the percentage of analphabitism is gonna go very high.And let me tell you something.SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT AS WE KNOW IT IN THE WEST WAS BORN IN CLASSICAL GREECE AND ESPECIALLY IN DEMOCRATIC ATHENS..AND ITS EDUCATION WAS GOVERMENTALL NOT PRIVATE...
alalas78 2 weeks ago
@scotty2hotty240193 Sure There would still be schools and universities without a goverment but in this video the example of einstein IS A LIE.
alalas78 2 weeks ago
scotty2hotty240193 WALKING ON THE MOON MAY IT WAS A WASTE OF TIME FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PROFIT. BUT MANKIND(AND IN THIS CASE THE US) ACHIEVED MANY BREAKTHROUGHTS IN THE FIELDS OF PHYSICS, MATERIALS TECHNOLLOGY ETC ETC. SO PLEASE WALKING ON THE MOON IT WAS A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT AND AS A TAX PAYER IN MY COUNTRY I VE PAYED TAXES ON MANY MORE USELLESS THINGS THAN THAT
alalas78 2 weeks ago
@allannus DO YOU UNDERESTIMATE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF GERMANY BEFORE THE SECOND WORLD WAR? LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. AT LEAST IN THE FIELD OF PHYSICS BEFORE WW2 THE GERMAN UNIVERSITIES WERE BETTER THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF US. OF COURSE AFTER WW2 THIS CHANGED. SO EINSTEIN IN THE END EDUCATED IN VERY HIGH STANDARD SYSTEM LIKE THE GERMAN ONE AND GUESS WHAT...IT WAS MOSTLY GOVERMENTAL. SO MISTER MILTON CHARLATAN FRIEDMAN "MISSED " THE POINT OR DOING IT ON PURPOSE
alalas78 2 weeks ago
@scotty2hotty240193 THERE WAS AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE HUMAN PERIODS THAT EDUCATION WILL BE ON VERY HIGH STANDARDS EVEN WITHOUT PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES AND SCHOOLS ON THE OTHER HAND.BUT WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT EINSTEIN WAS A PRODUCT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.SO THIS NOBEL PRIZED LIAR HAS TO KNOW IT OR PRETEND THAT HE DOESNT KNOW
alalas78 2 weeks ago
The classic canard of comparing Randroid capitalism to Soviet communism when asked to compare it to social democracy. This is how asspies actually think.
trilobright 2 weeks ago
Ah, the #1 Liberal douchebag of his time, Phil Donahue.
IgnacioBuenosnachos 2 weeks ago
SCHOOL(CIRCUS) OF CHICAGO 1950-2008...RIP
alalas78 2 weeks ago
AND GUESS WHAT EINSTEIN WAS EDUCATED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AND IN FACT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES ACROSS EUROPE THIS ERA PRODUCE MANY TOP SCIENTISTS LIKE HIM..BUT GUESS WHAT MR MILTON FRIEDMAN(SOMETHING LIKE JESUS FOR HIS RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS) DOESNT LET A SMALL DETAIL TO RUIN A GOOD STORY...
alalas78 2 weeks ago
@alalas78 There would still be schools and universities without the government supplying them! Regardless of where Einstein studied
scotty2hotty240193 2 weeks ago
@scotty2hotty240193 True. One would wonder what else Einstein would have done if he studied in the likes of Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Stanford or Columbia, all of which are private universities.
allannus 2 weeks ago
The great achievements of civilisation come from free market...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.So man went to moon from free market and not from goverment spendings and the same happened with internet..hahahaha.only free market gave technology but in fact SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT WAS ESTABLISHED IN ANCIENT GREECE THROUGHT ITS CLASSICAL ERA AND GUESS WHAT MR MILTON CHARLATAN FRIEDMAN...THEY DIDNT HAVE FREE MARKET BECAUSE THEY DIDNT HAVE THE NEED TO INVENT IT..THEY HAD FILOSHOPHERS NOT CHARLATANS LIKE YOU...
alalas78 2 weeks ago
@alalas78 Who's to say going to the moon was great achievement? What exactly did it achieve besides wasting tax payers income when it could be put to a better use.
scotty2hotty240193 2 weeks ago
FYI: Watch "The Shock Doctrine"
"In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries."
HealthyPlanet 2 weeks ago
@HealthyPlanet Only a couple of problems - Klein's outright lies have been completely debunked; Friedman never argues that people are "evil" (which isn't the case; capitalism has done more to ease needless suffering than any other system ever devised by the mind of Man and those who cannot grasp these points are typically undereducated, confused and terrified.
FletchforFreedom 6 hours ago
I truly hope fanatical people like Mr Friedman - that when they physicially die - are born on another planet with fanatical people like themselves. Those who imply like Mr Friedman did, that people are evil and are looking primarily out for themselves, create needless suffering and are projecting. Their viewpoint is skewed. They believe they are evil thus they are justified in doing harm. The thing is, he and those like him, are not evil. They are only undereducated, confused and terrified.
HealthyPlanet 2 weeks ago
@HealthyPlanet
"Those who imply like Mr Friedman did, that people - are looking primarily out for themselves, create needless suffering and are projecting"
Xlnt point. They are entirely selfish, so they assume that everyone else is too. Part of being undereducated.
schmoborama 16 hours ago