Friedman was a great educator because he was good at finding clear and relevant ways to illustrate "complicated" truths of "The Dismal Science," Economics.
Only Academics could find a way to make something as fascinating and compelling as MONEY, into the most boring course on campus. It's almost as if they were delibeeratly TRYING to get people to disengage.
Rodney Dangerfield's "BACK TO SCHOOL" showed this wonderfully well.
With all due respect to Dr. Friedman, this all depends on the individual spending someone else's money on themselves or someone else as being apathetic to the impact that their expenditures have on the money source.
I support universal healthcare and education, but I also view the source of the revenue for these endeavors (public funds) with great respect and would seek to get the most out of them. I simply CANNOT be the only person who feels that way.
It's the apathy that is the problem to address. Voter apathy it seems to me is the main problem. A keenly politically engaged public which takes its political role as voters seriously will drive the agendas of representatives who would otherwise do as they please toward genuine public interests, just as an individual who offers to purchase dinner for another using someone else's money will do so much more carefully if they have to face the money source face to face.
So where is the successful education system anywhere in the world which is mainly funded by private money/school fees paid by individuals? Not South Korea, not Finland (the top systems in the world), not any part of Western Europe or North America. All successful education systems are mainly funded from tax. All successful economies depend upon education systems mainly funded by tax, even in the most capitalistic, free enterprise cultures. Friedman hypothesis disproved.
@LetitRideOut87 My comment was about education systems, not individual schools. No developed country has left schooling to the free market and expected parents to pay for their children's education. Giving parents "choice" is not truly a free market system if the costs of schooling are still met by the taxpayer. Friedman went to a state funded school... what's he complaining about?
@MrUnconvinced - Any private school that's not funded by the government, but I'm not sure how you define "successful." 'Tis true, private schools don't educate the majority of the people in America, but you've hardly disproved Friedman's hypothesis.
@HomelessOnline I'll go with the PISA standards to define successful. Perhaps you could suggest how you think Friedman's hypothesis could be disproved?
Our current 'education' madrasas have been very careful to mis-educate our children regarding civics, finance, economics.
As Marxism is both an economic theory/religion and social theory/religion (as well as a political religion), honest capitalism is at a distinct disadvantage vs this insanity belched into the minds of generation after generation.
but those children if well educated will became good members of society, if bad educated because of funds reduction they will be just watching American idol all day and getting obese.
@rafnezden1968 LOL friends do dumb things sometimes. I have read remarks from others before though and I just prefer a more civilized debate...even on youtube.
political ideology is to blame. The republicans have passed huge spending bills to put the government in a situation where it just runs out of money. Its called starving the beast.
@cesar333 Lol you're blaming the republicans for spending? The democrats have perpetually tried to take money out of the hands of individuals and spend more and more on the inefficient bureaucratic nightmare that we have today. So fuck you for wanting bigger government and bigger waste. Its people like you that vote for the destruction of the country i live in.
@The727stpete727 Your mind is gone if you think for a minute that you will ever get rid of government waste. It goes hand in hand. Do you really think that voting for someone because the have an (R) next to their name will change any of it? Both parties are to blame. The republicans are just as gulty of spending and big government just as the dems are. Its just that they have different versions of government. the past 40 years dems and reps have made goernment and spending bigger.
@cesar333 I agree that both parties are to blame and both have done lousy jobs in office. I would consider myself far right, liberal in the 19th century meaning of the word. But if you had to blame one party for trying to increase government exponentially and higher taxes it would definitely be the democrats. The republicans have no intellectual leadership and the democrats are a corrupt and demagogic party.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
not brilliantly argued. it doesnt matter how careful you are, because REALITY is at work with your money. sometimes a poor investment can reap huge rewards. there is something called LUCK , forgot that you stupid old far?
more stupid logic: even assuming you spent money on yourself carefully, that does not mean crap, you can buy stocks, or 1000 realty investments at a great price, very carefully, and then the economy tanks and you lost all your money. there are so many holes in his logic i cant even begin to think of them all.
since when do people spend money on themselves carefully and get the most for their dollars? most new rich, or inherited rich, spend themselves into oblivion without a thought, they are rarely careful with their money, and then steal to get more. money exchanges hands between rich buddies, or through companies which gravitate the money up to another rich ceo buddy. his arguments are incredibly novice and ridiculous.
It's comical that people think that the two semesters of economics they took in college gives them the ability to debate one of the greatest minds in modern economics.
Friedman was a stupid evil little man with a stupid evil little brain, elevated to undeserved importance by powerful evil men who found his readiness to be honestly and publicly stupid in a manner which convinced other stupid people of their own intelligence politically valuable.
He was a very bad economist. May he rest in peace.
Of course the rich spend, some even invest (as opposed to trading investment instruments). In aggregate, however, in their current numbers, they can not spend sufficiently to create the demand required to sustain a modern economy, and they can't invest in real terms for profit because they hold almost all the real wealth; there are no customers for the products of their investment except themselves which is insufficient. In short, they actually NEED to be taxed to sustain their lifestyles.
If that's the case, rich people would either a) donate their money to the government voluntarily out of self-interest or b) lose their lifestyles.
I'll assume that you don't actually care about helping rich people stay rich, so your idea is probably just rationalizing over-taxing them by saying "it's for their own good"
Perfect logic? He's making a claim about empirical reality... is there evidence to support the claim? No. So perfect logic? Lol, okay... Rational man doesn't exist. Ty though, try again.
He is the philosopher I been searching for and a positive human, wish I could have met him or seen him at a lecture. That is why YOUTUBE is so great !
The only problem is that economics has nothing to do with money. It's about the production and distribution of real wealth - ideally in a sustainable manner.
The four functions of money are:
1. A medium of exchange
2. A store of value
3. A unit of account
4. A standard of payment
Of course, items 2,3 and 4 are bullshit. It is simply a medium of exchange. The other three functions are tertiary, though function 2 is fairly important to function one in the short term.
@javaman1891 You correctly identify that economics is concerned with production and distribution of wealth, but you ignore the fundamental concept of scarcity. Economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce capital and resources to achieve optimal production and distribution of wealth. This is done through spending. What do we spend? What is our medium of exchange? Money. How money is spent is fundamental to economic efficiency and Friedman's breakdown shows us how do do that.
I don't totally agree with Mr Friedman. Taxpayers know their money is being spent on somebody else via the government as an intermediary. There are budgets and there is accountability. Only when these systems become sloppy due to lack of review that mis-allocation of resources occurs.That intermediary takes away a lot of responsibilities and residual labour from the public. There are just too many things for an individual to take care of if there was no public sector services.
@LOLDISNEYLAND The public sector services? You name me one that the private sector wouldn't be more efficient at running. Once again, nobody spends money like someone spends their own. Nobody takes care of property like someone takes car of their own. The fact is that you have no idea where your tax money is going. You might like to think you do.
Friedman brilliantly argues that the government is not as near as careful at spending your money as you are at spending your own money. How can you disagree with that?
@eelliott74 Do you know that we have economic physicist working for the government. Working on theory and principle. Friedman is brilliant when talking about microeconomics but when you talk about government spending, you enter into a another theory. Wasteful spending goes somewhere. it doesnt vanish into thin air. Someone is always getting rich, or poor.
Yes, Fried-man, everyone only cares about themselves and is an unconsciencious crook when dealing with other people (rolls eyes). Some of us were raised with morals, a sense of fairness, and/or normal human feelings of consideration for others. Every case he mentioned only applies to a certain percentage of people. Some people are MORE careful with other people's money. Some people are generous instead of greedy.
@newguy33X What is your point? Let the government spend your money and hope they are "some of the people rasied with morals etc?". You've only reinforced him with your comment.
@newguy33X , I am sad to say I think the majority rest on the side of the neglectful and corrupt. Integrity and morality is a dwindling minority. Mr. Friedman is exactly correct.
@newguy33X You mean some people TRY to be as generous as they can be. Even with a saintly individual, they simply won't know everything about your life as well as you would know. You ask for something for xmas. But between the time you asked and when you got it the world changed. You want or even need something else. That person would have no idea.
So that's if your request is specifically accepted by a saintly person..
The government isn't saintly and they don't just listen to you.
privatization of the education system!? I'm a liberal but it kind of sounds like it could make sense if a government task force with people who actually care about education head it up...
@thefiestymexican WELL SAID. @ConradW clearly doesn't understand Mr. Friedman at all. Friedman was one of the few people genuinely trying to help "the poor" (unlike those who use the mask of benevolence as a disguise for furthering their own self-interest or those who adopt seemingly altruistic policies out of a well-intentioned, but misguided desire to "do good".) Before you climb Mt. Righteous Indignation you should remember that the air is thin up there and that the argument is even thinner.
Not quite, he makes an assumption about the integrity of the individual discussed, that assumption being that when spending money you're only looking out for number 1. That's just not true of all people, it's quite possible to want to be careful spending others money on others, charities are a prime example, you want to maximise the effectiveness of the funds you've got for the benefit of others.
I agree with Friedman. Have any of you watched the stand up comedy by Chris Rock difference between Wealth and Rich? Its Milton's speech in a nutshell
In a world of perfectly rational sociopaths, Fried-man would make sense. Some people are cheap to themselves and generous to others. Some have a conscience when it comes to spending other people's money, or when others depend on them.
I agree with you on the War on Terror. It will never be "won" Just like the War on Poverty or Drugs. While each is aimed with good intent. More harm is caused than good.
see the difference between me and freedman is I and the rest of the humane world DO actually care about spending on other people.
It's only selfish, greedy scoundrels that don't give a crap about how money is spent on other people.
The fact is Milton didn't care about poor people. The Rich are rich because they earned it (even though most do not) and the poor are poor because they have no dedication or moral fibre (completely unlike rich bankers i suppose).
Why must I spend my own money if I can spend my clients money? It´s better spend their money and then fuck them up! Milton´s corpse rules and Banks loves you!
I think most of the people who disagree with Friedman disagree with economics in general. I agree that economics are bunk, but we are the minority. Friedman provides the best policies to provide equal opportunity for everyone or at least the best way you can. If you want to call economics a fraud, I'm ok with that. I agree. But in this Orwellian world, the masses will give up their rights for safety and a bread and circus lifestyle. They don't care about others' problems as long as they are OK.
Well, I say that fraud is fraud because it's an action or decision of man in power (CEO on Wall Street) or man with little power (hustler on the streets). But I do say that economics is just a collection of ideas that works on paper but not necessarily in the real world. The unscrupulous can tilt these laws in their favor. And usually those with the money have leverage over those that have no voice (poor).
The unscrupulous are members of no political party but themselves.
Yes big money equals big influence, but money will always be used and that is a fact. Economics will always exist and that is a fact. We must choose which system works the best and provides the most freedom of choice and goals. I have yet to find anyone's views even remotely close to this goal besides Friedman. And as far as people with power. How do you suppose they are going to allow them to lose it? This is a police state, the gov. will not allow an armed resistance.
The system no matter what will be corrupted because men are the common factor. Friedman was an idealist . Even if he was in charge he'd be compromised due to political pressure. That's the beauty of being out of the spotlight and not accountable for the whole country. Plus, his ideal world would have zero aid. Only volunteer aid which still couldn't keep up with the demand. Riot city!
As far as the police state. Yep. You aren't in charge. Those with money and power are.
"So you are wrong about "everyone" being able to prosper because the fact that each and every person has different desires and aptitudes that don't necessarily manifest itself into wealth"
If people choose not to manifest themselves with wealth does that mean that they cannot prosper? Success is NOT based on money or wealth or commodity. Success is achieving one's goals that were set. Everyone has a CHANCE to pursue their own goals. That is Friedman's main principal. The right to have a chance.
That's my point. Yet Friedman principle is founded on the basis of economics only not other aptitudes in which can limit or provide or upper finite source of income -- especially in light of the cost of living that suggest the middle class is shrinking (rich are getting richer). So, that's not what happens in the real world. So, merely sprinkling "freemarket" dust on them wont solve the problem. In your world, you are forced to ignore those left behind. Dog-eat-dog.
There will always be people left behind. Do you think socialism or communism would work without gulags? You want everyone to be equal, I take it. Do you know that private bankers control the world and set national policies? Are you aware of the fact that money will always be debt money and we will always have a national debt? Friedman's policies aren't even used so how can you relate anything that is happening in America to Friedman? This is not the free market or free money at all.
No, you tell me what is solution to prevent the private bankers from continuing their hold on the lower/middle class? Are you suggesting we over throw the government since you think that's the source and that corporations are beacons of light and goodness?
You are highly ill-conceived of my views. Without gov. assisting private banks and corporations, they would have little influence in other matters. Why do you think private banks own governments? I'm telling you that these big corporations are only this big because govt. has helped them out. What would all their money buy them if they didn't have govt. to enforce their wishes on us? Not a fucking thing. But people in govt. are sleeping with the big banks that fund them so it's mutual
Governments should be basic and enforce the law. They are not basic and they do not enforce the law. They are bankers' bitches. If govt. printed their OWN money instead of loaning it, the bankers wouldn't have much influence. It is the GOVERNMENT'S CHOICE to borrow instead of print. They have every right to print their own money and cut out of the middle man, but they don't. Debt money HAS ALWAYS BEEN US POLICY. ALWAYS. Not just with Reagan. And Friedman is not Reagan's stooge.
"Without gov. assisting private banks and corporations, they would have little influence in other matters."
Correct. So, why does government get influenced in the first place? Because zero people in the last 100 years didn't actually earn their money? A lot did. But as time goes on you have estates and families that sit in their fortunes and it is THEY that try to protect their un-earned monopolies. It's gradual but happens to every empire. Concentration of money (top 5%).
Well name me one nation that doesn't borrow their money from private banks. I can wait all day. And then tell me that this hasn't been happening for thousands of years. Yes, thousands of years. Friedman wanted to establish a system that one man could not change. It didn't need the perfect president or elected official to operate. It could manage well with Donald Duck supervising it. HE WAS AGAINST ARISTOCRACY, BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKS AND BIG MONEY. What more do you need?
How you prevent ARISTOCRACY, BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKS AND BIG MONEY from abusing their power? Free-market magic dust? Wishful thinking? What? I think you are missing what I'm trying to get to you see.
In a free market you can start your own company and be the boss. And you will have to pay insurance and provide tools, machines, and many other things to run a business. There is a give and take in regards to responsibility. In the free market you wouldn't have to be an employee, you can be the boss you want to be. But it's hard to compete when you have tariffs placed by governments. Also hard to compete when gov. sets minimum wages and subsidizes big companies and monopolies.
Some think (Republicans) that we should go back to the protectionist era of the 80s. What do you think of those rules? That would have put in place laws that subsidized our companies (USA jobs) and penalized other countries for selling to us. But today the Democrats and Republicans can't ignore China, India and Mexico because the money masters pull their strings (CEOs, and Investment Banks are in power). And because Corporation are legal persons. We can't stop them.
Capitalism is a minority imposition of employment system of wage slavery and the State is the central organising force for the ruling class. The parasites are in it together
@arzoyan Social engineer has all to do with the state, nothing with capitalism. No one is forced to anything unless there is someone regulating the markets, which means no competition on better wages. That can only happen when there's a state, which is the cause for poverty in the first place.
And really, capitalists investing money in those countries are only helping those people, otherwise, instead of earning 2$, they would earn 0$. And we know what that means. That's why China is enriching.
@arzoyan What does that even mean? If you think that people in the US are poor maybe you are the one who needs to get some real life experience. Go abroad, and don't just stay in a hotel. Get out and experience the kinds of grinding poverty they have in rural china or cuba (when the cameras aren't rolling and Michael Moore isn't touring)
Piece of advice though: you should be subtle. Truth is sometimes contrary to the common good, and their prisons aren't as nice as ours.
@arzoyan wage slavery? What if waitresses, and minimum wage McDonald's workers from the kindness of a bureaucrat's heart gives him negatives taxes, ie, wealth redistribution, on top of their 8 dollar an hour job, and give them extra 300 dollars an hour? The prices mechanism is then in shambles, because low wages is a indication of a glut of labor. With the subsidy more people would want to work minimum wage, misallocating labor to something which the economy doesn't need from something else.
@Samue "glut of labor" are fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, real people with dreams and needs of a meaningfull,creative lives. All you worry about is the Profit margin of the criminal ruling/Owning elite. You are a sold out wage slave worrying for your owners INVESTMENT RETURN.
@arzoyan do you even understand the context of glut of labor? It means that one part of the economy is already saturated with a certain type of labor. Any reasonably healthy human being knows how to fry hamburger meat, however labor that is more scarce such as dermintology is of higher prices, because there is simply not many people who have the expertise of a dermintologist. It makes no sense to hire 1million people and pay them the same price as 100 people. Supply, and demand, and prices.
@Samue You must have grown up in front of TV eating quality Mc Donalds, watching Hollywood Blockbuster. Competition exploites,oppresses,dehumanises men and women, we are not born to be used as Economic Units / Batteries to be used For minority Profit Margin. Capitalism is evil, its crime against humanity
@arzoyan McDonald's is very cheap food. I can buy plenty of protein for about one dollar. Competition isn't a human trait? It's humans self interest is why humanity has thrived in the world thus far to the put they do activities they don't even need, such as watching Hollywood movies. Competition brings about quality, and cheap prices to attract consumers. That is why we have color hi-definition TV vs the original colorless black & white TV.
you are so wrong it's not even funny. But I think you're real gripe is economics in general. Economics are a myth, a sham that places artificial value on anything and everything. People are bound to live inside their economies. Their labor rate is predetermined, just as their property and goods are predetermined. But you need economics to run a civilized society such as we like to. And free market capitalism, that's FREE MARKET(not what we have today) is the best of them all.
@accursedhere The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their image. This ideological process of distortions and dehumanisation over the millenia is a nessasary feature of minority rule to control societies for their material gain and power. Capitalism is the globalisation of the rule of the minority elite and global phenomena of the monetary control of immense humanity shackled in wage slavery of useless employment in a market mechanism of atificial scarcity
Free market capitalism is not what we have in the world today. Governments have subsidized nearly every monopoly in existence. History shows how long monopolies are sustained without government help. Not very. The free market forces companies to produce the best product they can. If they don't, they fail or lose money to competition. I highly suggest you read Milton's "Free to Choose." Or watch his PBS series from 1980 "Free to Choose." People don't have to fail for others to succeed.
@acc Free Market is a contradiction in term, you are free as much as your purchasing power allows you economically speaking and in a world where over 3 billion people are on 2 dollars a day and 250 top Corporation control 1/3 of the world GDP, adding State Monopolies and corruption across the world, then really FREE MARKET is THE WAGE SLAVERY OF IMMENSE HUMANITY for the BENEFIT OF RULING/OWNING ELITE.
@arzoyan You are absolutely correct that a free market is system is not an equitable system. You are correct that those with the "right" resources and the best technology are able to produce goods and services that produce a MUCH HIGHER level of income than those who don't. However, you are incorrectly defining free market. This really means that prices allocate resources, goods, and services.
The free market is the only thing that gives the workers a chance to steer their own lives and demand their own wages. Minimum wage has destroyed the uneducated's chance to earn a living through a job. If they don't have the skills to justify the minimum wage, they will not find work. No one will pay them more than they are worth, therefore they use welfare. They have to. And then they are treated like children and told what they can and can't do. Not a very good esteem booster IMO.
@aThe fundamental principle that we need to grapple with is this , Humanity cannot be treated as batteries of energy so a few can enrich and empower themselves , the consequence is a world of war, poverty, exploitation, enviornmental destruction and many other terrible ongoing challenges, or We share the earth for all generations to come in harmony and cooperation for our material and emotional needs, We need to understand our common source and our common destiny , our common humanity as one.
The free market is not how these men got rich and took over the world. Sorry to tell you. The govt. is the reason they have gotten so big and remain so big. If gov. didn't fund them they wouldn't have control of the industry. Also it doesn't help that they get to finance their own political advocates. Not good for us. The problem with people not having money is because OF GOVT. INTERVENTION!! Ever heard of the FED? All nations have PRIVATELY OWNED central banks controlling the money.
Friedman has never gotten the policies he wanted. You are highly delusional if you think that anyone in politics took his advice. We do not have free trade. We do not have a free market economy. Never have. Never will. His principles stand alone as immaculate. If they were ever put to use, we would all prosper immensely.
@ac Capitalist mode of production has revolutionised technology/ science and human organisation to such an extent that Market System has become a FALSE LIMIT to truly and effectively taking care of our NEEDS AND WELL BEING. We need to share the Earth in COOPERATION not in COMPETITION and transcend the PROFIT motive to SANCTITY OF LIFE. We have all the means and resources , the human creative genius for a meaningfull path of harmony within and without.
You are totally mixing principles with human abuse. They are totally different. How do you plan on getting the private banks out of your pockets? Please tell me that. Unless you can do that, you can't solve shit. What makes you think in your right mind that these banksters will give you an ounce of what they have?
Immaculate? Sure, on paper. His principles are antithetical to pure Altruism which is understandable. But his ideal world is also utopian as you yourself admitted. So you are wrong about "everyone" being able to prosper because the fact that each and every person has different desires and aptitudes that don't necessarily manifest itself into wealth (whether commodity, fiduciary or fiat currency).
Do you want everyone to be equal? Do you want everyone to get paid the same? You might want equal results, but I want equal opportunity. There is a big difference. Life is not fair. Some people are born smarter, some people are born blind. Some people have genetic disorders, some are gifted and play a sport for millions of dollars. Life is not fair, but you can give everyone a fair opportunity to pursue their own goals. No one has to fail for others to succeed in the free market.
I would love if everyone was equal. And no, not everyone should be paid the same. But this is the problem that even the freemarket pundits have to deal with not just the socialist.
I agree with your above statement 95%. But this is the problem with the intellectual financial paradigms of both PURE socialism and PURE capitalism are ideals. They are man-made figments of our intellectual imagination of laws, rules and standards. It's all we have. But both have limits.
I used to think capitalism was the devil too. This type of capitalism that is being run now is more fascist than capitalist. Governments are the only reason these monopolies and big companies stay at the top. Friedman has many more views other than just the free market approach. He is also against debt-money. He provides many alternatives for problems that are occurring. He is never listened to though. Why would you love if everyone was equal? There would no incentive for anybody.
Did he support banning welfare? What about food stamps? What about more prisons? More law enforcement? More drug control for those that have no hope and are destitute? Debt-money was pushed during the Reagan Era and accelerated during the Clinton presidency. This is how you keep people thinking that the economy is "growing" even as production is less and less. I like to call our current economy as Corporatism. Fascist is a bit harsh. Not yet. But maybe in the future.
More on this..."Do you want everyone to be equal? Do you want everyone to get paid the same? You might want equal results, but I want equal opportunity."
To continue on these questions: Equal results is not the goal. The goal is to provide aid for those that never are able to pull themselves out of poverty even if given the opportunity (roadblocks can be many reasons: crime, family breakup, drugs, abuse, etc..). Also to limit fraud at the top of the scale as well.
Govt. should provide jobs to those who need them and pay them with their own printed money. Also charity is highly increased in the free market. Public opinion means a lot when govt. isn't there to bail out your business when your PR scheme fails. In the free market businesses fail when they don't produce quality products. In the real world, as they call it, businesses are propped up by government and sustained by them as well. They have been sleeping with big banks for too long.
Friedman wanted drugs to be legal. He wanted less law enforcement. He was for less prisons. He did support banning welfare but also proposed a negative income tax for those who need it. You are highly, highly mistaken of his views. Reagan probably didn't even listen to the man when he was Pres. Friedman was not pulling his economic strings. You should really watch his PBS series from 1980 called Free to Choose. I don't know where you think Friedman supports these views.
Well, there's a group of men that call themselves "Free market" proponents that have infiltrated the presidencies since 1979. They implemented laws that, in their eyes, was to limit the larger companies restrictions on what they could and couldn't do. This is trying to lessen government regulation. But what ends up happening is that these private bankers end up making up FINANCIAL instruments to eliminate risk (no value assets). Time and time they try this over and over. Why?
Infiltrated the presidencies? Are you serious? Presidencies are shams and are always set up by big banks and big business. What president do you know can raise 100 million dollars for campaigns? The President is a nobody. The special interest groups control everything that goes on with policies. If a Pres steps out of bounds, he gets popped. Simple as that. He would never get his campaign money if he wasn't in the bankers' back pockets to begin with. Or the exposure he needs on MSM.
Ok, and? I was just pointing out that the free-market advocates will use those laws past and restrictions removed to their advantage. That's my point. It's in their nature. What you want is zero government with no laws, right? Is that your solution? Anarchy? What?
Watch Free to Choose by Milton Friedman and you will see what I believe. I am not an anarchist. Neither is Friedman. Either watch his PBS series, which you can find a torrent of online, or read his book Free to Choose. Trust me, it would be of utmost importance if you did. He explains a lot that most people are completely oblivious to. His series is 10 episodes from 1980 and each is an hour long. His book is longer but more comprehensive.
So, after our discussion do you think I'm a socialist? Do I want to ban all private ownership? Do I want to establish a welfare state? Or am a person that believes that the government ebbs and flows and that sometimes regulations and standards need to be put in place for fraud prevention that hinders those at the top from abusing their power?
I live in the real word,not in a world where,"oh, only if we could institute Milton's ideal laws that EVERYONE would follow lockstep"
You should be blaming the justice system for not doing their job and shutting these powerful people down when they commit fraud. That is your real problem. Who cares what laws are even written if the judicial branch doesn't do their job? There should be limited govt. with specific rules and regulations such as a constitution. One that the justice system would actually OBEY instead of IGNORE. You live in a fantasy world of a world with no upper class. And when has that existed??????
No, that's the problem. Financially I'm FINE and DANDY. I've made money honestly for my whole life no matter what president or economic policy is in place. And I know that it's better to be rich than poor, BUT that money doesn't necessarily bring happiness. So, I don't covet money nor live beyond my means (keeping up with the Joneses, no thanks!). But that doesn't mean that my colleagues wont try and loot the weak. And I wont stand by and watch them in silence....
As far as the justice system. Well, most people have lost out the day that the corporation became a legal person. The private bankers have had a field day since then. Lets overturn that ruling!
Ever since this nation's inception we have been dominated by private bankers. Even when we didn't have a central bank money was still created by private bankers. They have used fractional reserve banking the whole time in America. This is nothing new I an assure you.
Also you need to realize that Friedman would change a lot more than just his free market theory. Monetary policy is a whole different topic than economics. He had many ideas and I would support nearly every one of them. I am not an idiot. This man is truly something else. Like I said, I used to think that capitalism was the devil and was basically pro socialist after I found out about the banks. But I eventually learned enough to realize that there's a lot more to it than that.
But you see, I'm not pro-socicalism nor pro-captistalism either. Both are "-isims." And when you think like that you fall into a trap. I'm anti-unscrupulus men! And I will also be. And we'll need enforcement and guidelines that hinder their actions whatever economic system we learn towards.
No angels. Just other men that try and punish. That's all we have. No silver bullet. In the meantime you can just dream of a day in which all of Friedman's ideas are implemented and in this fantasy world all is perfect.
Because all you are doing is dreaming. You are just wishing for a day for something to happen. An idealist. That's fantasy. I'm actually pushing for regulations and restrictions. You are not. You just sit there and read Friedman's books and do nothing. Since you aren't going to eliminate the government then what tools will use to set laws to guild the standards? Fairy dust? What? Answer me!
What makes you think any of your views would be any more accepted than any of mine? And you are you pushing these regulations and restrictions to whom exactly? I'd like to know. You are pushing for ideas that you don't even know the repercussions of. Do you realize this? How old are you? Who says I do nothing? All you are doing is dreaming, I haven't heard of your movement yet. Oh and tell me, how are you going to succeed where no one else ever has before? Are you that intelligent??
Only if you think that governance is a destination. Do you think that I think that? It's not. Governance is a never ending process. And while I'm here on this earth I will fight to restrict the abuses and fraud of those in power.
Right now we're going through a global shift. The rest of the world is moving upwards in production. And this will be a "pain" we'll have to go through whether we like it or not. In the meantime we have to try and establish laws that prevent wall str
...wall street from putting the majority of banks at risk with their wile speculation. Same with the deceptive credit card business is banks on predatory leading and gains on defaults more than those that pay on time.
And if me and Milton are living in a fantasy land, why do you blame him for Reaganomics? Since his principles would never be used, why do you blame him for Reagan's policies? Seems contradictory to me.
Because there are real practical changes we can do over time. Not waiting for those in power (private bankers) do do it for us. Hell, if they could have their way they would could have eliminated the EPA in order to extend their profits. But no, we have guideline that were established to try and hinder that while leaving room for profitability.
I'm not waiting for those in power to do anything. But you are clueless if you think you are going to get anywhere pushing what you are pushing without even understanding how the system works. I am still young, I have plenty of time to gather information before I act. I suggest you do the same instead of jumping to conclusions that you don't even know will help. Educate yourself before you do something stupid, that is my belief. I won't be a conformist and someone else's pet.
Not everything should be privately owned. Money should not be in private control. Wall Street shouldn't even exist. Gov. should have regulation of certain sectors but not near the regulation they have now. I am not pro-privatization. They should regulate corruption and unfair practices, but not the million things they do now.
It's only SIMPLE, because it's TRUE!
Friedman was a great educator because he was good at finding clear and relevant ways to illustrate "complicated" truths of "The Dismal Science," Economics.
Only Academics could find a way to make something as fascinating and compelling as MONEY, into the most boring course on campus. It's almost as if they were delibeeratly TRYING to get people to disengage.
Rodney Dangerfield's "BACK TO SCHOOL" showed this wonderfully well.
LeoAutodidact 1 month ago
With all due respect to Dr. Friedman, this all depends on the individual spending someone else's money on themselves or someone else as being apathetic to the impact that their expenditures have on the money source.
I support universal healthcare and education, but I also view the source of the revenue for these endeavors (public funds) with great respect and would seek to get the most out of them. I simply CANNOT be the only person who feels that way.
GenuinelyInquisitive 2 months ago
@GenuinelyInquisitive
It's the apathy that is the problem to address. Voter apathy it seems to me is the main problem. A keenly politically engaged public which takes its political role as voters seriously will drive the agendas of representatives who would otherwise do as they please toward genuine public interests, just as an individual who offers to purchase dinner for another using someone else's money will do so much more carefully if they have to face the money source face to face.
GenuinelyInquisitive 2 months ago
check out henry hazlitt
transferpoint2012 3 months ago
So where is the successful education system anywhere in the world which is mainly funded by private money/school fees paid by individuals? Not South Korea, not Finland (the top systems in the world), not any part of Western Europe or North America. All successful education systems are mainly funded from tax. All successful economies depend upon education systems mainly funded by tax, even in the most capitalistic, free enterprise cultures. Friedman hypothesis disproved.
MrUnconvinced 3 months ago
@MrUnconvinced then please tell me why private schools almost always outperform public schools?
LetitRideOut87 3 months ago
@LetitRideOut87 My comment was about education systems, not individual schools. No developed country has left schooling to the free market and expected parents to pay for their children's education. Giving parents "choice" is not truly a free market system if the costs of schooling are still met by the taxpayer. Friedman went to a state funded school... what's he complaining about?
MrUnconvinced 2 months ago
@MrUnconvinced - Any private school that's not funded by the government, but I'm not sure how you define "successful." 'Tis true, private schools don't educate the majority of the people in America, but you've hardly disproved Friedman's hypothesis.
HomelessOnline 2 months ago
@HomelessOnline I'll go with the PISA standards to define successful. Perhaps you could suggest how you think Friedman's hypothesis could be disproved?
MrUnconvinced 2 months ago
I wonder what Mr. Friedman would think about the multi-trillion dollar bailouts within a span of a couple years?!?
fububalla 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our current 'education' madrasas have been very careful to mis-educate our children regarding civics, finance, economics.
As Marxism is both an economic theory/religion and social theory/religion (as well as a political religion), honest capitalism is at a distinct disadvantage vs this insanity belched into the minds of generation after generation.
o0Dystopia0o 4 months ago
Comment removed
o0Dystopia0o 4 months ago
but those children if well educated will became good members of society, if bad educated because of funds reduction they will be just watching American idol all day and getting obese.
ohidalgoe 4 months ago
Comment removed
rafnezden1968 4 months ago
@rafnezden1968 How is it simple, rational statements like Friedman's recieve comments like this?
skelruck 4 months ago
@skelruck
I'm sorry I don't remember any reaction of mine to these video.
I deed have one of my friends bring an acquaitance of his to my house.
We were drinking beer and he went to watch YouTube, it does not surprice me at all that he would make such a rude remark to M Friedman.
I apologize for him because he's stupid and ignorant and because he used my computer.
The remark as written 1 week ago is not mine but of a gues of mine who will never enter my house again.
Greetz
rafnezden1968 4 months ago
@rafnezden1968 LOL friends do dumb things sometimes. I have read remarks from others before though and I just prefer a more civilized debate...even on youtube.
skelruck 4 months ago
Comment removed
skelruck 4 months ago
Horrible quality of video and audio.
doom032 4 months ago
political ideology is to blame. The republicans have passed huge spending bills to put the government in a situation where it just runs out of money. Its called starving the beast.
cesar333 5 months ago
@cesar333 Lol you're blaming the republicans for spending? The democrats have perpetually tried to take money out of the hands of individuals and spend more and more on the inefficient bureaucratic nightmare that we have today. So fuck you for wanting bigger government and bigger waste. Its people like you that vote for the destruction of the country i live in.
The727stpete727 4 months ago
@The727stpete727 Your mind is gone if you think for a minute that you will ever get rid of government waste. It goes hand in hand. Do you really think that voting for someone because the have an (R) next to their name will change any of it? Both parties are to blame. The republicans are just as gulty of spending and big government just as the dems are. Its just that they have different versions of government. the past 40 years dems and reps have made goernment and spending bigger.
cesar333 4 months ago
@cesar333 I agree that both parties are to blame and both have done lousy jobs in office. I would consider myself far right, liberal in the 19th century meaning of the word. But if you had to blame one party for trying to increase government exponentially and higher taxes it would definitely be the democrats. The republicans have no intellectual leadership and the democrats are a corrupt and demagogic party.
The727stpete727 4 months ago
if I had a dollar for every pixel in this video I'd have 5 nickels
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
— Milton Friedman
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
@ecnerwal999 and the US is the proof of this theory?!
CyberspacedLoner 6 months ago
@CyberspacedLoner No the U.S. is a socialistic country. Hong Kong and Singapore are good examples.
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
not brilliantly argued. it doesnt matter how careful you are, because REALITY is at work with your money. sometimes a poor investment can reap huge rewards. there is something called LUCK , forgot that you stupid old far?
kingofnyct 9 months ago
thats not true, youre going to be extremely careful how you spend other peoples money on somebody else, if your election is on the line!!!!!!!
kingofnyct 9 months ago
more stupid logic: even assuming you spent money on yourself carefully, that does not mean crap, you can buy stocks, or 1000 realty investments at a great price, very carefully, and then the economy tanks and you lost all your money. there are so many holes in his logic i cant even begin to think of them all.
kingofnyct 9 months ago
since when do people spend money on themselves carefully and get the most for their dollars? most new rich, or inherited rich, spend themselves into oblivion without a thought, they are rarely careful with their money, and then steal to get more. money exchanges hands between rich buddies, or through companies which gravitate the money up to another rich ceo buddy. his arguments are incredibly novice and ridiculous.
kingofnyct 9 months ago
This guy thinks for himself and if he believes in something he puts it in FULL force hes a man to look up to unlike the posers
fredsassy5 9 months ago
Dude, I'll give you this, this guy is one ARTICULATE s-o-b.
pr9nkaholic 10 months ago
32 people enjoy other people spending their money on someone else.
mgabbard 10 months ago
It's comical that people think that the two semesters of economics they took in college gives them the ability to debate one of the greatest minds in modern economics.
That's why you're commenting on youtube.....
kamaujackson811 10 months ago 3
Friedman was a stupid evil little man with a stupid evil little brain, elevated to undeserved importance by powerful evil men who found his readiness to be honestly and publicly stupid in a manner which convinced other stupid people of their own intelligence politically valuable.
He was a very bad economist. May he rest in peace.
javaman1891 10 months ago
Of course the rich spend, some even invest (as opposed to trading investment instruments). In aggregate, however, in their current numbers, they can not spend sufficiently to create the demand required to sustain a modern economy, and they can't invest in real terms for profit because they hold almost all the real wealth; there are no customers for the products of their investment except themselves which is insufficient. In short, they actually NEED to be taxed to sustain their lifestyles.
javaman1891 10 months ago
@javaman1891 Let's suppose that is true.
If that's the case, rich people would either a) donate their money to the government voluntarily out of self-interest or b) lose their lifestyles.
I'll assume that you don't actually care about helping rich people stay rich, so your idea is probably just rationalizing over-taxing them by saying "it's for their own good"
shamgar001 10 months ago
4 ways to sound like an idiot
LTACS 11 months ago
Perfect logic? He's making a claim about empirical reality... is there evidence to support the claim? No. So perfect logic? Lol, okay... Rational man doesn't exist. Ty though, try again.
MacbookProWizard 11 months ago
@MacbookProWizard Evidence? Try trillions of public debt
gelishot 11 months ago
Comment removed
MacbookProWizard 11 months ago
You can disagree with that if you have any semblance of moral fiber.
TheSkoobey 11 months ago
He is the philosopher I been searching for and a positive human, wish I could have met him or seen him at a lecture. That is why YOUTUBE is so great !
resources57 11 months ago 6
LoL, this guy makes alot of sense
TysonFan911 1 year ago
If you need the Government to do everything for you then you also forfeit your freedom and liberties.
teed60 1 year ago
The only problem is that economics has nothing to do with money. It's about the production and distribution of real wealth - ideally in a sustainable manner.
The four functions of money are:
1. A medium of exchange
2. A store of value
3. A unit of account
4. A standard of payment
Of course, items 2,3 and 4 are bullshit. It is simply a medium of exchange. The other three functions are tertiary, though function 2 is fairly important to function one in the short term.
Friedman's a dick.
javaman1891 1 year ago
@javaman1891 You correctly identify that economics is concerned with production and distribution of wealth, but you ignore the fundamental concept of scarcity. Economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce capital and resources to achieve optimal production and distribution of wealth. This is done through spending. What do we spend? What is our medium of exchange? Money. How money is spent is fundamental to economic efficiency and Friedman's breakdown shows us how do do that.
3domfight3r 10 months ago
What a moron. This isn't an economist - it's a sideshow clown. Stupid hick with a big mouth.
What happens when 10% of the population has 75% of the money, and they don't spend it at all?
Answer: The Middle Ages, that's what.
Get a grip.
javaman1891 1 year ago
@javaman1891 You are a dumbass, there is no "the money". Wealth is created it is not fixed. You get a grip moron
AroundSun 1 year ago 3
@javaman1891 Watch your incompetent mouth. And figure out why they won't spend money before speaking. Jackass.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@javaman1891
Why do you assume that the rich are not spending or reinvesting their money?
MrNellyred 11 months ago
I don't totally agree with Mr Friedman. Taxpayers know their money is being spent on somebody else via the government as an intermediary. There are budgets and there is accountability. Only when these systems become sloppy due to lack of review that mis-allocation of resources occurs.That intermediary takes away a lot of responsibilities and residual labour from the public. There are just too many things for an individual to take care of if there was no public sector services.
LOLDISNEYLAND 1 year ago
@LOLDISNEYLAND Right, let the government steal my money and liberty, because I shouldn't worry about the "too many things" for me to worry about.
Seriously?
darkr0astedblend 1 year ago
@LOLDISNEYLAND The public sector services? You name me one that the private sector wouldn't be more efficient at running. Once again, nobody spends money like someone spends their own. Nobody takes care of property like someone takes car of their own. The fact is that you have no idea where your tax money is going. You might like to think you do.
AroundSun 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Logic and liberalism are exact opposites.
pismo10 1 year ago
Never take financial advice from a jew
MrElucidate 1 year ago
@MrElucidate why not?
sniped101 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MrElucidate
And we don' t take ANY advice from a gentile faggot like yourself.
LogicalFlawDetector 9 months ago
What about if I set the money on fire?
fractaldog 1 year ago
@fractaldog thats cool with me, as long as you dont hurt me.
sniped101 1 year ago
@fractaldog then you get arrested for destroying federal property >.<
coldoldgold 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
moneyplease.tumblr.com
dirtronic 1 year ago
Friedman brilliantly argues that the government is not as near as careful at spending your money as you are at spending your own money. How can you disagree with that?
eelliott74 1 year ago 87
@eelliott74 I'm pretty sure somebody's spending somebody else's money on him
neothugx 1 year ago 2
@eelliott74 OBAMA will disagree with you. OBAMA thinks he can spend your money better than you, because OBAMA thinks he knows better than you.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 10 months ago 3
@eelliott74 You can disagree with it by not being a simplistic idiot.
thinkfree41 5 months ago
@eelliott74 Do you know that we have economic physicist working for the government. Working on theory and principle. Friedman is brilliant when talking about microeconomics but when you talk about government spending, you enter into a another theory. Wasteful spending goes somewhere. it doesnt vanish into thin air. Someone is always getting rich, or poor.
cesar333 4 months ago
Yes, Fried-man, everyone only cares about themselves and is an unconsciencious crook when dealing with other people (rolls eyes). Some of us were raised with morals, a sense of fairness, and/or normal human feelings of consideration for others. Every case he mentioned only applies to a certain percentage of people. Some people are MORE careful with other people's money. Some people are generous instead of greedy.
newguy33X 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@newguy33X so what your point is.
TheCajunjason 1 year ago
@newguy33X You said right, SOME of us were raised with morals etc. Friedman can't be an optimist when probability is playing against him.
KriegerBR29 1 year ago
@newguy33X What is your point? Let the government spend your money and hope they are "some of the people rasied with morals etc?". You've only reinforced him with your comment.
excelinferno123 1 year ago
@newguy33X , I am sad to say I think the majority rest on the side of the neglectful and corrupt. Integrity and morality is a dwindling minority. Mr. Friedman is exactly correct.
IronmanPizza7 1 year ago
@newguy33X You mean some people TRY to be as generous as they can be. Even with a saintly individual, they simply won't know everything about your life as well as you would know. You ask for something for xmas. But between the time you asked and when you got it the world changed. You want or even need something else. That person would have no idea.
So that's if your request is specifically accepted by a saintly person..
The government isn't saintly and they don't just listen to you.
sirellyn 1 year ago
privatization of the education system!? I'm a liberal but it kind of sounds like it could make sense if a government task force with people who actually care about education head it up...
blueshade26 1 year ago
@thefiestymexican WELL SAID. @ConradW clearly doesn't understand Mr. Friedman at all. Friedman was one of the few people genuinely trying to help "the poor" (unlike those who use the mask of benevolence as a disguise for furthering their own self-interest or those who adopt seemingly altruistic policies out of a well-intentioned, but misguided desire to "do good".) Before you climb Mt. Righteous Indignation you should remember that the air is thin up there and that the argument is even thinner.
littleblitzkrieg 1 year ago
Perfect Logic.
Pretending2Bsmart 1 year ago 42
@Pretending2Bsmart
Not quite, he makes an assumption about the integrity of the individual discussed, that assumption being that when spending money you're only looking out for number 1. That's just not true of all people, it's quite possible to want to be careful spending others money on others, charities are a prime example, you want to maximise the effectiveness of the funds you've got for the benefit of others.
blahdelablah 1 year ago
@Pretending2Bsmart Perfect logic for imbeciles only.
thinkfree41 5 months ago
I agree with Friedman. Have any of you watched the stand up comedy by Chris Rock difference between Wealth and Rich? Its Milton's speech in a nutshell
alobo2000 1 year ago
In a world of perfectly rational sociopaths, Fried-man would make sense. Some people are cheap to themselves and generous to others. Some have a conscience when it comes to spending other people's money, or when others depend on them.
newguy33X 1 year ago
I agree with you on the War on Terror. It will never be "won" Just like the War on Poverty or Drugs. While each is aimed with good intent. More harm is caused than good.
GeneralAlphaCat 1 year ago
@thefiestymexican See, there's a difference between helping people to help themselves, and leaving people to fend for themselves.
Incidentally, how do you feel about Negative Income Tax?
ConradW 1 year ago
@ConradW
you''ll never win the war on poverty or the war on drugs.
GeneralAlphaCat 1 year ago
@GeneralAlphaCat so we give up on the poor?
I think the drugs was an irrelevant point. likewise i might add the war on terror?
ConradW 1 year ago
see the difference between me and freedman is I and the rest of the humane world DO actually care about spending on other people.
It's only selfish, greedy scoundrels that don't give a crap about how money is spent on other people.
The fact is Milton didn't care about poor people. The Rich are rich because they earned it (even though most do not) and the poor are poor because they have no dedication or moral fibre (completely unlike rich bankers i suppose).
ConradW 1 year ago
Why must I spend my own money if I can spend my clients money? It´s better spend their money and then fuck them up! Milton´s corpse rules and Banks loves you!
hominidodigital 1 year ago
I think most of the people who disagree with Friedman disagree with economics in general. I agree that economics are bunk, but we are the minority. Friedman provides the best policies to provide equal opportunity for everyone or at least the best way you can. If you want to call economics a fraud, I'm ok with that. I agree. But in this Orwellian world, the masses will give up their rights for safety and a bread and circus lifestyle. They don't care about others' problems as long as they are OK.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Well, I say that fraud is fraud because it's an action or decision of man in power (CEO on Wall Street) or man with little power (hustler on the streets). But I do say that economics is just a collection of ideas that works on paper but not necessarily in the real world. The unscrupulous can tilt these laws in their favor. And usually those with the money have leverage over those that have no voice (poor).
The unscrupulous are members of no political party but themselves.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Yes big money equals big influence, but money will always be used and that is a fact. Economics will always exist and that is a fact. We must choose which system works the best and provides the most freedom of choice and goals. I have yet to find anyone's views even remotely close to this goal besides Friedman. And as far as people with power. How do you suppose they are going to allow them to lose it? This is a police state, the gov. will not allow an armed resistance.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic.
The system no matter what will be corrupted because men are the common factor. Friedman was an idealist . Even if he was in charge he'd be compromised due to political pressure. That's the beauty of being out of the spotlight and not accountable for the whole country. Plus, his ideal world would have zero aid. Only volunteer aid which still couldn't keep up with the demand. Riot city!
As far as the police state. Yep. You aren't in charge. Those with money and power are.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
"So you are wrong about "everyone" being able to prosper because the fact that each and every person has different desires and aptitudes that don't necessarily manifest itself into wealth"
If people choose not to manifest themselves with wealth does that mean that they cannot prosper? Success is NOT based on money or wealth or commodity. Success is achieving one's goals that were set. Everyone has a CHANCE to pursue their own goals. That is Friedman's main principal. The right to have a chance.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
That's my point. Yet Friedman principle is founded on the basis of economics only not other aptitudes in which can limit or provide or upper finite source of income -- especially in light of the cost of living that suggest the middle class is shrinking (rich are getting richer). So, that's not what happens in the real world. So, merely sprinkling "freemarket" dust on them wont solve the problem. In your world, you are forced to ignore those left behind. Dog-eat-dog.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
So let me guess, you push socialism to the masses?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
There will always be people left behind. Do you think socialism or communism would work without gulags? You want everyone to be equal, I take it. Do you know that private bankers control the world and set national policies? Are you aware of the fact that money will always be debt money and we will always have a national debt? Friedman's policies aren't even used so how can you relate anything that is happening in America to Friedman? This is not the free market or free money at all.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
No, you tell me what is solution to prevent the private bankers from continuing their hold on the lower/middle class? Are you suggesting we over throw the government since you think that's the source and that corporations are beacons of light and goodness?
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
You are highly ill-conceived of my views. Without gov. assisting private banks and corporations, they would have little influence in other matters. Why do you think private banks own governments? I'm telling you that these big corporations are only this big because govt. has helped them out. What would all their money buy them if they didn't have govt. to enforce their wishes on us? Not a fucking thing. But people in govt. are sleeping with the big banks that fund them so it's mutual
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic
Governments should be basic and enforce the law. They are not basic and they do not enforce the law. They are bankers' bitches. If govt. printed their OWN money instead of loaning it, the bankers wouldn't have much influence. It is the GOVERNMENT'S CHOICE to borrow instead of print. They have every right to print their own money and cut out of the middle man, but they don't. Debt money HAS ALWAYS BEEN US POLICY. ALWAYS. Not just with Reagan. And Friedman is not Reagan's stooge.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
"Without gov. assisting private banks and corporations, they would have little influence in other matters."
Correct. So, why does government get influenced in the first place? Because zero people in the last 100 years didn't actually earn their money? A lot did. But as time goes on you have estates and families that sit in their fortunes and it is THEY that try to protect their un-earned monopolies. It's gradual but happens to every empire. Concentration of money (top 5%).
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Well name me one nation that doesn't borrow their money from private banks. I can wait all day. And then tell me that this hasn't been happening for thousands of years. Yes, thousands of years. Friedman wanted to establish a system that one man could not change. It didn't need the perfect president or elected official to operate. It could manage well with Donald Duck supervising it. HE WAS AGAINST ARISTOCRACY, BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKS AND BIG MONEY. What more do you need?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
How you prevent ARISTOCRACY, BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKS AND BIG MONEY from abusing their power? Free-market magic dust? Wishful thinking? What? I think you are missing what I'm trying to get to you see.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
a person will never get paid what there worth becuase if they did that company wouldnt make any money off of you or any profits.
andrewrosso 1 year ago
@andrewrosso
In a free market you can start your own company and be the boss. And you will have to pay insurance and provide tools, machines, and many other things to run a business. There is a give and take in regards to responsibility. In the free market you wouldn't have to be an employee, you can be the boss you want to be. But it's hard to compete when you have tariffs placed by governments. Also hard to compete when gov. sets minimum wages and subsidizes big companies and monopolies.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Some think (Republicans) that we should go back to the protectionist era of the 80s. What do you think of those rules? That would have put in place laws that subsidized our companies (USA jobs) and penalized other countries for selling to us. But today the Democrats and Republicans can't ignore China, India and Mexico because the money masters pull their strings (CEOs, and Investment Banks are in power). And because Corporation are legal persons. We can't stop them.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That shut him up.
galaktar 1 year ago
Capitalism is a minority imposition of employment system of wage slavery and the State is the central organising force for the ruling class. The parasites are in it together
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan How can it be an imposition if it is voluntary? Only the state has the power to impose something. Capitalism needs NO state to work.
Also, you're just avoiding the questions, making random statements like that.
darkr0astedblend 1 year ago
@dar Poverty of many is socially engineered and poverty forces all for wage slavery, Have you got no real life experience ?
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan Social engineer has all to do with the state, nothing with capitalism. No one is forced to anything unless there is someone regulating the markets, which means no competition on better wages. That can only happen when there's a state, which is the cause for poverty in the first place.
And really, capitalists investing money in those countries are only helping those people, otherwise, instead of earning 2$, they would earn 0$. And we know what that means. That's why China is enriching.
darkr0astedblend 1 year ago
@arzoyan What does that even mean? If you think that people in the US are poor maybe you are the one who needs to get some real life experience. Go abroad, and don't just stay in a hotel. Get out and experience the kinds of grinding poverty they have in rural china or cuba (when the cameras aren't rolling and Michael Moore isn't touring)
Piece of advice though: you should be subtle. Truth is sometimes contrary to the common good, and their prisons aren't as nice as ours.
galaktar 1 year ago
@arzoyan wage slavery? What if waitresses, and minimum wage McDonald's workers from the kindness of a bureaucrat's heart gives him negatives taxes, ie, wealth redistribution, on top of their 8 dollar an hour job, and give them extra 300 dollars an hour? The prices mechanism is then in shambles, because low wages is a indication of a glut of labor. With the subsidy more people would want to work minimum wage, misallocating labor to something which the economy doesn't need from something else.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago
@Samue "glut of labor" are fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, real people with dreams and needs of a meaningfull,creative lives. All you worry about is the Profit margin of the criminal ruling/Owning elite. You are a sold out wage slave worrying for your owners INVESTMENT RETURN.
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan do you even understand the context of glut of labor? It means that one part of the economy is already saturated with a certain type of labor. Any reasonably healthy human being knows how to fry hamburger meat, however labor that is more scarce such as dermintology is of higher prices, because there is simply not many people who have the expertise of a dermintologist. It makes no sense to hire 1million people and pay them the same price as 100 people. Supply, and demand, and prices.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago
@SamuelMor Your mind is colonised for commercial use, The world for you is about competing individuals for individual private gain. Shame........
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan competition produces quality, and cheaper prices.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago
@Samue You must have grown up in front of TV eating quality Mc Donalds, watching Hollywood Blockbuster. Competition exploites,oppresses,dehumanises men and women, we are not born to be used as Economic Units / Batteries to be used For minority Profit Margin. Capitalism is evil, its crime against humanity
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan McDonald's is very cheap food. I can buy plenty of protein for about one dollar. Competition isn't a human trait? It's humans self interest is why humanity has thrived in the world thus far to the put they do activities they don't even need, such as watching Hollywood movies. Competition brings about quality, and cheap prices to attract consumers. That is why we have color hi-definition TV vs the original colorless black & white TV.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago
@arzoyan samuel's examples are pretty silly, but you are a true idiot
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@arzoyan
you are so wrong it's not even funny. But I think you're real gripe is economics in general. Economics are a myth, a sham that places artificial value on anything and everything. People are bound to live inside their economies. Their labor rate is predetermined, just as their property and goods are predetermined. But you need economics to run a civilized society such as we like to. And free market capitalism, that's FREE MARKET(not what we have today) is the best of them all.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedhere The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their image. This ideological process of distortions and dehumanisation over the millenia is a nessasary feature of minority rule to control societies for their material gain and power. Capitalism is the globalisation of the rule of the minority elite and global phenomena of the monetary control of immense humanity shackled in wage slavery of useless employment in a market mechanism of atificial scarcity
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan
Free market capitalism is not what we have in the world today. Governments have subsidized nearly every monopoly in existence. History shows how long monopolies are sustained without government help. Not very. The free market forces companies to produce the best product they can. If they don't, they fail or lose money to competition. I highly suggest you read Milton's "Free to Choose." Or watch his PBS series from 1980 "Free to Choose." People don't have to fail for others to succeed.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@acc Free Market is a contradiction in term, you are free as much as your purchasing power allows you economically speaking and in a world where over 3 billion people are on 2 dollars a day and 250 top Corporation control 1/3 of the world GDP, adding State Monopolies and corruption across the world, then really FREE MARKET is THE WAGE SLAVERY OF IMMENSE HUMANITY for the BENEFIT OF RULING/OWNING ELITE.
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan You are absolutely correct that a free market is system is not an equitable system. You are correct that those with the "right" resources and the best technology are able to produce goods and services that produce a MUCH HIGHER level of income than those who don't. However, you are incorrectly defining free market. This really means that prices allocate resources, goods, and services.
sharoneicher1965 1 year ago 2
@arzoyan
The free market is the only thing that gives the workers a chance to steer their own lives and demand their own wages. Minimum wage has destroyed the uneducated's chance to earn a living through a job. If they don't have the skills to justify the minimum wage, they will not find work. No one will pay them more than they are worth, therefore they use welfare. They have to. And then they are treated like children and told what they can and can't do. Not a very good esteem booster IMO.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@aThe fundamental principle that we need to grapple with is this , Humanity cannot be treated as batteries of energy so a few can enrich and empower themselves , the consequence is a world of war, poverty, exploitation, enviornmental destruction and many other terrible ongoing challenges, or We share the earth for all generations to come in harmony and cooperation for our material and emotional needs, We need to understand our common source and our common destiny , our common humanity as one.
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan
The free market is not how these men got rich and took over the world. Sorry to tell you. The govt. is the reason they have gotten so big and remain so big. If gov. didn't fund them they wouldn't have control of the industry. Also it doesn't help that they get to finance their own political advocates. Not good for us. The problem with people not having money is because OF GOVT. INTERVENTION!! Ever heard of the FED? All nations have PRIVATELY OWNED central banks controlling the money.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@arzoyan
Friedman has never gotten the policies he wanted. You are highly delusional if you think that anyone in politics took his advice. We do not have free trade. We do not have a free market economy. Never have. Never will. His principles stand alone as immaculate. If they were ever put to use, we would all prosper immensely.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@ac Capitalist mode of production has revolutionised technology/ science and human organisation to such an extent that Market System has become a FALSE LIMIT to truly and effectively taking care of our NEEDS AND WELL BEING. We need to share the Earth in COOPERATION not in COMPETITION and transcend the PROFIT motive to SANCTITY OF LIFE. We have all the means and resources , the human creative genius for a meaningfull path of harmony within and without.
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan
You are totally mixing principles with human abuse. They are totally different. How do you plan on getting the private banks out of your pockets? Please tell me that. Unless you can do that, you can't solve shit. What makes you think in your right mind that these banksters will give you an ounce of what they have?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Immaculate? Sure, on paper. His principles are antithetical to pure Altruism which is understandable. But his ideal world is also utopian as you yourself admitted. So you are wrong about "everyone" being able to prosper because the fact that each and every person has different desires and aptitudes that don't necessarily manifest itself into wealth (whether commodity, fiduciary or fiat currency).
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Do you want everyone to be equal? Do you want everyone to get paid the same? You might want equal results, but I want equal opportunity. There is a big difference. Life is not fair. Some people are born smarter, some people are born blind. Some people have genetic disorders, some are gifted and play a sport for millions of dollars. Life is not fair, but you can give everyone a fair opportunity to pursue their own goals. No one has to fail for others to succeed in the free market.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
I would love if everyone was equal. And no, not everyone should be paid the same. But this is the problem that even the freemarket pundits have to deal with not just the socialist.
I agree with your above statement 95%. But this is the problem with the intellectual financial paradigms of both PURE socialism and PURE capitalism are ideals. They are man-made figments of our intellectual imagination of laws, rules and standards. It's all we have. But both have limits.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
I used to think capitalism was the devil too. This type of capitalism that is being run now is more fascist than capitalist. Governments are the only reason these monopolies and big companies stay at the top. Friedman has many more views other than just the free market approach. He is also against debt-money. He provides many alternatives for problems that are occurring. He is never listened to though. Why would you love if everyone was equal? There would no incentive for anybody.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Did he support banning welfare? What about food stamps? What about more prisons? More law enforcement? More drug control for those that have no hope and are destitute? Debt-money was pushed during the Reagan Era and accelerated during the Clinton presidency. This is how you keep people thinking that the economy is "growing" even as production is less and less. I like to call our current economy as Corporatism. Fascist is a bit harsh. Not yet. But maybe in the future.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
More on this..."Do you want everyone to be equal? Do you want everyone to get paid the same? You might want equal results, but I want equal opportunity."
To continue on these questions: Equal results is not the goal. The goal is to provide aid for those that never are able to pull themselves out of poverty even if given the opportunity (roadblocks can be many reasons: crime, family breakup, drugs, abuse, etc..). Also to limit fraud at the top of the scale as well.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Govt. should provide jobs to those who need them and pay them with their own printed money. Also charity is highly increased in the free market. Public opinion means a lot when govt. isn't there to bail out your business when your PR scheme fails. In the free market businesses fail when they don't produce quality products. In the real world, as they call it, businesses are propped up by government and sustained by them as well. They have been sleeping with big banks for too long.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Yep.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Friedman wanted drugs to be legal. He wanted less law enforcement. He was for less prisons. He did support banning welfare but also proposed a negative income tax for those who need it. You are highly, highly mistaken of his views. Reagan probably didn't even listen to the man when he was Pres. Friedman was not pulling his economic strings. You should really watch his PBS series from 1980 called Free to Choose. I don't know where you think Friedman supports these views.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Well, there's a group of men that call themselves "Free market" proponents that have infiltrated the presidencies since 1979. They implemented laws that, in their eyes, was to limit the larger companies restrictions on what they could and couldn't do. This is trying to lessen government regulation. But what ends up happening is that these private bankers end up making up FINANCIAL instruments to eliminate risk (no value assets). Time and time they try this over and over. Why?
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Infiltrated the presidencies? Are you serious? Presidencies are shams and are always set up by big banks and big business. What president do you know can raise 100 million dollars for campaigns? The President is a nobody. The special interest groups control everything that goes on with policies. If a Pres steps out of bounds, he gets popped. Simple as that. He would never get his campaign money if he wasn't in the bankers' back pockets to begin with. Or the exposure he needs on MSM.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Ok, and? I was just pointing out that the free-market advocates will use those laws past and restrictions removed to their advantage. That's my point. It's in their nature. What you want is zero government with no laws, right? Is that your solution? Anarchy? What?
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Watch Free to Choose by Milton Friedman and you will see what I believe. I am not an anarchist. Neither is Friedman. Either watch his PBS series, which you can find a torrent of online, or read his book Free to Choose. Trust me, it would be of utmost importance if you did. He explains a lot that most people are completely oblivious to. His series is 10 episodes from 1980 and each is an hour long. His book is longer but more comprehensive.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic.
So, after our discussion do you think I'm a socialist? Do I want to ban all private ownership? Do I want to establish a welfare state? Or am a person that believes that the government ebbs and flows and that sometimes regulations and standards need to be put in place for fraud prevention that hinders those at the top from abusing their power?
I live in the real word,not in a world where,"oh, only if we could institute Milton's ideal laws that EVERYONE would follow lockstep"
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
You should be blaming the justice system for not doing their job and shutting these powerful people down when they commit fraud. That is your real problem. Who cares what laws are even written if the judicial branch doesn't do their job? There should be limited govt. with specific rules and regulations such as a constitution. One that the justice system would actually OBEY instead of IGNORE. You live in a fantasy world of a world with no upper class. And when has that existed??????
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
No, that's the problem. Financially I'm FINE and DANDY. I've made money honestly for my whole life no matter what president or economic policy is in place. And I know that it's better to be rich than poor, BUT that money doesn't necessarily bring happiness. So, I don't covet money nor live beyond my means (keeping up with the Joneses, no thanks!). But that doesn't mean that my colleagues wont try and loot the weak. And I wont stand by and watch them in silence....
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@accursedheretic.
As far as the justice system. Well, most people have lost out the day that the corporation became a legal person. The private bankers have had a field day since then. Lets overturn that ruling!
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Ever since this nation's inception we have been dominated by private bankers. Even when we didn't have a central bank money was still created by private bankers. They have used fractional reserve banking the whole time in America. This is nothing new I an assure you.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Also you need to realize that Friedman would change a lot more than just his free market theory. Monetary policy is a whole different topic than economics. He had many ideas and I would support nearly every one of them. I am not an idiot. This man is truly something else. Like I said, I used to think that capitalism was the devil and was basically pro socialist after I found out about the banks. But I eventually learned enough to realize that there's a lot more to it than that.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
But you see, I'm not pro-socicalism nor pro-captistalism either. Both are "-isims." And when you think like that you fall into a trap. I'm anti-unscrupulus men! And I will also be. And we'll need enforcement and guidelines that hinder their actions whatever economic system we learn towards.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Like Friedman said, "Where are you going to find these angels to organize society for us?"
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
No angels. Just other men that try and punish. That's all we have. No silver bullet. In the meantime you can just dream of a day in which all of Friedman's ideas are implemented and in this fantasy world all is perfect.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
And you're living in the real world? If I'm in a fantasy land, then where the fuck are you?
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Because all you are doing is dreaming. You are just wishing for a day for something to happen. An idealist. That's fantasy. I'm actually pushing for regulations and restrictions. You are not. You just sit there and read Friedman's books and do nothing. Since you aren't going to eliminate the government then what tools will use to set laws to guild the standards? Fairy dust? What? Answer me!
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
What makes you think any of your views would be any more accepted than any of mine? And you are you pushing these regulations and restrictions to whom exactly? I'd like to know. You are pushing for ideas that you don't even know the repercussions of. Do you realize this? How old are you? Who says I do nothing? All you are doing is dreaming, I haven't heard of your movement yet. Oh and tell me, how are you going to succeed where no one else ever has before? Are you that intelligent??
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Only if you think that governance is a destination. Do you think that I think that? It's not. Governance is a never ending process. And while I'm here on this earth I will fight to restrict the abuses and fraud of those in power.
Right now we're going through a global shift. The rest of the world is moving upwards in production. And this will be a "pain" we'll have to go through whether we like it or not. In the meantime we have to try and establish laws that prevent wall str
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084,
...wall street from putting the majority of banks at risk with their wile speculation. Same with the deceptive credit card business is banks on predatory leading and gains on defaults more than those that pay on time.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
And if me and Milton are living in a fantasy land, why do you blame him for Reaganomics? Since his principles would never be used, why do you blame him for Reagan's policies? Seems contradictory to me.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Because there are real practical changes we can do over time. Not waiting for those in power (private bankers) do do it for us. Hell, if they could have their way they would could have eliminated the EPA in order to extend their profits. But no, we have guideline that were established to try and hinder that while leaving room for profitability.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
I'm not waiting for those in power to do anything. But you are clueless if you think you are going to get anywhere pushing what you are pushing without even understanding how the system works. I am still young, I have plenty of time to gather information before I act. I suggest you do the same instead of jumping to conclusions that you don't even know will help. Educate yourself before you do something stupid, that is my belief. I won't be a conformist and someone else's pet.
accursedheretic 1 year ago
@accursedheretic,
Well good luck.
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084,
That should read, "I'm anti-unscrupulus men! And I will ALWAYS be." If there are corrupt Democrats, Republicans or whatever. Expose them!
gizmo2084 1 year ago
@gizmo2084
Not everything should be privately owned. Money should not be in private control. Wall Street shouldn't even exist. Gov. should have regulation of certain sectors but not near the regulation they have now. I am not pro-privatization. They should regulate corruption and unfair practices, but not the million things they do now.
accursedheretic 1 year ago