its frustrating in economics how unintuitive the truth always seems to be. i totally sympathize with this lady and her position seems so clear and simple and obvious, despite the fact that she is totally wrong.
Man, dis guy'z full of shit! If there's no need to build more efficient equipment to perform jobs, den ders no need to pay anyone shit because der would be a cornucopius of low skill jobs. Dats a recipe for uh undurh class circa 1900.
I meant to say,the effects...on US exports(and in particular agriculture,which was always highly subsidized by the federal government--to this day--and consistently struggled competing with the industrial and financial sectors.)
@thirdshift47 The point you are making about agricultural subsidies is also factually wrong. Signals of decline were already well underway before the first agricultural subsidy was passed in the US and no fuunds were actually dispersed until the Depression itself was already well underway. The Agriculture Marketing Act of 1929 did not disburse any funds until 1930. That it has continued ever since has been a sop to the farm states ever since.
@thirdshift47 And I never attributed to you THAT claim either. The effects of tariffs after WWI are pretty much dismissed by EVERY economist and historian as a cause of the Depression (THAT is prtty much beyond dispute). Smoot Hawley made things significantly worse, but post WWI tariffs in the US were not only much lower than before the war began but had shifted from being well above levels in other countries to levels comparable with the rest of the world.
@harj2009 There are several problems with what you just said. First a rich person will not only save his money he'll spend it, put in a bank that gives loans, invest in businesses that hire people. The rich persons money usually doesn't just sit around doing nothing. Second your only looking at dollars. It doesn't matter how many pieces of paper someone has. What matters most is ones ability to consume. From what I've seen people have gained constantly improving products at less cost.
Milton put it so clearly. Education is the key to success. The high unemployment rates we have today arent because of "the corporate mechanism" and "greedy capitalist pigs". Most people are unemployed because they are unemployable. As an example, I was assisting with an interview today for a receptionist in our office. Resume for this woman says she was laid off and unemployed now for 2 years. She stood us up on the interview today and never even called. Its a shame that people like her exist.
@psiewert83 i think the reason she stood you guys up was because she was feeling secure with her benefits paid from your tax money. Why should she work, she is getting money for no work!
@UnlimitedEconZone Exactly. Thats what I think the problem is. In Illinois the unemployment benefits are HUGE!. Its unfortunate that our government is grooming a generation of pathetic, lazy, money hungry slobs.
Yes, lets look at some of Miltrons perfect nations. Pinochettes Chile, with income equality far beyond anything even he expected. Indonesia, the nation he PERSONALLY "praised" (as he did with chile before he realised Pinochette was a mass murderer) in which someone might have to work 22 hours without a break and 36 hours without getting to go home, in which the income is so small for most people that they can berely survive.
@gulbirk when? When? WHEN?!?!? When will the historically ignorant actually look into teh matter and stop repeating the long debunked "Friedman had some connection to the policies implemented by Pinochet" idiocy. The problem is that Naomi Klein is about as reliable a source as a Ren & Stimpy cartoon (with regard to Indonesia as well. It IS true that Friedmanite economics HAS been largely adopted in Indinesia which is why its growth and living standards have been improving so fast.
@FletchforFreedom """It IS true that Friedmanite economics HAS been largely adopted in Indinesia which is why its growth and living standards have been improving so fast."""
I hope that was meant as a joke. The living standards in Indonesia have not been increasing at all. And in fact, the economic situation TODAY is worse then what it was under Sukarno.
Long debunked? FRIEDMAN PUBLICLY SUPPORTED PINOCHET AND SUHARTO.
@gulbirk Oh jeez, not another Klein-drone. NAOMI KLEIN HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DISCREDITED. Freidman NEVER supported Pinochet - not once. And he did not support Suharto either - just his idea for a currency board to prevent inflation. As for living standards, they collapsed AFTER Suharto was ousted BECAUSE the reforms Freidman suggested were not adopted and the rupiah collapsed. Living standards have increased 43% since then as they wer frced to stabilize their currency.
@FletchforFreedom Wrong. They overall DID support Pinochet. Hayek for instance said the following:"As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government."
@AleichemSholem Apparently you are incapable of reading basic English. NEITHER Hayek nor Friedman supported Pinochet by any stretch of the imagination (as the very quotes you provide demonstrate. Arguing that there could be worse alternatives is a VERY different thing and, as it happens, both Hayek's and Friedman's assessment of the future proved correct.
All you've done is expose your own laughable incompetence.
@FletchforFreedom Not only are you a retard who advocates neoliberal principles, you also seem to be ethnocentric and illogical. By taking a 'neutral' standpoint you ultimately support the Dictatorship. Read about the FIRST 9/11 1973 and read about how the military junta were even more coercive than many "Socialist" countries, you fucking retard. When the military seized power a couple of thousand people were killed or had commited suicide (President). Read up on your history, Mr."Historian".
@AleichemSholem Neither I nor Hayek nor Friedman took a "neutral standpoint". We ALL condemned dictatorial rule and the use of violence. Dictators are often worse/more coercive than socialist giovernments (often with dictators of their own) and responsible for many deaths. No one has ever defended that. That doesn't change the fact that, had they adopted socialist inflationary policies, conditions would have been even worse. It's not my fault, you're an historical ignoramus.
@FletchforFreedom Friedman said the following: "Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies because government plays a smaller role. ... The conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."
To bad the private federal reserve inflates our currency so much that being able to survive on less than minimum wage decreases quality of life significantly. For instance making 3 dollars an hour today, a person wouldn't be able to afford the great luxuries such as living on their own, a cell phone, internet connection, a car and insurance to drive that car legally, and various digital entertainment. The system is so far gone it needs a complete makeover in which a "dark period" would emerge.
... wherever it finds the best conditions for profit. This is what warps trade practices, and makes the transnationals naturally want the greatest possible freedom for themselves. But there's no question of labour circulating, except for oru contemporary nomads - highly qualified personnel, covered under service agreements, since they have the right to circulate freely and set up where they want, whereas the common mortal does not.
... and an American or British company could go invest in China, take advantage of repression in China, which rejects unions and so has extremely LOW WAGES, could externalize all the enviromental costs (you utter dumb fuck), make society and the whole planet pay because it pollutes but it's nevertheless cheaper. So, instead of having a comparative advantage - I make wine cheaper than you, you make woollens cheaper than me- it becomes an absolute advantage because my capital is free to roam...
Mr.Fascist, I'll simply say this: Free trade is a very beautiful concept, and as it was imagined in the 18th century, it certainly had merits because it's very logical to say: you must produce better and and more cheaply and trade with others who will do the same. Take Ricardo's example; Instead of making wine in England, buy it from Portugal, etc. The Portuguese will buy your woollens. But the 18th century theoreticians never imagined that CAPITAL itself would be free to go where it wanted...
Even principled market liberals like Ron Paul have always opposed NAFTA because he always understood that what we comically call "Free Trade" is just another name for neoliberal,corporate protectionism which permits the free mobility of capital while restricting the free mobility of labor through 'big government' regulations like immigration restrictions.
Not to the mention,our ridiculous trade imbalances totally explodes your 'facts'.
@thirdshift47 NAFTA is NOT free trade but MANAGED trade - which is why Paul (and I0 opposed it. Neither Paul nor I oppose free trade of all kinds.
And since the trade imbalance is something only repeated by the economically ignorant (as it is only an accounting transaction almost completely offset by the capital account SURPLUS) all you've demonstrated is that you can't get your facts straight ... again.
1.)Ofcource,no one opposes free trade but corporations,imperial military exceptionalists and fascist regimes(who all believe in TAKING what they want from nations.)
2.)No one debates whether or not the US has a potracted trade deficit of its current accounts except you.
The debate is only a question of its importance long-term savings.
3.)Only the 'economically ignorant' would consider gov't borrowing to finance endless wars & tax cuts a genuine surplus,much less capitalism.
1) In reality the chief opposition to free trade has been from unionists of all types
2) No one debates that there IS a trade/current account deficit, but no one with a grasp of economics considers it a problem given the capital account surplus.
3) No one has suggested that governmnet borrowing is a good thing. Only the economically ignorant believe that the problem is primarily due to "endless wars" or "tax cuts" rather than profligate domestic spending.
Unions are the chief opposition to ACTUAL legitimate free trade?
No one 'with a grasp of economics' considers the trade deficit a problem because of our borrowing power?And yet no one(but you)have hinted that borrowing is a good thing?
The one who claims that free trade has worked?
LOL
'Profligate domestic spending'?!
Oh yeah.I keep forgetting that food stamp programs,public housing and pensions are the main drivers of the US debt.lol
@thirdshift47 Yes, unions are the chief opposition to actual legitimate free trade and the chief advocates of protectionism. You keep confusing borrowing with the trade deficit. There is NO connection between the two. The federal budget deficit is a massive problem. There is no economic connection between the accounting trade deficit and "borrowing". And free trade has unquestionably "worked" to benefit both parties. And 57% of federal spending is on entitlements so ... YES!
Protectionism is protectionism--whether corporate or otherwise.
Infact it existed in the US way before the advent of organized labor and was generally supported primarily by both major parties up until the 'post war' era.
Indeed,the countries wealth was built on it,along with its comparitive advantage in cheap labor at a time when most civilized nations were outlawing chattle slavery.
Secondly,'capital surpluses' are not the product of trade EARNINGS,but of borrowing.
@thirdshift47 Yes, protectionism is protectionism ... and disastrous. And the chief advocates of it TODAY are unions. It existed in small part in the US after the passage of the low (though still harmful) Hamilton Tariff (Hamiltion was a mercantilist) that fortunately hit only a few products and was intermittently enforced (else the grwth we experinced would not have taken place). And slavery has been known to be an economic disaster since at least the publication of The Wealth of nations.
Friend,the US had amongst the highest tariffs on the planet,dating from about 1816 to 1945.Infact many of Alexander Hamiltons industrial supporters deserted him because of Jefferson's stronger protectionist stance.
In 1922,Murray Rothbard's favorite 20th cen., president,Warren Harding,signed into law the Forney-McCumber tarrif--one of the highest in US history--& whose chief opponents were liberal Democrats,labor and progressives.
@thirdshift47 I am familiar with the argument you are making (just can't remember the English author who made it). It's simply been blown away. Those "high tariffs" hit very few products but what made the difference is that that they were easily and frequently avoided and rarely enforced. Again, the Hamilton Tariff-ers, Ha Joon Chang and the author i believe you are referring to have been ignred for excellent reaon.
The argument i'm making is based on my reading of the historical record(not the reading of some economist.)
I like Ha Joon Chang alot,but i've never read the man.
Those tarriffs 'hit so few products' that many historians and economists hold that they hepled initiate the great depression,for the basic fact that after World War 1 the US was the only nation that emerged economically sound.
Other nations not being able to afford US exports naturally turned to the global market.
@thirdshift47 That's just it. the historical record IN CONTEXT does not support your conclusions. If you wish to like a discredited neo-Marxist that's your choice. I am unaware of a single hostorian anywhere that attributes the Great Depression to tariffs (or lack thereof). I can say that unequivocaly no school of economics does attributing either to Fed action (the majority) or "animal spirits' (keynesians). The Fed manipulated the money supply in the late 20s precipitating the crash.
Without a doubt the greatest advocates of protectionist trade policy in the US at this moment(and all one has to do is watch the Republican debates)is the conservative movement.
Indeed,their xenophobia against the free mobility of labor might be the single most significant form of 'big government' regulatory involvement in the market as we speak.
Infact even the US chamber of commerce opposes the nativists on this issue of de facto protection from foreign comp.
@thirdshift47 And your (glaring) economic ignorance is showing. The capital surplus reflect the purchase of capital items in the US. If a company sells $10 million of widgets to a Japanese man who then purchases a $10 million dollar property on US soil. There is a $10 million trade deficit and a $10 million capital surplus and NO debt has been created whatsoever. Please stop pretending you have the slightest grasp of the issues under discussion.
@thirdshift47 Yes, you were referring to capital accounts. So was I so do try to keep up. If money goes out of the country to buy a product - that affects the trade account. If it comes BACK to purchase real property (or stocks or bonds, etc.), the trade deficit remains but a capital surplus is created. No borrowing of any kind is involved.
Secondly,all your points about capital account surpluses have illustrated is to what extent the US treasury has been conveniently used to PROTECT trade.
@thirdshift47 All of my points about the capital account surplus are basic accounting functions. There is no one with an understanding of accounting or economics that disagrees with ANY of them. It has nothing to do with "protecting trade" and everything to do with understanding that when looking at balance sheet accounts you can't look at any ONE and presume that the bottom line has crashed. All that has occurred is that one type of asset has been replaced with another harming no one.
Namely,that so-called free trade has worked greatly for the two major parties,which are in truth simply one de facto probusiness,neoliberal state party that offers very few differences between its two major factions on our most urgent issues.
Indeed,the dominant policy doctrine of the US federal government for the last 30 years is not refered to as the "Washington Consensus" for no good reason.
Can you imagine this kind of cordial conversation and debate going on today between a liberal like Phil Donahue and a small-c conservative like Milton Friedman?
It would never happen. Instead we get idiots like those on Faux News or blohards like Michael Moore.
Whatever you think of Friedman or Donahue, they liked and respected each other, as evidenced by Friedman being a frequent guest.
Whatever you think of the econ (and I agree wholeheartedly with Uncle Milty) this was classy.
People see Minimum Wage as "If you have a job, this minimum wage will give you a good basic living". If only they saw other jobs that weren't given or taken since people with less skill aren't hired.
Friedman(just like Hayek)is basically saying that without McDonald's,or any other business having the capacity to depress wages,that they effectiviely lose any ability to maximize the creation of a ton of unbearably bad jobs that are fully incapable of sustaining anything resembling an actual existence independent of the welfare state.
"My argument" is based on Friedman's exact comments on this post.
Are you denying that this is what the man has clearly stated?
Your argument falls flat when considering that the average labor-class employee has not recieved a wage increase in 40 years when we adjust for inflation.
It doesn't take a nobel prize in economics to know that the current minimum wage of $7.25/hr. gives you far less purchasing power than the $4.25/hr.,rate of 1992;the rate at which I entered the workforce.
@thirdshift47 Actually, youir argument completely collapses when considering the fact that the average labor-class employee has received steady and substantial compensation increases over the last 40 years even when adjusted for inflation and has more disposable income. The inflation driver has been health care costs paid for with benefits resulting in a greater demand for benefits as part of total compensation.
The "stagnation" myth has been completely debunked. oops.
"steady and substantial compensation increases over the last 40 years..."
That's your argument?lol
Semi-skilled and low-skilled workers have more disposable income in the last 40 years?
How to do you square that with your own admission that(private;for profit)healthcare costs are the main driver of inflation,and as a direct consequence,personal and revolving dept requiring even more compensation?
Indeed,even serious people on the right no longer dispute the case.
@thirdshift47 And, no competent economist anywhere disputes that total compensation and thus economic well being has increased across income levels over the last 40 years.
1.)I think you really mean:no competent neoclassical economist(who even seem disagree with you,by the way.You have a friend in the boys at Reason.com,though.lol)
2.)For your argument to succeed healthcare costs cannot be the main driver of personal consumer dept.
1) No, no competent economist PERIOD. I have nearly 30 years of experience dealing with colleagues in several economics schools.
2) We have not been discussing personal consumer debt, which is not the issue, but real compensation and the drivers of the CPI. Health care has been the highest and it is mostly paid for by benefits, which is why total real compensation - and ths disposable income - has continued to rise across income levels. This is simple fact.
@voogru I think you both have points, but we don't live in an idealist world where one viewpoint suits every possible case out there. Plenty of cases of govt run healthcare that destroys our country's
@DeathBringer769 I've yet to see a government program that didn't end up bankrupt. Even countries with nationalized health care systems are on unsustainable paths.
The taxes they raise can't pay for the benefits, so they rack up lots of debt.
@voogru I agree somewhat. The theory of it all is sound but it has shown to be used, abused, and corrupted so many times when the government leaves it up to the private sector. Then again, the government is pretty corrupt so what are you going to do.. One area I see the the American standard of internet. We're horrible in terms of the other 1st world countries. In 2009 we were 28th in the world and we're slowly climbing. The private sector has no motivation to update the vast infrastructure.
1.)According to most studies consumer commodities aren't the main driver of personal and revolving dept for most Americans,but precisely the out of pocket health care and education costs that you speak of.
2.)Your comments regarding nationalized health care is comical,considering the fact that the US' private,for profit system is the leading driver of the US national dept.
Friend,the US minimum wage when adjusted for inflation has less purchasing power in 2'12 than it had in the late '60s.
One can't also help but to point out how ideologically skewed much of mainstream Neoclassical economics is on the issue.
For instance it's rarely if ever pointed out by most basic suppy-demand models the effects of exorbitant executive pay increases on hiring low-skilled workers.
Indeed,I know that Friedman is hardly on the fringes of Neoclassical econ' in his position.
@thirdshift47 Workers haven't received a wage increase when adjusting for inflation but the same people who told you that would probably tell you there's little to no inflation atm.
They just wouldn't tell me that it's occurring at the catastrophic rates at which Ron Paul preaches.lol
I'm a socialist,and yet I agree with Paul,though.If real inflation accounted for the acts of the Federal Reserve printing trillions in secret to privately-owned,for profit financial firms,there wouldn't even be marginal purchasing power for labor class citizens.
@thirdshift47 LOL... no point in arguing with you. You must not understand just how cheap technology actually is... that's why you have purchasing power.
@thirdshift47 Most people confuse nominal wages with wealth creation. If there is unemployment the minimum wage is too high. Lowering pay, hiring workers, increases wealth, GDP, and consumption at all levels.
We do not create wealth by not working. We create wealth by working and producing. The wage rate is not what is important, what is important is what you can buy with your money. $2 a hour back in 1929 was a lot of money, and $2 a hour might be a lot of money in 2013. Its all relative.
No.Most people confuse nominal wages with real wages.
My original was not intended to necessarily challenge the premise that there's a not simply a correllation but a direct connection linking the minimum wage and unemployment(although economists our all over the place on that point since most empirical studies are inconsistent at best),but rather to point out that even if it were true,it's hardly a compelling case for markets.
@Truthpolice9698 thats not how business works. If you lower wages companies will just pay lower wages. they wont hire any additional workers. Lower wages by themselves are not a solution and the fact that you can pay someone overseas $1.78 an hour makes it impossible to directly compete here because its not possible to live on that in the U.S. by lowering wages we will drag ourselves down to a lower level...
@sandwichtaster they're in china because they will work for 20 dollars a week ... if you get ride of the minimal wage in the US and lower the taxes for companies .. then you will have more people working in the US and a booming economy ... it's cheaper to send parts to China, let them make it, ship it back to america and then sell it .. than have a company make it here.. all the Gov. Bullshit.. high taxes..Eco regs. .. Unions ... oh and min. wages
@sandwichtaster Neraly a century of economic analysis proves conclusively that minimum wage laws have never done ANYTHING but put people out of work. Imposing them on countries that, becasue they did not adopt capitalism sooner, have hugely lower living standards, simply makes it so much harder for them to rise to those higher living standards and wages.
No, sorry, you don't get a PhD - you just failed Economics 101.
@FletchforFreedom According to polls, 50% of PhD economists believe it one way, 50% of PhD economists believe the other. The fact that you think you have the ultimate truth makes ya suck a big weiner
@sandwichtaster Where in the world did you get THAT complete BS? Every poll has shown significantly higher percentages acknowledging the lack of benefit from the minimum wage and verifying the disemployment effects. The lowest percentage was about 73% (nearly three to one acknowledging the damage done by the minimum wage) and that was right after the since debuked Card & Krueger studies. Most polls of economists are in the 80% to 90% range.
@sandwichtaster The only 50-50 split was in a study by the same economist (Krueger) whose other minimum wage research has been discredited) among labor economists (most heavily employed by the labor movement), NOT PhDs, regarding their approval of the minimum wage (not whether it decreased emplyment - a point with which the majority agreed. It was also noted that labor economists were much more likely to support MW than American Economic Association members.
The rich are rich because of the exploitation of the poor, and the rich want the poor to keep being poor because it secures the position of the rich so they can keep being rich. The class system is a consequence of the market liberal economy. To say that socialism won’t bring prosperity is a lie, Sweden went from being the poorest country in Europe in the 20th century to be one of the richest in the world today because of democratic socialism, mixed economy and welfare.
@MrEnoxon In a free market, the rich are rich because they have the sheer gaul to provide goods and services that consumers want and can afford and, in the process, create job opportunities that would not otherwise exist allowing more people to make better lives for themselves. Ooooo those rat bastards.
And your history of Sweden is completely wrong. It rose to economic power USING the free market (and abstaining from war) and after adopting socialism stagnated for decades. RESEARCH!
@FletchforFreedom You are so wrong. I live in Sweden and I see that you have no knowledge about our system or our history at all. We have a mixed economy, both market and socialist, the state owns some parts of the society and the market owns some parts. But the state is controlling the market, the market is and shall be the servant for the state and thereby for the people, and shall not be the master of the state.
@MrEnoxon You are so wrong. I have friends in Sweden but that's entirely beside the point. The facts that I gave are EASILY researched. That ALL economies are hybrids doesn't chaneg the fact that (like the US now), Sweden's greater adoption of capitalism made them an economic powerhouse up to 30-40 years ago and the subsequent greater adoption of socialism has caused it to decline economically in relative terms ever since.
The market is just ... people. It is the "master" of nothing.
@FletchforFreedom When the Swedish economy was blooming during the 60’s and the 70’s when we had a minimal market economy in comparison what later came in the 80’s. When the November revolution in 1985 came it changed the Swedish economy drastically. The central bank where no longer allowed to regulate the other banks and it went to inflation and mass-unemployment. Before we had about 2 % in unemployment but after the November revolution it rose to 7-8 % in the early 90’s.
@MrEnoxon The Point is free trade & less government intervention benefits all. Government surely is inefficient in capital allocation discipline & every evidence points that when government instead of being in the business of governance gets into the business of doing business they have messed it up.The ills of inflation,higher taxes are the cost. Minimum wages are required since executives who are paid in stocks divert delta profit to keep asset prices higher not in capex which spurs growth.
The government still got to set the ground rules on wages, What Mr friedman is ducking is if the wages are low, the profits goes up & if they get reinvested in Capex perhaps there is a boom, but unfortunately Mccdonald or others will start buying more shares & pay more dividend, that is surely not pretty.
I haven't seen a 'serious' debate a la Friedman as of yet. Debating 60 year old women without any knowledge whatsoever, teenagers, or other economists on the spectrum doesn't say much about the debater or his knowledge/correctness, but only about his cowardice. Everything Friedman says contradicts with the actual policies that were carried out in the era when his "theories" were on the table. One should perhals also add that he warmly shook hands with the Fascist leader Pinochet. Says a lot.
@AleichemSholem It might say a lot if it were true. The facts are exactly the opposite of what you suggest. His theories have proven phenomenally successful and beneficial throughout the world and he denounced the oppressive nature of the Pinochet regime while he was still IN Chile.
@Athenaikos I dont have a Clue Huh look at your shithole country. Are you going to send me to the Gates of Hades? Ohh im scared of a lazy greek that sleeps till noon and has never worked a day in his life.
Neo-Liberalism is nothing but a facade for a plutocracy in which the corporate institutions set the rules and ultimately coerce people into unnatural working conditions i.e. form of alienation, producing and consuming goods and services which will lead to the destruction of the enviroment and exploitation of third world labour. It stands in contrast to classical liberalism which emphasized liberty, freedom and creativity. Anarchism today can be traced back to classical liberalism through Marx.
@AleichemSholem Except a) Marxism (including the LTV and the theories of alienation and exploitation) had not been completely debunked long before you were born, b) income mobility in the US is such that a third of those in the bottom 20% eventually reach the top 20%, c) working conditions improve dramatically under capitalism, d) third world living conditions improve due to capitalism and e) the correlation between a cleaner environment and the adoption of capitalism is HUGELY positive.
@FletchforFreedom Debunked? Get the facts right. Working conditions have improved dramatically under capitalism in the US, but is that a argument for state-capitalism? No, and there's good reason for that. Look at the exploitation of labour in the third world, you utter stupid fuck. The neo-liberal doctrine created this, and both Adam Smith and Ricardo pointed this out. They were in fact opposed to the idea and notion of neoliberalism because it turns humans into objects, you fucking retard.
@AleichemSholem@AleichemSholem "State capitalism" is an oxymoron (the controlled free market). And every aspect of Marxism, including the LTV and the Marxian concept of "explotation" that only a fool attrbutes to what's happening in the third world. Wages are lower in the third world because they are so late embracing capitalism. And Marx's misreading of Ricardo who had misread Marx does not justify blaming THEM.
Your profanity is the closest you approach to an argument. Typical.
@FletchforFreedom Let me reply in detail: a) You seem to imply that Marxism, or any related ism "does not work" which is a rather interesting as "does not work" is unknown within a sociopolitical and economic system in which in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. This worked perfectly in Anarchist Catalonia before the Fascist under Franco (with the help from the Western powers) and the Communists, dismantled their society.
@AleichemSholem Let me clarify. When I say Marxism does not work, I mean that, as a matter of basic economics it has been proven not be possible in the real world.
@AleichemSholem The myth of Catalonian success astounds. Prices collapsed, unemployment soured, trade came to a screeching halt, many rebelled against working without recompmpense...
@FletchforFreedom a)... I can point to many institutions and companies today that are being owned and operated by the workers, the Spanish 'Corporation Mondragon', for instance. There are countless of other examples. Objectively speaking, it does work both in theory and practice, and the only reason it hasn't been realized to full scope is because it conflicts with the current power system and structures.
@AleichemSholem Mondragon exists ONLY die to massive subsidies from governmnet (while their economy collapses) and the rest operate similarly. Syndicalism has NEVER worked.
@FletchforFreedom Derp, there are so many errors in your statements, everything from claiming that 'political economy' and 'neoliberalism' is scientific when in fact it is a pseudo-science, fully penetrated by and with ideology. In this way it will always remain quasi-scientific, 'disciplines' or statements that borrow their organization from scientific models, demonstrate them in a dubious way which leads to an institutionalized knowledge, still, without any epistemological framework.
@AleichemSholem In other words, you don't like the outcome of the actual science so you put your fingers in your ears and hum. I am not responsible for your ignorance OR your denial.
Friedman does not seem to understand the importance of investing in a social safety-net.
Friedman doesn't understand that there has to be a balance between the private sector & the public sector. I mean, just look at him bash the minimum wage in this country as a source of youth unemployment. It's based on pure hogwash. The underlying arguments for his case are based on absolutely nothing but philosophical conjecture. The supply-demand model he takes for grated as valid has a few problems.
So being super rich, all you need to do is provide some terrible, shitty, low wage jobs and you're all the sudden a philanthropist? Its ok for rich people to just be rich and only do things that make them richer?
Minimum wage is what keeps poop people poor? That's so retarded it makes my head hurt. Try lowering CEO wages for starters. McDonalds CEO makes 17 million dollars a year... and you are gonna try to blame minimum wage for their burger prices? Fucking retard old man, I'm glad you're dead
@blastsummit Why? It's a terrible notion. It may create a number that is equal but it certainly brings everything else down. I will explain this if you want.
@jrwel14 I think it is government not the rich, because it started to favor certain elements "lobbyists" that were trying to get allot of special privileges on the tax payers expense. It is happening not only in the US, but in the US it is so obvious. If you are saying that it is Rich people fault, then you would also blame Steve Jobs for killing middle class as well ?
@DMINATOR Several of the rich have said class warfare is being done by the rich against the middle class. Including J.P. Morgan. Before the depression the top 1% made 24% of the income. From 1950-1980 it was 8-10% Due to the GI bill, etc. From 2007 on, they make 23%.
Nikola Tesla, physicist, inventor, and electrical engineer :
"Money does not represent such a value as men have placed upon it. All my money has been invested into experiments with which I have made new discoveries enabling mankind to have a little easier life."
The tesla (symbol T) is the SI derived unit of magnetic flux density. It was defined in 1960 in honor of the inventor, physicist, and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla
Unfortunately his way of thinking is the exception from the rule.
@Bastayton..there are MANY other ways the rich get richer besides personal income. They make almost all of their money off of investments, dividends, etc. They also, DO NOT create jobs like so many ppl think they do.
@kestkr it seems you do not know about fundamentals of economics.. its very sad. gdp is not comprised of merely consumption, but a very large and extremely important part of the gdp of any country is investment. investing is bad now? how do businesses grow? how do they acquire capital to hire people? many businesses have to take out short term loans in order to pay its employees on a regular schedule. please, learn economics.
Great man here, and a master communicator. I wish RP would study up on the way Milton Friedman communicated his message to people - Ron tends to half-explain his positions which leaves people confused. Friedman was really good at completely explaining the idea.
@Oogogu why are people so against the Rothschilds and the Rockerfellers and the world banks using loans to collapse economies and siphon resources. it's just capitalism?
I agree. Trade schools are certainly more necessary than colleges. And I'm not even being sarcastic. (This is also coming from someone who wants to be back in college.)
"Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won't work."
I don't want to soak the rich, and most people don't; we want the rich to pay their share of taxes to support the system. The rich's tax rate is too low and they have tax deductions and tax credits of which the average person couldn't even begin to dream of taking advanage.
Don't start with me, I'm retired, and I'm doing just fine; my concern is with the working class and working poor who have been getting screw for the past 30yrs.
@policechaser The top 5% of this country already accumulates almost 60% of the income tax in this country. How much more should they have to pay? The bottom 50% makes up 2.3%. Why does everyone see fit that the rich should be taxed so heavily? Did not most of them work hard to be where they are and should it not be up to them to do with their money as they please? We are only entitled to three things in this great country: life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness.
@Bastayton The game is rigged for the rich and no the rich don't work hard, workers work hard, money making money is not working hard, and don't come back with the rich are taking the risk with their money, it is not true, the rich don't put their money in any jeopardy unless they are duped by a con through their own desires of greed. Your life, liberty, etc...is jingoism for the multitudes. Wake up. Try reading about the Republican President Eisenhower. Read: the great depression
Those three liberties are enabled by the government's sole power to protect our civil liberties. There are people who are in dire need of government aid, but there must be a place to draw a line, and that's where liberals are always wrong. It's called Social Darwinism. Either you can make it or you can't. Disabled people and those unable to work deserve a chance through gov. aid, but most people, sorry to say, just can't contribute like others.
@policechaser Working class is screwed only because of the same idea that it pays off, to pay higher taxes. The only thing that we need to correct is to bring freedom to ordinary people, to start up businesses, to small businesses... because they can and will be always the highest treat to monopolists, rich manipulators, and provider of fair conditions in the market for an ordinary man. Less government, means more efficiency, lower prices, higher employment etc etc...
What M.Friedman says is- We should grant the freedom to people to pursue their interests, where those interests exist. If someone believes he is able to offer product or service to others, more valuable that the cost of it. Government should stop being in the way of freedom. Gov. should stop imposing extra costs to business man, because essentially it only prevents everyone from leading a business or being a worker within that business. Protectin us from our own freedom mostly results negatively
its frustrating in economics how unintuitive the truth always seems to be. i totally sympathize with this lady and her position seems so clear and simple and obvious, despite the fact that she is totally wrong.
xcvsdxvsx 26 minutes ago
if minimum wage laws are so helpful, let's make the minimum wage $100/hour. Everyone will be rich! Well at least the 10/1000 people who have a job.
sharinganclan213 4 hours ago
@sharinganclan213 Everyone will have to leave the country or work underground. :)
voogru 3 hours ago
@sharinganclan213
LOL
Slaves have jobs.
Why are "jobs" always taken as a value unto themselves?
thirdshift47 1 hour ago
Donahue never got it!! The world flocks to the USA due to capitalism!
RedGoat400 19 hours ago
@RedGoat400 Not any more.
voogru 18 hours ago
Compare the US to the other various forms of government. Where do you want to live?
RedGoat400 20 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man, dis guy'z full of shit! If there's no need to build more efficient equipment to perform jobs, den ders no need to pay anyone shit because der would be a cornucopius of low skill jobs. Dats a recipe for uh undurh class circa 1900.
ev1ls0da 2 days ago
@thirdshift47
Sorry.
I meant to say,the effects...on US exports(and in particular agriculture,which was always highly subsidized by the federal government--to this day--and consistently struggled competing with the industrial and financial sectors.)
thirdshift47 2 days ago
@thirdshift47 The point you are making about agricultural subsidies is also factually wrong. Signals of decline were already well underway before the first agricultural subsidy was passed in the US and no fuunds were actually dispersed until the Depression itself was already well underway. The Agriculture Marketing Act of 1929 did not disburse any funds until 1930. That it has continued ever since has been a sop to the farm states ever since.
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
Comment removed
thirdshift47 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thirdshift47 And I never attributed to you THAT claim either. The effects of tariffs after WWI are pretty much dismissed by EVERY economist and historian as a cause of the Depression (THAT is prtty much beyond dispute). Smoot Hawley made things significantly worse, but post WWI tariffs in the US were not only much lower than before the war began but had shifted from being well above levels in other countries to levels comparable with the rest of the world.
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
@FletchforFreedom You're not an economic historian. You are a retard and should thus be treated as a retard.
AleichemSholem 2 days ago
friedman doesnt know about the real economy , just paper economy
give a rich a man a tax break he will save it , give to a poor person and he will buy bread
wealth conentration in the hands of a few destroys economies just look a history
harj2009 2 days ago
@harj2009 There are several problems with what you just said. First a rich person will not only save his money he'll spend it, put in a bank that gives loans, invest in businesses that hire people. The rich persons money usually doesn't just sit around doing nothing. Second your only looking at dollars. It doesn't matter how many pieces of paper someone has. What matters most is ones ability to consume. From what I've seen people have gained constantly improving products at less cost.
ShamanMcLamie 2 days ago
Nobody is going to SOAK the rich. This is a FAIRNESS issue. Even a dog understands FAIRNESS.
stanleysteama 3 days ago
Thank God for common sense. Thank God for Milton Friedman.
Punk93Metal 3 days ago
Milton put it so clearly. Education is the key to success. The high unemployment rates we have today arent because of "the corporate mechanism" and "greedy capitalist pigs". Most people are unemployed because they are unemployable. As an example, I was assisting with an interview today for a receptionist in our office. Resume for this woman says she was laid off and unemployed now for 2 years. She stood us up on the interview today and never even called. Its a shame that people like her exist.
psiewert83 3 days ago 2
@psiewert83 i think the reason she stood you guys up was because she was feeling secure with her benefits paid from your tax money. Why should she work, she is getting money for no work!
UnlimitedEconZone 2 days ago
@UnlimitedEconZone Exactly. Thats what I think the problem is. In Illinois the unemployment benefits are HUGE!. Its unfortunate that our government is grooming a generation of pathetic, lazy, money hungry slobs.
psiewert83 2 days ago
Yes, lets look at some of Miltrons perfect nations. Pinochettes Chile, with income equality far beyond anything even he expected. Indonesia, the nation he PERSONALLY "praised" (as he did with chile before he realised Pinochette was a mass murderer) in which someone might have to work 22 hours without a break and 36 hours without getting to go home, in which the income is so small for most people that they can berely survive.
gulbirk 3 days ago
@gulbirk when? When? WHEN?!?!? When will the historically ignorant actually look into teh matter and stop repeating the long debunked "Friedman had some connection to the policies implemented by Pinochet" idiocy. The problem is that Naomi Klein is about as reliable a source as a Ren & Stimpy cartoon (with regard to Indonesia as well. It IS true that Friedmanite economics HAS been largely adopted in Indinesia which is why its growth and living standards have been improving so fast.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom """It IS true that Friedmanite economics HAS been largely adopted in Indinesia which is why its growth and living standards have been improving so fast."""
I hope that was meant as a joke. The living standards in Indonesia have not been increasing at all. And in fact, the economic situation TODAY is worse then what it was under Sukarno.
Long debunked? FRIEDMAN PUBLICLY SUPPORTED PINOCHET AND SUHARTO.
gulbirk 3 days ago
@gulbirk Oh jeez, not another Klein-drone. NAOMI KLEIN HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DISCREDITED. Freidman NEVER supported Pinochet - not once. And he did not support Suharto either - just his idea for a currency board to prevent inflation. As for living standards, they collapsed AFTER Suharto was ousted BECAUSE the reforms Freidman suggested were not adopted and the rupiah collapsed. Living standards have increased 43% since then as they wer frced to stabilize their currency.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Wrong. They overall DID support Pinochet. Hayek for instance said the following:"As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government."
AleichemSholem 2 days ago
@AleichemSholem Apparently you are incapable of reading basic English. NEITHER Hayek nor Friedman supported Pinochet by any stretch of the imagination (as the very quotes you provide demonstrate. Arguing that there could be worse alternatives is a VERY different thing and, as it happens, both Hayek's and Friedman's assessment of the future proved correct.
All you've done is expose your own laughable incompetence.
But, hey, thanks for playing!
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Not only are you a retard who advocates neoliberal principles, you also seem to be ethnocentric and illogical. By taking a 'neutral' standpoint you ultimately support the Dictatorship. Read about the FIRST 9/11 1973 and read about how the military junta were even more coercive than many "Socialist" countries, you fucking retard. When the military seized power a couple of thousand people were killed or had commited suicide (President). Read up on your history, Mr."Historian".
AleichemSholem 2 days ago
@AleichemSholem Neither I nor Hayek nor Friedman took a "neutral standpoint". We ALL condemned dictatorial rule and the use of violence. Dictators are often worse/more coercive than socialist giovernments (often with dictators of their own) and responsible for many deaths. No one has ever defended that. That doesn't change the fact that, had they adopted socialist inflationary policies, conditions would have been even worse. It's not my fault, you're an historical ignoramus.
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Friedman said the following: "Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies because government plays a smaller role. ... The conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."
AleichemSholem 2 days ago
@FletchforFreedom You've been exposed as the fraud you are and that goes for all neoliberals.
AleichemSholem 2 days ago
To bad the private federal reserve inflates our currency so much that being able to survive on less than minimum wage decreases quality of life significantly. For instance making 3 dollars an hour today, a person wouldn't be able to afford the great luxuries such as living on their own, a cell phone, internet connection, a car and insurance to drive that car legally, and various digital entertainment. The system is so far gone it needs a complete makeover in which a "dark period" would emerge.
enderbean5 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 I misunderstood your comment, sorry
hotfudgemoney 3 days ago
Violence and coercion in anarchist Catalonia? Haha. You utter moron. I urge you to take up a book and read once more about it. Stupid fucking cow.
AleichemSholem 3 days ago
... wherever it finds the best conditions for profit. This is what warps trade practices, and makes the transnationals naturally want the greatest possible freedom for themselves. But there's no question of labour circulating, except for oru contemporary nomads - highly qualified personnel, covered under service agreements, since they have the right to circulate freely and set up where they want, whereas the common mortal does not.
AleichemSholem 3 days ago
... and an American or British company could go invest in China, take advantage of repression in China, which rejects unions and so has extremely LOW WAGES, could externalize all the enviromental costs (you utter dumb fuck), make society and the whole planet pay because it pollutes but it's nevertheless cheaper. So, instead of having a comparative advantage - I make wine cheaper than you, you make woollens cheaper than me- it becomes an absolute advantage because my capital is free to roam...
AleichemSholem 3 days ago
Mr.Fascist, I'll simply say this: Free trade is a very beautiful concept, and as it was imagined in the 18th century, it certainly had merits because it's very logical to say: you must produce better and and more cheaply and trade with others who will do the same. Take Ricardo's example; Instead of making wine in England, buy it from Portugal, etc. The Portuguese will buy your woollens. But the 18th century theoreticians never imagined that CAPITAL itself would be free to go where it wanted...
AleichemSholem 3 days ago
@AleichemSholem In fact, the free flow of capital has further proved Ricardo's case. Free trade has been phenomenally successful for all parties.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
Now I know that you're full of shit.
Even principled market liberals like Ron Paul have always opposed NAFTA because he always understood that what we comically call "Free Trade" is just another name for neoliberal,corporate protectionism which permits the free mobility of capital while restricting the free mobility of labor through 'big government' regulations like immigration restrictions.
Not to the mention,our ridiculous trade imbalances totally explodes your 'facts'.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 NAFTA is NOT free trade but MANAGED trade - which is why Paul (and I0 opposed it. Neither Paul nor I oppose free trade of all kinds.
And since the trade imbalance is something only repeated by the economically ignorant (as it is only an accounting transaction almost completely offset by the capital account SURPLUS) all you've demonstrated is that you can't get your facts straight ... again.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
1.)Ofcource,no one opposes free trade but corporations,imperial military exceptionalists and fascist regimes(who all believe in TAKING what they want from nations.)
2.)No one debates whether or not the US has a potracted trade deficit of its current accounts except you.
The debate is only a question of its importance long-term savings.
3.)Only the 'economically ignorant' would consider gov't borrowing to finance endless wars & tax cuts a genuine surplus,much less capitalism.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47
1) In reality the chief opposition to free trade has been from unionists of all types
2) No one debates that there IS a trade/current account deficit, but no one with a grasp of economics considers it a problem given the capital account surplus.
3) No one has suggested that governmnet borrowing is a good thing. Only the economically ignorant believe that the problem is primarily due to "endless wars" or "tax cuts" rather than profligate domestic spending.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
Unions are the chief opposition to ACTUAL legitimate free trade?
No one 'with a grasp of economics' considers the trade deficit a problem because of our borrowing power?And yet no one(but you)have hinted that borrowing is a good thing?
The one who claims that free trade has worked?
LOL
'Profligate domestic spending'?!
Oh yeah.I keep forgetting that food stamp programs,public housing and pensions are the main drivers of the US debt.lol
Try again.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 Yes, unions are the chief opposition to actual legitimate free trade and the chief advocates of protectionism. You keep confusing borrowing with the trade deficit. There is NO connection between the two. The federal budget deficit is a massive problem. There is no economic connection between the accounting trade deficit and "borrowing". And free trade has unquestionably "worked" to benefit both parties. And 57% of federal spending is on entitlements so ... YES!
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
LOL
Protectionism is protectionism--whether corporate or otherwise.
Infact it existed in the US way before the advent of organized labor and was generally supported primarily by both major parties up until the 'post war' era.
Indeed,the countries wealth was built on it,along with its comparitive advantage in cheap labor at a time when most civilized nations were outlawing chattle slavery.
Secondly,'capital surpluses' are not the product of trade EARNINGS,but of borrowing.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 Yes, protectionism is protectionism ... and disastrous. And the chief advocates of it TODAY are unions. It existed in small part in the US after the passage of the low (though still harmful) Hamilton Tariff (Hamiltion was a mercantilist) that fortunately hit only a few products and was intermittently enforced (else the grwth we experinced would not have taken place). And slavery has been known to be an economic disaster since at least the publication of The Wealth of nations.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreed
Friend,the US had amongst the highest tariffs on the planet,dating from about 1816 to 1945.Infact many of Alexander Hamiltons industrial supporters deserted him because of Jefferson's stronger protectionist stance.
In 1922,Murray Rothbard's favorite 20th cen., president,Warren Harding,signed into law the Forney-McCumber tarrif--one of the highest in US history--& whose chief opponents were liberal Democrats,labor and progressives.
This is what Republicans call laissez-faire.lol
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 I am familiar with the argument you are making (just can't remember the English author who made it). It's simply been blown away. Those "high tariffs" hit very few products but what made the difference is that that they were easily and frequently avoided and rarely enforced. Again, the Hamilton Tariff-ers, Ha Joon Chang and the author i believe you are referring to have been ignred for excellent reaon.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
The argument i'm making is based on my reading of the historical record(not the reading of some economist.)
I like Ha Joon Chang alot,but i've never read the man.
Those tarriffs 'hit so few products' that many historians and economists hold that they hepled initiate the great depression,for the basic fact that after World War 1 the US was the only nation that emerged economically sound.
Other nations not being able to afford US exports naturally turned to the global market.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 That's just it. the historical record IN CONTEXT does not support your conclusions. If you wish to like a discredited neo-Marxist that's your choice. I am unaware of a single hostorian anywhere that attributes the Great Depression to tariffs (or lack thereof). I can say that unequivocaly no school of economics does attributing either to Fed action (the majority) or "animal spirits' (keynesians). The Fed manipulated the money supply in the late 20s precipitating the crash.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 That Smoot-Hawley (far more invasive) made matters worse is true but occurred after the depression was underway.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
Secondly.
Without a doubt the greatest advocates of protectionist trade policy in the US at this moment(and all one has to do is watch the Republican debates)is the conservative movement.
Indeed,their xenophobia against the free mobility of labor might be the single most significant form of 'big government' regulatory involvement in the market as we speak.
Infact even the US chamber of commerce opposes the nativists on this issue of de facto protection from foreign comp.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 And your (glaring) economic ignorance is showing. The capital surplus reflect the purchase of capital items in the US. If a company sells $10 million of widgets to a Japanese man who then purchases a $10 million dollar property on US soil. There is a $10 million trade deficit and a $10 million capital surplus and NO debt has been created whatsoever. Please stop pretending you have the slightest grasp of the issues under discussion.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
By the way,i'm glad that you felt the need to start talking about widgets.lol
I was obviously refering to capital accounts moron,and I just so happen to be thinking of your usage of the term 'surplus' as I was typing.
Keep trying,though.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 Yes, you were referring to capital accounts. So was I so do try to keep up. If money goes out of the country to buy a product - that affects the trade account. If it comes BACK to purchase real property (or stocks or bonds, etc.), the trade deficit remains but a capital surplus is created. No borrowing of any kind is involved.
Keep trying. Maybe one day you'll get it.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
Secondly,all your points about capital account surpluses have illustrated is to what extent the US treasury has been conveniently used to PROTECT trade.
Keep trying.
True indeed.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 All of my points about the capital account surplus are basic accounting functions. There is no one with an understanding of accounting or economics that disagrees with ANY of them. It has nothing to do with "protecting trade" and everything to do with understanding that when looking at balance sheet accounts you can't look at any ONE and presume that the bottom line has crashed. All that has occurred is that one type of asset has been replaced with another harming no one.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
Lastly.I must admit.
I've finally found a point of agreement with you.
Namely,that so-called free trade has worked greatly for the two major parties,which are in truth simply one de facto probusiness,neoliberal state party that offers very few differences between its two major factions on our most urgent issues.
Indeed,the dominant policy doctrine of the US federal government for the last 30 years is not refered to as the "Washington Consensus" for no good reason.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
Can you imagine this kind of cordial conversation and debate going on today between a liberal like Phil Donahue and a small-c conservative like Milton Friedman?
It would never happen. Instead we get idiots like those on Faux News or blohards like Michael Moore.
Whatever you think of Friedman or Donahue, they liked and respected each other, as evidenced by Friedman being a frequent guest.
Whatever you think of the econ (and I agree wholeheartedly with Uncle Milty) this was classy.
johnycannuk 4 days ago
People see Minimum Wage as "If you have a job, this minimum wage will give you a good basic living". If only they saw other jobs that weren't given or taken since people with less skill aren't hired.
kmelfina 4 days ago
It was a huge mistake to let emotional females have a say in politics. "Oh the Poor! Oh the Children" Blah, blah, blah... Grow the hell up.
zivjax 4 days ago
Friedman(just like Hayek)is basically saying that without McDonald's,or any other business having the capacity to depress wages,that they effectiviely lose any ability to maximize the creation of a ton of unbearably bad jobs that are fully incapable of sustaining anything resembling an actual existence independent of the welfare state.
thirdshift47 4 days ago
@thirdshift47 Most people enter the job force with crap jobs, and then move up. That's why 97% of the entire workforce makes more than min. wage.
Your argument falls flat when corporations voluntarily pay more than min. wage. If they're so greedy, why don't they just pay everyone min. wage?
It's perfectly legal for them to do so.
voogru 4 days ago 6
@voogru
"My argument" is based on Friedman's exact comments on this post.
Are you denying that this is what the man has clearly stated?
Your argument falls flat when considering that the average labor-class employee has not recieved a wage increase in 40 years when we adjust for inflation.
It doesn't take a nobel prize in economics to know that the current minimum wage of $7.25/hr. gives you far less purchasing power than the $4.25/hr.,rate of 1992;the rate at which I entered the workforce.
thirdshift47 4 days ago
@thirdshift47 Actually, youir argument completely collapses when considering the fact that the average labor-class employee has received steady and substantial compensation increases over the last 40 years even when adjusted for inflation and has more disposable income. The inflation driver has been health care costs paid for with benefits resulting in a greater demand for benefits as part of total compensation.
The "stagnation" myth has been completely debunked. oops.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
"steady and substantial compensation increases over the last 40 years..."
That's your argument?lol
Semi-skilled and low-skilled workers have more disposable income in the last 40 years?
How to do you square that with your own admission that(private;for profit)healthcare costs are the main driver of inflation,and as a direct consequence,personal and revolving dept requiring even more compensation?
Indeed,even serious people on the right no longer dispute the case.
"oops."
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 Since when is historical fact invalid as argument?
Yes, those workers have more disposable income as the increase in compensation outweighs the increase in costs INCLUDING for care.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 And, no competent economist anywhere disputes that total compensation and thus economic well being has increased across income levels over the last 40 years.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom
1.)I think you really mean:no competent neoclassical economist(who even seem disagree with you,by the way.You have a friend in the boys at Reason.com,though.lol)
2.)For your argument to succeed healthcare costs cannot be the main driver of personal consumer dept.
Try again.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47
1) No, no competent economist PERIOD. I have nearly 30 years of experience dealing with colleagues in several economics schools.
2) We have not been discussing personal consumer debt, which is not the issue, but real compensation and the drivers of the CPI. Health care has been the highest and it is mostly paid for by benefits, which is why total real compensation - and ths disposable income - has continued to rise across income levels. This is simple fact.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 Far less purchasing power compared to what? They can buy more car, more cell phone, more computer, more everythin.
Except education and health care.
Which the government dominates in those sectors. Interesting.
voogru 4 days ago
@voogru I think you both have points, but we don't live in an idealist world where one viewpoint suits every possible case out there. Plenty of cases of govt run healthcare that destroys our country's
DeathBringer769 4 days ago
@DeathBringer769 I've yet to see a government program that didn't end up bankrupt. Even countries with nationalized health care systems are on unsustainable paths.
The taxes they raise can't pay for the benefits, so they rack up lots of debt.
voogru 4 days ago 4
@voogru I agree somewhat. The theory of it all is sound but it has shown to be used, abused, and corrupted so many times when the government leaves it up to the private sector. Then again, the government is pretty corrupt so what are you going to do.. One area I see the the American standard of internet. We're horrible in terms of the other 1st world countries. In 2009 we were 28th in the world and we're slowly climbing. The private sector has no motivation to update the vast infrastructure.
DeathBringer769 4 days ago
@voogru
Also,with regard to consumer purchasing power
1.)According to most studies consumer commodities aren't the main driver of personal and revolving dept for most Americans,but precisely the out of pocket health care and education costs that you speak of.
2.)Your comments regarding nationalized health care is comical,considering the fact that the US' private,for profit system is the leading driver of the US national dept.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@voogru Corporations GO BANK RUPT all the time...so even in the free market stuff goes bankrupt
if rich people become too rich that leads to inequality and more poverty
they start influencing the govt.
In america its easier to sell a 1 million dollar home than a 100,000 a home...the rich are profiting of the expensive of the poor
all the loop holes and there to serve there intrest
tax the rich, they leach of the poor , a one off 10% asset tax would do good
inflation tax serves the rich
harj2009 2 days ago
@voogru
Friend,the US minimum wage when adjusted for inflation has less purchasing power in 2'12 than it had in the late '60s.
One can't also help but to point out how ideologically skewed much of mainstream Neoclassical economics is on the issue.
For instance it's rarely if ever pointed out by most basic suppy-demand models the effects of exorbitant executive pay increases on hiring low-skilled workers.
Indeed,I know that Friedman is hardly on the fringes of Neoclassical econ' in his position.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 Workers haven't received a wage increase when adjusting for inflation but the same people who told you that would probably tell you there's little to no inflation atm.
hotfudgemoney 3 days ago
@hotfudgemoney
No.
They just wouldn't tell me that it's occurring at the catastrophic rates at which Ron Paul preaches.lol
I'm a socialist,and yet I agree with Paul,though.If real inflation accounted for the acts of the Federal Reserve printing trillions in secret to privately-owned,for profit financial firms,there wouldn't even be marginal purchasing power for labor class citizens.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 LOL... no point in arguing with you. You must not understand just how cheap technology actually is... that's why you have purchasing power.
hotfudgemoney 3 days ago
@hotfudgemoney
lol
What the hell are you rambling about?
Didn't you read my comments,genius?
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 Printing money IS inflation, do you at least understand that?
hotfudgemoney 3 days ago
@thirdshift47 Most people confuse nominal wages with wealth creation. If there is unemployment the minimum wage is too high. Lowering pay, hiring workers, increases wealth, GDP, and consumption at all levels.
We do not create wealth by not working. We create wealth by working and producing. The wage rate is not what is important, what is important is what you can buy with your money. $2 a hour back in 1929 was a lot of money, and $2 a hour might be a lot of money in 2013. Its all relative.
Truthpolice9698 3 days ago
@Truthpolice
No.Most people confuse nominal wages with real wages.
My original was not intended to necessarily challenge the premise that there's a not simply a correllation but a direct connection linking the minimum wage and unemployment(although economists our all over the place on that point since most empirical studies are inconsistent at best),but rather to point out that even if it were true,it's hardly a compelling case for markets.
Totalitarian governments have 0% unemployment.
thirdshift47 3 days ago
@Truthpolice9698 thats not how business works. If you lower wages companies will just pay lower wages. they wont hire any additional workers. Lower wages by themselves are not a solution and the fact that you can pay someone overseas $1.78 an hour makes it impossible to directly compete here because its not possible to live on that in the U.S. by lowering wages we will drag ourselves down to a lower level...
ElectricAfroMan 3 days ago
but but but but I thought taxing rich would solve all the problems
enjoyitbro 4 days ago
His minimum wage analysis is idiotic. look at countries with no minimum wage and tell me that it's "working for the youngsters'.
Very prosperous and organized countries deal with this by having no minimum wage for teenagers but a very high minimum wage for adults.
Do I get a phd now? He's just a manipulator and his words are quickly swerved to fuck people over even more.
sandwichtaster 6 days ago
@sandwichtaster Not to mention the factories that all the super rich people invest in are in fucking china. So much for helping the poor in the US...
sandwichtaster 6 days ago
@sandwichtaster they're in china because they will work for 20 dollars a week ... if you get ride of the minimal wage in the US and lower the taxes for companies .. then you will have more people working in the US and a booming economy ... it's cheaper to send parts to China, let them make it, ship it back to america and then sell it .. than have a company make it here.. all the Gov. Bullshit.. high taxes..Eco regs. .. Unions ... oh and min. wages
SupaNami 5 days ago
@sandwichtaster Neraly a century of economic analysis proves conclusively that minimum wage laws have never done ANYTHING but put people out of work. Imposing them on countries that, becasue they did not adopt capitalism sooner, have hugely lower living standards, simply makes it so much harder for them to rise to those higher living standards and wages.
No, sorry, you don't get a PhD - you just failed Economics 101.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@FletchforFreedom According to polls, 50% of PhD economists believe it one way, 50% of PhD economists believe the other. The fact that you think you have the ultimate truth makes ya suck a big weiner
sandwichtaster 4 days ago
@sandwichtaster Where in the world did you get THAT complete BS? Every poll has shown significantly higher percentages acknowledging the lack of benefit from the minimum wage and verifying the disemployment effects. The lowest percentage was about 73% (nearly three to one acknowledging the damage done by the minimum wage) and that was right after the since debuked Card & Krueger studies. Most polls of economists are in the 80% to 90% range.
Nice try, but your "facts" aren't.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@sandwichtaster The only 50-50 split was in a study by the same economist (Krueger) whose other minimum wage research has been discredited) among labor economists (most heavily employed by the labor movement), NOT PhDs, regarding their approval of the minimum wage (not whether it decreased emplyment - a point with which the majority agreed. It was also noted that labor economists were much more likely to support MW than American Economic Association members.
Don't buy the EPI BS.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
The rich are rich because of the exploitation of the poor, and the rich want the poor to keep being poor because it secures the position of the rich so they can keep being rich. The class system is a consequence of the market liberal economy. To say that socialism won’t bring prosperity is a lie, Sweden went from being the poorest country in Europe in the 20th century to be one of the richest in the world today because of democratic socialism, mixed economy and welfare.
MrEnoxon 1 week ago
@MrEnoxon In a free market, the rich are rich because they have the sheer gaul to provide goods and services that consumers want and can afford and, in the process, create job opportunities that would not otherwise exist allowing more people to make better lives for themselves. Ooooo those rat bastards.
And your history of Sweden is completely wrong. It rose to economic power USING the free market (and abstaining from war) and after adopting socialism stagnated for decades. RESEARCH!
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@FletchforFreedom You are so wrong. I live in Sweden and I see that you have no knowledge about our system or our history at all. We have a mixed economy, both market and socialist, the state owns some parts of the society and the market owns some parts. But the state is controlling the market, the market is and shall be the servant for the state and thereby for the people, and shall not be the master of the state.
MrEnoxon 3 days ago
@MrEnoxon You are so wrong. I have friends in Sweden but that's entirely beside the point. The facts that I gave are EASILY researched. That ALL economies are hybrids doesn't chaneg the fact that (like the US now), Sweden's greater adoption of capitalism made them an economic powerhouse up to 30-40 years ago and the subsequent greater adoption of socialism has caused it to decline economically in relative terms ever since.
The market is just ... people. It is the "master" of nothing.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom When the Swedish economy was blooming during the 60’s and the 70’s when we had a minimal market economy in comparison what later came in the 80’s. When the November revolution in 1985 came it changed the Swedish economy drastically. The central bank where no longer allowed to regulate the other banks and it went to inflation and mass-unemployment. Before we had about 2 % in unemployment but after the November revolution it rose to 7-8 % in the early 90’s.
MrEnoxon 3 days ago
@MrEnoxon The Point is free trade & less government intervention benefits all. Government surely is inefficient in capital allocation discipline & every evidence points that when government instead of being in the business of governance gets into the business of doing business they have messed it up.The ills of inflation,higher taxes are the cost. Minimum wages are required since executives who are paid in stocks divert delta profit to keep asset prices higher not in capex which spurs growth.
sirraju1 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom We can just agree that we disagree :)
MrEnoxon 3 days ago
Comment removed
MrEnoxon 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrEnoxon 1 week ago
The government still got to set the ground rules on wages, What Mr friedman is ducking is if the wages are low, the profits goes up & if they get reinvested in Capex perhaps there is a boom, but unfortunately Mccdonald or others will start buying more shares & pay more dividend, that is surely not pretty.
sirraju1 1 week ago
I haven't seen a 'serious' debate a la Friedman as of yet. Debating 60 year old women without any knowledge whatsoever, teenagers, or other economists on the spectrum doesn't say much about the debater or his knowledge/correctness, but only about his cowardice. Everything Friedman says contradicts with the actual policies that were carried out in the era when his "theories" were on the table. One should perhals also add that he warmly shook hands with the Fascist leader Pinochet. Says a lot.
AleichemSholem 1 week ago
@AleichemSholem It might say a lot if it were true. The facts are exactly the opposite of what you suggest. His theories have proven phenomenally successful and beneficial throughout the world and he denounced the oppressive nature of the Pinochet regime while he was still IN Chile.
You fail basic history.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
maliciously obtained???? Were you stoned when you wrote that?
ItsNotMyBong 1 week ago
@ItsNotMyBong oh im sorry is misdirecting tax gains and writing out military purchases to dummy corporations not malicious? lets get stoned together
sandwichtaster 6 days ago
He is an idiot and he looks ugly too.
Athenaikos 1 week ago
@Athenaikos LOL your a fucking greek. Hows that socialism working out for ya? Id say you and you lazy ass countrymen are the Idiots
Adol666 1 week ago
@Adol666 - LOL I would say you are financially illiterate. How does it feel to be a certifiable ignoramus and a male hen sucker?
Athenaikos 1 week ago
@Athenaikos A Lazy Greek Trying to telling Me im financially illiterate thats rich.
Adol666 1 week ago
@Adol666 - Hey Adolf Hitler 666. Better zip it before you meet the Gates of Hades. You don't have a clue about modern finance, do you redneck?
Athenaikos 1 week ago
@Athenaikos I dont have a Clue Huh look at your shithole country. Are you going to send me to the Gates of Hades? Ohh im scared of a lazy greek that sleeps till noon and has never worked a day in his life.
Adol666 1 week ago
@Adol666 hey now
kenny8331 5 days ago
Neo-Liberalism is nothing but a facade for a plutocracy in which the corporate institutions set the rules and ultimately coerce people into unnatural working conditions i.e. form of alienation, producing and consuming goods and services which will lead to the destruction of the enviroment and exploitation of third world labour. It stands in contrast to classical liberalism which emphasized liberty, freedom and creativity. Anarchism today can be traced back to classical liberalism through Marx.
AleichemSholem 1 week ago
@AleichemSholem Except a) Marxism (including the LTV and the theories of alienation and exploitation) had not been completely debunked long before you were born, b) income mobility in the US is such that a third of those in the bottom 20% eventually reach the top 20%, c) working conditions improve dramatically under capitalism, d) third world living conditions improve due to capitalism and e) the correlation between a cleaner environment and the adoption of capitalism is HUGELY positive.
FletchforFreedom 4 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Debunked? Get the facts right. Working conditions have improved dramatically under capitalism in the US, but is that a argument for state-capitalism? No, and there's good reason for that. Look at the exploitation of labour in the third world, you utter stupid fuck. The neo-liberal doctrine created this, and both Adam Smith and Ricardo pointed this out. They were in fact opposed to the idea and notion of neoliberalism because it turns humans into objects, you fucking retard.
AleichemSholem 3 days ago
@AleichemSholem @AleichemSholem "State capitalism" is an oxymoron (the controlled free market). And every aspect of Marxism, including the LTV and the Marxian concept of "explotation" that only a fool attrbutes to what's happening in the third world. Wages are lower in the third world because they are so late embracing capitalism. And Marx's misreading of Ricardo who had misread Marx does not justify blaming THEM.
Your profanity is the closest you approach to an argument. Typical.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Let me reply in detail: a) You seem to imply that Marxism, or any related ism "does not work" which is a rather interesting as "does not work" is unknown within a sociopolitical and economic system in which in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. This worked perfectly in Anarchist Catalonia before the Fascist under Franco (with the help from the Western powers) and the Communists, dismantled their society.
AleichemSholem 3 days ago
@AleichemSholem Let me clarify. When I say Marxism does not work, I mean that, as a matter of basic economics it has been proven not be possible in the real world.
cont
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@AleichemSholem The myth of Catalonian success astounds. Prices collapsed, unemployment soured, trade came to a screeching halt, many rebelled against working without recompmpense...
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@AleichemSholem ...it was characterized by violence from the outset and was collapsing interally long before the fascists intervened.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom a)... I can point to many institutions and companies today that are being owned and operated by the workers, the Spanish 'Corporation Mondragon', for instance. There are countless of other examples. Objectively speaking, it does work both in theory and practice, and the only reason it hasn't been realized to full scope is because it conflicts with the current power system and structures.
AleichemSholem 3 days ago
@AleichemSholem Mondragon exists ONLY die to massive subsidies from governmnet (while their economy collapses) and the rest operate similarly. Syndicalism has NEVER worked.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Derp, there are so many errors in your statements, everything from claiming that 'political economy' and 'neoliberalism' is scientific when in fact it is a pseudo-science, fully penetrated by and with ideology. In this way it will always remain quasi-scientific, 'disciplines' or statements that borrow their organization from scientific models, demonstrate them in a dubious way which leads to an institutionalized knowledge, still, without any epistemological framework.
AleichemSholem 3 days ago
@AleichemSholem In other words, you don't like the outcome of the actual science so you put your fingers in your ears and hum. I am not responsible for your ignorance OR your denial.
FletchforFreedom 3 days ago
Friedman does not seem to understand the importance of investing in a social safety-net.
Friedman doesn't understand that there has to be a balance between the private sector & the public sector. I mean, just look at him bash the minimum wage in this country as a source of youth unemployment. It's based on pure hogwash. The underlying arguments for his case are based on absolutely nothing but philosophical conjecture. The supply-demand model he takes for grated as valid has a few problems.
FuckPropertyRights 1 week ago
So being super rich, all you need to do is provide some terrible, shitty, low wage jobs and you're all the sudden a philanthropist? Its ok for rich people to just be rich and only do things that make them richer?
Minimum wage is what keeps poop people poor? That's so retarded it makes my head hurt. Try lowering CEO wages for starters. McDonalds CEO makes 17 million dollars a year... and you are gonna try to blame minimum wage for their burger prices? Fucking retard old man, I'm glad you're dead
Grimtheorist 1 week ago
@Grimtheorist "poop people" lol that sucks!
Woops!
Grimtheorist 1 week ago
@Grimtheorist
Speaking out your ass 101
Applesmaush 1 week ago
@Applesmaush ah yes! Milton Friedman was famous for teaching that class with great expertise. He's an expert, after all. He had a PhD in it:
Piled Higher Deeper!
FuckPropertyRights 1 week ago
@FuckPropertyRights
>Friedman says something and logically backs it up
>Commenter requests something nonsensical, makes insults, and completely, and most likely intentionally, misses the point of what he's saying
>Point it out in a similar tone to his own
>LOLOL FRIEDMAN DOES THAT TOO LOL
: /
You are so cunning good sir.
Applesmaush 1 week ago
What a typical, greedy liberal that woman was. "They don't need it, they will just hoard it." Sadly 40% of America thinks like her.
Srd1126 1 week ago
no minimum wage. what a bought and paid for shill. glad he's dead
blastsummit 1 week ago
@blastsummit Why? It's a terrible notion. It may create a number that is equal but it certainly brings everything else down. I will explain this if you want.
skydome29 1 week ago
that poor women didnt know what she was getting herself into
buewave26 1 week ago
The rich have soaked the middle class!
jrwel14 1 week ago
@jrwel14 I think it is government not the rich, because it started to favor certain elements "lobbyists" that were trying to get allot of special privileges on the tax payers expense. It is happening not only in the US, but in the US it is so obvious. If you are saying that it is Rich people fault, then you would also blame Steve Jobs for killing middle class as well ?
DMINATOR 1 week ago
@DMINATOR Several of the rich have said class warfare is being done by the rich against the middle class. Including J.P. Morgan. Before the depression the top 1% made 24% of the income. From 1950-1980 it was 8-10% Due to the GI bill, etc. From 2007 on, they make 23%.
jrwel14 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nikola Tesla, physicist, inventor, and electrical engineer :
"Money does not represent such a value as men have placed upon it. All my money has been invested into experiments with which I have made new discoveries enabling mankind to have a little easier life."
The tesla (symbol T) is the SI derived unit of magnetic flux density. It was defined in 1960 in honor of the inventor, physicist, and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla
Unfortunately his way of thinking is the exception from the rule.
SuperThe86 1 week ago
@Bastayton..there are MANY other ways the rich get richer besides personal income. They make almost all of their money off of investments, dividends, etc. They also, DO NOT create jobs like so many ppl think they do.
kestkr 1 week ago
@kestkr You are one smart dude!
jrwel14 1 week ago
@kestkr it seems you do not know about fundamentals of economics.. its very sad. gdp is not comprised of merely consumption, but a very large and extremely important part of the gdp of any country is investment. investing is bad now? how do businesses grow? how do they acquire capital to hire people? many businesses have to take out short term loans in order to pay its employees on a regular schedule. please, learn economics.
lalem91 1 week ago
Great man here, and a master communicator. I wish RP would study up on the way Milton Friedman communicated his message to people - Ron tends to half-explain his positions which leaves people confused. Friedman was really good at completely explaining the idea.
ThisAintKyle 1 week ago
Wow what a controlling manipulator....and he's still doing it!
23HappyApples 1 week ago
@23HappyApples dude, he died
Chapinhalization 1 week ago
milton friedman was a moron
EisEisBaby 1 week ago
@EisEisBaby Wait, let me guess. You are an obamatard.
thecatatemyhomework 1 week ago
@thecatatemyhomework No I am not. But looking at your channel proves that you are a pussy.
EisEisBaby 1 week ago
Milton Friedman was a wise man.
Oogogu 1 week ago 19
@Oogogu Doubt that!
jrwel14 1 week ago
@Oogogu why are people so against the Rothschilds and the Rockerfellers and the world banks using loans to collapse economies and siphon resources. it's just capitalism?
alvisc2002 4 days ago
@40joel
I agree. Trade schools are certainly more necessary than colleges. And I'm not even being sarcastic. (This is also coming from someone who wants to be back in college.)
PuuMastaFunk 1 week ago
"Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won't work."
I don't want to soak the rich, and most people don't; we want the rich to pay their share of taxes to support the system. The rich's tax rate is too low and they have tax deductions and tax credits of which the average person couldn't even begin to dream of taking advanage.
Don't start with me, I'm retired, and I'm doing just fine; my concern is with the working class and working poor who have been getting screw for the past 30yrs.
policechaser 1 week ago
@policechaser The top 5% of this country already accumulates almost 60% of the income tax in this country. How much more should they have to pay? The bottom 50% makes up 2.3%. Why does everyone see fit that the rich should be taxed so heavily? Did not most of them work hard to be where they are and should it not be up to them to do with their money as they please? We are only entitled to three things in this great country: life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness.
Bastayton 1 week ago
@Bastayton The game is rigged for the rich and no the rich don't work hard, workers work hard, money making money is not working hard, and don't come back with the rich are taking the risk with their money, it is not true, the rich don't put their money in any jeopardy unless they are duped by a con through their own desires of greed. Your life, liberty, etc...is jingoism for the multitudes. Wake up. Try reading about the Republican President Eisenhower. Read: the great depression
policechaser 1 week ago
Those three liberties are enabled by the government's sole power to protect our civil liberties. There are people who are in dire need of government aid, but there must be a place to draw a line, and that's where liberals are always wrong. It's called Social Darwinism. Either you can make it or you can't. Disabled people and those unable to work deserve a chance through gov. aid, but most people, sorry to say, just can't contribute like others.
Bastayton 1 week ago
@policechaser Working class is screwed only because of the same idea that it pays off, to pay higher taxes. The only thing that we need to correct is to bring freedom to ordinary people, to start up businesses, to small businesses... because they can and will be always the highest treat to monopolists, rich manipulators, and provider of fair conditions in the market for an ordinary man. Less government, means more efficiency, lower prices, higher employment etc etc...
staimaubosni 1 week ago
Tax cuts for the rich doesn't create jobs!
Yankeeboy1970 1 week ago
What M.Friedman says is- We should grant the freedom to people to pursue their interests, where those interests exist. If someone believes he is able to offer product or service to others, more valuable that the cost of it. Government should stop being in the way of freedom. Gov. should stop imposing extra costs to business man, because essentially it only prevents everyone from leading a business or being a worker within that business. Protectin us from our own freedom mostly results negatively
staimaubosni 1 week ago
3:45 is terrifying
h0merg0mez 1 week ago 2
Comment removed
h0merg0mez 1 week ago