It's Keynesianism that led to the housing bubble. His heir Krugman still defends it despite its FAILURES. And continues our current decline. There was no free market. How could you possibly blame Friedman (or the Austrians) for policies they had no hand in creating? If I recall, we're all Keynesian now. Which isn't de-regulation at all!
What about govn't owned entities such as Freddie and Fannie that artificially supported the subprime, Option ARM and all other junk mortgate markets. And what about Greenspan artificially kept the Fed funds rates at 1%. It's the govn't that took out the risk out of the equation. Deregulation exacerbated risk taking but it wasn't the source of the problem. You talk about only one aspect to the crisis but leave out the most important ones. That's really unfair and biased.
Yes, we agree France has magnificently strong unions and a very high level of citizen awareness and activism, while Americans are sheep. While you view worker & social protection as bad I view it as essential to fight the unions of the rich.
American and all workers of the world now face the extremely high "SECULAR" unemployment. Please view my three part YouTube video series entitled "Secular Unemployment." It will get worse as the world goes bankrupt.
Thus, there is widespread fear that potential borrowers and recipients of capital with too many nonperforming derivatives will be unable to repay their loans. As trust in property paper breaks down it sets off a chain reaction, paralyzing credit and investment, which shrinks transactions and leads to a catastrophic drop in employment and in the value of everyone's property.
It will mean justice in America. The middle class that has hated and attacked the poor will share in the poverty without the safety net they destroyed (Clinton). It will mean the end of Empire - over 700 military bases in over 130 countries. It will be the end of 60% of the Fed budget going to the military and the mass murder of the world.
My father told me he enjoyed the last Depression. Without money for entertainment & travel, folks remained in their homes and talked to one another
Monetarism is about the velocity or rate of money through the economy. Not how much money is in the economy or how low the interest rates are.
With this in mind Friedman's ideas have not be discredited.
Best Check on Inflation: Broken Banks WSJ
But the velocity of money -- or the speed with which money is spent -- fell in the fourth quarter to its lowest level since 1991, as measured by the ratio of gross domestic product to M2 money supply
It is both M & V. M declined dramatically because banks were not making loans & businesses & consumers stopped applying for loans, and V slowed to a crawl because consumers stopped spending money.
There is still a demand for student loans home refinancing. The demand for home re-fi's have dramatically increased by 42% h t t p : / / tiny. cc / B8qJs
The problem is that its banks that are hording cash one of the reasons is that they don't know what the future regulatory structure will be.
From the same WSJ article
Banks have been lending a bit, but they have parked mountains of cash in their reserves, which at last count were nearly $679 billion, up from about $45 billion last August.
Again, you make a distinction without a difference. According to the Free Market Racketeers on CNBC, there is little demand for loans. This is true in any depression. However, whatever the reason there has not been enough loan creation to increase the money supply as the treasury and Fed had hoped. As a result the Fed has had to print massive amounts of money and inject it into the economy by buying US bonds, mortgages, etc.
These derivatives are the root of the credit crunch. Why? Unlike all other property paper, derivatives are not required by law to be recorded, continually tracked and tied to the assets they represent. Nobody knows precisely how many there are, where they are, and who is finally accountable for them. Thus, there is widespread fear that potential borrowers and recipients of capital with too many nonperforming derivatives will be unable to repay their loans
You never explained why the loans were bad to begin with. They were bad because the government program gave people mortgages that they could not afford. But that was a government intervention and was not caused by the free market...
Free market racketeers (banks) committed fraud in pushing people into sub prime high interest loans. These loan seekers qualified for lower interest regular mortgages. The free market racketeers did so to make higher commissions (profit).
Subprime loans are not the "free market" in a free market subprime loans would not exist. Subprime loans were created by government intervention by Fannie Mae.
They pushed risky loans because its a can't lose situation for banks. Either the borrowers paid or they were reimbursed by the Federal Government.
So again its government intervention and not the free market that is the cause of the crisis.
It was Free Market racketeers (banks) that "sold" sub prime loans to a defrauded public and then packaged these bad loans as collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) and defrauded other Free Market racketeers around the world. If FM is reimbursing banks for bad loans, why do the Free Market Racketeers continue to have toxic assets (bad CDO's) on their books.
Well everyone knew that they were government backed. But the government never came through on its pledge to buy all bad loans. But when it came to paying for all of the bad mortgages the gov balked and let Lehman Bros fail. This sent inconsistent messages they didn't know if they would be bailed out like Bear Stearns or fail like Lehman. In light of this people pulled their money out and the stock market crashed. When a sensible plan by Geitner was proposed the stock market increased by 500 pts.
You assume all mortgages are (were) FM backed. This is not the case. I have not seen a single report that says this is (was) the case. Nor, have I seen a single report that says the gov't backed all CDO's.
Tax thief Geitner's plan is designed to rob the poor, working class & lower middle class taxpayers and distribute it to the Free Market Racketeers (hedge funds).
FM was a GSE a Government Sponsor Enterprise... Title XIII: Government Sponsored Enterprises - Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 - Sets forth congressional findings and definitions. Declares that this Act and the amendments it makes may not be construed: (1) as obligating the Federal Government, either directly or indirectly, to provide any funds to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac),
Yes it was the case.. FM was a GSE a government sponsored entity. Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 - Sets forth congressional findings and definitions. Declares that this Act and the amendments it makes may not be construed: (1) as obligating the Federal Government, either directly or indirectly, to provide any funds to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
There have been thousands of examples of government intervention in the last two centuries. My video of an essay by historian Howard Zinn entitled: Government Intervention, documents the fact that these interventions are always on behalf of the wealthy and corporations. In fact, government was invented to subsidize the wealthy.
In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.But it was blocked by party line vote by the Democrats.
More recently (in the last year) Greenspan testified before Congress that his 40 year belief in Free Market Racketeering had been totally wrong. He jilted Ayn Rand.
Your comment above seems to have Greenspan & you advocating government regulation. This can't be correct.
You are obsessed with one example of government intervention - FM. In any case, my video; Friedman Discredited was not about government intervention. It was about government regulation. This is a narrower category. Your obsession with FM is not an example of government regulation. Government regulation is about preventing Free Market Racketeers from committing fraud, deceit and thievery. It is about stopping Free Market Racketeers from transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.
Well Congress the FED and others saw this coming. But it was Democrats that blocked changes in the housing market because cheap loans were political popular.
In Bush's first budget in 2001 he said that a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
You continue to make a distinction between black hats & white hats. Both Democrats & Republicans serve the rich while the rest of us are without representation.
There interest groups are different. For the Democrats its government aid to Fannie Mae for Republicans its government aid to farmers. Same issue different interest groups.
Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968 by LBJ. He did it because he didn't want to have FM liabilities on his books. It was not because of the ideas of Milton Friedman. If anything Friedman would have argued for explicit gaurantees and not implicit guarantees for FM. He was opposed to this kind of public private partnership or state run guarantees of home loans.
Far from being discredited Friedman's idea of there is no such thing as a free lunch is validated in the collapse of Fannie Mae and the housing crisis. . Congress has been telling the tax payer for years that housing was a safe investment. That there is no need to regulate FM with traditional banking regulations or Sarbanes Oxley. FM has an implicit guarantee of FM loans by the gov which creates a greater risk Even though though they have a debt to asset ratio of 85 billion to 4 trillion.
To say that we have had a deregulation of the financial sector is a complete myth. We never eliminated all rules for the financial sector. Gramm-Leach-Bliley changed the regulations. Even when several warning bells went off in 2001 2003 2005 and 2006. Democrats blocked all reforms reign Fannie Mae a government program. We knew that FM was a problem but Congress did not act not because of a lack of regs or understanding of the banking industry. But they didn't want to eliminate a popular program
Wow I was expecting a better reply than that. I never implied that people good versus evil. If all power elite are wearing black hats which I can only assume your referring to the government. Why give them more power to regulate lives of Americans? More money to reward their special interest groups. More power so that the "Power Elite" can determine what is right and wrong for Americans.
Markets are democratic and government rewards the "Powered Elites" as you call them.
See C. Wright Mills' "Power Elite." The Power Elite is much more then government. It is business & military executives. These elites run government. This is clearly seen in today's crisis.
Could you please explain how the elimination of the Glass Steagal act or deregulation created the financial crisis?
Glass Steagal separated commercial from investment banking. But in the early days of the crisis investment banks were being bought by commerical banks. Which was not allowed under Glass Steagal. If this was the cause of the crisis why didn't the problem occur in Europe and Japan which never had such restrictions between investment and commercial banking.
Reactionary President Clinton followed the advice of Goldman Sachs executives and allowed financial institutions to increased leverage from a maximum of 8 (or 12) to 1 up to 30 (or 40) to 1. Reactionary Obama continues to serve Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street members of the Power Elite to allow the evolving coup d'etat to unfold.
If over leveraging is the problem look no further to Fannie Mae. It debt to asset ratio was 130 to 1. It was allowed to have this outrageous debt to asset ratio because of the implicit guarantee from the US tax payer. But they didn't have to have standard banking regulations or Sarbanes Oxley regulations. Even though they represented a greater risk to the economy. Regulations are made political and not financial grounds.
But the cause of the crisis was not over leverage banks. But banks that made loans to people who couldn't repay because of a implicit government guarantee. Banks could still give loans to unqualified people and not be over leveraged.
General acceptance of an ideology is no way to judged an ideas validity. The Phillips curve was in the mainstream and accepted by the economists world wide. But Friedman accurately predicted how inflation and unemployment can rise at the same time. This changed the mainstream economic thought.
But if the number of people that believe in an ideology Friedman is far from being discredited. Friedman's Monetarist still dominate the FED h t t p : / / tiny. c c / fed504
Its generally accepted that Fannie Mae had a huge role in this crisis. From 1933 to 1995 they sold 1 trillion dollars worth of loans. But since Clinton changed the rules on participation in Fannie Mae they have sold 4 trillion dollars worth of loans. No income No job No credit history No down payment No problem. Clinton discarded all of tools for judging the credit worthy he subsituted them for credit counseling.
I agree; Clinton was America's most reactionary president in a long line of neo fascism. It's a one party system (with two wings) representing one class. This is the way the "founding fathers" arranged the deck chairs for what they referred to as the "wealthy estate."
If you agree then you must concede that it was the government intervention that created the housing crisis and not the free market. Banks made risky home loans to unqualified buyers because of elimination of regulations in government programs and not the home loans that were bought on the "free market" FM loans represented market socialism and not the "free market" If the loans were good banks profited if the were bad they were reimbursed by the gov. FM was not regulated because it was popular.
See my video on gov't intervention. The government has been intervening on behalf of the "wealthy estate" for two centuries, since the beginning of the republic.
Government regulation is needed to control monopoly, predatory Free Market Racketeers. Furthermore, It is a matter of who controls government. America has had Free Market Racketeers in control of government for two centuries and the people live in poverty with great inequality as compared to Social Democracies in Europe.
We need a decentralized Socialist Syndicalized American social democracy with a steep progressive income tax, universal health care, affordable housing, ed & transportation.
I don't think that Europe system of government is to be emulated. The poor maybe marginally richer. but because of lower job creation entrepreneurship fewer of the poor get out of the ghettos when compared to the United States. Therefore the poor are more likely to riot in the Europe than in the United States. Because although they have an education and welfare there are so few jobs that unemployment is 30% in the ghettos. h t t p : / / tiny . cc / france403
Have you lived in Europe? I lived in Ireland, France & Holland (8 years). There are no poor in the social democracies of Europe. Homelessness does not exist in Holland. The Dutch built 50,000 to 100,000 affordable housing units every year since 1950. Most pay for university education (free). All have universal health care and excellent affordable public transportation.
I have travel and studied Europe extensively. They have the exact same corporations in Europe for the past 50 years. 40% of Sweden's stock market is controlled by one family the Wallenbergs. Europe has higher personal taxes and lower corporate taxes which is hardly a just situation.
So, You have not lived in Europe. Therefore, you are dependent on the American propaganda press (see Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" and Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly"). Of course, Europe has corporations. After all Europeans invented capitalism. They have mixed economies just like America. However, America has no sense of equality & merit.
Dependent on the American Media and press? I have access to the European Press by way of the internet. On cable and PBS there is the BBC
There is greater corporate control of the media in Europe. State owned media outlets are more likely disseminate the state ideology.
What is equality and merit is a value judgment. Millions of people immigrating to the US and large numbers of skilled professionals immigrating from Europe shows how they feel equality of the society..
With so many sources at your disposal do you restrict yourself to quoting the WSJ & Time. You are apparently unaware of MIT Professor Noam Chomsky's "Media Monoploy" in which he says the US is the most propagandized country to have ever existed - more so then the German people under Goebbels or the Russian people under Stalin. He lays out the US propaganda model. If you don't have time to read Chomsky, I can give you the gist of his propaganda model.
There are no ghettos. I lived in what the Dutch consider a ghetto. The Bijlmermeer outside Amsterdam is where foreigners live when they first come to Amsterdam because it is the furthest from the Centrum. It is so beautiful that most folks are native Dutchmen. Many wealthy folks chose to live there as well (doctors, etc.). It is completely integrated by race, class & wealth.
Have you ever lived in a European ghetto? I have. While European ghettos are not slums as in America. There is no poverty in European ghettos.
Are you still reading Time? You must be very young and naive. The propaganda press and the American elites are worried about the threat of a good example.
The poor don't demonstrate (riot) in France. Rather, it is the French middle class that riot - wealthy fishermen, airline pilots, wealthy farmers, students, etc. While, people of color are discriminated against in terms of job opportunities, as in America, Europeans of color have health care, housing, education thru university and transportation - therefore, no poverty.
Meanwhile, Americans live with inequality and poverty like sheep.
There are no riots in most countries of Europe. The Demonstrations in France are, in fact, part of France's excellent heritage of revolution. Americans don't have demonstrations because we are intimidated sheep.
Ther is no welfare in Europe. This is a demeaning American term. Europeans have Rights. American sheep don't have rights.
No Americans are happier than the french therefore they don't riot. Only 35% of the French say that they are happy or very happy. According to the book Gross National Happiness.
If Europe is better for professionals and the middle class why do so many of their countries have negative net migration? h t t p : / / tiny . cc / 9IkQl
Certainly, the American slave class has higher unemployment then Europeans and Europeans have rights, housing, health care, education through university and fine affordable public transportation.
Unemployment does not mean poverty in Europe.
Why not live in Europe for a while and see for yourself?
..in fact, quite the opposite. he said that the money supply—assuming that its fluctuations are gradual—is not important when it comes to real output in the long run. he asserted that it was important only in nominal magnitudes. on the other hand, he HARPED on fiscal policy. in fact, his most cogent concern was that of government spending relative to private spending and its effects on the economy. if youre attempting to take on an economic genius in 7 minutes at least learn his philosophy
Fluctuations in the money supply can be massive and are currently massive beyond measure. The main point I make in my video: "Friedman's False Assumption," is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately measure the money supply. While I have read three books by Friedman and studied monetary policy with a professor who took his doctorate studying under Friedman. How did you study Friedman - TV & YT?
friedman believed that the money supply had only nominal significance! so, the amount of money in an economy is virtually meaningless as long as it increases gradually along with economic growth. he believed that economic activity can dictate the gradual influx of this money into the economy. the only time massive fluctuations in the money supply occur is when governments print massive amounts of money! honest question: why do you think friedman praised greenspan?
my comment addressing your question concerning my education. if you approve all comments then why wouldnt you just turn the "approval" function off? it is tedious.
Did you answer my question about your education? I don't see the answer. I keep the approval filter on to be able to guard against aggressive, insulting Friedman groupies.
ok. now im commenting on your other videos so you can stop telling me to watch them (even after i already told you that i did). again, you make the almost laughably banal assertation that the economic situation in which we currently find ourselves is a result of "neocon" deregulation. first, i want to correct you on 2 things: (1) friedman eagerly praised alan greenspan—a man who certainly controlled the money supply. (2) friedman did not believe that the money supply was the KEY to an economy.
Although I did not use the phrase neocon, let's adopt it. I prefer Neo Fascist. Certainly, Neo Fascist policies have dominated America through both Democratic & Republican administrations. Massive deregulation began under Reagan and continued into high gear undeer Clinton. The Dems & Republicans are two wings of the same one party fascist state. I didn't know Friedman praised Greenspan, interesting. We disagree of what Friedman believed with respect to the importance of the money supply.
correction: (1) 4:10 .. "friedmanites thought as all *neoconservatives* did that it was wonderful to deregulate" (2) "neo fascism", ideologically, has nothing to do witih deregulation so im not sure how you decided to go with that 1.. unless of course mussolini was some sort of closet capitalist? (3) although fanny and freddy were "privatized" in 1968, they were creatures, and became arms of, the federal govt in 1999 when clinton pressured them into making sub-prime loans. (4) ...
Your editorial correction is appreciated. Fascism is a state of mind externalized into a way of life. American presidents have mass murdered on a scale unimagined by Musollini. In their time both Musollini and Hitler were thought of as saviors of Capitalism. I agree Clinton was a reactionary failure.
(4) yes.. friedman praised greenspan: "He Has Set A Standard"——WSJ editorial by Milton Friedman. interesting indeed.. especially if you dont know much about milton friedman. look it up. (5) its not that we disagree about friedman's views concerning the money supply; it's that you are wrong concerning friedman's view of the money supply. friedman quote: "[the money supply] is not very important ... for what happens to real output over the long period." again, you are just wrong.
I prefer to rely on the words of Alan Greenspan testifying before the US Senate about 3 months ago. He said his 40 year belief in the free markets was a misguided failure. As to my knowledge of Friedman, I offerred my credentials to readers, yet you don't answer questions about how you studied Friedman (TV & YT?). As far as Friedman's view of the importance of the money supply, you are pulling an unreferenced quote out of context. Would you care to put it in context? Dr F is a "monetarist"
he is a monetarist in the sense that he contributed greatly to monetary theory. however, his contribution to monetary theory does not suggest that he believed that the monetarism is more important than government spending when it comes to an economy. in fact, again, quite the opposite. his monetary theory rendered the money supply meaningless in the long run. conversely, he believed the extent of fiscal policy to be the main determinant of an economy's future health.
What happened with the market wasn't deregulation, it was new regulation thanks to Clinton(ites) who demanded that Fannie and Freddie give loans to "poor people"--in this case "poor" means "unable to afford." Since when were Fannie and Freddie privatized???
what do you mean this guy wasnt commenting on this video?? is that your m.o.. instead of taking on people's arguments you just attempt to redirect them? PHenry was directly refuting the claim you made in this video that neo-con deregulation caused the financial crisis! and hes absolutely right. this is a government-induced recession. fannie and freddie were institutions of the federal government that subsidized sub-prime lending. would NOT have been possible without them. wise up
While I believe Clinton was the most reactionary president to have governed America, I did not discuss Fannie & Freddie in the video, and am unfamiliar with the history of these organizations. Deregulation certainly began with Clinton's elimination of the Glass-Stegall Act and the Commodities Regulations Act that allowed all the derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps.
ok then he was informing you. i suggest that you research the history of these institutions because their role in creating the massively inflated real-estate bubble (which caused 90% of this mess) is incredible. and guess what.. it would not have been possible WITHOUT the regulation of the federal government. surprise surprise.. the federal government's meddling leads to another failure
Your view of economic reality (the Austrian School) differs with the mainstream of economic thinking. It is generally accepted that deregulation got us into this mess. Free Markets produce chaos and inequality on a grand scale. Again, we disagree.
When was there ever deregulation? We never completely eliminated all rules and restrictions. Bush passed the Sarbanes Oxley act that was the largest financial regulation bill in a half century. Bush increased the funding for the SEC by 10% in 2004.
Bush and the Republican Congress saw this problem coming. In 2001 2003 2005 and 2006 they had congressional hearings about Fannie Mae. But it was Barney Frank that called Fannie Mae fundmentally sound just months before its collapse.
0:52 - You probably WERE giving a very even-handed breakdown of the events. But I've discovered myself that trying to give a description of events without an ideological bias - and people just cannot seem to stop idolizing people to understand their failings. Which I think does Friedman a great deservice.
"Friedmanite groupies" - ok, I had to laugh at that one.
The root of the problem it has nothing to do with deregulation. The root of the problem lies in the federal reserve(Greenspan) leaving interest rates too low, too long.
The financial crisis is caused by:
1) Too many home foreclosures right now because
2) Too many people bought houses they couldnt afford because
3) Houses went up a lot and they thought they would go up forever
4) Which was all caused by Greenspan leaving interest rates too low too long
Just this last week, Deutche Bank was found to have speculated on very risky instruments normally invested in by hedge fund operators. This was done with full knowledge it was rank speculation in pursuit of higher profits.
European & American bankers who invested in high rate of return investments like CDOs (packages of 1000s of mortgages (many subprime) certainly should have known these "investments" contained so much risk as to be speculation.
If you watch my video: Who Messed Up the Economy?, I lay out how bankers got the government to give them the fuel hedge funds use to speculate. Banks had been able to borrow at a 10 to 1 rate to "invest." That is 10% down. Retail investors (you & me) must have 50% domw in margin borrowing (2 to 1).
Bankers convinced Pers. Clinton to allow them to invest with only 2.5% down (40 to 1). The current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was the main man who convinced Clinton.
Comment below is adressed to spoiled upperclass youngsters that with no shame pick up peases of different Economist,they seen on TV but never read,like Hayek and his antagonist Friedman,and then old Austrian Von Mises,in a funny inconsecvent way that shows that they never read them.Why not mix up old Austrian Right Winger Joseph A. Schumpeter also so the mezz is complete.He predicted that future belonged to Socialism,but did not like it!
1)Friedman Groupies sticking there noses in books they don´t understand,bourgoise youngster integibillety have declined nowadays it seems.Humanist values once was a basic part of prober Upperclass education.Nowadays it only Greed!You should read Austrian school that you admire so loudly.Von Mises(that even wrote a book called "Socialism") and all the old Right Wingers had at least proper knowledge about the subject what Socialism is and therefore a polite debate,possible among different values.
"Actually, the true economic definition of socialism is government control and direction over methods of production."
How do you explain "libertarian socialism" sir...? The means of production would be in the control of the community such as workers councils or trade unions.
Adam smiths and John lockes ideas were debunked by Karl Marx. "Says law" was discredited by the great wall street crash of 1929 and now milton friedman's "laissez faire capitalism" has been refuted by the global financial crisis of 2008. Feudalism was replaced by capitalism, now capitalism is ready to give in to socialism. Bring on the good times.
Friedman was a great man. But he was wrong as was Keyens about monetary policy. And monetary policy is at the heart of the current financial crisis. Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard disagreed with Keynesians and Monetarist like Friedman over central banking. They would argue that monetary policy is best dealt with in the private sector that banks would issue bank notes and use their own reserves for lending and set their own interest rates.
They would also argue that central banking causes the business cycle. The Austrian business cycle theory which states that artificially low interest rates causes a boom of malinvestment and eventually that malinvestment must correct itself aka a recession. Which the current financial crisis could convincingly be argued was caused by artificially low interest rates. But I think most Keynesian policies were discredited in the 60's and 70's during stagflation caused by Keynesian policies.
Boil the rich? Oh, come now, sir. Why must you use the rhetoric of a bomb-thrower? Now, as I strive to return this debate to civility, please, if you would, outline your idea for function of government. Upon your response, I shall do the same and we shall take it from there.
Spoken like a true fascist. Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington agrees with you in his book "Crisis In Democracy," 1975. Huntington is a low life academic who will write anything to please the power elite. He tells them what they want to hear. is latest book says America is for the anglo Saxons, like himsel. He is descendant of the Mayflower Huntingtons.
European countries all have parliamentary systems where any party that gets 5% of the vote has seats in the parliament. All are in. US one in
Spoken like a fascist. You moved from neo fascist to full fledged fascist with your last word. Hopefully, that is your last ugly word.
Please spare us why you think Socialism is unconstitutional. The son of an Imperial Empire builder has no regard for our Republic, as Romans in the Roman Republic lost faith in themselves and their Republic by acquiescing to a dictator, s surely as American sheep have acquiesced to Dictator Bush - The Decider.
not outlaw thought lol. outlaw government ownership in private enterprise. outlaw government interest in business and outlaw business interest in government. the government's sole job is to protect the citizens, not provide for the citizens. socialism, to any degree imposes systemic risk and distorts the functionality of markets. markets will do what they want no matter what and any attempt to interfere is futile and in some cases damaging, mostly to the middle and lower classes.
I thought you said you were through debating (if that is what you call insulting arrogance). Please stick to your word and don't visit my RadioHogan channel. You are to arrogant, insulting and disingenuous for my tastes.
like i said you have no idea what my father's business is yet you outlandish claims of imperial empire builder. when you try to make a point you resort to name calling and classification into isms;no facts whatsoever. that is why you are a pseudo intellectual.
You wrote your father was in the military as a careerist (aka Welfare Queen). Military men are by definiton - militarists and Imperial Empire Colonists who steal the land, labor and resources of countries around the world.
General Smedley Butler was the top General in the Marine Corps and he described himself as being tired og being "a gangster for capitalism." Your dear Da is a gangster for capitalism.
my dad was in special forces and he fought and risked his life for the well being of you. he not only risked his life for americans but also foreigners when he taught guerrillas in korea how to fight, when he taught south Vietnamese, and in south america places like nicaragua.now he owns business that teaches special ops soldiers about operating in different countries. he doesnt profit from war, soldiers are trained in peacetime and wartime. sounds to me like you are coward sir.
America sent Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson to Nuremburg twice as a prosecutor and as a judge. At the time, he wrote, the most serious war crime is to invade another country. because all other war crimes emanate from that war crime. By invading Viet Nam and mass murdering $ million South East Asians (2 million Viet Namese) America committed one of the most serious war crimes in all history.
Your dear Da is a war criminal. It is sad you never knew or are in denial.
The war in Nicaragua was a violation of the Boland Amendment. America's war against a small country was both unconstitutional and a war crime. Dear Da is a multiple war criminal. Please don't tell me anymore about Dear Da. He is a fascist.
my dad trained locals how to defend themselves, he didn't take part in conventional warfare. Im sorry you are a coward and instead of spending most of your time on youtube maybe you should go out and do some good for other people instead of blaming everything thats wrong with world on americans you crazy fascist.
After being a gangster for capitalism your dear Da became a war profiteer. He spent his whole life sucking off the government and you have the balls to be critical of Socialists who want a fair deal. The word hypocrite comes to mind.
In the latest international math and science test conducted by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD)
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), U.S. students again trailed the average international scores achieved by students in the 57 test-taking nations.
Students from a diverse array of countries, including Canada, Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, scored significantly higher than those from the United States, with Finnish
students beating those of all other countries. The United States now lags behind Poland, which raised its scores more than any other nation.
Check out Google for an infinite number of results. You are a big brain. You can do it, if you try. I found the previous paragraphs when searching on the two phrases I gave you. Do your homework.
and to get back on topic about your video, maybe you should make some changes as far as claiming to have discredited friedman and inaccurately declaring that the money supply was wiped out and whatever else disjointed claim with regards to the velocity.
I stand by my video, your failed Duke education not withstanding. Let's take one more stab at it.
Any "Money & Banking" class at any university teaches us the money supply can be adjusted in 3 ways (1.) short term interest rates (2.) open market operations (3.) bank reserve requirements. Surely, we agree so far.
The measures of the money supply you present do not include the present crisis of trust & confidence. We will not know the state of the present money supply until some future date.
The purpose of the Fed lowering short term interest rates is to cause banks to lend. It is this lending that increases the money supply. Even in the best of times this is only partially successful because the Fed has no affect on the more important long term rates.
My thesis is that the present crisis is a reduction in the money supply and a concomitant reduction in the velocity of money. Economists are writing that banks will not lend money to the best credit worthy customers like McDonalds, or even other banks.
This refusal to lend causes the money supply to shrink or remain static, at best. The refusal to lend is based on a loss of trust and confidence in the capitalist system. This was brought on by the destruction or wealth in the CDO (Collateral Debt Obligation) [8.75% of initial value]. this inherent contradiction in capitalism is not accounted for in Friedman's monetary theory, hence he has been discredited by reality. His ivory tower was to high in the sky.
The crisis of trust and lack of confidence in capitalism has also caused the velocity of money to slow to a standstill. Let's look at future statistics, assuming the government doesn't play with the numbers, governments (particularly the American government) often do. There is no ture transparency where large autocractic bureaucracies are concern - socialist or capitalist.
like i said before money supply is increasing.you confuse contracting money supply with liquidity. liquidity is falling not money supply. true velocity has decreased by 1% because money supply has increased in relation to output and inflation. if inflation kicks up so will velocity.point being you haven't discredited anything.and then you stick in a barefaced lie by saying mcdonalds isn't receiving credit.this proves you just make stuff up.
You are inauthentic. We don't know what the money supply has been doing for two reasons: (1.) money supply is inherently difficult to measure (2.) how can yo measure what the money supply is doing today, this week or this month with accuracy?
yea i guess any data that comes out of the fed is bs and credible sources of data dont exist anywhere so we should just make conclusions based on no fact.its easy to be right this way, the data is wrong,observations dont fit the theory so the observations are wrong. that is brilliant mr hogan.
There was a news report on CNBC in the past week that McDonalds tried to borrow money to upgrade it's coffee makers to compete with Starbucks and was refused. Did your military da teach you to call folks liars?
"There continues to be more than sufficient liquidity available to our franchisees to fund capital improvements in their restaurants."-Walt Riker McDonalds spokesperson
Your arrogance refuses to apologize. Yes, I heard such a report on CNBC. I would deny it if I was a mouthpiece for McDonalds. You will believe any PR man for capitalism.
This is my last word on the subject. The gentleman from Duke has called me a "pseudo intellectual" and Red Baited me by associating me with Stalin. He even slandered me by accusing me of attacking Arabs. However, I am indebted to him for forcing me to think this through as completely as I have here in this series of answers A thru F.
Look whos slandering now. I accused you of calling me an arab, not attacking arabs. and you may call it red baiting whatever that is but it is true that your rhetoric of class warfare is strikingly similar to that of stalin and marx but dont misunderstand me, im not saying your commend stalin or marx or anybody, just saying that you have the same justification and same ideological underpinnings.
The Depletion of fish in the oceans because of overfishing is also discrediting free for all capitalist theories. The fish can be harvested in a sustainable way but not with a free market.
highonhayek: The problem is not the greed of the engineer or the farmer that actually work for a living and reap the benefits of their labor.
well if we lived in a true capitalist society then we would be less worried about fishing too much. as the industry depleted its sources, the government stepped in to help the industry by giving out money in the form of billions of dollars in subsidies to help the local economies of fishing communities continue fishing even more and farther away. left to the free market there wouldn't be overfishing and more sustainable substitutes would have developed.
Your strained arguments have destroyed your credibility. Over fishing in the oceans is not done by what you refer to as "fishing communities." Rather, it is done by monster industrial fleets of massive fishing trawlers sponsored by huge corporations that do not need subsidies. I know of no case of governments helping "fishing communities," other then the Europeans who buy up fishing boats to reduce the amount of fishing.
You simply argue because you are a fanatical Friedman groupie.
1. What is the difference between Capitalism & Corporatism? Are you making a distinction without a difference? Are you claiming there is such a thing as "pure" capitalism? Is corporatism, croney capitalism? Do all Austian School Groupies live in an unreal world of hoping for a world of pure capitalism without any government at all? Are Austrian Schoolers anarchists?
2. What rivers of blood & corpses are you referring to? Which socialists?
3. Historians consider the NAZI's to be fascists, but I would be interested in an elaboration of your view of the matter. If true, why did the NAZIs mass murders all Socialists, Communists & Anarchists?
4. You are historically incorrect. You might want to view my video "Socialism & Anarchism," in which I note Socialism predates Marxism. Many socialists were not in favor of nationalizing private property. There were 300,000 to 400,000 such socialist experiments in the USA.
Please please please go to Google and type in "National Socialism" and hit the I'm Feeling Lucky button.
The Nazi's were socialists-just very angry, racist and jingoistic ones.
And socialism definitely DOES predate Marxism. No argument.
The pre-Marxist socialist movements of the 18th and 19th Centuries were a retaliation against the rising standards of living that the common man was enjoying.
Marx's great tactical move was to bundle socialism with lofty promises of wealth.
Pt I - You didn't answer my question. If the NAZIs were Socialists, why did they mass murder Socialists, Communists & Anarchists? Any fascist can stick the word socialist in their acronym. You are in the midst of a strained argument no historian would buy. In being disingenuous you are displaying your inauthenticity and destroying your credibility. Don't let me stop your having so much fun.
Pre Marxist socialist movements were based on idealism. Hence they are categorized as Utpian Socialists.
actually fascism is more in line with the ideas of socialism than any other ideology. Hitler even called himself a socialist at one time. But the main thing with socialism is the desire of certainty and economic safety. Socialists dont like the harshness of free market competition and instead want the peace of mind of government to provide necessities.only catch is when people know they will get paid no matter what they dont care if they become more productive.
All the countries of Western Europe and Soth America are Socialist (Mixed economies)by the standards of the Second Internationale. Are you saying that England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Ecudor, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Mexico, etc are Fascist.
Your quoting Hitler will win arguments for you, I have no doubt. No one will take you inauthenticity. Certainly no Europeans or Latin Americans. Live is Europe, as I have.
you forget that the u.s.a is also a mixed economy. the truest form of free-market capitalism is hong kong though nowhere on earth is there a true free-market economy. Im not saying fascism is socialism, im just saying a key component of fascism is the planned economy,mixed economy, socialist element.
You are telling me that a titalitarian, fascist place called Hong Kong run by old styled Bolechivk communists is free society today. You have been watching old Friedman movies made before the communists took over.
Hong Kong is first in terms of economic freedom according to the 2008 economic world freedom survey. True they dont have much political freedom but they have economic freedom.USA is number 5 behind Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. Cuba and N Korea are at the bottom of the list.
correction, those countries were listed in the 2008 index of economic freedom. the 2007 economic freedom of the world puts hong kong first, the followed by singapore, new zealand, switzerland, and canada, usa and uk tied for fifth.
Western European countries are not socialist. Some of there industries may be nationalized, and they do pay a 50% income tax to support said industries, but they have private property, and the means of production is still free market capitalism. And look at the side affects of big gov't intervention in those countries. People are forced to buy private health insurance to make up for the coverage the gov't healthcare lacks. It's a grossly inefficient system. And is fundamentally against freedom.
You are not fmiliar with the history of Socialism. The Second Internationale (1890's) came to the view that Socialists should form Socialist political parties to get elected and enter parliaments to pass reform legislation. Karl Kautsky was a proponent of this view. Please read "The Marxists" by that preeminent American intellectual, C. Wright Mills.
It's Keynesianism that led to the housing bubble. His heir Krugman still defends it despite its FAILURES. And continues our current decline. There was no free market. How could you possibly blame Friedman (or the Austrians) for policies they had no hand in creating? If I recall, we're all Keynesian now. Which isn't de-regulation at all!
picopallasi 1 year ago
@picopallasi Did you watch this video - honestly? If so, why not comment on the video?
radiohogan 1 year ago
What about govn't owned entities such as Freddie and Fannie that artificially supported the subprime, Option ARM and all other junk mortgate markets. And what about Greenspan artificially kept the Fed funds rates at 1%. It's the govn't that took out the risk out of the equation. Deregulation exacerbated risk taking but it wasn't the source of the problem. You talk about only one aspect to the crisis but leave out the most important ones. That's really unfair and biased.
yjfoo81 2 years ago 3
You did not understand the video.
radiohogan 2 years ago
BBC News h t t p : / / tiny. c c / bbcnews 217
France is also characterised by a high degree of social protection and many labour-market rigidities.
This helps those already in work but prevents the creation of low-skill, entry-level jobs.
The result is 25% unemployment among the young - and zero job prospects for the poorly-educated youths of the ghettos
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Yes, we agree France has magnificently strong unions and a very high level of citizen awareness and activism, while Americans are sheep. While you view worker & social protection as bad I view it as essential to fight the unions of the rich.
American and all workers of the world now face the extremely high "SECULAR" unemployment. Please view my three part YouTube video series entitled "Secular Unemployment." It will get worse as the world goes bankrupt.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Continued...
Thus, there is widespread fear that potential borrowers and recipients of capital with too many nonperforming derivatives will be unable to repay their loans. As trust in property paper breaks down it sets off a chain reaction, paralyzing credit and investment, which shrinks transactions and leads to a catastrophic drop in employment and in the value of everyone's property.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Part I:
We agree! America is headed for bankruptcy, if not bankrupt already. Our biggest creditors (China, etc.) know this.
However, I look forward to the complete breakdown of American society (what Emile Durkheim called anomie).
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part II:
It will mean justice in America. The middle class that has hated and attacked the poor will share in the poverty without the safety net they destroyed (Clinton). It will mean the end of Empire - over 700 military bases in over 130 countries. It will be the end of 60% of the Fed budget going to the military and the mass murder of the world.
My father told me he enjoyed the last Depression. Without money for entertainment & travel, folks remained in their homes and talked to one another
radiohogan 2 years ago
Monetarism is about the velocity or rate of money through the economy. Not how much money is in the economy or how low the interest rates are.
With this in mind Friedman's ideas have not be discredited.
Best Check on Inflation: Broken Banks WSJ
But the velocity of money -- or the speed with which money is spent -- fell in the fourth quarter to its lowest level since 1991, as measured by the ratio of gross domestic product to M2 money supply
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
It is both M & V. M declined dramatically because banks were not making loans & businesses & consumers stopped applying for loans, and V slowed to a crawl because consumers stopped spending money.
radiohogan 2 years ago
There is still a demand for student loans home refinancing. The demand for home re-fi's have dramatically increased by 42% h t t p : / / tiny. cc / B8qJs
The problem is that its banks that are hording cash one of the reasons is that they don't know what the future regulatory structure will be.
From the same WSJ article
Banks have been lending a bit, but they have parked mountains of cash in their reserves, which at last count were nearly $679 billion, up from about $45 billion last August.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Again, you make a distinction without a difference. According to the Free Market Racketeers on CNBC, there is little demand for loans. This is true in any depression. However, whatever the reason there has not been enough loan creation to increase the money supply as the treasury and Fed had hoped. As a result the Fed has had to print massive amounts of money and inject it into the economy by buying US bonds, mortgages, etc.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Hernando DeSoto WSJ March 2009.
These derivatives are the root of the credit crunch. Why? Unlike all other property paper, derivatives are not required by law to be recorded, continually tracked and tied to the assets they represent. Nobody knows precisely how many there are, where they are, and who is finally accountable for them. Thus, there is widespread fear that potential borrowers and recipients of capital with too many nonperforming derivatives will be unable to repay their loans
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You never explained why the loans were bad to begin with. They were bad because the government program gave people mortgages that they could not afford. But that was a government intervention and was not caused by the free market...
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Free market racketeers (banks) committed fraud in pushing people into sub prime high interest loans. These loan seekers qualified for lower interest regular mortgages. The free market racketeers did so to make higher commissions (profit).
radiohogan 2 years ago
Subprime loans are not the "free market" in a free market subprime loans would not exist. Subprime loans were created by government intervention by Fannie Mae.
They pushed risky loans because its a can't lose situation for banks. Either the borrowers paid or they were reimbursed by the Federal Government.
So again its government intervention and not the free market that is the cause of the crisis.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Part I:
It was Free Market racketeers (banks) that "sold" sub prime loans to a defrauded public and then packaged these bad loans as collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) and defrauded other Free Market racketeers around the world. If FM is reimbursing banks for bad loans, why do the Free Market Racketeers continue to have toxic assets (bad CDO's) on their books.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Well everyone knew that they were government backed. But the government never came through on its pledge to buy all bad loans. But when it came to paying for all of the bad mortgages the gov balked and let Lehman Bros fail. This sent inconsistent messages they didn't know if they would be bailed out like Bear Stearns or fail like Lehman. In light of this people pulled their money out and the stock market crashed. When a sensible plan by Geitner was proposed the stock market increased by 500 pts.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You assume all mortgages are (were) FM backed. This is not the case. I have not seen a single report that says this is (was) the case. Nor, have I seen a single report that says the gov't backed all CDO's.
Tax thief Geitner's plan is designed to rob the poor, working class & lower middle class taxpayers and distribute it to the Free Market Racketeers (hedge funds).
radiohogan 2 years ago
FM was a GSE a Government Sponsor Enterprise... Title XIII: Government Sponsored Enterprises - Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 - Sets forth congressional findings and definitions. Declares that this Act and the amendments it makes may not be construed: (1) as obligating the Federal Government, either directly or indirectly, to provide any funds to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac),
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
What is your point here? Are you making my point that the GSE's do not back all mortgages? If so, I appreciate your help.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Yes it was the case.. FM was a GSE a government sponsored entity. Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 - Sets forth congressional findings and definitions. Declares that this Act and the amendments it makes may not be construed: (1) as obligating the Federal Government, either directly or indirectly, to provide any funds to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Again, thank you for making my point.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part II:
There have been thousands of examples of government intervention in the last two centuries. My video of an essay by historian Howard Zinn entitled: Government Intervention, documents the fact that these interventions are always on behalf of the wealthy and corporations. In fact, government was invented to subsidize the wealthy.
radiohogan 2 years ago
In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.But it was blocked by party line vote by the Democrats.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
More recently (in the last year) Greenspan testified before Congress that his 40 year belief in Free Market Racketeering had been totally wrong. He jilted Ayn Rand.
Your comment above seems to have Greenspan & you advocating government regulation. This can't be correct.
radiohogan 2 years ago
It is true h t t p : / / tiny . cc / greenspan803
h t t p : / / tiny. cc / VpQY9
Greenspan was the head of the FED which was a government regulatory body.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
The poor man regretted his life as a gangster for Free Market Capitalism. His confession before the US Senate will, no doubt, help him get to heaven.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part III:
You are obsessed with one example of government intervention - FM. In any case, my video; Friedman Discredited was not about government intervention. It was about government regulation. This is a narrower category. Your obsession with FM is not an example of government regulation. Government regulation is about preventing Free Market Racketeers from committing fraud, deceit and thievery. It is about stopping Free Market Racketeers from transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Well Congress the FED and others saw this coming. But it was Democrats that blocked changes in the housing market because cheap loans were political popular.
In Bush's first budget in 2001 he said that a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You continue to make a distinction between black hats & white hats. Both Democrats & Republicans serve the rich while the rest of us are without representation.
radiohogan 2 years ago
There interest groups are different. For the Democrats its government aid to Fannie Mae for Republicans its government aid to farmers. Same issue different interest groups.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Both D's & R's serve the rich at the expense of us all. The Democrats are far more reactionary, while the Republicans are more honest.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968 by LBJ. He did it because he didn't want to have FM liabilities on his books. It was not because of the ideas of Milton Friedman. If anything Friedman would have argued for explicit gaurantees and not implicit guarantees for FM. He was opposed to this kind of public private partnership or state run guarantees of home loans.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Friedman Groupies always claim to know what Milton would have done.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Far from being discredited Friedman's idea of there is no such thing as a free lunch is validated in the collapse of Fannie Mae and the housing crisis. . Congress has been telling the tax payer for years that housing was a safe investment. That there is no need to regulate FM with traditional banking regulations or Sarbanes Oxley. FM has an implicit guarantee of FM loans by the gov which creates a greater risk Even though though they have a debt to asset ratio of 85 billion to 4 trillion.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
To say that we have had a deregulation of the financial sector is a complete myth. We never eliminated all rules for the financial sector. Gramm-Leach-Bliley changed the regulations. Even when several warning bells went off in 2001 2003 2005 and 2006. Democrats blocked all reforms reign Fannie Mae a government program. We knew that FM was a problem but Congress did not act not because of a lack of regs or understanding of the banking industry. But they didn't want to eliminate a popular program
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You seem to think there are white hats and black hats. That is to simplistic. All the cowboys in the Power Elite are wearing black hats.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Wow I was expecting a better reply than that. I never implied that people good versus evil. If all power elite are wearing black hats which I can only assume your referring to the government. Why give them more power to regulate lives of Americans? More money to reward their special interest groups. More power so that the "Power Elite" can determine what is right and wrong for Americans.
Markets are democratic and government rewards the "Powered Elites" as you call them.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
See C. Wright Mills' "Power Elite." The Power Elite is much more then government. It is business & military executives. These elites run government. This is clearly seen in today's crisis.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Could you please explain how the elimination of the Glass Steagal act or deregulation created the financial crisis?
Glass Steagal separated commercial from investment banking. But in the early days of the crisis investment banks were being bought by commerical banks. Which was not allowed under Glass Steagal. If this was the cause of the crisis why didn't the problem occur in Europe and Japan which never had such restrictions between investment and commercial banking.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Reactionary President Clinton followed the advice of Goldman Sachs executives and allowed financial institutions to increased leverage from a maximum of 8 (or 12) to 1 up to 30 (or 40) to 1. Reactionary Obama continues to serve Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street members of the Power Elite to allow the evolving coup d'etat to unfold.
radiohogan 2 years ago
If over leveraging is the problem look no further to Fannie Mae. It debt to asset ratio was 130 to 1. It was allowed to have this outrageous debt to asset ratio because of the implicit guarantee from the US tax payer. But they didn't have to have standard banking regulations or Sarbanes Oxley regulations. Even though they represented a greater risk to the economy. Regulations are made political and not financial grounds.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
But the cause of the crisis was not over leverage banks. But banks that made loans to people who couldn't repay because of a implicit government guarantee. Banks could still give loans to unqualified people and not be over leveraged.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
General acceptance of an ideology is no way to judged an ideas validity. The Phillips curve was in the mainstream and accepted by the economists world wide. But Friedman accurately predicted how inflation and unemployment can rise at the same time. This changed the mainstream economic thought.
But if the number of people that believe in an ideology Friedman is far from being discredited. Friedman's Monetarist still dominate the FED h t t p : / / tiny. c c / fed504
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Its generally accepted that Fannie Mae had a huge role in this crisis. From 1933 to 1995 they sold 1 trillion dollars worth of loans. But since Clinton changed the rules on participation in Fannie Mae they have sold 4 trillion dollars worth of loans. No income No job No credit history No down payment No problem. Clinton discarded all of tools for judging the credit worthy he subsituted them for credit counseling.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
I agree; Clinton was America's most reactionary president in a long line of neo fascism. It's a one party system (with two wings) representing one class. This is the way the "founding fathers" arranged the deck chairs for what they referred to as the "wealthy estate."
radiohogan 2 years ago
If you agree then you must concede that it was the government intervention that created the housing crisis and not the free market. Banks made risky home loans to unqualified buyers because of elimination of regulations in government programs and not the home loans that were bought on the "free market" FM loans represented market socialism and not the "free market" If the loans were good banks profited if the were bad they were reimbursed by the gov. FM was not regulated because it was popular.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
See my video on gov't intervention. The government has been intervening on behalf of the "wealthy estate" for two centuries, since the beginning of the republic.
You seem to be having an argument with yourself.
radiohogan 2 years ago
No I agree government intervention helps the rich and the politically well connected more than it helps the middle class.
If this is so then we need to keep big government and big business separate. With few regulation subsidies etc.
Even well intentioned government intervention often has disastrous consequences. Fannie Mae and the welfare state are examples of this.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Government regulation is needed to control monopoly, predatory Free Market Racketeers. Furthermore, It is a matter of who controls government. America has had Free Market Racketeers in control of government for two centuries and the people live in poverty with great inequality as compared to Social Democracies in Europe.
We need a decentralized Socialist Syndicalized American social democracy with a steep progressive income tax, universal health care, affordable housing, ed & transportation.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I don't think that Europe system of government is to be emulated. The poor maybe marginally richer. but because of lower job creation entrepreneurship fewer of the poor get out of the ghettos when compared to the United States. Therefore the poor are more likely to riot in the Europe than in the United States. Because although they have an education and welfare there are so few jobs that unemployment is 30% in the ghettos. h t t p : / / tiny . cc / france403
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Part I:
Have you lived in Europe? I lived in Ireland, France & Holland (8 years). There are no poor in the social democracies of Europe. Homelessness does not exist in Holland. The Dutch built 50,000 to 100,000 affordable housing units every year since 1950. Most pay for university education (free). All have universal health care and excellent affordable public transportation.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I have travel and studied Europe extensively. They have the exact same corporations in Europe for the past 50 years. 40% of Sweden's stock market is controlled by one family the Wallenbergs. Europe has higher personal taxes and lower corporate taxes which is hardly a just situation.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
So, You have not lived in Europe. Therefore, you are dependent on the American propaganda press (see Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" and Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly"). Of course, Europe has corporations. After all Europeans invented capitalism. They have mixed economies just like America. However, America has no sense of equality & merit.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Dependent on the American Media and press? I have access to the European Press by way of the internet. On cable and PBS there is the BBC
There is greater corporate control of the media in Europe. State owned media outlets are more likely disseminate the state ideology.
What is equality and merit is a value judgment. Millions of people immigrating to the US and large numbers of skilled professionals immigrating from Europe shows how they feel equality of the society..
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
With so many sources at your disposal do you restrict yourself to quoting the WSJ & Time. You are apparently unaware of MIT Professor Noam Chomsky's "Media Monoploy" in which he says the US is the most propagandized country to have ever existed - more so then the German people under Goebbels or the Russian people under Stalin. He lays out the US propaganda model. If you don't have time to read Chomsky, I can give you the gist of his propaganda model.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part II:
There are no ghettos. I lived in what the Dutch consider a ghetto. The Bijlmermeer outside Amsterdam is where foreigners live when they first come to Amsterdam because it is the furthest from the Centrum. It is so beautiful that most folks are native Dutchmen. Many wealthy folks chose to live there as well (doctors, etc.). It is completely integrated by race, class & wealth.
radiohogan 2 years ago
There are no ghettos in Europe tell that to the Algerians in France. h t t p : / / tiny. cc / ghettos
Time says that "That Europe's homelessness problem is roughly the same as America's is a shock' h t t p : / / tiny . c c / france562
If they are completely integrated then why are the poor rioting and being radicalized in Europe?
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Part A:
Have you ever lived in a European ghetto? I have. While European ghettos are not slums as in America. There is no poverty in European ghettos.
Are you still reading Time? You must be very young and naive. The propaganda press and the American elites are worried about the threat of a good example.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part B:
The poor don't demonstrate (riot) in France. Rather, it is the French middle class that riot - wealthy fishermen, airline pilots, wealthy farmers, students, etc. While, people of color are discriminated against in terms of job opportunities, as in America, Europeans of color have health care, housing, education thru university and transportation - therefore, no poverty.
Meanwhile, Americans live with inequality and poverty like sheep.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part III:
There are no riots in most countries of Europe. The Demonstrations in France are, in fact, part of France's excellent heritage of revolution. Americans don't have demonstrations because we are intimidated sheep.
Ther is no welfare in Europe. This is a demeaning American term. Europeans have Rights. American sheep don't have rights.
radiohogan 2 years ago
No Americans are happier than the french therefore they don't riot. Only 35% of the French say that they are happy or very happy. According to the book Gross National Happiness.
If Europe is better for professionals and the middle class why do so many of their countries have negative net migration? h t t p : / / tiny . cc / 9IkQl
h t t p : / / tiny. c c / SPMf7
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Your sources are spurious.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part IV:
Certainly, the American slave class has higher unemployment then Europeans and Europeans have rights, housing, health care, education through university and fine affordable public transportation.
Unemployment does not mean poverty in Europe.
Why not live in Europe for a while and see for yourself?
radiohogan 2 years ago
also.. is there any reason you are filtering my comments? i have made other comments that you have yet to "approve". why?
p.s. Mattes50A05 gave a video response to this video.
Weeth 3 years ago
I approve all comments. Please advise me of any of your comments I did not approve.
radiohogan 3 years ago
..in fact, quite the opposite. he said that the money supply—assuming that its fluctuations are gradual—is not important when it comes to real output in the long run. he asserted that it was important only in nominal magnitudes. on the other hand, he HARPED on fiscal policy. in fact, his most cogent concern was that of government spending relative to private spending and its effects on the economy. if youre attempting to take on an economic genius in 7 minutes at least learn his philosophy
Weeth 3 years ago
Fluctuations in the money supply can be massive and are currently massive beyond measure. The main point I make in my video: "Friedman's False Assumption," is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately measure the money supply. While I have read three books by Friedman and studied monetary policy with a professor who took his doctorate studying under Friedman. How did you study Friedman - TV & YT?
radiohogan 3 years ago
friedman believed that the money supply had only nominal significance! so, the amount of money in an economy is virtually meaningless as long as it increases gradually along with economic growth. he believed that economic activity can dictate the gradual influx of this money into the economy. the only time massive fluctuations in the money supply occur is when governments print massive amounts of money! honest question: why do you think friedman praised greenspan?
Weeth 3 years ago
We disagree about Friedman's views on the importance of the money supply.
radiohogan 3 years ago
my comment addressing your question concerning my education. if you approve all comments then why wouldnt you just turn the "approval" function off? it is tedious.
Weeth 3 years ago
Did you answer my question about your education? I don't see the answer. I keep the approval filter on to be able to guard against aggressive, insulting Friedman groupies.
radiohogan 3 years ago
ok. now im commenting on your other videos so you can stop telling me to watch them (even after i already told you that i did). again, you make the almost laughably banal assertation that the economic situation in which we currently find ourselves is a result of "neocon" deregulation. first, i want to correct you on 2 things: (1) friedman eagerly praised alan greenspan—a man who certainly controlled the money supply. (2) friedman did not believe that the money supply was the KEY to an economy.
Weeth 3 years ago
Although I did not use the phrase neocon, let's adopt it. I prefer Neo Fascist. Certainly, Neo Fascist policies have dominated America through both Democratic & Republican administrations. Massive deregulation began under Reagan and continued into high gear undeer Clinton. The Dems & Republicans are two wings of the same one party fascist state. I didn't know Friedman praised Greenspan, interesting. We disagree of what Friedman believed with respect to the importance of the money supply.
radiohogan 3 years ago
correction: (1) 4:10 .. "friedmanites thought as all *neoconservatives* did that it was wonderful to deregulate" (2) "neo fascism", ideologically, has nothing to do witih deregulation so im not sure how you decided to go with that 1.. unless of course mussolini was some sort of closet capitalist? (3) although fanny and freddy were "privatized" in 1968, they were creatures, and became arms of, the federal govt in 1999 when clinton pressured them into making sub-prime loans. (4) ...
Weeth 3 years ago
Your editorial correction is appreciated. Fascism is a state of mind externalized into a way of life. American presidents have mass murdered on a scale unimagined by Musollini. In their time both Musollini and Hitler were thought of as saviors of Capitalism. I agree Clinton was a reactionary failure.
radiohogan 3 years ago
(4) yes.. friedman praised greenspan: "He Has Set A Standard"——WSJ editorial by Milton Friedman. interesting indeed.. especially if you dont know much about milton friedman. look it up. (5) its not that we disagree about friedman's views concerning the money supply; it's that you are wrong concerning friedman's view of the money supply. friedman quote: "[the money supply] is not very important ... for what happens to real output over the long period." again, you are just wrong.
Weeth 3 years ago
I prefer to rely on the words of Alan Greenspan testifying before the US Senate about 3 months ago. He said his 40 year belief in the free markets was a misguided failure. As to my knowledge of Friedman, I offerred my credentials to readers, yet you don't answer questions about how you studied Friedman (TV & YT?). As far as Friedman's view of the importance of the money supply, you are pulling an unreferenced quote out of context. Would you care to put it in context? Dr F is a "monetarist"
radiohogan 3 years ago
he is a monetarist in the sense that he contributed greatly to monetary theory. however, his contribution to monetary theory does not suggest that he believed that the monetarism is more important than government spending when it comes to an economy. in fact, again, quite the opposite. his monetary theory rendered the money supply meaningless in the long run. conversely, he believed the extent of fiscal policy to be the main determinant of an economy's future health.
Weeth 3 years ago
We disagree.
radiohogan 3 years ago
What happened with the market wasn't deregulation, it was new regulation thanks to Clinton(ites) who demanded that Fannie and Freddie give loans to "poor people"--in this case "poor" means "unable to afford." Since when were Fannie and Freddie privatized???
PHenry500 3 years ago
You are not commenting on this video. Please view the video and offer a comment that relates to the video.
radiohogan 3 years ago
what do you mean this guy wasnt commenting on this video?? is that your m.o.. instead of taking on people's arguments you just attempt to redirect them? PHenry was directly refuting the claim you made in this video that neo-con deregulation caused the financial crisis! and hes absolutely right. this is a government-induced recession. fannie and freddie were institutions of the federal government that subsidized sub-prime lending. would NOT have been possible without them. wise up
Weeth 3 years ago
While I believe Clinton was the most reactionary president to have governed America, I did not discuss Fannie & Freddie in the video, and am unfamiliar with the history of these organizations. Deregulation certainly began with Clinton's elimination of the Glass-Stegall Act and the Commodities Regulations Act that allowed all the derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps.
radiohogan 3 years ago
ok then he was informing you. i suggest that you research the history of these institutions because their role in creating the massively inflated real-estate bubble (which caused 90% of this mess) is incredible. and guess what.. it would not have been possible WITHOUT the regulation of the federal government. surprise surprise.. the federal government's meddling leads to another failure
Weeth 3 years ago
Your view of economic reality (the Austrian School) differs with the mainstream of economic thinking. It is generally accepted that deregulation got us into this mess. Free Markets produce chaos and inequality on a grand scale. Again, we disagree.
radiohogan 3 years ago
When was there ever deregulation? We never completely eliminated all rules and restrictions. Bush passed the Sarbanes Oxley act that was the largest financial regulation bill in a half century. Bush increased the funding for the SEC by 10% in 2004.
Bush and the Republican Congress saw this problem coming. In 2001 2003 2005 and 2006 they had congressional hearings about Fannie Mae. But it was Barney Frank that called Fannie Mae fundmentally sound just months before its collapse.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
The times we live in have discredited Alan Greenspanites, not Friedmanites. We don't live with anything close to what Friedman wanted.
PHenry500 3 years ago
Did you view this video? If so, you are not commenting on the video.
radiohogan 3 years ago
0:52 - You probably WERE giving a very even-handed breakdown of the events. But I've discovered myself that trying to give a description of events without an ideological bias - and people just cannot seem to stop idolizing people to understand their failings. Which I think does Friedman a great deservice.
"Friedmanite groupies" - ok, I had to laugh at that one.
AirelonTrading 3 years ago
The root of the problem is the federal reserve lowering interest rates too low too long.
Had we follow monetarist flat growth in the money supply, we would not be going thru this
lazoash 3 years ago
The root of the problem it has nothing to do with deregulation. The root of the problem lies in the federal reserve(Greenspan) leaving interest rates too low, too long.
The financial crisis is caused by:
1) Too many home foreclosures right now because
2) Too many people bought houses they couldnt afford because
3) Houses went up a lot and they thought they would go up forever
4) Which was all caused by Greenspan leaving interest rates too low too long
Grow the money supply at a constant rate!
lazoash 3 years ago
Hello Radiohogan,
I'd like you to expand on the notion, you mention at the 4 minute mark, that bankers etc unknowingly speculated.
RPFS2008 3 years ago
Pt I
Just this last week, Deutche Bank was found to have speculated on very risky instruments normally invested in by hedge fund operators. This was done with full knowledge it was rank speculation in pursuit of higher profits.
European & American bankers who invested in high rate of return investments like CDOs (packages of 1000s of mortgages (many subprime) certainly should have known these "investments" contained so much risk as to be speculation.
Bankers began to operate like hedge funds.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Pt II
If you watch my video: Who Messed Up the Economy?, I lay out how bankers got the government to give them the fuel hedge funds use to speculate. Banks had been able to borrow at a 10 to 1 rate to "invest." That is 10% down. Retail investors (you & me) must have 50% domw in margin borrowing (2 to 1).
Bankers convinced Pers. Clinton to allow them to invest with only 2.5% down (40 to 1). The current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was the main man who convinced Clinton.
radiohogan 3 years ago
i like chicken i like liver MAO mix MAO mix please deliver! ! !
whispers83 3 years ago
Comment below is adressed to spoiled upperclass youngsters that with no shame pick up peases of different Economist,they seen on TV but never read,like Hayek and his antagonist Friedman,and then old Austrian Von Mises,in a funny inconsecvent way that shows that they never read them.Why not mix up old Austrian Right Winger Joseph A. Schumpeter also so the mezz is complete.He predicted that future belonged to Socialism,but did not like it!
zsylvana 3 years ago 12
1)Friedman Groupies sticking there noses in books they don´t understand,bourgoise youngster integibillety have declined nowadays it seems.Humanist values once was a basic part of prober Upperclass education.Nowadays it only Greed!You should read Austrian school that you admire so loudly.Von Mises(that even wrote a book called "Socialism") and all the old Right Wingers had at least proper knowledge about the subject what Socialism is and therefore a polite debate,possible among different values.
zsylvana 3 years ago 11
2).Definition of Socialism is NOT a
matter of OWNERSHIP or MARKETECONOMY or not as you believe (and definitly not to put people in GULAG!)it´s a matter of FAIR Distribution of WEALTH!
It is SUMMARIZED by all sort of Socialists in the simple Words:"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
zsylvana 3 years ago 9
"Actually, the true economic definition of socialism is government control and direction over methods of production."
How do you explain "libertarian socialism" sir...? The means of production would be in the control of the community such as workers councils or trade unions.
Onetimerule 3 years ago
Doesn't this all depend on how one defines "Freedom" ?
akeefe 3 years ago
Adam smiths and John lockes ideas were debunked by Karl Marx. "Says law" was discredited by the great wall street crash of 1929 and now milton friedman's "laissez faire capitalism" has been refuted by the global financial crisis of 2008. Feudalism was replaced by capitalism, now capitalism is ready to give in to socialism. Bring on the good times.
Onetimerule 3 years ago
Friedman was a great man. But he was wrong as was Keyens about monetary policy. And monetary policy is at the heart of the current financial crisis. Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard disagreed with Keynesians and Monetarist like Friedman over central banking. They would argue that monetary policy is best dealt with in the private sector that banks would issue bank notes and use their own reserves for lending and set their own interest rates.
Mattes50A05 3 years ago
They would also argue that central banking causes the business cycle. The Austrian business cycle theory which states that artificially low interest rates causes a boom of malinvestment and eventually that malinvestment must correct itself aka a recession. Which the current financial crisis could convincingly be argued was caused by artificially low interest rates. But I think most Keynesian policies were discredited in the 60's and 70's during stagflation caused by Keynesian policies.
Mattes50A05 3 years ago
Boil the rich? Oh, come now, sir. Why must you use the rhetoric of a bomb-thrower? Now, as I strive to return this debate to civility, please, if you would, outline your idea for function of government. Upon your response, I shall do the same and we shall take it from there.
BCH
Rockavillian 3 years ago
its not pragmatism as much as it's democracy. one of the drawbacks of democratic government is all the different political groups get attention.
pkenans 3 years ago
Spoken like a true fascist. Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington agrees with you in his book "Crisis In Democracy," 1975. Huntington is a low life academic who will write anything to please the power elite. He tells them what they want to hear. is latest book says America is for the anglo Saxons, like himsel. He is descendant of the Mayflower Huntingtons.
European countries all have parliamentary systems where any party that gets 5% of the vote has seats in the parliament. All are in. US one in
radiohogan 3 years ago
well in my opinion socialism should be outlawed altogether on account it's unconstitutional.
pkenans 3 years ago
Spoken like a fascist. You moved from neo fascist to full fledged fascist with your last word. Hopefully, that is your last ugly word.
Please spare us why you think Socialism is unconstitutional. The son of an Imperial Empire builder has no regard for our Republic, as Romans in the Roman Republic lost faith in themselves and their Republic by acquiescing to a dictator, s surely as American sheep have acquiesced to Dictator Bush - The Decider.
How does one outlaw thought? Are thinkers shot?
radiohogan 3 years ago
not outlaw thought lol. outlaw government ownership in private enterprise. outlaw government interest in business and outlaw business interest in government. the government's sole job is to protect the citizens, not provide for the citizens. socialism, to any degree imposes systemic risk and distorts the functionality of markets. markets will do what they want no matter what and any attempt to interfere is futile and in some cases damaging, mostly to the middle and lower classes.
pkenans 3 years ago
I thought you said you were through debating (if that is what you call insulting arrogance). Please stick to your word and don't visit my RadioHogan channel. You are to arrogant, insulting and disingenuous for my tastes.
In any case, goodby.
radiohogan 3 years ago
like i said you have no idea what my father's business is yet you outlandish claims of imperial empire builder. when you try to make a point you resort to name calling and classification into isms;no facts whatsoever. that is why you are a pseudo intellectual.
pkenans 3 years ago
You wrote your father was in the military as a careerist (aka Welfare Queen). Military men are by definiton - militarists and Imperial Empire Colonists who steal the land, labor and resources of countries around the world.
General Smedley Butler was the top General in the Marine Corps and he described himself as being tired og being "a gangster for capitalism." Your dear Da is a gangster for capitalism.
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
my dad was in special forces and he fought and risked his life for the well being of you. he not only risked his life for americans but also foreigners when he taught guerrillas in korea how to fight, when he taught south Vietnamese, and in south america places like nicaragua.now he owns business that teaches special ops soldiers about operating in different countries. he doesnt profit from war, soldiers are trained in peacetime and wartime. sounds to me like you are coward sir.
pkenans 3 years ago
America sent Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson to Nuremburg twice as a prosecutor and as a judge. At the time, he wrote, the most serious war crime is to invade another country. because all other war crimes emanate from that war crime. By invading Viet Nam and mass murdering $ million South East Asians (2 million Viet Namese) America committed one of the most serious war crimes in all history.
Your dear Da is a war criminal. It is sad you never knew or are in denial.
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
The war in Nicaragua was a violation of the Boland Amendment. America's war against a small country was both unconstitutional and a war crime. Dear Da is a multiple war criminal. Please don't tell me anymore about Dear Da. He is a fascist.
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
my dad trained locals how to defend themselves, he didn't take part in conventional warfare. Im sorry you are a coward and instead of spending most of your time on youtube maybe you should go out and do some good for other people instead of blaming everything thats wrong with world on americans you crazy fascist.
pkenans 3 years ago
Goodbye!
radiohogan 3 years ago
After being a gangster for capitalism your dear Da became a war profiteer. He spent his whole life sucking off the government and you have the balls to be critical of Socialists who want a fair deal. The word hypocrite comes to mind.
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
what have you done for your country?you talk about solidarity with the poor but i bet you haven't done a single thing to help the unfortunate.
pkenans 3 years ago
You know nothing.
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
International Test Results Part A:
In the latest international math and science test conducted by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD)
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), U.S. students again trailed the average international scores achieved by students in the 57 test-taking nations.
Continued in Part B
Love Mike
radiohogan 3 years ago
So you admit you overstated facts when you said america came in quote "dead last". disingenuous indeed.
pkenans 3 years ago
International Test Results
Part B
Students from a diverse array of countries, including Canada, Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, scored significantly higher than those from the United States, with Finnish
students beating those of all other countries. The United States now lags behind Poland, which raised its scores more than any other nation.
Love Miguelito
radiohogan 3 years ago
Check out Google for an infinite number of results. You are a big brain. You can do it, if you try. I found the previous paragraphs when searching on the two phrases I gave you. Do your homework.
radiohogan 3 years ago
i cited the OECD long before you did. I know whats there and yes you were disingenuous with the claim that usa came in "dead last"
pkenans 3 years ago
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
and you still fail to correct yourself with respect to the money supply and velocity.
pkenans 3 years ago
and to get back on topic about your video, maybe you should make some changes as far as claiming to have discredited friedman and inaccurately declaring that the money supply was wiped out and whatever else disjointed claim with regards to the velocity.
pkenans 3 years ago
Pt A
I stand by my video, your failed Duke education not withstanding. Let's take one more stab at it.
Any "Money & Banking" class at any university teaches us the money supply can be adjusted in 3 ways (1.) short term interest rates (2.) open market operations (3.) bank reserve requirements. Surely, we agree so far.
Con't in Pt B
radiohogan 3 years ago
Pt B
The measures of the money supply you present do not include the present crisis of trust & confidence. We will not know the state of the present money supply until some future date.
The purpose of the Fed lowering short term interest rates is to cause banks to lend. It is this lending that increases the money supply. Even in the best of times this is only partially successful because the Fed has no affect on the more important long term rates.
Con'. in Pt C
radiohogan 3 years ago
Pt C
My thesis is that the present crisis is a reduction in the money supply and a concomitant reduction in the velocity of money. Economists are writing that banks will not lend money to the best credit worthy customers like McDonalds, or even other banks.
Con't in Pt D
radiohogan 3 years ago
Pt D
This refusal to lend causes the money supply to shrink or remain static, at best. The refusal to lend is based on a loss of trust and confidence in the capitalist system. This was brought on by the destruction or wealth in the CDO (Collateral Debt Obligation) [8.75% of initial value]. this inherent contradiction in capitalism is not accounted for in Friedman's monetary theory, hence he has been discredited by reality. His ivory tower was to high in the sky.
Con't in Pt E
radiohogan 3 years ago
Pt E
The crisis of trust and lack of confidence in capitalism has also caused the velocity of money to slow to a standstill. Let's look at future statistics, assuming the government doesn't play with the numbers, governments (particularly the American government) often do. There is no ture transparency where large autocractic bureaucracies are concern - socialist or capitalist.
Con't in Pt F
radiohogan 3 years ago
like i said before money supply is increasing.you confuse contracting money supply with liquidity. liquidity is falling not money supply. true velocity has decreased by 1% because money supply has increased in relation to output and inflation. if inflation kicks up so will velocity.point being you haven't discredited anything.and then you stick in a barefaced lie by saying mcdonalds isn't receiving credit.this proves you just make stuff up.
pkenans 3 years ago
You are inauthentic. We don't know what the money supply has been doing for two reasons: (1.) money supply is inherently difficult to measure (2.) how can yo measure what the money supply is doing today, this week or this month with accuracy?
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
yea i guess any data that comes out of the fed is bs and credible sources of data dont exist anywhere so we should just make conclusions based on no fact.its easy to be right this way, the data is wrong,observations dont fit the theory so the observations are wrong. that is brilliant mr hogan.
pkenans 3 years ago
There was a news report on CNBC in the past week that McDonalds tried to borrow money to upgrade it's coffee makers to compete with Starbucks and was refused. Did your military da teach you to call folks liars?
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
"There continues to be more than sufficient liquidity available to our franchisees to fund capital improvements in their restaurants."-Walt Riker McDonalds spokesperson
pkenans 3 years ago
Your arrogance refuses to apologize. Yes, I heard such a report on CNBC. I would deny it if I was a mouthpiece for McDonalds. You will believe any PR man for capitalism.
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Pt F
This is my last word on the subject. The gentleman from Duke has called me a "pseudo intellectual" and Red Baited me by associating me with Stalin. He even slandered me by accusing me of attacking Arabs. However, I am indebted to him for forcing me to think this through as completely as I have here in this series of answers A thru F.
Mh
radiohogan 3 years ago
Look whos slandering now. I accused you of calling me an arab, not attacking arabs. and you may call it red baiting whatever that is but it is true that your rhetoric of class warfare is strikingly similar to that of stalin and marx but dont misunderstand me, im not saying your commend stalin or marx or anybody, just saying that you have the same justification and same ideological underpinnings.
pkenans 3 years ago
There you go again. You are socially dysfunctional, as in psychopathic.
Goodbye.
radiohogan 3 years ago
The Depletion of fish in the oceans because of overfishing is also discrediting free for all capitalist theories. The fish can be harvested in a sustainable way but not with a free market.
highonhayek: The problem is not the greed of the engineer or the farmer that actually work for a living and reap the benefits of their labor.
Rickdeckard2020 3 years ago
Hello Rick:
I love the fish story. It will never be forgotten (even after Alzheimers sets in). I will use it regularly and often.
You are also making a distinction between individual labor and corporate theft of labor and fish.
Thank you / Mike
radiohogan 3 years ago
well if we lived in a true capitalist society then we would be less worried about fishing too much. as the industry depleted its sources, the government stepped in to help the industry by giving out money in the form of billions of dollars in subsidies to help the local economies of fishing communities continue fishing even more and farther away. left to the free market there wouldn't be overfishing and more sustainable substitutes would have developed.
pkenans 3 years ago
Dear P:
Your strained arguments have destroyed your credibility. Over fishing in the oceans is not done by what you refer to as "fishing communities." Rather, it is done by monster industrial fleets of massive fishing trawlers sponsored by huge corporations that do not need subsidies. I know of no case of governments helping "fishing communities," other then the Europeans who buy up fishing boats to reduce the amount of fishing.
You simply argue because you are a fanatical Friedman groupie.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Radiohogan.
Keep on bayoneting the straw man.
Keep on ignoring the ocean of difference between corporatism and capitalism.
Keep on ignoring the mountains of corpses and rivers of blood created my socialist bureaucrats.
Keep on ignoring the fact that the Nazis were the quintessential socialists.
Keep on ignoring the fact that the nationalization of private property is the very definition of socialism-and nothing else.
Yep.
highonhayek 3 years ago
Hello High:
Part A:
1. What is the difference between Capitalism & Corporatism? Are you making a distinction without a difference? Are you claiming there is such a thing as "pure" capitalism? Is corporatism, croney capitalism? Do all Austian School Groupies live in an unreal world of hoping for a world of pure capitalism without any government at all? Are Austrian Schoolers anarchists?
2. What rivers of blood & corpses are you referring to? Which socialists?
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 3 years ago
Hi High:
Part B:
3. Historians consider the NAZI's to be fascists, but I would be interested in an elaboration of your view of the matter. If true, why did the NAZIs mass murders all Socialists, Communists & Anarchists?
4. You are historically incorrect. You might want to view my video "Socialism & Anarchism," in which I note Socialism predates Marxism. Many socialists were not in favor of nationalizing private property. There were 300,000 to 400,000 such socialist experiments in the USA.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Radiohogan,
Please please please go to Google and type in "National Socialism" and hit the I'm Feeling Lucky button.
The Nazi's were socialists-just very angry, racist and jingoistic ones.
And socialism definitely DOES predate Marxism. No argument.
The pre-Marxist socialist movements of the 18th and 19th Centuries were a retaliation against the rising standards of living that the common man was enjoying.
Marx's great tactical move was to bundle socialism with lofty promises of wealth.
highonhayek 3 years ago
Pt I - You didn't answer my question. If the NAZIs were Socialists, why did they mass murder Socialists, Communists & Anarchists? Any fascist can stick the word socialist in their acronym. You are in the midst of a strained argument no historian would buy. In being disingenuous you are displaying your inauthenticity and destroying your credibility. Don't let me stop your having so much fun.
Pre Marxist socialist movements were based on idealism. Hence they are categorized as Utpian Socialists.
radiohogan 3 years ago
actually fascism is more in line with the ideas of socialism than any other ideology. Hitler even called himself a socialist at one time. But the main thing with socialism is the desire of certainty and economic safety. Socialists dont like the harshness of free market competition and instead want the peace of mind of government to provide necessities.only catch is when people know they will get paid no matter what they dont care if they become more productive.
pkenans 3 years ago
All the countries of Western Europe and Soth America are Socialist (Mixed economies)by the standards of the Second Internationale. Are you saying that England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Ecudor, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Mexico, etc are Fascist.
Your quoting Hitler will win arguments for you, I have no doubt. No one will take you inauthenticity. Certainly no Europeans or Latin Americans. Live is Europe, as I have.
radiohogan 3 years ago
you forget that the u.s.a is also a mixed economy. the truest form of free-market capitalism is hong kong though nowhere on earth is there a true free-market economy. Im not saying fascism is socialism, im just saying a key component of fascism is the planned economy,mixed economy, socialist element.
pkenans 3 years ago
You are telling me that a titalitarian, fascist place called Hong Kong run by old styled Bolechivk communists is free society today. You have been watching old Friedman movies made before the communists took over.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Hong Kong is first in terms of economic freedom according to the 2008 economic world freedom survey. True they dont have much political freedom but they have economic freedom.USA is number 5 behind Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. Cuba and N Korea are at the bottom of the list.
pkenans 3 years ago
correction, those countries were listed in the 2008 index of economic freedom. the 2007 economic freedom of the world puts hong kong first, the followed by singapore, new zealand, switzerland, and canada, usa and uk tied for fifth.
pkenans 3 years ago
I would be interested to know what criteria is used to determine economic freedom?
radiohogan 3 years ago
Western European countries are not socialist. Some of there industries may be nationalized, and they do pay a 50% income tax to support said industries, but they have private property, and the means of production is still free market capitalism. And look at the side affects of big gov't intervention in those countries. People are forced to buy private health insurance to make up for the coverage the gov't healthcare lacks. It's a grossly inefficient system. And is fundamentally against freedom.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago 2
Dear TimeWarp:
You are not fmiliar with the history of Socialism. The Second Internationale (1890's) came to the view that Socialists should form Socialist political parties to get elected and enter parliaments to pass reform legislation. Karl Kautsky was a proponent of this view. Please read "The Marxists" by that preeminent American intellectual, C. Wright Mills.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 3 years ago