It blows my mind that this dumb bastard kid can't understand the difference between, say being offered a persuasive argument and that of being coerced into a certain behavior or position. But then again, it seems that this is one of the things that liberals blank-out on. They tend to think if it's a good idea for rich Bob to want to give to poor Stan, then it's a good idea for the government to forcibly take from Bob and give to Stan, blanking out the coercive element of the transaction.
When one understands and can articulate the truth it should come quickly, as there is no alternative to consider. That's the beauty of his message, it can be spoken with eloquence, haste and brevity, because it is objectively true. It needs no dressing up, no weasel words, and no sound-bytes inserted in order to sound good.
Milton Friedman is right as usual. The media is controlled by big gov't corporate lobbiest now more than ever. The media then sells the American people that war is right as long as it is for humanitarian reasons and freedom! Where is war ever justified it the bible? I can tell you it is not but the Christians buy lies more than anyone. It's all about money and deception. Wars buy guns and money buys politicians who want to get re-elected. Media also gets monopoly control in the process.
What happens if an eccentric billionaire decides to air acts of necrophilia and bestiality on saturday morning when children turn on the tv to watch catoons.
@periechontology he would go to jail. he is harming other people and while maybe not directly involved in the bestiality promoting the harming of animals. that is against the law. people try to make the case that friedman is against rule of law which he is not. he is against coersion by government. in the example you have provided the children and animals would need to be considered, and harm is clearly being done to them.
I told you the first civilization to print was not whom you claim. But its not the point. The point is when youre proven wrong you ignore it. Your obtuse in that way. But still entertaining.
@pensword5 "OK, I approve of your ignorance"-You just admit that i was right all the time and then you say im ignorant for some reson. Do you even know what the word means?
Persuasion by Professors is coersion because you must sit through that indoctrination to succeed. You could choose to not pay taxes and you therefore choose to go to jail, and if you choose not to go to college you therefore choose to go to significantly lower your chances to produce a high income. The use of coersion is physical force under a Professor because if you choose not to listen and remember you fail. I wish I had a Prof. like Dr. Friedman SOOOO bad. I'm in California. Help me. o___0
To be fair, very late in life (and long after Rothbard's legitimate critique), Friedman abandoned his faith in central banking which, while not the only point of contention, was certainly the biggest. he had stopped defending withholding taxes even before Rothbard penned the essay.
Again, Friedman brings some rationality to the table. Isn't it odd how in school we could take a course in English, Maths, or Science, but never a course in Ethics...
And an ad hominem attack coupled with maniacal laughter and a complete lack of substance says what about your position?!?! I can defend every point I make. Care to put your money where your mouth is or is that the best you can manage?
@FletchforFreedom Sure, you are describing a socialist "mass" as ignorant. Which clearly shows your opinion is highly subjective to the topic. And thus your opinion isn't worth much if your judgment is clouded by ignorance and arrogance. Your response to me is also a good confirmation of what I'm suggesting, since how does someone even dare to dispute your all wise judgment (Yes thats sarcasm).
To the contrary, the relative success of capitalism over socialism is well established with fact (pick any topic) and research. Included on the socialist side are the debunked Marxist ideas (LTV, the effectiveness of collectivism, etc.). By all means, if you have even the tiniest case to make in which socialism can be demonstrated to be superior, go ahead and make it. Confidence in economic expertise 30 years of research into the topic is not "arrogance".
@FletchforFreedom You misunderstood, i didn't say socialism is better then capitalism or the opposite (Again proving your ignorance), what i only said claiming that people which live in a socialist system are ignorant is a stereotype, which once more confirms your arrogance. Then to continue capitalism doesn't automatically mean an individualist society like you are proposing here. Just take china as an example.
Then you misunderstood as well (proving your ignorance?). I never claimed that "people which live in a socialist system are ignorant". The "socialist mass of ignorance" clearly refers to its advocacy, not to those whose only situation is that they were born where such a system exists. And when it comes to ignorance, a better example would be the bizarre contention that China is capitalist (when, in fact, BY DEFINITION, capitalism is private economic decision making: the free market).
@FletchforFreedom "capitalism is private economic decision making"-Doesn't that dispute your whole theory on the "capitalist dominance", just when you see the growth of china.
"The "socialist mass of ignorance" clearly refers to its advocacy,"-So a person which promotes socialism is ignorant then? If that is so then this doesn't change anything to what i said till now.
No, that China has become somewhat more capitalist hardly makes them a predominantly capitalist country nor do they have any economic dominance (they still have one of the world's lowest living standards).
A person who promotes socialism is ignorant. Capitalism has produced the great improvement in living standards over the last three centuries; socialism has no defensible successes to which it can lay claim; thus, a person advocating socialism is, by definition, demonstrating ignorance.
@FletchforFreedom "world's lowest living standards"-I don't think the living standard matters when it comes to the economy of a collectivist society.
"A person who promotes socialism is ignorant"-How can you claim that? In what sense is your opinion better then any other? You are seeing things too much from the American prospective, since capitalism works very well if you have a rich enough country to get cheap loans so you can reproduce wealth.
The assertion that living standards don't matter is absurd on its face.
Again, it isn't a question of opinion. From an entirely factual perspective (no subjectivity involved) and regardless of which country is involved, capitalism has provided the increase in living standards the world over and socialism demonstrably has done no such thing. That the sun gives off more energy than the moon (which is merely reflective) is a purely factual statement and entirely comparable.
@FletchforFreedom "capitalism has provided the increase in living standards"-In china the living standards grew trough socialism and did the one in the USSR with communism in 20-40s. So this is effectivley contradicting your theory.
"Chinese growth rate is not even remotely sustainable ad infinitum"-People say that ever since the Chinese economic growth began and it didn't change a bit since the last 40 years. The predictions say that at the current rate china will reach the US in 50 years
Fire your fact checker. Chinese living standards fell until they began marginally implementing capitalist reforms in the mid-70s. Strike one. The growth figures for the Soviet Union are long debunked - while official figures showed they would rapidly outpace the US, the Soviets stagnated economically during the entire period. Strike two. And the Chinese data are PROJECTIONS of existing trends not PREDICTIONS of possible events. Strike three. You're out.
@FletchforFreedom "implementing capitalist reforms in the mid-70s"-I have said this way ago, your response was that China is not a capitalist country. So you effectively contradicted yourself.
"Soviets stagnated economically"-Its seems you don't read that well what people write, cause i did name a time frame to my comment (20s-40s). And Chinese growth is FACT and not a prediction or projection.
So i made a homerun here, seems you lost the game lol.
Are you really THAT incompetent? No contradiction exists. ALL economies are hybrids containing elements of both capitalism and socialism. China remains a PREDOMINANTLY socialist country. That they have experienced any growth at all in the last few decades has been a direct result of the limited capitalist reforms that they HAVE implemented.
@FletchforFreedom "really THAT incompetent"-Lol you really cant stand if someone contradicts you do you? Such arrogance.
"That they have experienced any growth at all in the last few decades has been a direct result of the limited capitalist reforms that they HAVE implemented."-So i presume the lack of growth in the US economy is the direct result of the lack of socialist polices in comparison to china per your logic.
When you demonstrate incompetence by arguing that a contradiction exists when a competent person could not make such an error pointing it out is not arrogance.
And the US has had a long and steady growth EXCEPT when socialist activities (manipulation of the money supply) result in economic crashes (as, again, in the 1920s and most recently).
So, the drop in US growth is demonstrably due to anti-capitalist activities and the growth in China is demonstrably related to capitalist policies.
@FletchforFreedom "it out is not arrogance"-As long that suits you. I know you have an inability to be objective on the topic.
"growth EXCEPT when socialist activities"-So tell me what excaly caused the crisis?
"So, the drop in US growth is"-This so confirms your double standard. Capitalism results in growth and socialism results ins stagnation or a crisis. Under the state regulations of Franklin D. Roosevelt USA experienced the highest economic growth in its history.
I'm the one who has actually been stating facts. I already told you what caused the crisis. And you apparently cannot grasp the meaning of "double standard". The facts support the premise that capitalism works and socialism doesn't. Your assertion about growth rates under FDR are utterly and completely wrong in every particular. Not only were growth rates (even in recoveries) higher several times, FDR's policies demonstrably prolonged the Great Depression. Fire your fact checker.
@FletchforFreedom "FDR's policies demonstrably prolonged the Great Depression"-2 UCLA economists claimed that. And i bet you cant prove it. While its historic FACT that he achieved the greatest growth in the history of the USA. Which once more proves you wrong.
" for you denial"-Denial? Look who's talking mister my theory cant be contradicted and is the only right one in existence. You have been effectively defeated. And if you show up bring some PROOF with you. You are such a troll.
Actually, the vast majority of research on the New deal over the last thirty years (not just two UCLA economists) show that FDR prolonged the depression and the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Bureau of labor Statistics don't seem to have gotten the memo about the greatest growth because your claim is complete nonsense. Feel free to look it up. After you apologize for stating obvious falsehoods, perhaps we can continue.
@FletchforFreedom Which research? You can probably name it, considering how sure you are of it. Unlike you im open to new information.
"because your claim is complete nonsense"-I looked it up and i confirmed that I'm correct. If you have any sources which say anything else you are welcome to present them.
Your source is nonsense. Using standard GDP data it was faster in the early 1870s, the mid 1900s and in the run up to WWI. Still, economists understand the problems with GDP data (which, if used in the raw manner you suggest means that the US economy suffered a devastating depression in 1946 (which clearly never happened). The "G" component should never be included if you wish to understand real economic trends (even Keynesians concede this generally).
@FletchforFreedom "Your source is nonsense. Using standard GDP"-Mind giving me some exact data? Like what the growth was in percentages? As i said if you have information and can prove me wrong, please do so. Also if you can provide me with information considering US GDP prior the 1920s that would be really nice.
So true. Even a great many economists are unaware of the debate that took place when the decision to use GDP (or GNP) as a measure about whether the government outlay should be considered. Not only do the resources to fund government necessarily come from the other components, but it is inherently less efficient than those other sources and, because it is not subjected to the market, there is no pricing mechanism to value it (hence the bogus figures the Soviets published for decades).
Before moving on look up the article "The Great Depression of 1946" to give a more credible picture or read any of the following works: "A Monetary History of the United States", "America's Great Depression", "FDR's Folly", "The Forgotten Man". That should get you started (if not sufficient go through the underlying research in the footnotes.
I have no idea what your source is. I CAN say that it is not the NBER, BEA or BLS - the official statistics of the US.
YOU are the one demonstrating reading difficulties. I was referring to the growth period of the Soviets since the 1920s (actually through the 1960s). The growth in the Soviet Union based on actual GDP at the end of the period shows that the reported growth was entirely bogus. And CURRENT Chinese growth is a fact. PROJECTIONS saying that AT THAT RATE, they would pass the US is not the same as a PREDICTION that any such thing is possible.
You really need to think before posting such nonsense.
@FletchforFreedom "actually through the 1960s"-And i was referring only to the period between the 20s and 40s. As i said read what i say.
"Chinese growth is a fact"-Did i say anything else?
"that any such thing is possible."-Like when you say that their current growth is unsustainable, your so full of double standards when it comes to socialism-capitalism. If there is something positive in a states economy it originates 100% from the capitalist part lol.
Again - Soviet growth was a fiction for the entire period INCLUDING between the 20s and 40s. Your "point" has been refuted. Repeating it ... well, its not me looking like a fool.
Yes you said more than that Chinese growth is a fact; you said it was predicted to pass the US which is factually wrong.
No double standard exists except in your (bizarre) worldview. That it is unsustainable is based on historical evidence and the fact that current growth is based on a low starting point.
@FletchforFreedom "Your "point" has been refuted"-I cant recall you proven anything here, like compared some numbers or similar, so i don't know when you refuted my point.
A prediction is wrong only if shown to be wrong it cant be proven wrong until it actually happens or till another prediction is made based on new data.
"in your (bizarre) worldview"-Says the person who cant look at the subject from an objective point of view. I bet your so mad right now lol.
Clearly for you denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Having successfully immunized this forum from even the remote possibility that anyone with two brain cells to rub together will ever take you seriously, I bid you adieu.
@FletchforFreedom "only viable alternative"-And also how can you support individualism if you leave no alternative to your own theory? That makes your mindset no better then the one of any collectivist society, which leaves no room for someone to think differently. Don't misunderstand me i don't support socialism or even social welfare by any means, but i do have something against all encompassing theories which (don't allow) to be disputed.
What an individual chooses to do is not something I would interfere with. if you choose to group with others under communalism, feel free. that doesn't change the fact that such systems have never produced results comparable to that of capitalism. You can think and live as you choose, but facts are facts and they demonstrate that socialism cannot compete with capitalism on any factual basis.
@FletchforFreedom Chinese socialism does compete with American capitalism and is winning more ground every day. As an economist you should have an easy time projecting their growth. Living standard is of course a nice thing but it doesn't make up the actual strength of a country (Which is what matters in the end). Also Germany has a high economic growth thanks to some state regulation and thanks to the social reforms. And distribution of wealth also play a major role on living standards.
@Teranex Seems to me socialism is gaining ground in the US while freedom is gaining in China. That is the reason for the gap closing...but the standard of living for the people and the amount of liberty they have is the unquestionable standard by which the quality of life and the society must be measured, not the bank acount or military power of the state else you measure with socialist eyes.
Money for the state without liberty for the people is not desireable, it is wretched.
@pensword5 "not the bank acount or military power of the state else you measure with socialist eyes"-Well we will see how much liberty you will have once your economic system collapses once some arabs embargo you on oil. Ah wait that wont happen just because of the power your state exerts. And what you call socialism is in fact called social welfare system and has nothing to do with socialism. In America the standards of calling something socialist are pretty low.
@Teranex Yes your right. Taking money from one group to give to another has nothing to do with socialism. How silly of me! Forcing us into asocial security ponzie scheme isnt either. And weve had them since the begining of the republic right? So we arent becoming more socialist?
We have become corporatist, not capitalist. And certainly not "laissez fair"
This is all symantics. China has been around a bit longer than us. They gave us fireworks and a useless wall. What have we done?
@pensword5 "They gave us fireworks and a useless wall. What have we done?"-You don't seem to be very familiar with the history of china if you say such things. They invented paper, printing, gunpowder and the compass. Which were very significant inventions. Can you name one American invention which surpasses one of those in originality or significance? And just so you know Communist china exists for roughly 70 years before that China was a republic and before that a kingdom (empire).
@Teranex Yes I recall all of thier great contributions now! And your right, here in the US we havent came up with anything signifigant at all. And our standard of living sucks compared to those in china. P.S.Printing and writing came frirst in the sumer. But you got me on the rice paper since the sumerians used clay tablets.
(how little couth those sumerians) Who would want to be free anyway?! Dont you miss chairman mao?!
@vspqbd He seemed well intentioned, but no single figure can have that kind of control without signifigant unforeseen consequenses. (which is kinda my point) But thanks for the warning :)
@pensword5 "came up with anything signifigant"-LEARN TO READ, i said can you give me one example of something that USA invented of EQUAL significance. Is your schooling system really that bad?
" And our standard of living sucks"-Quote me where i say that, you seem to lack eyes in your head.
"and writing came frirst in the sumer"-"Woodblock printing: The earliest specimen of woodblock printing a single-sheet dharani sutra in Sanskrit that was printed on hemp paper between 650 and 670 AD"
Again you posit a premise that is absurd on its face. The socialist aspects of China are so debilitating that it requires a population roughly four times that of the US to produce about 2/3 of the productive capacity. the Chinese growth rate is not even remotely sustainable ad infinitum and has reached the heights it has only because of the incredibly low starting point that communism and economic isolationism imposed for decades.
Germany does not have high growth as a result of state regulation. Quite the contrary, over the long term (excluding the sudden increase with consolidation) German growth has lagged behind that of countries with less regulation and historically has considerably higher average unemployment. Living standards (about which "distribution of wealth" plays little so long as a robust middle class exists) is what DOES matter because it demonstrates productivity accounting for capacity.
@FletchforFreedom ""distribution of wealth" plays little"-You say that just because it contradicts your theory, while in reality the GDP per capita of a state doesn't matter especially if the most of the wealth in concentrated in 1% of the population.
"not have high growth as a result of state regulation"-The growth originates exactly from correctly applied state injections. Do try to contradict that. A fully hands of policy brings economic crisis as the one we are currently experiencing.
To the contrary, I specifically included the caveat about the presence of a middle class. It makes no difference how much wealthier any individual or group gets if the poorest in society also benefit (the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world). Concern beyond that is nothing but envy.
Contradict it? I can't stop laughing at such unbridled economic ignorance! It is economically IMPOSSIBLE for "state injections" to grow an economy and economic crisis result from government interventions!
@FletchforFreedom "the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world"-Well if you name it that way lol...
"economic crisis result from government interventions!"-So tell me what caused the current economic crises and the one in the thirties, where was the state intervention there? Both crisises were caused just because of the "hands off" policies and were solved by state intervention of the US president.
The average "poor" in the US have more disposable income, living space and assets than the average MIDDLE CLASS in Europe.
The economic crises in the 1920s and currently (and actually in every case over the last 700 years according to the latest research) were due to manipulation of the money supply (in the last century by central banks). The notion that they were caused by "hands off" policies suffers only from the fact that the contention is imbecilic.
The Austrian Business Cycle Theory spells it out best but the monetarists have made inroads in that direction as well as the neo-classicals. There's nothing "subjective" about it.
Studies on living space were performed years ago and are easily found on-line. The poor in the US have more than the average in any European country. The US Census Bureau publishes the assets owned by the average "poor" person in the US (also easily checked) and the OECD has published similar data for Europe.
@FletchforFreedom "There's nothing "subjective" about it."-How can you tell? Keynesian theory wouldn't agree with you. All those theories are based on SUBJECTIVE perceptions, if you fail to acknowledge that then its clear you cant be objective on the topic.
"are easily found on-line"-In that case it should be no problem providing me with the info. You claimed something now its up to you to prove it. Why do you Americans always brake when it comes to proving a point?
Similarly disposable income data is available for most OECD countries from that source. And the US Census Bureau has published figures related to the those living below the poverty line in the US. All of this data is in the public domain.
@FletchforFreedom "been stating facts"-I bet you like to think that. You didn't prove till now not even one thing.
"I already told you what caused the crisis"-I asked you what exactly caused it, all you said is that government did it. I repeat what EXACTLY caused it?
"that capitalism works"-China is socialist and has a way greater growth then USA. Thus proving you wrong. Also the highest standard of living have the Nordic countries which are all social democrat.
Wisdom in abandoning a ridiculous position. Using a singular case that is statistically invalid (again, China's growth (on a per capita basis - the only standard that matters) results from the state created low starting point. Only someone who has no mathematical understanding whatever attempts to compare short-term growth figures in a ridiculously restricted sample size. Long term growth among the countries of the world for which there is data completely vindicates my stance.
@FletchforFreedom "the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world"-Well if you name it that way lol.
"economic crisis result from government interventions!"-So tell me what caused the current economic crises and the one in the thirties, where was the state intervention there? Both crisises were caused just because of the "hands off" policies and were solved by state intervention of the US president.
@Teranex Milton Friedman would probably remind us that there is a sense in which every nation is capitalistic; that is, they all use and require vast amounts of capital to function and grow. The question is who controls that capital, a mosaic of free individuals or a monolith of central planners. When we understand the difference between state capitalism and individual capitalism the inherent coercive nature of socialism is exposed.
@weavermama In the end it only matters if the resources are applied correctly and not who controls the wealth. There are historical examples of socialism and capitalism both correctly and incorrectly applying wealth.
@ChristopherAdderley Right back at ya! I've found that people froth at the mouth in anger toward Friedman in direct proportion to their misunderstanding of his ideas. That being said, I feel the Austrian critique of his monetarist theories is justified. Peace.
@weavermama When people talk about a "nation's wealth" and how it's unevenly distributed, they give the impression that this wealth was created & belongs to everyone equally. Not true. Say, of the infamous "1%". How much of that wealth that they own did they themselves create? And if that wealth is in the stock market, say, then workers and consumers benefit from this. If Wealthy bob buys a car & I and others commute in that car to work, then why is it unfair if Bob owns the wealth of that car?
@LucisFerre1 Answer this hypothetical question then. Imagine a world, where 5 people owned everything. And the 6999999999995 others were working in a diversity of shops,farms,factories, in essence doing the dirty work. Those 5 people, lets call them "Big 5", they liked having everyone else work for them, and not doing shit. And no one would say anything because they labored under the illusion that they one day could be part of the "Big 5". Not unfair you say?
@Faerlon123 In order for the "Big 5" to maintain their station would require coercion. Such a system would be impossible to maintain without fear of violence.
I truly love this man. If there ever was a role model in life......we truly need more people like him right now. Our media, our academics etc are all full with people who think we need more government, more red tape more regulations. We need someone like Milton Friedman to appear regularly on TV and speak. @Cleanhappyglock, the last thing we need is more people in charge regardless of mind set. What we do need is more power and liberty to the private individual
@CleanHappyGlock Unfortunately people with Miltons mind set rarely seek power over others, and when they do they are generally not ruthless enough to obtain it. However if there were more citizens with his mind set then we would not need or accept to put so many people in charge of making decisions for us.
Looks like a young clueless Al Franken
stebecool 2 weeks ago
It blows my mind that this dumb bastard kid can't understand the difference between, say being offered a persuasive argument and that of being coerced into a certain behavior or position. But then again, it seems that this is one of the things that liberals blank-out on. They tend to think if it's a good idea for rich Bob to want to give to poor Stan, then it's a good idea for the government to forcibly take from Bob and give to Stan, blanking out the coercive element of the transaction.
LucisFerre1 4 weeks ago
Genius
Billstiller23 1 month ago
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!
LIBERTARIAN 4 PRESIDENT!
iluvpoliticzz 3 months ago 5
I love the way Friedman says "why"
:D
dfdtdfdx 7 months ago
This problem is very big in canada we have free health care.
Castle3179 8 months ago
@kaziqbal
When one understands and can articulate the truth it should come quickly, as there is no alternative to consider. That's the beauty of his message, it can be spoken with eloquence, haste and brevity, because it is objectively true. It needs no dressing up, no weasel words, and no sound-bytes inserted in order to sound good.
bombkangaroo 9 months ago 9
@bombkangaroo +1 bravo
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
Milton Friedman is right as usual. The media is controlled by big gov't corporate lobbiest now more than ever. The media then sells the American people that war is right as long as it is for humanitarian reasons and freedom! Where is war ever justified it the bible? I can tell you it is not but the Christians buy lies more than anyone. It's all about money and deception. Wars buy guns and money buys politicians who want to get re-elected. Media also gets monopoly control in the process.
ScrewSocialism 10 months ago
Milton Friedman has such a sweet way of speaking.
lector0003 11 months ago
What happens if an eccentric billionaire decides to air acts of necrophilia and bestiality on saturday morning when children turn on the tv to watch catoons.
periechontology 1 year ago
@periechontology Then he wouldn't be a billionaire for very long ;)
agent008t 1 year ago
@periechontology he would go to jail. he is harming other people and while maybe not directly involved in the bestiality promoting the harming of animals. that is against the law. people try to make the case that friedman is against rule of law which he is not. he is against coersion by government. in the example you have provided the children and animals would need to be considered, and harm is clearly being done to them.
aussieconservative 11 months ago
The still at 5:07 is fantastic.
Anteater1234567 1 year ago
I told you the first civilization to print was not whom you claim. But its not the point. The point is when youre proven wrong you ignore it. Your obtuse in that way. But still entertaining.
pensword5 1 year ago
The sumerians were writing and printing using cylinders in 3200 bc. Cuneiform.
And its OK, I approve of your ignorance. I think your funny.
pensword5 1 year ago
@pensword5 "OK, I approve of your ignorance"-You just admit that i was right all the time and then you say im ignorant for some reson. Do you even know what the word means?
Teranex 1 year ago
pivotal
redrajani 1 year ago
Gold, Friedman - that's gold!
Tomek0102 1 year ago
Persuasion by Professors is coersion because you must sit through that indoctrination to succeed. You could choose to not pay taxes and you therefore choose to go to jail, and if you choose not to go to college you therefore choose to go to significantly lower your chances to produce a high income. The use of coersion is physical force under a Professor because if you choose not to listen and remember you fail. I wish I had a Prof. like Dr. Friedman SOOOO bad. I'm in California. Help me. o___0
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
Extremely apropos video given the FCC's recent power grabs at the internet.
Thanks for posting!
schulwitz 1 year ago
Milton Friedman Unraveled - By Murray N. Rothbard
Read it for free at mises.org/journals/jls/16_4/16_4_3.pdf
Drivenk 1 year ago
@Drivenk Are you saying Rothbard would argue against what Milton says here?
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@fzqlcs Not at all. I'm simply sharing a different side of this man and am trying to point out some of his other contributions
Drivenk 1 year ago
To be fair, very late in life (and long after Rothbard's legitimate critique), Friedman abandoned his faith in central banking which, while not the only point of contention, was certainly the biggest. he had stopped defending withholding taxes even before Rothbard penned the essay.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
"Only the Friedmanite withholding tax
has permitted the government to use every employer as an unpaid tax
collector, extracting the tax quietly and silently from each paycheck." - Murray N. Rothbard
Drivenk 1 year ago
@Drivenk frs off he suggested that very early on when he was an FDR supporter, and he apologized for that
kubaniski 1 year ago
Is there a place where I can watch these lectures in their entirety?
Naufragus420 1 year ago
Again, Friedman brings some rationality to the table. Isn't it odd how in school we could take a course in English, Maths, or Science, but never a course in Ethics...
ProjectEndure 1 year ago
Yay, Milton Friedman!
My hero.
freesk8 1 year ago
Great work! Thanks.
nick10463 1 year ago
Keep up the great work - every bit of ammunition against the great socialist mass of ignorance is greatly appreciated.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago 58
@FletchforFreedom Saying this just shows your own ignorance lol.
Teranex 1 year ago
And an ad hominem attack coupled with maniacal laughter and a complete lack of substance says what about your position?!?! I can defend every point I make. Care to put your money where your mouth is or is that the best you can manage?
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Sure, you are describing a socialist "mass" as ignorant. Which clearly shows your opinion is highly subjective to the topic. And thus your opinion isn't worth much if your judgment is clouded by ignorance and arrogance. Your response to me is also a good confirmation of what I'm suggesting, since how does someone even dare to dispute your all wise judgment (Yes thats sarcasm).
Teranex 1 year ago
To the contrary, the relative success of capitalism over socialism is well established with fact (pick any topic) and research. Included on the socialist side are the debunked Marxist ideas (LTV, the effectiveness of collectivism, etc.). By all means, if you have even the tiniest case to make in which socialism can be demonstrated to be superior, go ahead and make it. Confidence in economic expertise 30 years of research into the topic is not "arrogance".
Or, again, is that too much for you?
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom You misunderstood, i didn't say socialism is better then capitalism or the opposite (Again proving your ignorance), what i only said claiming that people which live in a socialist system are ignorant is a stereotype, which once more confirms your arrogance. Then to continue capitalism doesn't automatically mean an individualist society like you are proposing here. Just take china as an example.
Teranex 1 year ago
Then you misunderstood as well (proving your ignorance?). I never claimed that "people which live in a socialist system are ignorant". The "socialist mass of ignorance" clearly refers to its advocacy, not to those whose only situation is that they were born where such a system exists. And when it comes to ignorance, a better example would be the bizarre contention that China is capitalist (when, in fact, BY DEFINITION, capitalism is private economic decision making: the free market).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "capitalism is private economic decision making"-Doesn't that dispute your whole theory on the "capitalist dominance", just when you see the growth of china.
"The "socialist mass of ignorance" clearly refers to its advocacy,"-So a person which promotes socialism is ignorant then? If that is so then this doesn't change anything to what i said till now.
Teranex 1 year ago
No, that China has become somewhat more capitalist hardly makes them a predominantly capitalist country nor do they have any economic dominance (they still have one of the world's lowest living standards).
A person who promotes socialism is ignorant. Capitalism has produced the great improvement in living standards over the last three centuries; socialism has no defensible successes to which it can lay claim; thus, a person advocating socialism is, by definition, demonstrating ignorance.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "world's lowest living standards"-I don't think the living standard matters when it comes to the economy of a collectivist society.
"A person who promotes socialism is ignorant"-How can you claim that? In what sense is your opinion better then any other? You are seeing things too much from the American prospective, since capitalism works very well if you have a rich enough country to get cheap loans so you can reproduce wealth.
Teranex 1 year ago
The assertion that living standards don't matter is absurd on its face.
Again, it isn't a question of opinion. From an entirely factual perspective (no subjectivity involved) and regardless of which country is involved, capitalism has provided the increase in living standards the world over and socialism demonstrably has done no such thing. That the sun gives off more energy than the moon (which is merely reflective) is a purely factual statement and entirely comparable.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "capitalism has provided the increase in living standards"-In china the living standards grew trough socialism and did the one in the USSR with communism in 20-40s. So this is effectivley contradicting your theory.
"Chinese growth rate is not even remotely sustainable ad infinitum"-People say that ever since the Chinese economic growth began and it didn't change a bit since the last 40 years. The predictions say that at the current rate china will reach the US in 50 years
Teranex 1 year ago
Fire your fact checker. Chinese living standards fell until they began marginally implementing capitalist reforms in the mid-70s. Strike one. The growth figures for the Soviet Union are long debunked - while official figures showed they would rapidly outpace the US, the Soviets stagnated economically during the entire period. Strike two. And the Chinese data are PROJECTIONS of existing trends not PREDICTIONS of possible events. Strike three. You're out.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "implementing capitalist reforms in the mid-70s"-I have said this way ago, your response was that China is not a capitalist country. So you effectively contradicted yourself.
"Soviets stagnated economically"-Its seems you don't read that well what people write, cause i did name a time frame to my comment (20s-40s). And Chinese growth is FACT and not a prediction or projection.
So i made a homerun here, seems you lost the game lol.
Teranex 1 year ago
Are you really THAT incompetent? No contradiction exists. ALL economies are hybrids containing elements of both capitalism and socialism. China remains a PREDOMINANTLY socialist country. That they have experienced any growth at all in the last few decades has been a direct result of the limited capitalist reforms that they HAVE implemented.
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "really THAT incompetent"-Lol you really cant stand if someone contradicts you do you? Such arrogance.
"That they have experienced any growth at all in the last few decades has been a direct result of the limited capitalist reforms that they HAVE implemented."-So i presume the lack of growth in the US economy is the direct result of the lack of socialist polices in comparison to china per your logic.
Teranex 1 year ago
When you demonstrate incompetence by arguing that a contradiction exists when a competent person could not make such an error pointing it out is not arrogance.
And the US has had a long and steady growth EXCEPT when socialist activities (manipulation of the money supply) result in economic crashes (as, again, in the 1920s and most recently).
So, the drop in US growth is demonstrably due to anti-capitalist activities and the growth in China is demonstrably related to capitalist policies.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "it out is not arrogance"-As long that suits you. I know you have an inability to be objective on the topic.
"growth EXCEPT when socialist activities"-So tell me what excaly caused the crisis?
"So, the drop in US growth is"-This so confirms your double standard. Capitalism results in growth and socialism results ins stagnation or a crisis. Under the state regulations of Franklin D. Roosevelt USA experienced the highest economic growth in its history.
Teranex 1 year ago
I'm the one who has actually been stating facts. I already told you what caused the crisis. And you apparently cannot grasp the meaning of "double standard". The facts support the premise that capitalism works and socialism doesn't. Your assertion about growth rates under FDR are utterly and completely wrong in every particular. Not only were growth rates (even in recoveries) higher several times, FDR's policies demonstrably prolonged the Great Depression. Fire your fact checker.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "FDR's policies demonstrably prolonged the Great Depression"-2 UCLA economists claimed that. And i bet you cant prove it. While its historic FACT that he achieved the greatest growth in the history of the USA. Which once more proves you wrong.
" for you denial"-Denial? Look who's talking mister my theory cant be contradicted and is the only right one in existence. You have been effectively defeated. And if you show up bring some PROOF with you. You are such a troll.
Teranex 1 year ago
Actually, the vast majority of research on the New deal over the last thirty years (not just two UCLA economists) show that FDR prolonged the depression and the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Bureau of labor Statistics don't seem to have gotten the memo about the greatest growth because your claim is complete nonsense. Feel free to look it up. After you apologize for stating obvious falsehoods, perhaps we can continue.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Which research? You can probably name it, considering how sure you are of it. Unlike you im open to new information.
"because your claim is complete nonsense"-I looked it up and i confirmed that I'm correct. If you have any sources which say anything else you are welcome to present them.
Teranex 1 year ago
Your source is nonsense. Using standard GDP data it was faster in the early 1870s, the mid 1900s and in the run up to WWI. Still, economists understand the problems with GDP data (which, if used in the raw manner you suggest means that the US economy suffered a devastating depression in 1946 (which clearly never happened). The "G" component should never be included if you wish to understand real economic trends (even Keynesians concede this generally).
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "Your source is nonsense. Using standard GDP"-Mind giving me some exact data? Like what the growth was in percentages? As i said if you have information and can prove me wrong, please do so. Also if you can provide me with information considering US GDP prior the 1920s that would be really nice.
Teranex 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
"The 'G' component should never be included if you wish to understand real economic trends (even Keynesians concede this generally)."
It makes sense if you think about it. As the 'G' has to come out of either Investment, or Consumer Spending.
I'm reminded me Harry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson, where he calls this the "Broken Window Fallacy".
vspqbd 1 year ago
So true. Even a great many economists are unaware of the debate that took place when the decision to use GDP (or GNP) as a measure about whether the government outlay should be considered. Not only do the resources to fund government necessarily come from the other components, but it is inherently less efficient than those other sources and, because it is not subjected to the market, there is no pricing mechanism to value it (hence the bogus figures the Soviets published for decades).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Before moving on look up the article "The Great Depression of 1946" to give a more credible picture or read any of the following works: "A Monetary History of the United States", "America's Great Depression", "FDR's Folly", "The Forgotten Man". That should get you started (if not sufficient go through the underlying research in the footnotes.
I have no idea what your source is. I CAN say that it is not the NBER, BEA or BLS - the official statistics of the US.
I'm done.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
YOU are the one demonstrating reading difficulties. I was referring to the growth period of the Soviets since the 1920s (actually through the 1960s). The growth in the Soviet Union based on actual GDP at the end of the period shows that the reported growth was entirely bogus. And CURRENT Chinese growth is a fact. PROJECTIONS saying that AT THAT RATE, they would pass the US is not the same as a PREDICTION that any such thing is possible.
You really need to think before posting such nonsense.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "actually through the 1960s"-And i was referring only to the period between the 20s and 40s. As i said read what i say.
"Chinese growth is a fact"-Did i say anything else?
"that any such thing is possible."-Like when you say that their current growth is unsustainable, your so full of double standards when it comes to socialism-capitalism. If there is something positive in a states economy it originates 100% from the capitalist part lol.
Teranex 1 year ago
Again - Soviet growth was a fiction for the entire period INCLUDING between the 20s and 40s. Your "point" has been refuted. Repeating it ... well, its not me looking like a fool.
Yes you said more than that Chinese growth is a fact; you said it was predicted to pass the US which is factually wrong.
No double standard exists except in your (bizarre) worldview. That it is unsustainable is based on historical evidence and the fact that current growth is based on a low starting point.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "Your "point" has been refuted"-I cant recall you proven anything here, like compared some numbers or similar, so i don't know when you refuted my point.
A prediction is wrong only if shown to be wrong it cant be proven wrong until it actually happens or till another prediction is made based on new data.
"in your (bizarre) worldview"-Says the person who cant look at the subject from an objective point of view. I bet your so mad right now lol.
Teranex 1 year ago
Clearly for you denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Having successfully immunized this forum from even the remote possibility that anyone with two brain cells to rub together will ever take you seriously, I bid you adieu.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "only viable alternative"-And also how can you support individualism if you leave no alternative to your own theory? That makes your mindset no better then the one of any collectivist society, which leaves no room for someone to think differently. Don't misunderstand me i don't support socialism or even social welfare by any means, but i do have something against all encompassing theories which (don't allow) to be disputed.
Teranex 1 year ago
What an individual chooses to do is not something I would interfere with. if you choose to group with others under communalism, feel free. that doesn't change the fact that such systems have never produced results comparable to that of capitalism. You can think and live as you choose, but facts are facts and they demonstrate that socialism cannot compete with capitalism on any factual basis.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Chinese socialism does compete with American capitalism and is winning more ground every day. As an economist you should have an easy time projecting their growth. Living standard is of course a nice thing but it doesn't make up the actual strength of a country (Which is what matters in the end). Also Germany has a high economic growth thanks to some state regulation and thanks to the social reforms. And distribution of wealth also play a major role on living standards.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Seems to me socialism is gaining ground in the US while freedom is gaining in China. That is the reason for the gap closing...but the standard of living for the people and the amount of liberty they have is the unquestionable standard by which the quality of life and the society must be measured, not the bank acount or military power of the state else you measure with socialist eyes.
Money for the state without liberty for the people is not desireable, it is wretched.
pensword5 1 year ago
@pensword5 "not the bank acount or military power of the state else you measure with socialist eyes"-Well we will see how much liberty you will have once your economic system collapses once some arabs embargo you on oil. Ah wait that wont happen just because of the power your state exerts. And what you call socialism is in fact called social welfare system and has nothing to do with socialism. In America the standards of calling something socialist are pretty low.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Yes your right. Taking money from one group to give to another has nothing to do with socialism. How silly of me! Forcing us into asocial security ponzie scheme isnt either. And weve had them since the begining of the republic right? So we arent becoming more socialist?
We have become corporatist, not capitalist. And certainly not "laissez fair"
This is all symantics. China has been around a bit longer than us. They gave us fireworks and a useless wall. What have we done?
pensword5 1 year ago
@pensword5 "They gave us fireworks and a useless wall. What have we done?"-You don't seem to be very familiar with the history of china if you say such things. They invented paper, printing, gunpowder and the compass. Which were very significant inventions. Can you name one American invention which surpasses one of those in originality or significance? And just so you know Communist china exists for roughly 70 years before that China was a republic and before that a kingdom (empire).
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Yes I recall all of thier great contributions now! And your right, here in the US we havent came up with anything signifigant at all. And our standard of living sucks compared to those in china. P.S.Printing and writing came frirst in the sumer. But you got me on the rice paper since the sumerians used clay tablets.
(how little couth those sumerians) Who would want to be free anyway?! Dont you miss chairman mao?!
pensword5 1 year ago
@pensword5
Careful! Some people on youtube I've run into actually did like and defend Mao's economic policy.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd He seemed well intentioned, but no single figure can have that kind of control without signifigant unforeseen consequenses. (which is kinda my point) But thanks for the warning :)
pensword5 1 year ago
@pensword5
OK. I was mainly replying to the last bit in the ()'s where you mentioned him.
And you're welcome. :)
vspqbd 1 year ago
@pensword5 "came up with anything signifigant"-LEARN TO READ, i said can you give me one example of something that USA invented of EQUAL significance. Is your schooling system really that bad?
" And our standard of living sucks"-Quote me where i say that, you seem to lack eyes in your head.
"and writing came frirst in the sumer"-"Woodblock printing: The earliest specimen of woodblock printing a single-sheet dharani sutra in Sanskrit that was printed on hemp paper between 650 and 670 AD"
Teranex 1 year ago
@pensword5 "Dont you miss chairman mao?!"-I don't support communism nor socialism, but i also don't approve of narrow minded ignorance you show here.
Teranex 1 year ago
Again you posit a premise that is absurd on its face. The socialist aspects of China are so debilitating that it requires a population roughly four times that of the US to produce about 2/3 of the productive capacity. the Chinese growth rate is not even remotely sustainable ad infinitum and has reached the heights it has only because of the incredibly low starting point that communism and economic isolationism imposed for decades.
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Germany does not have high growth as a result of state regulation. Quite the contrary, over the long term (excluding the sudden increase with consolidation) German growth has lagged behind that of countries with less regulation and historically has considerably higher average unemployment. Living standards (about which "distribution of wealth" plays little so long as a robust middle class exists) is what DOES matter because it demonstrates productivity accounting for capacity.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom ""distribution of wealth" plays little"-You say that just because it contradicts your theory, while in reality the GDP per capita of a state doesn't matter especially if the most of the wealth in concentrated in 1% of the population.
"not have high growth as a result of state regulation"-The growth originates exactly from correctly applied state injections. Do try to contradict that. A fully hands of policy brings economic crisis as the one we are currently experiencing.
Teranex 1 year ago
To the contrary, I specifically included the caveat about the presence of a middle class. It makes no difference how much wealthier any individual or group gets if the poorest in society also benefit (the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world). Concern beyond that is nothing but envy.
Contradict it? I can't stop laughing at such unbridled economic ignorance! It is economically IMPOSSIBLE for "state injections" to grow an economy and economic crisis result from government interventions!
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world"-Well if you name it that way lol...
"economic crisis result from government interventions!"-So tell me what caused the current economic crises and the one in the thirties, where was the state intervention there? Both crisises were caused just because of the "hands off" policies and were solved by state intervention of the US president.
Teranex 1 year ago
The average "poor" in the US have more disposable income, living space and assets than the average MIDDLE CLASS in Europe.
The economic crises in the 1920s and currently (and actually in every case over the last 700 years according to the latest research) were due to manipulation of the money supply (in the last century by central banks). The notion that they were caused by "hands off" policies suffers only from the fact that the contention is imbecilic.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "were due to manipulation of the money supply"-According to which economic theory? You are so subjective.
"MIDDLE CLASS in Europe"-Mind giving me a source for that information?
Teranex 1 year ago
The Austrian Business Cycle Theory spells it out best but the monetarists have made inroads in that direction as well as the neo-classicals. There's nothing "subjective" about it.
Studies on living space were performed years ago and are easily found on-line. The poor in the US have more than the average in any European country. The US Census Bureau publishes the assets owned by the average "poor" person in the US (also easily checked) and the OECD has published similar data for Europe.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "There's nothing "subjective" about it."-How can you tell? Keynesian theory wouldn't agree with you. All those theories are based on SUBJECTIVE perceptions, if you fail to acknowledge that then its clear you cant be objective on the topic.
"are easily found on-line"-In that case it should be no problem providing me with the info. You claimed something now its up to you to prove it. Why do you Americans always brake when it comes to proving a point?
Teranex 1 year ago
Similarly disposable income data is available for most OECD countries from that source. And the US Census Bureau has published figures related to the those living below the poverty line in the US. All of this data is in the public domain.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "been stating facts"-I bet you like to think that. You didn't prove till now not even one thing.
"I already told you what caused the crisis"-I asked you what exactly caused it, all you said is that government did it. I repeat what EXACTLY caused it?
"that capitalism works"-China is socialist and has a way greater growth then USA. Thus proving you wrong. Also the highest standard of living have the Nordic countries which are all social democrat.
Teranex 1 year ago
Comment removed
Teranex 1 year ago
Wisdom in abandoning a ridiculous position. Using a singular case that is statistically invalid (again, China's growth (on a per capita basis - the only standard that matters) results from the state created low starting point. Only someone who has no mathematical understanding whatever attempts to compare short-term growth figures in a ridiculously restricted sample size. Long term growth among the countries of the world for which there is data completely vindicates my stance.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world"-Well if you name it that way lol.
"economic crisis result from government interventions!"-So tell me what caused the current economic crises and the one in the thirties, where was the state intervention there? Both crisises were caused just because of the "hands off" policies and were solved by state intervention of the US president.
Teranex 1 year ago
@Teranex Milton Friedman would probably remind us that there is a sense in which every nation is capitalistic; that is, they all use and require vast amounts of capital to function and grow. The question is who controls that capital, a mosaic of free individuals or a monolith of central planners. When we understand the difference between state capitalism and individual capitalism the inherent coercive nature of socialism is exposed.
weavermama 1 year ago 15
@weavermama In the end it only matters if the resources are applied correctly and not who controls the wealth. There are historical examples of socialism and capitalism both correctly and incorrectly applying wealth.
Teranex 1 year ago
@weavermama Precisely! There is a sense in which all types of society are capitalist - the real question is who controls the capital! Kindest Regards
ChristopherAdderley 2 months ago
@ChristopherAdderley Right back at ya! I've found that people froth at the mouth in anger toward Friedman in direct proportion to their misunderstanding of his ideas. That being said, I feel the Austrian critique of his monetarist theories is justified. Peace.
weavermama 2 months ago
@weavermama When people talk about a "nation's wealth" and how it's unevenly distributed, they give the impression that this wealth was created & belongs to everyone equally. Not true. Say, of the infamous "1%". How much of that wealth that they own did they themselves create? And if that wealth is in the stock market, say, then workers and consumers benefit from this. If Wealthy bob buys a car & I and others commute in that car to work, then why is it unfair if Bob owns the wealth of that car?
LucisFerre1 4 weeks ago
@LucisFerre1 Answer this hypothetical question then. Imagine a world, where 5 people owned everything. And the 6999999999995 others were working in a diversity of shops,farms,factories, in essence doing the dirty work. Those 5 people, lets call them "Big 5", they liked having everyone else work for them, and not doing shit. And no one would say anything because they labored under the illusion that they one day could be part of the "Big 5". Not unfair you say?
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 In order for the "Big 5" to maintain their station would require coercion. Such a system would be impossible to maintain without fear of violence.
heavym3tal 14 hours ago
Are you not praising the great leader?
LordVigeous666999 11 months ago
I truly love this man. If there ever was a role model in life......we truly need more people like him right now. Our media, our academics etc are all full with people who think we need more government, more red tape more regulations. We need someone like Milton Friedman to appear regularly on TV and speak. @Cleanhappyglock, the last thing we need is more people in charge regardless of mind set. What we do need is more power and liberty to the private individual
dkswede 1 year ago 3
image how much better the world would be if we had more people in charge with this mind set.
CleanHappyGlock 1 year ago 38
@CleanHappyGlock Unfortunately people with Miltons mind set rarely seek power over others, and when they do they are generally not ruthless enough to obtain it. However if there were more citizens with his mind set then we would not need or accept to put so many people in charge of making decisions for us.
XCritonX 1 year ago 4
@CleanHappyGlock Imagine how much better the world would be if we had nobody in charge.
Nielsio 1 year ago