funny how he got a government scholarship to study economics but he never left the discipline....isnt a scholarship welfare he got a good education from tax payer money and his welfare was provided for....i guess he doesnt want anyone else to get that
@tunacorncheese No, a scholarship could be considered welfare only if it was mandated by government. Scholarships are a voluntary gift. Aren't you glad you didn't get welfare for Christmas?
@fzqlcs How could a government scholarship be considered voluntary when it was a government mandate at the time funded by tax payer money ? he didnt get a private scholarship he got a public one. there was nothing voluntary about it except that he accepted it.
@tunacorncheese I don't trust you reading comprehension so post your reference on Milton. I don't trust it because there would be no reason for you to ask your question had you read and understood my response. "a scholarship could be considered welfare if mandated from the government." At any rate, because Friedman is an example of what could be accomplished by providing the right person with a scholarship, that does not argue for government making them entitlements.
@fzqlcs well the government had an entitlement program under the GI bill post war and has had the Pell Grant in place as an entitlement for US citizens who want to pursue education...at the end of the day these programs help with welfare and it is an argument for making them so because the society sees the benefit of having scholarships in place to produce educated people
Friedman: I am now rich and successful, YOU PEOPLE LEAVE ME AND MY MONEY FUCKING ALONE! WE NEED POOR PEOPLE TO EXIST TO SHOW HOW GREAT I AM! fucking socialist
This video is part of a multi-part series that I have not been able to find since ~1988 when my public library abruptly tossed it out (it was on VHS tapes). I believe the series was called 'Free to Choose', but today what I find under that title on youtube, is a different series - not a series of lectures but a set of set-pieces and panel discussions.
Please contact me if you know the whereabouts of this series of lectures.
i wish more focus was put onto the idea of Localism
i mean think for a second - we live in a political system whereby millions of people as individuals have to evaluate millions of people as a whole, and judge from a two party system which is better, when even 'experts' can't even do so due to the 1000's of pages of policies of either side.
add to this mix, propaganda techniques and you get corporate/oligarchy
you should only influence the lives of people you know.
I would love to see his proposal to end socialism in america. We cannot simply announce that SS checks, food stamp,s and section 8 funding will all end next thursday. mass roiting would occure. people would starve. if you consider socialism to be like a drug (drugs = false happiness, socialism=false prosparity) then we need to detox. Should we go cold turkey? if not then what is the national equivilent of a methadone clinic?
@Felhaven Dr. Friedman has long argued that going cold turkey is the exact wrong thing to do. He's recommended a 5 year or longer phase out publicly several times.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The liberals saw conservative's charity as a wasted resource. We gave willingly to charity but did not receive a conspicuous or carnal benefit. Liberals then saw an opportunity to tap that resource as a means of buying votes they would NOT otherwise acquire. And so that is the problem we face today, extricating the hands of liberals from our pockets and a significant population of cash addicted citizens.
Friedman had it right. The ends justifying the means begs us to study if the ends were truly justified to serve the ends. And as we usually find a great lie or at least road to hell was paved for us. Always of course until caught was only to be a blessing to us. He should have lived beyond a hundred and it should of been his prime.
Milton Friedman was for the state production of roads, city parks and the protection of intellectual property, and if a state had a central bank (which he did finally end up being against) he advocated it steadily inflate and intervene heavily during a depression.
@Nielsio Indeed! Friedman was indeed a 'badass' but is nothing but a very nice step towards the logical conclusion that the state creates nothing, and can only reallocate that which it stole from someone else. Where else to go but to the Austrian School? Still enjoy LibertyPen's contributions though!
I live in Sweden with an extensive welfare state, and I must say that Friedman is spot on in his reasoning. The problem is that the welfare state here is working fine and people therefore do not see the problems with living in a null-sum-game where we all get more and more dependent on the very same system that is meant to give us stability.
@enevighet17 At least Sweden's is paid into my a tax code that isn't as progressive as America's, as our tax code is built on the philosophy of "we can always tax the rich" (which anyone who's looked at revenues in our post WWII history could tell you, is a poor tactic). You guys are also less regulatory if I recall right.
Hence Sweden = not perfect, but good GDP, good economic growth, and no crazy out of control debt. USA does, and it's painful.
@enevighet17 Luckily Sweden, as you know, has very favorable open trade policies, relatively low corporate tax and even much of the "social" care is at least voucherized. However, as we see with places like Malmo, the social safety net cannot keep up with the inflow of poor immigrants. The system breaks down, crime and unemployment increase. Its a sad insult to the traditionally solid strong work ethic of Sweden. Finland is having similar woes.
becase we have a welfare state we have no gold in our money, high inflation, to keep a welfare state running you need more paper dollars than the tax payers can provide. you need to borrow from china. it leads to ruin for the nation.
@theredraven Your statement as to the behavior of insurance "schemes", (as you put it), is a non sequitur. Insurance is a method of transfering economic risk of an unlikely but possible disasterous event, by pooling the funds of many to insulate the few, or the one, that may actually be affected by such an event. Since a 'pre-existing condition' removes risk from the equation, replacing it with certainty, by definition it cannot be covered. Such conditions can be covered by a 'Payment Plan',
@theredraven I suspect he would defend contract enforcement. What was agreed to when the person signed up for his insurance? What were the terms? If the customer was dishonest in sign up process then the contract is void. If both parties were honest then the company is required by law to pay out whatever benefits were agreed upon. It is a matter of enforcing contracts. The insurer has no obligation to provide charity if the clients problems fall outside contract terms.
@theredraven or a 'health care plan', but the costs would have to be capped below the contributions in any event. Therefore charity or forced re-distrubution of wealth are the only ways to pay for such circumstances.
@theredraven If the insurer is engaged in fraud then they are initiating violence against another's property. If I agree to sell you a computer and you send the money and I do not send it, I have conned you and you are the rightful owner of the money, and it is within your right to get your property back. Milton would say that these victims can rightfully seek to retrieve their property (the amount that they were promised in the contract) by using "self defense" against the perpetrators
"Welfare" is just another word for ponzi scheme. What is a ponzi scheme? It is a FRAUD in which you take money away from some and give (a reduced amount of) it to others while promising them higher return in the future. And even worse, you can't choose to opt out from this particular ponzi scheme.
I also have a question. If I help you to beat a statist to death, will that double the badness of the means, or will it double the benefit of having one less POS on the planet?
Worst part of the welfare state is that it is detrimental and destructive to recipients. Rather than reaching and growing to improver their lives they sit back and stagnate. All the help removes the incentive. At the very least in reduces the incentive and the urgency to do something for people who are already too complacent. Growth and prosperity come through taking on challenges. Welfare makes it less likely the recipient will take on those challenges. People shrink rather than grow.
Professor Friedman was right in the sense that the Welfare State is forced on the people whether they want it or not. And have to pay into and collect from it whether they want it or not. Because government thinks they should have it.
@DoctrinaBytes He made Einstein look like he didn't know all of his colors. I am very aware of brilliant. He was correct 100% of the time. Government works overtime to lie to you. He put it in terms that were perfect. On the fly he could bury anyone. Yes brilliant. I stand by my words.
@SuperGuitarman69 100% correct no sorry wrong again, I see you're another disciple of the Chicago school of thought and therefore believe your prophet cannot be wrong in any form or fashion. Just remember a disciple is an asshole looking for a body to attach itself to.
@DoctrinaBytes No sorry. I have a degree in economics. I do not base my thoughts on "feelings". I base my thoughts and convictions on empirical evidence. Cause and effect. Historical evidence. I am NOT paid to have certain conclusions. I too was an idiot government Keynesian a long time ago. But after the study of different results of economic systems? I conclusively changed my views. So no, once again, I am correct. Anyone who chooses government over freedom is a complete moron. Fits you?
@SuperGuitarman69 Okay so Mr. Emprical tell me that you agree with what Mitlon's invention did to Chile and Pinochet placing his ideological followers into leading economic positions where they imposed his ideas onto a terrorised Chilean people. The irony is, wherever his dogmas are applied; the exact opposite occurred. Additionally your assumption of my ideological stance is wrong but then again you have an economics degree oh wow I guess I should be impressed? * Shakes head*
@DoctrinaBytes He never backed Pinochet. Friedman had NO control over Chile. He was an advocate for free markets and freedom. Which Pinochet took advantage of. He had nothing to do with that. The Pinochet era had to run it's course. Look at them now. Is Chile perfect now? No, but neither is the United States. We do not have perfect capitalism either. But it is far better than the results that would have happened in Chile or here if socialism would be the order of the day. Chile? Come off it.
@DoctrinaBytes Just read something else you posted. Dogma is NOT freedom. Freedom is a god given right. Who are YOU to desire the taking away of freedom. Think of it this way. Marx, Mussolini, Hitler, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams. If you and I were to start a war with one another. Who side would these individuals be on? Well Mussolini and Marx would be on your side. So would Hitler. Freedom is the only system in which the power of an individual is fully achieved. They make Part 1
@DoctrinaBytes without a WIN WIN scenario (profit and production) there is no need to have advancement. That is your world. America has been successful inspite of leftist policies. Equality and fairness. Those are words with absolutely NO meaning. Equality is only achieved through advancement. People are poor because of minimum wage and welfare not because of it. Proof? We have spent 30 trillion dollars in welfare since the late 60's with no change. It HAS NOT WORKED. It has made it WORSE.
@DoctrinaBytes The Republicans (I am not a Republican) wrote a bill that Dick Morris begged Clinton to sign in the 90's that drastically cut welfare. What happened? People moved out of section 8 housing and into their parents. Got jobs and had to find childcare for their children. There was no help. They had to do for themselves. Many obtained skills that advanced them out of poverty and into owning businesses or higher paying jobs. Freedom of government achieved this. I am tiring of this now.
@DoctrinaBytes Unsurprisingly, when a modern liberal attempts to defend a ridiculous argument, eventually he will repeat long debunked (and imbecilic) nonsense such as the myth that Friedman's policies terrorized the Chilean people. You really have two choices: you can continue to put forth such factually inaccurate nonsense (and believe demonstrated liars like Naomi Klein) or you can actually research history and economics .... at which point you stop being a modern liberal.
@DoctrinaBytes their own mistakes and learn and grow and change their lots in life. As long as one person does not achieve based upon taking away the rights of another the system is infallible. One with ideas will prosper and the one who did not come up with the ideas will prosper as well by making the products (labor) or the purchasing of the advanced product that makes their lives easier. In your warped ideology, no one succeeds. The advancement in production has no motivation to occur. Part 2
funny how he got a government scholarship to study economics but he never left the discipline....isnt a scholarship welfare he got a good education from tax payer money and his welfare was provided for....i guess he doesnt want anyone else to get that
tunacorncheese 1 month ago
@tunacorncheese No, a scholarship could be considered welfare only if it was mandated by government. Scholarships are a voluntary gift. Aren't you glad you didn't get welfare for Christmas?
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs How could a government scholarship be considered voluntary when it was a government mandate at the time funded by tax payer money ? he didnt get a private scholarship he got a public one. there was nothing voluntary about it except that he accepted it.
tunacorncheese 1 month ago
@tunacorncheese I don't trust you reading comprehension so post your reference on Milton. I don't trust it because there would be no reason for you to ask your question had you read and understood my response. "a scholarship could be considered welfare if mandated from the government." At any rate, because Friedman is an example of what could be accomplished by providing the right person with a scholarship, that does not argue for government making them entitlements.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs well the government had an entitlement program under the GI bill post war and has had the Pell Grant in place as an entitlement for US citizens who want to pursue education...at the end of the day these programs help with welfare and it is an argument for making them so because the society sees the benefit of having scholarships in place to produce educated people
tunacorncheese 1 month ago
Hmm sound doesn't work, I hear sound in the Libertypen intro just fine but the lecture itself is very low and garbled??
jrdtechdotnet 1 month ago
I totally disagree with this man.
-Robin Hood
topperheartramada 2 months ago
@topperheartramada most thieves do.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@fzqlcs We also get all the chicks.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
只會用知識仗勢欺人
sad..
lysol5555 3 months ago
The whole of his philosophy can be summed up:
Friedman: I am now rich and successful, YOU PEOPLE LEAVE ME AND MY MONEY FUCKING ALONE! WE NEED POOR PEOPLE TO EXIST TO SHOW HOW GREAT I AM! fucking socialist
lysol5555 3 months ago
failblog should have a video about the welfare state
goPistons06 6 months ago
did you get the sound working? It works fine for me
-check volume on youtube video
-check windows main volume control (bottom right corner, picture of gray speaker)
-check any other programs you might have that control volume (your sound card might come with a program etc)
LordVigeous666999 7 months ago
This video is part of a multi-part series that I have not been able to find since ~1988 when my public library abruptly tossed it out (it was on VHS tapes). I believe the series was called 'Free to Choose', but today what I find under that title on youtube, is a different series - not a series of lectures but a set of set-pieces and panel discussions.
Please contact me if you know the whereabouts of this series of lectures.
dmorley123 10 months ago
Five people are Obama-supportin', non-tax-payin', welfare queens.
LogicalFlawDetector 10 months ago 3
No sound for the talk part - please check. Thanks.
libertyguard1789 11 months ago
i wish more focus was put onto the idea of Localism
i mean think for a second - we live in a political system whereby millions of people as individuals have to evaluate millions of people as a whole, and judge from a two party system which is better, when even 'experts' can't even do so due to the 1000's of pages of policies of either side.
add to this mix, propaganda techniques and you get corporate/oligarchy
you should only influence the lives of people you know.
this system is ridiculous
100CommonCents 11 months ago
50% of the people he is talking about are Obama voters
molimhvalaizvoli 11 months ago
I would love to see his proposal to end socialism in america. We cannot simply announce that SS checks, food stamp,s and section 8 funding will all end next thursday. mass roiting would occure. people would starve. if you consider socialism to be like a drug (drugs = false happiness, socialism=false prosparity) then we need to detox. Should we go cold turkey? if not then what is the national equivilent of a methadone clinic?
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven Dr. Friedman has long argued that going cold turkey is the exact wrong thing to do. He's recommended a 5 year or longer phase out publicly several times.
dmowings 11 months ago
@dmowings hm... i think it might take as long as 10-20 years... thanks for the info ill look around for those speaches
Felhaven 11 months ago
Damn he hit it on the nose......great speach...
MrAndrewsiii 11 months ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The liberals saw conservative's charity as a wasted resource. We gave willingly to charity but did not receive a conspicuous or carnal benefit. Liberals then saw an opportunity to tap that resource as a means of buying votes they would NOT otherwise acquire. And so that is the problem we face today, extricating the hands of liberals from our pockets and a significant population of cash addicted citizens.
carlindelco 11 months ago 5
“Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.” -Alan Greenspan
READ: More people realizing Obama IS a socialist
Dependency, Redistribution And The Rising Price Of Gas
How Many Trillions Must We Waste on the War on Poverty?
Obama Unions a Microcosm of Liberalism: Parasites Devouring Their Host
Obama Picks a ‘Spread the Wealth’ Progressive Lawyer for Top Economist
History of the takeover of the Democrat Party by socialist/Marxists.
usactionnewsdotcom 11 months ago
the audio of friedman is garbled for me. D:
SimulacrumMaster 11 months ago
Friedman had it right. The ends justifying the means begs us to study if the ends were truly justified to serve the ends. And as we usually find a great lie or at least road to hell was paved for us. Always of course until caught was only to be a blessing to us. He should have lived beyond a hundred and it should of been his prime.
LokiScoutSniper 11 months ago
Thumbs up if you would vote for this man as president.
groam6666 11 months ago 5
Two people collecting welfare checks disliked this video.
EddieSatan 11 months ago 43
Great video!!
DJTmaq 11 months ago
Milton Friedman was for the state production of roads, city parks and the protection of intellectual property, and if a state had a central bank (which he did finally end up being against) he advocated it steadily inflate and intervene heavily during a depression.
*Double standard*
Nielsio 11 months ago
@Nielsio Indeed! Friedman was indeed a 'badass' but is nothing but a very nice step towards the logical conclusion that the state creates nothing, and can only reallocate that which it stole from someone else. Where else to go but to the Austrian School? Still enjoy LibertyPen's contributions though!
bman2112 11 months ago
I live in Sweden with an extensive welfare state, and I must say that Friedman is spot on in his reasoning. The problem is that the welfare state here is working fine and people therefore do not see the problems with living in a null-sum-game where we all get more and more dependent on the very same system that is meant to give us stability.
enevighet17 11 months ago
@enevighet17 At least Sweden's is paid into my a tax code that isn't as progressive as America's, as our tax code is built on the philosophy of "we can always tax the rich" (which anyone who's looked at revenues in our post WWII history could tell you, is a poor tactic). You guys are also less regulatory if I recall right.
Hence Sweden = not perfect, but good GDP, good economic growth, and no crazy out of control debt. USA does, and it's painful.
jrsub3 11 months ago
@enevighet17 Luckily Sweden, as you know, has very favorable open trade policies, relatively low corporate tax and even much of the "social" care is at least voucherized. However, as we see with places like Malmo, the social safety net cannot keep up with the inflow of poor immigrants. The system breaks down, crime and unemployment increase. Its a sad insult to the traditionally solid strong work ethic of Sweden. Finland is having similar woes.
kev3d 11 months ago
becase we have a welfare state we have no gold in our money, high inflation, to keep a welfare state running you need more paper dollars than the tax payers can provide. you need to borrow from china. it leads to ruin for the nation.
Rico8458 11 months ago
What would Milton say about insurance schemes people pay into but then who get dropped for pre-existing conditions?
theredraven 11 months ago
@theredraven He would love it.
DoctrinaBytes 11 months ago
@theredraven Your statement as to the behavior of insurance "schemes", (as you put it), is a non sequitur. Insurance is a method of transfering economic risk of an unlikely but possible disasterous event, by pooling the funds of many to insulate the few, or the one, that may actually be affected by such an event. Since a 'pre-existing condition' removes risk from the equation, replacing it with certainty, by definition it cannot be covered. Such conditions can be covered by a 'Payment Plan',
tungstencarbide100 11 months ago
@theredraven I suspect he would defend contract enforcement. What was agreed to when the person signed up for his insurance? What were the terms? If the customer was dishonest in sign up process then the contract is void. If both parties were honest then the company is required by law to pay out whatever benefits were agreed upon. It is a matter of enforcing contracts. The insurer has no obligation to provide charity if the clients problems fall outside contract terms.
rrp1973 11 months ago
@theredraven or a 'health care plan', but the costs would have to be capped below the contributions in any event. Therefore charity or forced re-distrubution of wealth are the only ways to pay for such circumstances.
tungstencarbide100 11 months ago
@theredraven If the insurer is engaged in fraud then they are initiating violence against another's property. If I agree to sell you a computer and you send the money and I do not send it, I have conned you and you are the rightful owner of the money, and it is within your right to get your property back. Milton would say that these victims can rightfully seek to retrieve their property (the amount that they were promised in the contract) by using "self defense" against the perpetrators
lukebessey 11 months ago
Krugman is the 1 dislike
JoeyPencils 11 months ago 4
"Welfare" is just another word for ponzi scheme. What is a ponzi scheme? It is a FRAUD in which you take money away from some and give (a reduced amount of) it to others while promising them higher return in the future. And even worse, you can't choose to opt out from this particular ponzi scheme.
DDG993 11 months ago
The question I have is, if I beat a statist to death, is the badness of the means ruin the objective of having one less pos on the planet?
MoneyIsSilver 11 months ago
@MoneyIsSilver
I also have a question. If I help you to beat a statist to death, will that double the badness of the means, or will it double the benefit of having one less POS on the planet?
I say it's the later. What say you?
✭✭✭✭✭
nick10463 11 months ago
Worst part of the welfare state is that it is detrimental and destructive to recipients. Rather than reaching and growing to improver their lives they sit back and stagnate. All the help removes the incentive. At the very least in reduces the incentive and the urgency to do something for people who are already too complacent. Growth and prosperity come through taking on challenges. Welfare makes it less likely the recipient will take on those challenges. People shrink rather than grow.
carcabe 11 months ago
Friedman was like a Prophet.
steve0281 11 months ago 2
@steve0281 Yes a prophet for those whom cannot reason things for themselves...
DoctrinaBytes 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes Of which I am perfectly capable of doing.
steve0281 11 months ago
Professor Friedman was right in the sense that the Welfare State is forced on the people whether they want it or not. And have to pay into and collect from it whether they want it or not. Because government thinks they should have it.
FRSFreeStatePlus 11 months ago
Is there any DVD available of those lectures? I see that you post parts of it - is there any way to get full version?
LouigiVerona 11 months ago 7
@LouigiVerona These lectures are contained within the 'Milton Friedman Speaks' DVD set available at FreetoChoose(dot)com.
LibertyPen 11 months ago 9
@LibertyPen Thanks for the info!
LouigiVerona 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AroundSun Why don't you help?
SB9101 11 months ago
Friedman is just simply put the most brilliant man to ever live.
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago 3
@SuperGuitarman69 You need to expand your idea brilliant. Was Friedman a sharp fellow, yes was he the most brilliant, not by a longshot!
DoctrinaBytes 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes He made Einstein look like he didn't know all of his colors. I am very aware of brilliant. He was correct 100% of the time. Government works overtime to lie to you. He put it in terms that were perfect. On the fly he could bury anyone. Yes brilliant. I stand by my words.
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 100% correct no sorry wrong again, I see you're another disciple of the Chicago school of thought and therefore believe your prophet cannot be wrong in any form or fashion. Just remember a disciple is an asshole looking for a body to attach itself to.
DoctrinaBytes 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes No sorry. I have a degree in economics. I do not base my thoughts on "feelings". I base my thoughts and convictions on empirical evidence. Cause and effect. Historical evidence. I am NOT paid to have certain conclusions. I too was an idiot government Keynesian a long time ago. But after the study of different results of economic systems? I conclusively changed my views. So no, once again, I am correct. Anyone who chooses government over freedom is a complete moron. Fits you?
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Okay so Mr. Emprical tell me that you agree with what Mitlon's invention did to Chile and Pinochet placing his ideological followers into leading economic positions where they imposed his ideas onto a terrorised Chilean people. The irony is, wherever his dogmas are applied; the exact opposite occurred. Additionally your assumption of my ideological stance is wrong but then again you have an economics degree oh wow I guess I should be impressed? * Shakes head*
DoctrinaBytes 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes He never backed Pinochet. Friedman had NO control over Chile. He was an advocate for free markets and freedom. Which Pinochet took advantage of. He had nothing to do with that. The Pinochet era had to run it's course. Look at them now. Is Chile perfect now? No, but neither is the United States. We do not have perfect capitalism either. But it is far better than the results that would have happened in Chile or here if socialism would be the order of the day. Chile? Come off it.
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes Just read something else you posted. Dogma is NOT freedom. Freedom is a god given right. Who are YOU to desire the taking away of freedom. Think of it this way. Marx, Mussolini, Hitler, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams. If you and I were to start a war with one another. Who side would these individuals be on? Well Mussolini and Marx would be on your side. So would Hitler. Freedom is the only system in which the power of an individual is fully achieved. They make Part 1
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes without a WIN WIN scenario (profit and production) there is no need to have advancement. That is your world. America has been successful inspite of leftist policies. Equality and fairness. Those are words with absolutely NO meaning. Equality is only achieved through advancement. People are poor because of minimum wage and welfare not because of it. Proof? We have spent 30 trillion dollars in welfare since the late 60's with no change. It HAS NOT WORKED. It has made it WORSE.
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes The Republicans (I am not a Republican) wrote a bill that Dick Morris begged Clinton to sign in the 90's that drastically cut welfare. What happened? People moved out of section 8 housing and into their parents. Got jobs and had to find childcare for their children. There was no help. They had to do for themselves. Many obtained skills that advanced them out of poverty and into owning businesses or higher paying jobs. Freedom of government achieved this. I am tiring of this now.
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes Unsurprisingly, when a modern liberal attempts to defend a ridiculous argument, eventually he will repeat long debunked (and imbecilic) nonsense such as the myth that Friedman's policies terrorized the Chilean people. You really have two choices: you can continue to put forth such factually inaccurate nonsense (and believe demonstrated liars like Naomi Klein) or you can actually research history and economics .... at which point you stop being a modern liberal.
FletchforFreedom 11 months ago
@DoctrinaBytes their own mistakes and learn and grow and change their lots in life. As long as one person does not achieve based upon taking away the rights of another the system is infallible. One with ideas will prosper and the one who did not come up with the ideas will prosper as well by making the products (labor) or the purchasing of the advanced product that makes their lives easier. In your warped ideology, no one succeeds. The advancement in production has no motivation to occur. Part 2
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago
Friedman was such a badass
kubaniski 11 months ago 76
This has been flagged as spam show
@kubaniski "..Friedman was such a badass.." Yep. And so was Bastiat like he mentioned :)
zalida100 11 months ago
@kubaniski with a smile!
dmowings 6 months ago