1. Can anyone tell me where i find the economic planners? 2.The Banks 1.Where? 2.The taxpayers 1.The Banks plan the economy? 2.Yes, the taxpayer 1.Capitalism? 3.We Want a Free Market! 1.I want Capitalism 3. We Have to Decentralize the Economy 2. You Do That, and tell everyone to compete, production decreases and the economy shrinks 1.I want private companies, no government 2.See 1929 3.Free Market! 1.Capitalism!
@Willredd94 70's youth? it is the culture of our universities that produce these useful idiots and they have been churning out the rabble for a century-- the protected monopoly of tenure and the pent up bitterness and envy of the ivory towered professors are the ones to blame -- just look at their progeny at the wall street "protests"
The guy did not ask about the effects of people's contact with the west, he asked about the effects of slavery and colonialism. Friedman's answer was that slavery and colonialism were not what enriched the west. There is no point whatsoever in going into how people benefitted from their contact with the west, which had only to do with the technology (especially after the industrial revolution), and nothing to do with slavery nor with colonialism.
The mayans and the aztecs were scientifically more advanced than the europeans 500 years ago, yet today their ancestors are the poor brown mexicans and central americans that are crossing the border illegally to "leach off" of white america's success. White mexicans and white central americans tend to be rich. Yet what friedman is [somewhat] saying here is that white people are worse off because of colonialism and everyone else is better off because of it.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 "The mayans and the aztecs were scientifically more advanced than the europeans 500 years ago"
In certain very minute areas, on the whole absolutely not. For starters the North American natives never invented guns, ocean going ships, the printing press or many other things. The only thing they can fairly be said to have been more advanced in is astrology, and even then only for use as calendars, the europeans had much better understanding of them for navigation.
@Hashishin13 the printing press was invented hundreds of years later; who knows what the maya could have invented by then. and the maya had thousands of books (or at least more than one thousand, i don't know how many) written that the spanish destroyed. the famous maya calendar was in one of only four books that survived out of supposedly more than a thousand.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 No it wasn't. It was invented in 1440. The natives of the americas invented virtually nothing of significance, the same as the Africans. He chose to adress the mans questions as they were said. He said colonialism was a negatives for the colonized and that the west was made rich by slavery and colonialism, so he refuted the guys arguement. I have made no reference to culture whatsoever, so I really don't know what your talking about with the alcohol thing.
It would be nice, though, to know what the world would have been like if colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade had never happened, to know what the thousands of maya books said, to know what the native americans (in the entire americas) would be like today, and what the africans would be like today, and even what the europeans would be like, if only [non-slave]trade and travel had happened. Call me immature or sentimental, but i honestly think it's an important thing to think about.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 The burning of the library of alexandria was a much greater loss IMO. Also every human being produces alcohol in their gut and the natives of north america made a corn based alcoholic drink, alcohol isn't strictly european or even eurasian.
Losing the lbr of Alexandria was fkd up.Included in that lbr, btw, probably knowledge of subsaharan africa.The lost maya books were a big loss,especially because it was such a different lineage of knowledge.Imagine GKhan invaded Europe and destroyed Greek and Roman writings.Ancient european lineage of knowledge could have become almost myth.There is always room for reasonable speculation about lost civilizations having been greater than thought, imo, because history is written by the conquerors.
I know alcohol existed all over the world(although i'm not sure about sub saharan africa),and hallucinogens were used in europe too,but some drugs were used more in some places and some more in others.I just meant theoretically taking the idea to the extreme,what would be the difference between a culture that only had weed and one that only had opium,for example,or ephedra. It's possible they might arrive at drastically separate technological achievements, not just separate cultures.
Also your putting words in his mouth, he never said at all that white people are worse off because of colonialism. He said that colonialism wasn't what developed western europe. Obviously the white colonists in the former colonies are better off then the natives they basically enslaved.
@Hashishin13 Alright, alright, i might have gone too far, but not for much. I did put words in his mouth because it's true he doesn't address native americans aztecs and mayans. Still, watch Sidewinder77's version of this video. He does say that colonialism was a negative for western europe, and that it was a positive for everyone else (at least in every example he decides to give). In the example of africa he uses the term "the west", which doesn't quite mean white people but it almost does.
Btw, I get that russians are white and they're not considered "the west". But anyway, realize that he wasn't really asked about whether or not anyone benefited from being colonized, yet that's what he focuses on. And he says that the west did not gain anything either from colonization or from slavery, but then he puts no emphasis at all on how then did they get rich(for which i believe him that there is an alternative explanation, but he doesn't give it). Why, instead of explaining that,conti-
-nued instead of explaining that or explaining why so many non-white people in capitalist countries are poor,(which would have more adequately addressed the guy's question), does he give examples of how so many people were benefited from being colonized by (or in general having contact with) white people?
Imagine a civilization where alcohol had never existed. Imagine that only marijuana existed, and as many people who today drink alcohol smoked marijuana. Or imagine it was mushrooms (like in the case of the maya), or peyote (like in the case of the native americans), or ibogaine. Their history goes back thousands of years with these drugs and lack of alcohol. How different (better/worse) would they be? Should that civilization be destroyed and replaced by the alcohol one?
I'm glad someone says this, my country lost a buttload of money because of the colonies. And it was painfull to watch africans completely destroy their nations after centuries of construction, because of Soviet and American governmental influence.
i lived in USSR and never saw shades (glasses) like this, people who dresses like this in USSR were outcast and they were different from the statuesque, Soviets Leaders hated this kind of people, this is not a Politburo material (suits type of people) and like the rest of the International Communist and Socialistic devotees, they were needed only outside USSR to demoralize and spread communist ideas, in USSR there was no need for hippies, only law abiding citizens who follow orders.
Capitalism is institutionalized slavery where the RICH control the process of survival forcing the slave to be subservient to the means of production.
@mba2ceo The problem is people who don't like capitalism don't even care enough to learn about it. "The rich", in the USSR were the party elites, and they DIRECTLY controlled the society to the point where they could order murder, let alone theft. Stalin rode around in Mercedes!
"The rich" have much less control over others in capitalism and to the extent that they do it's usually when they manipulate the government! Walmart actually uses the government to steal people land!
milton friedman was raised as a poor white man in the 20s. It's not inconceivable that he was raised with perceptions of race that the average person would consider bigoted in today's world. If so, as good an economist as he may have been, his interpretation of history might have been wrong because of that. Thing is, even in the 60s racism was openly acceptable. Imagine how much we misunderstand the last five hundred years because we remember them from a white perspective.
You could say, "well, africans didn't have writing so that shows you something right there". But the thing is, regardless of that, the fact remains that we have five hundred years of history written from what we know was a biased perspective. Our understanding of history today is necessarily compromised because of this.
No but im saying it's not impossible. Also, would it have been possible for africa to have had contact with europe and learn those technologies without the atlantic slave trade and colonialism?What i don't like is the lack of separation of one and the other, and the apparent lack of imagination about the possibility that africa would have been better off w/o the atlslvtrd and colonialism.In fact, even the possibility that africa would have been better off without any contact with europe at all.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Don't you know anything about the slave trade? Africans enslaved EACH OTHER. Lots of the slaves that the Portugese bought were bought from more dominant african tribes selling off the people they enslaved. There was slavery in Afirca as late as the 1900s.
Sure Africa invented lots of things, 2000+ years ago. Since then its been Asia, the middle east and for the last 500 or so years Europe. Name one important thing Africans invented in the last 1000 years.
@Hashishin13 Btw, i know africans had slavery themselves and that they sold each other to the europeans. The point is to not underestimate the negative effects of the the atlantic slave trade and colonialism, and to not explain today's world without making the slightest effort to take that into account.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 All this "oh we need to say how bad the slave trade was." Over one sentence from Milton. Over-react much?
Africans are much better off with cars, cell phones and all the modern marvels EUROPEANS INVENTED. Slave trading and colonialism 150+ years ago has virtually no affect on today, the technologies europeans invented on the other hand DO.
Slave trading and colonialism have no effect on today?Hash would most likely be legal if it wasn't for slave trading.Many if not most(or all)of the wars in africa today stem from who sold who to the europeans. what could have been ordinary conflicts 500 years ago(like in every continent)was turned into wars that still rage today because europeans used those conflicts to get the africans to sell each other.The slave trade perpetuated(and added a horrible dimension to)otherwise minor conflicts.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Yea sure it was the slave trade that made the Aficans fight each other, not the fact that people everywhere have always fought each other. Attempting to say that the Africans are a more peaceful people, its just contact with those warlike europeans that influenced them, is childish, racist and flys in the face of all recorded world history.
@Hashishin13 I never said africans are more peaceful people. It's not contact with warlike europeans that influenced them, it's that europeans carried out atrocities against africans because they could (as you said, because of greater technology), and because everyone has violence as part of their nature. If two groups are violent and one has greater technology, obviously, the other one will get screwed. What i'm saying is that the fact they were screwed for so long has a huge impact on today.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 I don't think it has that much of an impact, it might have changed demographics as some people got wiped out ad others grew stronger, but other then bickering over control of european created countries colonislism/slavery doesn't seem to have much relevance today.
My explanation for european dominance is that europe, especially the dominant western europe has tons and tons of coast, and not too many different cultural groups. Unlike most of the rest of the world.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Add to this a common religion which basically forced rulers to limit fighting so that war was still brutal but not genocidal and I think you have most of the pieces.
I'm an athiest btw so I'm not advocating or defending christianity.
good stuff, man, thanks.I hadn't heard those points before.that also applies to the mayans, the japanese, and the koreans, now that i think of it.I still think psychologically slavery has made africans today more likely to war with each other or to be dictatorial if they reach power.
Europe was inhabited by our species third after Africa and Asia, so people have been living there longer then NA, SA and Aust.
It is connected by land and water to the largest landmass on earth, eurasia, so it has access to lots of different goods and ideas.
North africa where they had connection to the rest of the world did much better then the rest, and it wasn't just Arab countries either Ethiopia was independent and never colonized.
i know everyone around the world has been through horrible stuff, but slavery lasted longer than the average, and i think it might be longlastingnes of problems that has the worst effects psychologically on individuals and countries.
@Hashishin13 Plus, also psychologically, i think there's something about cultures being uprooted and destroyed. Not that that didn't happen in many other places, but i think it happened worst in africa. i think if you allow someone to develop themselves they'll do better than if you force them to take on your ways, as good as your ways may have been. it's like prohibiting drugs for people's own good. that's the perspective i come from.
@Hashishin13 May be, but i still think we have to wait for conflicts to stop in africa and african democracies and economies to develop for them to really be able to enjoy those positives. for the time being, access to those technologies on a daily basis for many africans is still not a reality.
in some countries yes but in others they are very much available, Kenya, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morroco, Nigeria is on its way and so is Ghana.
Liberia is one of the poorest countries in the world but its growing rapidly, faster than china and india at them moment and soon we will see a relativly rich Liberia,
So theres hope for africa.
some countries like Somalia, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone are fucked up thought, but thaths mostly because of conflict
I just saw a documentary on the Amish (netflix), and throughout my mind was brought back to this discussion.I just wanted to comment that I think the Amish are extraordinary people and that I think if they can be happy (assuming they are; at least they seemed to from the doc) without modern technology and basically without capitalism (within their own communities they're basically communists, although they do trade to some degree with the outside), then the africans probably could have been too.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Amish people die from curable diseases. Living in a technologically static existence is extremely stupid if you ask me. I would be bored out of my head if I tried living as an Amish. Also I think that if there is a purpose to humanity it is to get earth life off this planet before our sun explodes or the earth crashes into it. Living like the Amish might be a happier life in the "ignorance is bliss" sense but when the earth crashes into the sun no amount of ignorance will help
I don't think the amish are ignorant of the technology around them. It has nothing to do with "ignorance is bliss", but with leading a simple life. People in the amazon are also comparable. They are aware of the technology around them but they choose not to participate in it. The sun exploding is a very long time away. I agree with the idea in the sense of a meteor hitting the earth, but i wouldn't criminalize (use force against) them because the world needs technology and they don't contribute.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Do you know the meaning of ignorant? It means IGNORE-ANT. They are clearly ignoring the technology around them. Neither would I, but I wouldn't use force against religious people either and I think they are comparably wasting time and energy.
What I don’t understand is how anyone who thinks black people and white people are equal can look at Africa and look at Europe (or for that matter, white people around the world and black people around the world), see the difference between the two, and not desire an explanation. I haven’t figured out what the explanation is, but why are so many people not looking for one? One piece of the puzzle might also have to do with wars being fought over capitalism vs communism recently.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 See with lots of coast you had easy traveling and contact with virtually all of europe and north Africa(which is non-coincidentally the most developed part of africa).
The ocean also provides food which is easier to get then hunting or growing so it supports a large population, and the more people you have the more you can get done, as well as the more experts yo can support because of more people making food.
Colonialism ended 50 years ago, not 150. From 1880 to 1920 belgians killed about 10 million people in the congo. that has plenty of effect on the world today. it's true that most belgians did not benefit from from that, only king leopold and a few other powerful ones did. But do you really think that, taking that into account, one should casually say "africa is better off today because of its contact with the west", without making a distinction between increased technology and that aspect of it?
@Hashishin13 If you compare the technology of europe in the late 15th century to the technology of africa, you can say that the technology of europe was superior, but do we have information about the life span of the average european at that time vs the life span of the average african at that time? How do we know that it was not the same or even that africans lived longer?
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Take a look at the world, go study some history. There is a reason why European empires spread so easily when they got off their own continent, its called technology. Europeans were the first to circumnavigate the world, they were the first in space, they invented the TV, radio, computer, spaceship, printing press, car, plane, trains, nuclear power, tnt and guns.
On top of that liberalism, and democracy.
Am I just being biased? No, these are facts. What has Africa invented?
Northern africa invented plenty, and so did Asia and India, which were all in contact with the europeans and europe would not have been what it was had it not been for those influences. Sub saharan africa had very little interaction with the rest of the old world for a long time. (It's true, though, that the natives of the americas didn't either and they had very advanced civilizations.) A theory for africa's lack thereof is that travel is good for learning (and everyone came out of africa).
The point is most of the history we have access to about the interaction between africa and europe was written by europeans, and like everyone, they had a bias. I'm just pointing out that there must be a lot we don't know and that, in general, anything that made africa look good could have been neglected and anything that made europe look good embraced. About technology I don't know but what about their societies? What about practically anything about africa that might have been admirable?
At 4:58, he says that the wheel had not been invented in parts of Africa by the end of the 19th century. Are there any sources to back that statement up?
@mba2ceo Capitalism is slavery compared to what? how do you explain the phenomenon economic mobility in free markets? how do you explain the negative effects of price controls? what is the alternative? what role does force play in that alternative?what role does choice play in that alternative?
Plus, isn't he implying with that "zero sum game" thing that europeans gained something but that africans didn't lose? Not only that, but then he goes on to actually state that europeans lost and that africans gained.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 I don't know about the incas, but the aztecs knew about the wheel. They just had no need for it because of their marshy land. A toy was discovered which had wheels on it. The Aztecs were pretty smart. The incas probably knew about the wheel too. Africans are incomparable with the ancient aztecs and incas.
@coxg90 But the europeans destroyed aztec and inca civilizations regardless (plus mayans, native americans, etc.). Who knows where the world would be today if those societies had been allowed to flourish. The Africans had no writing, but they had culture. Who knows if they had good psychological or sociological wisdom that was destroyed by europeans? The europeans had a lot of good stuff. I just don't like the idea that the world is better off today because everyone is more like the europeans.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 What i mean by psy/soc wisdom is for example, the indians invented yoga and a psychology that went with it (fortunately, the english weren't able to destroy that). The chinese had martial arts. The africans were obviously no china and india, but they probably had religions that went with some psychological concepts. The religious myths might turn out to be relatively useless, but the psychological practices might have had value (therapeutic singing and dancing techniques?).
Meditation, for example, is not something that the europeans ever did (in such formal methodical ways as the indians and chinese). Meditation has been proven scientifically to be very beneficial psychologically. Playing an instrument can help develop the brain. Who knows what practices the africans had that could have been beneficial in treating depression, bipolar disorder, social anxiety disorder, etc?
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Meditation existed in all cultures including european. Just becouse they didnt meditated in lotus position that dosent mean they didnt meditated. Meditation was worthless for average people in all parts of the world in those times becouse they benefited physicaly and psychologically by hard work on their land. Try working on a traditional farm and u wont have time for such things like meditation wich was mostly domain of monks and "holy men" not others! Work sets you free!!!
@Voodoozeko I didn't say meditation did not exist in europe, just that it was not as formalized (to some degree it was formalized, but not as much as in the east, that i know of).
@PaulBlartMallCop1 I think christians have/had just as formal meditations like others but It has different approach more of a praying meditation than silent meditation it is similar to gregorian chant and actualy we could say gregorian chant is form of medititation just like buddhist "sing" Aum and meditate.
@PaulBlartMallCop1 look at zimbabwe today. it used to be the prosperous white nation of rhodesia. look at south africa today. the blacks ruin everything. look at how many crimes are committed in the u.s. by blacks.
I do agree that the europeans were foolish to destroy the advanced cultures of the aztecs and the incas.
Maybe the whites in south africa and whites in zimbabwe could negotiate something with the blacks in those countries so as to have separate pieces of land to have two (or maybe one if the white south africans and whites in zimbabwe want to live together) new countries just for whites, and put some proposals up for referendum. Thing is, what parts of south africa/zimbabwe would the whites want, and would blacks allow it all?
@PaulBlartMallCop1 There are proposals being introduced. However, the blacks do not want it because they say that the whites are creating "a club just for themselves." But if you give the Africans too much of a good thing they will ruin it. It takes generations. It is what happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Mugabe and his communist supporters took over Rhodesia, which was the richest country in Africa at the time, and turned it into a 3rd world nation.
I found this: tia-mysoa.blogspot.com/2011/02/future-independent-homeland-south.html ; According to wiki, white south africans are 9.2% of the population, coloureds are 8.8, asians 2.6. I don't know if coloureds and asians would like to live in the white country, and if whites would want them to. Either way, the most straight-forward way would be to find a piece of land 9.2% of the country or less where no one lived, and just relocate there. A proposal like that would have some chance i guess.
Britain didn't have slaves? Maybe not in Britain, but it had them in America when America was its colony, and it taxed America. If colonialism and slavery did not enrich the western europeans, then why did they engage in it and pursue it for so long?
All you need to look at is the difference between the north and south. The north was industrialized and rich the south was poor. They were failed policies, they certainly created wealth but it also cost a lot to maintain those empires. Who do you think built the roads in Africa all that infrastructure had to be put in place.
[sorry about double post] I just have a hard time thinking that colonialism was an altruist enterprise. More so than that, I have a very hard time thinking that Africa would have been worse off without it. At the very least, the emigration out of europe was probably beneficial because europe was (i think) overpopulated. Couldn't they have just given them the wheel through trade instead of slavery and colonization? What about the parts of africa that did have the wheel, how did they benefit?
[sorry about double post, i just want to 'reply' so as to not mess up thread] Plus, the roads in Africa were built by africans, under the direction of europeans, but regardless, they were built by africans. (And i'm not certain on the historical details, but i bet "direction" is a mild way of putting it). And what were those roads built for? Probably carrying minerals to the coast to be shipped to europe (i admit i don't know, but i doubt the europeans got nothing out of it).
this must be the excuse for ignoring economic freedom as a prerequisite to political freedom; economic freedom contributes greatly to the dispersion of power-- if this is not a necessary element in freedom then i dont know what is
what the collectivists hate about a free economy is that it gives people what they want rather than the "bettors" believes they OUGHT to want
Friedman wiped off the floor with that intellectual midget. I wonder where he is now and more importantly, did he grow out of that socialist phase we all had as children?
Friedman is correct in his assessment of capitalism. He is, however, a utopian. You cannot balance a completely free market with order and justice, there will be greater opportunities for corruption. Furthermore, you cannot separate a state from capitalism - capitalism requires a state to protect it's principles, and if the current states did not exist for it, then capitalism would naturally create states to protect it from the ground up again, so fundamental is the state to capitalism.
@TheCommunard a free market and capitalism can still have govt involvement. It's just that the govt's role isn't to put sanctions and limits on companies or industries but rather it's to protect your freedoms and properties so that someone doesn't come and steal it.
@defgill And who, may I ask, would have to pay for such protection? Just citizens? They are not corporations surely, and are not corporations legally individuals.
Furthermore, who is to say that industries deserve to be unsanctioned and unlimited? Who is to say that freedom is not hindered by industries when it gives one choice, to engage in the ever changing, ever destroying and creating process of capitalism? May I be so conservative as to ask what option the person who misses the past has?
@TheCommunard You're right, I'm not an idealog. Govt does need to step in sometimes. But instead of having the system we have today where govt has countless agencies and still fails to protect us we Do away with them and let congress, only when called upon by the people, handle those particular problems as they come. Even though bad companies can't sustain bad business practices,if it happens that company is killing people we shouldn't wait for the free market to handle when it's too late.
@defgill Considering that the antitrust laws and so forth arise as problems are foreseen without them, and the courts have continued to uphold such laws, it seems that the present situation will be quite unsuited to such a proposition.
If our limit and definition of bad business is murder, what about all the other problems which arise? Look at how much uproar occurs when you take away the right of citizens to collective bargaining.
These legal practices have evolved to address real issues.
@TheCommunard true. It is in reaction to when things go bad under a purely free market system. That said, I think it's also good to point out that not all laws guarantee the prevention of those problems or ones that will arise in the future. Some just limit the market and have no benefit or also I would argue that it makes the market dependent on govt to set a minimum standard to which the consumers become too confident in. They think the govt is going to take care of them without our own action
@defgill Okay. With specific laws you may be correct.
Philosophically I am less interested in creating the greatest utility and value, if that means something with intrinsic value is replaced. Intrinsic value exists in existing things which are valued not because they are useful but rather because they are revered and cherished. We regret its destruction.
Wanting to conserve intrinsic value implies no tenderness to destruction of such value, inequality and so forth, since they lack value.
The thing is, weather it's capitalism, socialism or comunism, any system man creates can get corrupted. Totalitarism and facists can make thier way into all three. I fear that in america, we have this corporate facism rearing it's ugly head.
@MsZeitgeist85 - The Belgians left the Congo in 1960. If they were so bad, things should have improved dramatically since their departure. They have not.
And really, Friedman flunked history, he may interpret it differently than you do, but I guarantee he put thousands of more hours into its study than did you.
@mpc91 I was a history major. The reason that it didn't improve is because the same thing that happened then still is, mass explotiation of the people and resources by core economys.
That was not the only thing that he said that is false.
@MsZeitgeist85 - Oh you were a history major. That and 85 cents will get you on the train. You clearly have studied history from a very progressive politicized slant. Clearly the education system has failed you.
@mpc91 No it is the real history. Not the rewritten history you Cons tell where these Austrian/Chicago School crackpots say that the time of no regulation was the best time for America. It was called the Gilded Age for a reason. 1/4 of Americans lived under the poverty line, the average steel worker lived to be 44 and the Pinkertons murdered union organizers.
@mpc91 No this is the real history. Not the rewritten history that you Cons teach where the Austrian/Chicago school crackpots say that the best period for America was when there was no regulation. It was called the Gilded Age for a reason. This was a time when 1/10 owned 95% of the wealth, 1/4 of Americans lived under the poverty line, the average steelworker lived to be 44 and the Pinkertons murdured union organizers.
@MsZeitgeist85 - Limited government is a failed ideology?
Socialism is the failed ideology, it is the one that is keeping the masses poor. It is the one that is building walls to keep people in. Socialism is the equality of poverty and privation and the one that's natural progression is genocide. You're a history major, but you aren't making the connections, and instead picking and choosing.
I'm selling Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or property. You're selling Lenin and Stalin.
@mpc91 Socialism is a failed ideology? Ever been to Norway? The country with the 3rd lowest murdur rate in the world, 4th in education, world class health care and the highest standard of living in the world.
Don't even try to play this game with me with Soviet Russia. The history illiterates like the Texas School Board don't tell the story of the REAL Socialists because they lost. These were people like Anton Pannekoek and Rosa Luxemburg.
@MsZeitgeist85 - Seriously Norway is your example. A country of 5 million people. That's the size and climate of Wisconsin.
Cherry picking a bit are we. Ignore Soviet Russia, and focus on China. You should sell real estate, "never mind that the house is on fire, check out the backyard!".
The Soviet Union was real socialists, that's what happens when you play it out.
Would you rather play the socialist game with China? How many millions for Mao?
@mpc91 On average,the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.Poverty rates are much lower there,and national income per working-age population is on average higher.Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups,slightly higher in the Nordic countries.The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group with larger surpluses as a share of GDP (International Affairs,2009)
@mpc91 Sweden,Norway and the other Scandinavian countries have shown that there is an alternative way to cope with globalization. These countries are highly integrated into the global economy; but they are highly successful economies that still provide strong social protections and make high levels of investments in people. They have been successful in part because of these policies, not in spite of them.
@MsZeitgeist85 The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.
@zsylvana Two points, the prison population has much more to do with the war on drugs than poverty. Illegal activity is by its nature much more profitable than legal activity, thus the risks of incarceration are outwayed by the benefits of greater income than could be obtained legally. Simply legalizing drugs or a legal system that didnt punish use as well as sale of drugs would greatly reduce the prison population.
@zsylvana As for health care the US has one of the best systems in the world when you look at outcomes of medical services. I know about the UN studies that rank the US as mediocre but those studies factor in a lot of nonsence like cost, or ease of access. Mediciene in Europe is no cheaper there than here, its is just subsidised by the government so the cost to the individual is INDIRECT, they do not realise what they are truly paying because the bill is in their taxes and not directly from
@qwe229 The US has the worst health care system in all the OECD nations. 1/4 of the money spend on our system goes to things that have nothing to do with health care and tens of thousands die each year. We are ranked 37th for a reason.
@zsylvana a doctor. Indeed the rates of death from cancer, heart attack, and a host of other problems are much lower in the US then Europe. Things seem more costly and less efficient here because the government dont subsidise health care as much, however they do regulate medicine ad nausium which certainly makes things less efficient.
@mpc91 The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways.Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education.All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today.
this is the reason why you see people crossing the borders all the time U.S. foreing policies are disastrous with all this nonesense the building of the wall at the border is a nonesense I hope this wall will be finished so we as people we'll have a proof of the wall of shame.
What nonsense Milton! Africa is worst off today than it has been before the arrival of Europeans especially countries like Congo. Milton Friedman would prefer a car and money in exchange for some strangers abusing his children and doing as they pleased in his house. He won't have a problem with it. It's the only reason why he's implying that Africa has benefited from European abuses and plunder.
@malairlostandfound I don't think you know what Africa was like before Europeans showed up. Take a look at the !Kung San or B'aka peoples who have been barely contacted by the West. Those are the most peaceful of foraging peoples and they still have terribly high crime rates, infant deaths, corporeal punishment, and so on.
@darwinkilledgod -:) You took 2 groups of people today to demonstrate what things were like before Europeans arrived in a territory much bigger than the US and western Europe combined. How insanely bigoted are you? Because the USA has more than two million people in Jail, hundred million illiterates and semi-illiterate, fourty four million living below the poverty line and relying on food stamps, thiry million unemployed ... etc is reflective of what the whole USA is & has always been?
@malairlostandfound You took zero groups of people to demonstrate that Africa was much better before colonization. How insanely bigoted are you? Learn literally anything about African history and you'll see that Africa was no different than any other savage culture before markets created wealth.
Finally, there are 300 million people in the US, are you suggesting 1/3 of them can't read? And the "poverty" level in the US is insanely rich by world standards.
@darwinkilledgod You claim that I ''took zero groups of people to demonstrate that Africa was much betterbefore colonisation... '' when I clearly mentioned ''... especially countries like Congo.'' Now who 's disappearing up their arse?
''Learn literally anything about African history...no different than any other savage culture before markets created wealth''
>>when, where and by/from who?
''...'poverty' level in the US...rich by world standards''
@malairlostandfound - Really, it's worse off today than it was before. Lifespans are double what they were before what you would call "Colonialsim". But you assume that conditions were better before that without knowing what they were. You imply that European abuses and plunder were worse than the abuse and plunder from fellow Africans that went on before colonialism, and is going on now since its end.
Free speech is protected in public forum, but if this is a private forum, it is not. It's called property rights. Free speech is to safeguard grievance and protest against government, not to protect a "right" to walk into your neighbors house and spout of your ideological stupidity.
What I love about Friedman was that he is not afraid to be challenged in discussions. He does not just give talks he debates with an audience. I would like to see Chomsky do this more often, rather than spouting his ecnomic non-sense. Or what about Al Gore debating with people? Does Al Gore ever debate?
@ArtinEmil Of course not! Friedman's great advantage over Gore and Chomsky is that he has the benefit of being right. Those who are not right seldom open themselves up to public challenge like this.
the countries u mentioned and just about every other country that has a high standard of living, the percentage is higher than the US. The American system really is a joke and it should continue to fail. The funny(not really) thing is that what is needed most is the opposite of what the tea party people advocate.
First off, dude take off the stupid hat and sunglasses if you wanna be taken seriously. Even back then you looked like a retard. Secondly, don't pose your question as all leftist do in the form of a regurgitated talking points out of a Sol Alinsky speach or memoir. Once again, Sol is an idiot and then so will be you. Thirdly, did you have any clue that you were talking to a man who has common sense? One of the most brilliant men in history? And look at you now, on YouTube looking stupid forever!
LibertyPen, you have quite a lot of these Milton Friedman speech segments and Q&A videos, would it be possible for you to upload this particular talk in its entirety? It may take a lot of video parts but it would be nice to watch them all in order. Thanks.
He didn't actually answer the questions. On slavery he simply said it was horrible, but didn't talk about how the United States benefitted greatly as a result of it. Instead he went on about how Britian, Japan, and Hong Kong didn't have slaves. On colonialism, the video cut too short. He was talking about the wheel not yet being invented in parts of Africa and how contact with the West improved their life. There was a lot more explaining he needed to do on that one.
I do not support communism. I am a capitalist. Right now there is too much wealth property and power in too few hands. This situation leads to oppression. I oppose Milton Friedman based on a couple books I have. The Shock Doctrine and The Murder of Chile.
There is too much wealth property and power in too few hands because of government, not because of capitalism. The larger the government the larger disparity between rich and poor, and if you look at the US economic history you will also see this upward trend has been following the growth of the socalled "welfare" state.
@MigDanskeren Not true. Norway, still considered to be partially a welfare state and with the highest standard of living in the world, has a much smaller wealth gap than the US. If you google "income equality by country" you can sort the data. Look at where the US is and also Hong Kong(which practices the freest form of Capitalism in the world).
Norway is a bad example as their wealth is based on oil and many of the the Arab oil states also have quite a low gini coefficient.
Though is is true that some of the most redistributive European welfare states have a low gini, but so do some of the economically freest nations in the region, like Luxembourg and The Czech Republic. Looking at the low gini countries I'd say it correlates with a low degree of government intervention in business, not with economic redistribution.
@MigDanskeren No, it's the opposite. Sweden is the clearest example with a 50% tax rate, low gini, and 7th highest standard of living in the world. If you look at tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, you'll see that both of
I wonder if "Fab Five Freddy" realizes that he he would be exercizin' no 'free speech' in China or any of the other communist toilets he's singin' the praises of...
The colonies payed for any technological benefit they recieved in millions of gallons of blood.
QCREIGN 1 week ago
noprofitmaximierung 2 months ago
The guy's glasses were the only thing good about him...and capitalism produced them...lol.
Leftism is so economically ignorant.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@ProIndividual you seem to still be brainwashed
arc175 2 months ago
Jeez, look at that idiot questioner, tells you how screwed up 70s youth were.
Willredd94 4 months ago
@Willredd94 70's youth? it is the culture of our universities that produce these useful idiots and they have been churning out the rabble for a century-- the protected monopoly of tenure and the pent up bitterness and envy of the ivory towered professors are the ones to blame -- just look at their progeny at the wall street "protests"
2dum2getsocialism 4 months ago
Friendman was not right about everything but he was right about alot of things. Another brilliant answer.
frost122585 4 months ago 2
The guy did not ask about the effects of people's contact with the west, he asked about the effects of slavery and colonialism. Friedman's answer was that slavery and colonialism were not what enriched the west. There is no point whatsoever in going into how people benefitted from their contact with the west, which had only to do with the technology (especially after the industrial revolution), and nothing to do with slavery nor with colonialism.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
The mayans and the aztecs were scientifically more advanced than the europeans 500 years ago, yet today their ancestors are the poor brown mexicans and central americans that are crossing the border illegally to "leach off" of white america's success. White mexicans and white central americans tend to be rich. Yet what friedman is [somewhat] saying here is that white people are worse off because of colonialism and everyone else is better off because of it.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 "The mayans and the aztecs were scientifically more advanced than the europeans 500 years ago"
In certain very minute areas, on the whole absolutely not. For starters the North American natives never invented guns, ocean going ships, the printing press or many other things. The only thing they can fairly be said to have been more advanced in is astrology, and even then only for use as calendars, the europeans had much better understanding of them for navigation.
Hashishin13 5 months ago
@Hashishin13 the printing press was invented hundreds of years later; who knows what the maya could have invented by then. and the maya had thousands of books (or at least more than one thousand, i don't know how many) written that the spanish destroyed. the famous maya calendar was in one of only four books that survived out of supposedly more than a thousand.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 No it wasn't. It was invented in 1440. The natives of the americas invented virtually nothing of significance, the same as the Africans. He chose to adress the mans questions as they were said. He said colonialism was a negatives for the colonized and that the west was made rich by slavery and colonialism, so he refuted the guys arguement. I have made no reference to culture whatsoever, so I really don't know what your talking about with the alcohol thing.
Hashishin13 5 months ago
It would be nice, though, to know what the world would have been like if colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade had never happened, to know what the thousands of maya books said, to know what the native americans (in the entire americas) would be like today, and what the africans would be like today, and even what the europeans would be like, if only [non-slave]trade and travel had happened. Call me immature or sentimental, but i honestly think it's an important thing to think about.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 The burning of the library of alexandria was a much greater loss IMO. Also every human being produces alcohol in their gut and the natives of north america made a corn based alcoholic drink, alcohol isn't strictly european or even eurasian.
Hashishin13 5 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
Losing the lbr of Alexandria was fkd up.Included in that lbr, btw, probably knowledge of subsaharan africa.The lost maya books were a big loss,especially because it was such a different lineage of knowledge.Imagine GKhan invaded Europe and destroyed Greek and Roman writings.Ancient european lineage of knowledge could have become almost myth.There is always room for reasonable speculation about lost civilizations having been greater than thought, imo, because history is written by the conquerors.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
I know alcohol existed all over the world(although i'm not sure about sub saharan africa),and hallucinogens were used in europe too,but some drugs were used more in some places and some more in others.I just meant theoretically taking the idea to the extreme,what would be the difference between a culture that only had weed and one that only had opium,for example,or ephedra. It's possible they might arrive at drastically separate technological achievements, not just separate cultures.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And btw, culture itself can be seen as technology.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 part 2
Also your putting words in his mouth, he never said at all that white people are worse off because of colonialism. He said that colonialism wasn't what developed western europe. Obviously the white colonists in the former colonies are better off then the natives they basically enslaved.
Hashishin13 5 months ago
@Hashishin13 Alright, alright, i might have gone too far, but not for much. I did put words in his mouth because it's true he doesn't address native americans aztecs and mayans. Still, watch Sidewinder77's version of this video. He does say that colonialism was a negative for western europe, and that it was a positive for everyone else (at least in every example he decides to give). In the example of africa he uses the term "the west", which doesn't quite mean white people but it almost does.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
Btw, I get that russians are white and they're not considered "the west". But anyway, realize that he wasn't really asked about whether or not anyone benefited from being colonized, yet that's what he focuses on. And he says that the west did not gain anything either from colonization or from slavery, but then he puts no emphasis at all on how then did they get rich(for which i believe him that there is an alternative explanation, but he doesn't give it). Why, instead of explaining that,conti-
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
-nued instead of explaining that or explaining why so many non-white people in capitalist countries are poor,(which would have more adequately addressed the guy's question), does he give examples of how so many people were benefited from being colonized by (or in general having contact with) white people?
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
Imagine a civilization where alcohol had never existed. Imagine that only marijuana existed, and as many people who today drink alcohol smoked marijuana. Or imagine it was mushrooms (like in the case of the maya), or peyote (like in the case of the native americans), or ibogaine. Their history goes back thousands of years with these drugs and lack of alcohol. How different (better/worse) would they be? Should that civilization be destroyed and replaced by the alcohol one?
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
I'm glad someone says this, my country lost a buttload of money because of the colonies. And it was painfull to watch africans completely destroy their nations after centuries of construction, because of Soviet and American governmental influence.
seppsters 5 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
i lived in USSR and never saw shades (glasses) like this, people who dresses like this in USSR were outcast and they were different from the statuesque, Soviets Leaders hated this kind of people, this is not a Politburo material (suits type of people) and like the rest of the International Communist and Socialistic devotees, they were needed only outside USSR to demoralize and spread communist ideas, in USSR there was no need for hippies, only law abiding citizens who follow orders.
Mishkafofer 7 months ago 2
Capitalism is institutionalized slavery where the RICH control the process of survival forcing the slave to be subservient to the means of production.
mba2ceo 7 months ago
@mba2ceo The problem is people who don't like capitalism don't even care enough to learn about it. "The rich", in the USSR were the party elites, and they DIRECTLY controlled the society to the point where they could order murder, let alone theft. Stalin rode around in Mercedes!
"The rich" have much less control over others in capitalism and to the extent that they do it's usually when they manipulate the government! Walmart actually uses the government to steal people land!
Hashishin13 7 months ago
milton friedman was raised as a poor white man in the 20s. It's not inconceivable that he was raised with perceptions of race that the average person would consider bigoted in today's world. If so, as good an economist as he may have been, his interpretation of history might have been wrong because of that. Thing is, even in the 60s racism was openly acceptable. Imagine how much we misunderstand the last five hundred years because we remember them from a white perspective.
PaulBlartMallCop1 8 months ago
You could say, "well, africans didn't have writing so that shows you something right there". But the thing is, regardless of that, the fact remains that we have five hundred years of history written from what we know was a biased perspective. Our understanding of history today is necessarily compromised because of this.
PaulBlartMallCop1 8 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 So your saying that Africans were better off without access to modern technology?
Hashishin13 7 months ago
No but im saying it's not impossible. Also, would it have been possible for africa to have had contact with europe and learn those technologies without the atlantic slave trade and colonialism?What i don't like is the lack of separation of one and the other, and the apparent lack of imagination about the possibility that africa would have been better off w/o the atlslvtrd and colonialism.In fact, even the possibility that africa would have been better off without any contact with europe at all.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Don't you know anything about the slave trade? Africans enslaved EACH OTHER. Lots of the slaves that the Portugese bought were bought from more dominant african tribes selling off the people they enslaved. There was slavery in Afirca as late as the 1900s.
Sure Africa invented lots of things, 2000+ years ago. Since then its been Asia, the middle east and for the last 500 or so years Europe. Name one important thing Africans invented in the last 1000 years.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@Hashishin13 Btw, i know africans had slavery themselves and that they sold each other to the europeans. The point is to not underestimate the negative effects of the the atlantic slave trade and colonialism, and to not explain today's world without making the slightest effort to take that into account.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 All this "oh we need to say how bad the slave trade was." Over one sentence from Milton. Over-react much?
Africans are much better off with cars, cell phones and all the modern marvels EUROPEANS INVENTED. Slave trading and colonialism 150+ years ago has virtually no affect on today, the technologies europeans invented on the other hand DO.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
Slave trading and colonialism have no effect on today?Hash would most likely be legal if it wasn't for slave trading.Many if not most(or all)of the wars in africa today stem from who sold who to the europeans. what could have been ordinary conflicts 500 years ago(like in every continent)was turned into wars that still rage today because europeans used those conflicts to get the africans to sell each other.The slave trade perpetuated(and added a horrible dimension to)otherwise minor conflicts.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Yea sure it was the slave trade that made the Aficans fight each other, not the fact that people everywhere have always fought each other. Attempting to say that the Africans are a more peaceful people, its just contact with those warlike europeans that influenced them, is childish, racist and flys in the face of all recorded world history.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
@Hashishin13 I never said africans are more peaceful people. It's not contact with warlike europeans that influenced them, it's that europeans carried out atrocities against africans because they could (as you said, because of greater technology), and because everyone has violence as part of their nature. If two groups are violent and one has greater technology, obviously, the other one will get screwed. What i'm saying is that the fact they were screwed for so long has a huge impact on today.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 I don't think it has that much of an impact, it might have changed demographics as some people got wiped out ad others grew stronger, but other then bickering over control of european created countries colonislism/slavery doesn't seem to have much relevance today.
My explanation for european dominance is that europe, especially the dominant western europe has tons and tons of coast, and not too many different cultural groups. Unlike most of the rest of the world.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Add to this a common religion which basically forced rulers to limit fighting so that war was still brutal but not genocidal and I think you have most of the pieces.
I'm an athiest btw so I'm not advocating or defending christianity.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
good stuff, man, thanks.I hadn't heard those points before.that also applies to the mayans, the japanese, and the koreans, now that i think of it.I still think psychologically slavery has made africans today more likely to war with each other or to be dictatorial if they reach power.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Oh yea I fogrot a little bit:
Europe was inhabited by our species third after Africa and Asia, so people have been living there longer then NA, SA and Aust.
It is connected by land and water to the largest landmass on earth, eurasia, so it has access to lots of different goods and ideas.
North africa where they had connection to the rest of the world did much better then the rest, and it wasn't just Arab countries either Ethiopia was independent and never colonized.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i know everyone around the world has been through horrible stuff, but slavery lasted longer than the average, and i think it might be longlastingnes of problems that has the worst effects psychologically on individuals and countries.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@Hashishin13 Plus, also psychologically, i think there's something about cultures being uprooted and destroyed. Not that that didn't happen in many other places, but i think it happened worst in africa. i think if you allow someone to develop themselves they'll do better than if you force them to take on your ways, as good as your ways may have been. it's like prohibiting drugs for people's own good. that's the perspective i come from.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Obviously colonialism and slavery were a negative to africans but the technology and trade outweighs those negatives.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
@Hashishin13 May be, but i still think we have to wait for conflicts to stop in africa and african democracies and economies to develop for them to really be able to enjoy those positives. for the time being, access to those technologies on a daily basis for many africans is still not a reality.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1
in some countries yes but in others they are very much available, Kenya, South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morroco, Nigeria is on its way and so is Ghana.
Liberia is one of the poorest countries in the world but its growing rapidly, faster than china and india at them moment and soon we will see a relativly rich Liberia,
So theres hope for africa.
some countries like Somalia, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone are fucked up thought, but thaths mostly because of conflict
unfad1ng 6 months ago
@Hashishin13
without colonialism there wouldnt be any new technology in africa and it would still be a tribal society with no civlillization at all
unfad1ng 6 months ago
I just saw a documentary on the Amish (netflix), and throughout my mind was brought back to this discussion.I just wanted to comment that I think the Amish are extraordinary people and that I think if they can be happy (assuming they are; at least they seemed to from the doc) without modern technology and basically without capitalism (within their own communities they're basically communists, although they do trade to some degree with the outside), then the africans probably could have been too.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Amish people die from curable diseases. Living in a technologically static existence is extremely stupid if you ask me. I would be bored out of my head if I tried living as an Amish. Also I think that if there is a purpose to humanity it is to get earth life off this planet before our sun explodes or the earth crashes into it. Living like the Amish might be a happier life in the "ignorance is bliss" sense but when the earth crashes into the sun no amount of ignorance will help
Hashishin13 5 months ago
I don't think the amish are ignorant of the technology around them. It has nothing to do with "ignorance is bliss", but with leading a simple life. People in the amazon are also comparable. They are aware of the technology around them but they choose not to participate in it. The sun exploding is a very long time away. I agree with the idea in the sense of a meteor hitting the earth, but i wouldn't criminalize (use force against) them because the world needs technology and they don't contribute.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Do you know the meaning of ignorant? It means IGNORE-ANT. They are clearly ignoring the technology around them. Neither would I, but I wouldn't use force against religious people either and I think they are comparably wasting time and energy.
Hashishin13 5 months ago
@Hashishin13
ignorant |ˈignərənt|
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated : he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid.
PaulBlartMallCop1 5 months ago
What I don’t understand is how anyone who thinks black people and white people are equal can look at Africa and look at Europe (or for that matter, white people around the world and black people around the world), see the difference between the two, and not desire an explanation. I haven’t figured out what the explanation is, but why are so many people not looking for one? One piece of the puzzle might also have to do with wars being fought over capitalism vs communism recently.
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 See with lots of coast you had easy traveling and contact with virtually all of europe and north Africa(which is non-coincidentally the most developed part of africa).
The ocean also provides food which is easier to get then hunting or growing so it supports a large population, and the more people you have the more you can get done, as well as the more experts yo can support because of more people making food.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
Colonialism ended 50 years ago, not 150. From 1880 to 1920 belgians killed about 10 million people in the congo. that has plenty of effect on the world today. it's true that most belgians did not benefit from from that, only king leopold and a few other powerful ones did. But do you really think that, taking that into account, one should casually say "africa is better off today because of its contact with the west", without making a distinction between increased technology and that aspect of it?
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 No, because on net Africa IS better off today because of contact with europeans.
Hashishin13 7 months ago
@Hashishin13 If you compare the technology of europe in the late 15th century to the technology of africa, you can say that the technology of europe was superior, but do we have information about the life span of the average european at that time vs the life span of the average african at that time? How do we know that it was not the same or even that africans lived longer?
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Take a look at the world, go study some history. There is a reason why European empires spread so easily when they got off their own continent, its called technology. Europeans were the first to circumnavigate the world, they were the first in space, they invented the TV, radio, computer, spaceship, printing press, car, plane, trains, nuclear power, tnt and guns.
On top of that liberalism, and democracy.
Am I just being biased? No, these are facts. What has Africa invented?
Hashishin13 7 months ago
Northern africa invented plenty, and so did Asia and India, which were all in contact with the europeans and europe would not have been what it was had it not been for those influences. Sub saharan africa had very little interaction with the rest of the old world for a long time. (It's true, though, that the natives of the americas didn't either and they had very advanced civilizations.) A theory for africa's lack thereof is that travel is good for learning (and everyone came out of africa).
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The point is most of the history we have access to about the interaction between africa and europe was written by europeans, and like everyone, they had a bias. I'm just pointing out that there must be a lot we don't know and that, in general, anything that made africa look good could have been neglected and anything that made europe look good embraced. About technology I don't know but what about their societies? What about practically anything about africa that might have been admirable?
PaulBlartMallCop1 7 months ago
At 4:58, he says that the wheel had not been invented in parts of Africa by the end of the 19th century. Are there any sources to back that statement up?
FreeTrade1000 8 months ago
is he talking or rapping?
spyletu 8 months ago
Capitalism is institutional slavery. The elite rig the system forcing the poor to labor to enrich them.
mba2ceo 9 months ago
@mba2ceo Capitalism is slavery compared to what? how do you explain the phenomenon economic mobility in free markets? how do you explain the negative effects of price controls? what is the alternative? what role does force play in that alternative?what role does choice play in that alternative?
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
Comment removed
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
Land is a zero sum game. Raw materials are a zero sum game. If one person owns those somebody else doesn't.
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
Plus, isn't he implying with that "zero sum game" thing that europeans gained something but that africans didn't lose? Not only that, but then he goes on to actually state that europeans lost and that africans gained.
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
disappointed with that poor answer
03buchln 9 months ago
@03buchln me too
alancsiqueira 9 months ago
disappointed with that poor answer
03buchln 9 months ago
Btw, the Incas didn't have the wheel either (I think), but they had quite a civilization despite that.
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 I don't know about the incas, but the aztecs knew about the wheel. They just had no need for it because of their marshy land. A toy was discovered which had wheels on it. The Aztecs were pretty smart. The incas probably knew about the wheel too. Africans are incomparable with the ancient aztecs and incas.
coxg90 9 months ago
@coxg90 But the europeans destroyed aztec and inca civilizations regardless (plus mayans, native americans, etc.). Who knows where the world would be today if those societies had been allowed to flourish. The Africans had no writing, but they had culture. Who knows if they had good psychological or sociological wisdom that was destroyed by europeans? The europeans had a lot of good stuff. I just don't like the idea that the world is better off today because everyone is more like the europeans.
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 What i mean by psy/soc wisdom is for example, the indians invented yoga and a psychology that went with it (fortunately, the english weren't able to destroy that). The chinese had martial arts. The africans were obviously no china and india, but they probably had religions that went with some psychological concepts. The religious myths might turn out to be relatively useless, but the psychological practices might have had value (therapeutic singing and dancing techniques?).
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
I studied psychology, btw, that's why I care about that.
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
Meditation, for example, is not something that the europeans ever did (in such formal methodical ways as the indians and chinese). Meditation has been proven scientifically to be very beneficial psychologically. Playing an instrument can help develop the brain. Who knows what practices the africans had that could have been beneficial in treating depression, bipolar disorder, social anxiety disorder, etc?
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 Meditation existed in all cultures including european. Just becouse they didnt meditated in lotus position that dosent mean they didnt meditated. Meditation was worthless for average people in all parts of the world in those times becouse they benefited physicaly and psychologically by hard work on their land. Try working on a traditional farm and u wont have time for such things like meditation wich was mostly domain of monks and "holy men" not others! Work sets you free!!!
Voodoozeko 8 months ago
@Voodoozeko I didn't say meditation did not exist in europe, just that it was not as formalized (to some degree it was formalized, but not as much as in the east, that i know of).
PaulBlartMallCop1 8 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 I think christians have/had just as formal meditations like others but It has different approach more of a praying meditation than silent meditation it is similar to gregorian chant and actualy we could say gregorian chant is form of medititation just like buddhist "sing" Aum and meditate.
Voodoozeko 8 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 look at zimbabwe today. it used to be the prosperous white nation of rhodesia. look at south africa today. the blacks ruin everything. look at how many crimes are committed in the u.s. by blacks.
I do agree that the europeans were foolish to destroy the advanced cultures of the aztecs and the incas.
coxg90 9 months ago
Maybe the whites in south africa and whites in zimbabwe could negotiate something with the blacks in those countries so as to have separate pieces of land to have two (or maybe one if the white south africans and whites in zimbabwe want to live together) new countries just for whites, and put some proposals up for referendum. Thing is, what parts of south africa/zimbabwe would the whites want, and would blacks allow it all?
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1 There are proposals being introduced. However, the blacks do not want it because they say that the whites are creating "a club just for themselves." But if you give the Africans too much of a good thing they will ruin it. It takes generations. It is what happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Mugabe and his communist supporters took over Rhodesia, which was the richest country in Africa at the time, and turned it into a 3rd world nation.
watch?v=M_x9jRYU1JU
coxg90 9 months ago
I found this: tia-mysoa.blogspot.com/2011/02/future-independent-homeland-south.html ; According to wiki, white south africans are 9.2% of the population, coloureds are 8.8, asians 2.6. I don't know if coloureds and asians would like to live in the white country, and if whites would want them to. Either way, the most straight-forward way would be to find a piece of land 9.2% of the country or less where no one lived, and just relocate there. A proposal like that would have some chance i guess.
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
@coxg90 I just realized that link doesn't work, but if you want to see it google: TIA-MYSOA: A Future Independent Homeland - South Africa
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
Britain didn't have slaves? Maybe not in Britain, but it had them in America when America was its colony, and it taxed America. If colonialism and slavery did not enrich the western europeans, then why did they engage in it and pursue it for so long?
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
@PaulBlartMallCop1
All you need to look at is the difference between the north and south. The north was industrialized and rich the south was poor. They were failed policies, they certainly created wealth but it also cost a lot to maintain those empires. Who do you think built the roads in Africa all that infrastructure had to be put in place.
BeaveHolio 9 months ago
[sorry about double post] I just have a hard time thinking that colonialism was an altruist enterprise. More so than that, I have a very hard time thinking that Africa would have been worse off without it. At the very least, the emigration out of europe was probably beneficial because europe was (i think) overpopulated. Couldn't they have just given them the wheel through trade instead of slavery and colonization? What about the parts of africa that did have the wheel, how did they benefit?
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
[sorry about double post, i just want to 'reply' so as to not mess up thread] Plus, the roads in Africa were built by africans, under the direction of europeans, but regardless, they were built by africans. (And i'm not certain on the historical details, but i bet "direction" is a mild way of putting it). And what were those roads built for? Probably carrying minerals to the coast to be shipped to europe (i admit i don't know, but i doubt the europeans got nothing out of it).
PaulBlartMallCop1 9 months ago
the siren song of "democratic socialism"
this must be the excuse for ignoring economic freedom as a prerequisite to political freedom; economic freedom contributes greatly to the dispersion of power-- if this is not a necessary element in freedom then i dont know what is
what the collectivists hate about a free economy is that it gives people what they want rather than the "bettors" believes they OUGHT to want
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
His question never got answered.
And capitalism being a prerequisite to freedom is historically incorrect.
For those not familiar with history, you cant be helped.
demammoet 9 months ago
Go on the internet with the intention of viewing funny videos while drinking a couple of beers to relax after a hard college term.
Click the first recommended video and end up LEARNING THINGS.
vulnerabledonkey 10 months ago 2
The moron sounds like The Fonz.
redwings66 10 months ago
Friedman wiped off the floor with that intellectual midget. I wonder where he is now and more importantly, did he grow out of that socialist phase we all had as children?
lapiz1969 10 months ago
Friedman is correct in his assessment of capitalism. He is, however, a utopian. You cannot balance a completely free market with order and justice, there will be greater opportunities for corruption. Furthermore, you cannot separate a state from capitalism - capitalism requires a state to protect it's principles, and if the current states did not exist for it, then capitalism would naturally create states to protect it from the ground up again, so fundamental is the state to capitalism.
TheCommunard 11 months ago
@TheCommunard a free market and capitalism can still have govt involvement. It's just that the govt's role isn't to put sanctions and limits on companies or industries but rather it's to protect your freedoms and properties so that someone doesn't come and steal it.
defgill 10 months ago
@defgill And who, may I ask, would have to pay for such protection? Just citizens? They are not corporations surely, and are not corporations legally individuals.
Furthermore, who is to say that industries deserve to be unsanctioned and unlimited? Who is to say that freedom is not hindered by industries when it gives one choice, to engage in the ever changing, ever destroying and creating process of capitalism? May I be so conservative as to ask what option the person who misses the past has?
TheCommunard 10 months ago
@TheCommunard You're right, I'm not an idealog. Govt does need to step in sometimes. But instead of having the system we have today where govt has countless agencies and still fails to protect us we Do away with them and let congress, only when called upon by the people, handle those particular problems as they come. Even though bad companies can't sustain bad business practices,if it happens that company is killing people we shouldn't wait for the free market to handle when it's too late.
defgill 10 months ago
@defgill Considering that the antitrust laws and so forth arise as problems are foreseen without them, and the courts have continued to uphold such laws, it seems that the present situation will be quite unsuited to such a proposition.
If our limit and definition of bad business is murder, what about all the other problems which arise? Look at how much uproar occurs when you take away the right of citizens to collective bargaining.
These legal practices have evolved to address real issues.
TheCommunard 10 months ago
@TheCommunard true. It is in reaction to when things go bad under a purely free market system. That said, I think it's also good to point out that not all laws guarantee the prevention of those problems or ones that will arise in the future. Some just limit the market and have no benefit or also I would argue that it makes the market dependent on govt to set a minimum standard to which the consumers become too confident in. They think the govt is going to take care of them without our own action
defgill 10 months ago
@defgill Okay. With specific laws you may be correct.
Philosophically I am less interested in creating the greatest utility and value, if that means something with intrinsic value is replaced. Intrinsic value exists in existing things which are valued not because they are useful but rather because they are revered and cherished. We regret its destruction.
Wanting to conserve intrinsic value implies no tenderness to destruction of such value, inequality and so forth, since they lack value.
TheCommunard 10 months ago
Obviously Friedman never read much history. Look what Europeans did to Africa.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
where is the rest?
tjohn1986 11 months ago
The thing is, weather it's capitalism, socialism or comunism, any system man creates can get corrupted. Totalitarism and facists can make thier way into all three. I fear that in america, we have this corporate facism rearing it's ugly head.
flubno 1 year ago 2
Does anyone know the year of this video? I'd put it in the mid 1970's. I'd really be curious to know the year.
cartman1492 1 year ago
Obviously Friedman flunked history.
Sure the wealth of the western developed nations never came from the suffering of the indiginous people that were colonized. Just ask a Congo Native.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85
How was africa better off before colonization?
Africa was it its best when it was colonized by brittian.
Afterwards chaos broke out and war destroyed the countries.
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 - The Belgians left the Congo in 1960. If they were so bad, things should have improved dramatically since their departure. They have not.
And really, Friedman flunked history, he may interpret it differently than you do, but I guarantee he put thousands of more hours into its study than did you.
mpc91 1 year ago
@mpc91 I was a history major. The reason that it didn't improve is because the same thing that happened then still is, mass explotiation of the people and resources by core economys.
That was not the only thing that he said that is false.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 - Oh you were a history major. That and 85 cents will get you on the train. You clearly have studied history from a very progressive politicized slant. Clearly the education system has failed you.
mpc91 1 year ago
Comment removed
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mpc91 No it is the real history. Not the rewritten history you Cons tell where these Austrian/Chicago School crackpots say that the time of no regulation was the best time for America. It was called the Gilded Age for a reason. 1/4 of Americans lived under the poverty line, the average steel worker lived to be 44 and the Pinkertons murdered union organizers.
You are selling a failed ideology.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
Comment removed
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@mpc91 No this is the real history. Not the rewritten history that you Cons teach where the Austrian/Chicago school crackpots say that the best period for America was when there was no regulation. It was called the Gilded Age for a reason. This was a time when 1/10 owned 95% of the wealth, 1/4 of Americans lived under the poverty line, the average steelworker lived to be 44 and the Pinkertons murdured union organizers.
You are selling a failed ideology .
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 - Limited government is a failed ideology?
Socialism is the failed ideology, it is the one that is keeping the masses poor. It is the one that is building walls to keep people in. Socialism is the equality of poverty and privation and the one that's natural progression is genocide. You're a history major, but you aren't making the connections, and instead picking and choosing.
I'm selling Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or property. You're selling Lenin and Stalin.
mpc91 1 year ago
@mpc91 Socialism is a failed ideology? Ever been to Norway? The country with the 3rd lowest murdur rate in the world, 4th in education, world class health care and the highest standard of living in the world.
Don't even try to play this game with me with Soviet Russia. The history illiterates like the Texas School Board don't tell the story of the REAL Socialists because they lost. These were people like Anton Pannekoek and Rosa Luxemburg.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 - Seriously Norway is your example. A country of 5 million people. That's the size and climate of Wisconsin.
Cherry picking a bit are we. Ignore Soviet Russia, and focus on China. You should sell real estate, "never mind that the house is on fire, check out the backyard!".
The Soviet Union was real socialists, that's what happens when you play it out.
Would you rather play the socialist game with China? How many millions for Mao?
And did you really misspell murder?
mpc91 1 year ago
@mpc91 On average,the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.Poverty rates are much lower there,and national income per working-age population is on average higher.Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups,slightly higher in the Nordic countries.The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group with larger surpluses as a share of GDP (International Affairs,2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
@mpc91 Sweden,Norway and the other Scandinavian countries have shown that there is an alternative way to cope with globalization. These countries are highly integrated into the global economy; but they are highly successful economies that still provide strong social protections and make high levels of investments in people. They have been successful in part because of these policies, not in spite of them.
(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana
Comparing the United States as a society to Norway and Sweden, how utterly absurd.
Aphoresis 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana Two points, the prison population has much more to do with the war on drugs than poverty. Illegal activity is by its nature much more profitable than legal activity, thus the risks of incarceration are outwayed by the benefits of greater income than could be obtained legally. Simply legalizing drugs or a legal system that didnt punish use as well as sale of drugs would greatly reduce the prison population.
qwe229 1 year ago
@zsylvana As for health care the US has one of the best systems in the world when you look at outcomes of medical services. I know about the UN studies that rank the US as mediocre but those studies factor in a lot of nonsence like cost, or ease of access. Mediciene in Europe is no cheaper there than here, its is just subsidised by the government so the cost to the individual is INDIRECT, they do not realise what they are truly paying because the bill is in their taxes and not directly from
qwe229 1 year ago
@qwe229 The US has the worst health care system in all the OECD nations. 1/4 of the money spend on our system goes to things that have nothing to do with health care and tens of thousands die each year. We are ranked 37th for a reason.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@zsylvana a doctor. Indeed the rates of death from cancer, heart attack, and a host of other problems are much lower in the US then Europe. Things seem more costly and less efficient here because the government dont subsidise health care as much, however they do regulate medicine ad nausium which certainly makes things less efficient.
qwe229 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mpc91 The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways.Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education.All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today.
zsylvana 1 year ago
this is the reason why you see people crossing the borders all the time U.S. foreing policies are disastrous with all this nonesense the building of the wall at the border is a nonesense I hope this wall will be finished so we as people we'll have a proof of the wall of shame.
technochapi 1 year ago
What nonsense Milton! Africa is worst off today than it has been before the arrival of Europeans especially countries like Congo. Milton Friedman would prefer a car and money in exchange for some strangers abusing his children and doing as they pleased in his house. He won't have a problem with it. It's the only reason why he's implying that Africa has benefited from European abuses and plunder.
malairlostandfound 1 year ago 2
@malairlostandfound I don't think you know what Africa was like before Europeans showed up. Take a look at the !Kung San or B'aka peoples who have been barely contacted by the West. Those are the most peaceful of foraging peoples and they still have terribly high crime rates, infant deaths, corporeal punishment, and so on.
darwinkilledgod 1 year ago
@darwinkilledgod -:) You took 2 groups of people today to demonstrate what things were like before Europeans arrived in a territory much bigger than the US and western Europe combined. How insanely bigoted are you? Because the USA has more than two million people in Jail, hundred million illiterates and semi-illiterate, fourty four million living below the poverty line and relying on food stamps, thiry million unemployed ... etc is reflective of what the whole USA is & has always been?
malairlostandfound 1 year ago
@malairlostandfound You took zero groups of people to demonstrate that Africa was much better before colonization. How insanely bigoted are you? Learn literally anything about African history and you'll see that Africa was no different than any other savage culture before markets created wealth.
Finally, there are 300 million people in the US, are you suggesting 1/3 of them can't read? And the "poverty" level in the US is insanely rich by world standards.
darwinkilledgod 1 year ago
@darwinkilledgod You claim that I ''took zero groups of people to demonstrate that Africa was much betterbefore colonisation... '' when I clearly mentioned ''... especially countries like Congo.'' Now who 's disappearing up their arse?
''Learn literally anything about African history...no different than any other savage culture before markets created wealth''
>>when, where and by/from who?
''...'poverty' level in the US...rich by world standards''
>>BELOW POVERTY LINE and not ''povery level''
malairlostandfound 1 year ago
@malairlostandfound - Really, it's worse off today than it was before. Lifespans are double what they were before what you would call "Colonialsim". But you assume that conditions were better before that without knowing what they were. You imply that European abuses and plunder were worse than the abuse and plunder from fellow Africans that went on before colonialism, and is going on now since its end.
mpc91 1 year ago
If want an accurate depiction of what the system in Norway is really like. Go back and look at what the country was like before the oil.
kellogg10 1 year ago
Free speech is protected in public forum, but if this is a private forum, it is not. It's called property rights. Free speech is to safeguard grievance and protest against government, not to protect a "right" to walk into your neighbors house and spout of your ideological stupidity.
lucentenor 1 year ago
Yo, let me sway and swagger in a free forum and act like I could do this in a Communist country. What an idiot. Dumbass hippies.
opacid 1 year ago
What I love about Friedman was that he is not afraid to be challenged in discussions. He does not just give talks he debates with an audience. I would like to see Chomsky do this more often, rather than spouting his ecnomic non-sense. Or what about Al Gore debating with people? Does Al Gore ever debate?
ArtinEmil 1 year ago 6
@ArtinEmil Of course not! Friedman's great advantage over Gore and Chomsky is that he has the benefit of being right. Those who are not right seldom open themselves up to public challenge like this.
Drchainsaw77 7 months ago
Whoooo! Supa Fly is taking on Milton Friedman!
AustinW90 1 year ago
the countries u mentioned and just about every other country that has a high standard of living, the percentage is higher than the US. The American system really is a joke and it should continue to fail. The funny(not really) thing is that what is needed most is the opposite of what the tea party people advocate.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff I'll bet you anything you've never lived in any of those countries.
darwinkilledgod 1 year ago
First off, dude take off the stupid hat and sunglasses if you wanna be taken seriously. Even back then you looked like a retard. Secondly, don't pose your question as all leftist do in the form of a regurgitated talking points out of a Sol Alinsky speach or memoir. Once again, Sol is an idiot and then so will be you. Thirdly, did you have any clue that you were talking to a man who has common sense? One of the most brilliant men in history? And look at you now, on YouTube looking stupid forever!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago 3
Milton Friedman - master debater that noone could defeat.
yadranko 1 year ago
LibertyPen, you have quite a lot of these Milton Friedman speech segments and Q&A videos, would it be possible for you to upload this particular talk in its entirety? It may take a lot of video parts but it would be nice to watch them all in order. Thanks.
FreeInquisition 1 year ago 2
He didn't actually answer the questions. On slavery he simply said it was horrible, but didn't talk about how the United States benefitted greatly as a result of it. Instead he went on about how Britian, Japan, and Hong Kong didn't have slaves. On colonialism, the video cut too short. He was talking about the wheel not yet being invented in parts of Africa and how contact with the West improved their life. There was a lot more explaining he needed to do on that one.
CorkyBuchik 1 year ago
I do not support communism. I am a capitalist. Right now there is too much wealth property and power in too few hands. This situation leads to oppression. I oppose Milton Friedman based on a couple books I have. The Shock Doctrine and The Murder of Chile.
zsezse215 1 year ago
@zsezse215
There is too much wealth property and power in too few hands because of government, not because of capitalism. The larger the government the larger disparity between rich and poor, and if you look at the US economic history you will also see this upward trend has been following the growth of the socalled "welfare" state.
MigDanskeren 1 year ago 2
@MigDanskeren Not true. Norway, still considered to be partially a welfare state and with the highest standard of living in the world, has a much smaller wealth gap than the US. If you google "income equality by country" you can sort the data. Look at where the US is and also Hong Kong(which practices the freest form of Capitalism in the world).
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff
Norway is a bad example as their wealth is based on oil and many of the the Arab oil states also have quite a low gini coefficient.
Though is is true that some of the most redistributive European welfare states have a low gini, but so do some of the economically freest nations in the region, like Luxembourg and The Czech Republic. Looking at the low gini countries I'd say it correlates with a low degree of government intervention in business, not with economic redistribution.
MigDanskeren 1 year ago
@MigDanskeren No, it's the opposite. Sweden is the clearest example with a 50% tax rate, low gini, and 7th highest standard of living in the world. If you look at tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, you'll see that both of
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
Milton is a genius. Simply the best, most reasoned defender of freedom. Wish I could be more like he!
austinarchibald 1 year ago
I wonder if "Fab Five Freddy" realizes that he he would be exercizin' no 'free speech' in China or any of the other communist toilets he's singin' the praises of...
TheRedEleven 1 year ago 3
@TheRedEleven Communism defined: a classless, STATELESS society. Does this sound like China to you ??? LOL.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
Listen all you turkeys, Milton Friedman is a baaad mutha..... oh shut your mouth!
judd73 1 year ago