What the real "issue" is here and also today in America is exactly what that young hippie expressed:
"...it is not immediately easy to become in the wealthy class..."
That's the big problem: Most people feel that "the system" prevents them from attaining instant, easy wealth.
None stop to ask themselves if our or any other system should be expected to grant immediate wealth. I'd wager the majority of wealthy people in the world did not become so weathy "immediately."
@RonaldPaulstein One of the problems is that young people are taught contempt for the capitalistic system rather than how to profit from it. Keeping the rabble dependent is one way for big government politicians to secure their power.
@fzqlcs Im glad i had an uncle who gave me games like Roller Coaster Tycoon and Capitalism II when I was a kid so I did not become a moron. And looking around my college campus, A LOT of people did not have uncles that cared that much for them.
cuando en la soberania se pierde el equilibrio de las concesiones intercambiadas entre la sociedad, ya no se le puede llamar asi; y el gobierno es el responsable por mantener ese equilibrio, para eso es que son elegidos, en el cual van a preocuparse por las necesidades del pueblo y por los deberes que tiene que cumplir y que cuando surgan situaciones problematicas, sera cooperacion de pueblo y gobierno
The core issue here is opportunity or "economic mobility." The countries at the top in this measure tend to be those with strong social welfare programs. In fact, economic mobility is about two to three times greater in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark than it is in the US. These are difficult facts to reconcile with the notion that state intervention is antithetical to promoting socioeconomic mobility.
@RhinestoneReverie You're forgetting that the U.S. boasts a population which is larger than all the populations of those countries you mentioned when added together.
You can't make a direct correlation between the way a national economy functions (or should function) in a country of only seven million citizens as compared to a country of four-hundred million.
Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Friedman. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
It's such a fucking strawman to say that the government is responsible for poverty. I mean, yes, over-regulation is a bad thing in most cases, but capitalism is a heirarchical system. Some people have to have shit pay, and shit jobs for someone to get rich. That's just how it works.
@fzqlcs That's just a complete caricature of what I'm saying. Libertarians are equally fucking blind to their ideology as communists are and were. Capitalism is not, and I repeat, not a perfect system. Laissez-faire capitalism, just like theoretical communism, sounds like a miracle, and a fucking utopia on earth, and when you try to make it work, it just doesn't work. Period.
@Faerlon123 Friedman has said "nirvana is not for this world". Capitalism is not perfect BUT it is the best system that we have seen to improve the lot of the ordinary man.
@Lunarisx718 Doesn't matter if Friedman has said that. He's an ultra-capitalist economist who has benefitted from the system. Capitalism works fine if you are okay with the notion that most people have a shit job, and low wages, and bad opportunities in their lives, and a minority don't do an honest day's work at all and reap the benefits. The only reason you say it's the best system that we have is because there's only been a few other, like communism, that haven't worked.
@Faerlon123 So the only reason it is the best system we have seen is because there have only been a few others that HAVEN"T worked? Then my statement is correct no? It is the best system we have seen so far. In a true free market economy without minimum wage laws those in a shit job would aquire skills and them move up in the ranks. You would only stay in a shit job if you had no ambition or are mentally handicapped in which case there would be charities set for you.
@Lunarisx718 Yes, the only reason you say it's the best system is because no one has made a solid argument for one yet. It will come believe you me. And no, that is a caricature of the real deal. You wouldn't just stay in a shit job if you had no ambition or were handicapped, the fact is the system DOES NOT WORK, if NO ONE does shit jobs with shit pay. The system NEEDS people at the bottom with no ambition and willingness to work for shit pay, cuz they got no other alternative.
I love how Friedman was so open to debate and civil discussion. You don't see this much anymore especially among those on the left. Now the "intellectuals" dig a foxhole into their ideology and protect their ego by surrounding themselves with like-minded people while immediately labeling anyone who disagrees as "brainwashed liar sheep".
@stebecool It's funny because that's typical of conservatives, just watch Fox News... If anyone disagrees with their ideology, they get their mic cut and they don't go to Fox News anymore.
@ndyt The right does it too, but I dont think it's anywhere near as bad as the left. Even Maxine Waters just a couple days ago speaking at a deomcratic event declared that reublicans are"demons" bent on destroying the country. People on the right might call people on the left funny names, but it seems like many people on the left truely believe the the people are the right are inherently evil and must be destroyed. The demonization from the left seems to be much more vulgar.
@TradingTutor You know what those social programs and government intervention lead to? You end up with a bankrupt nation where crony capitalist monopolies control the economy. That's how America is right now. It's a bankrupt welfare state. In a free market society, the free market would stop monopolies. Also watch the video "Are the poor getting poorer" by LearnLiberty. It will debunk your "the poor are getting poorer" statement.
@TradingTutor No, it's governmental regulation and bureaucracy coupled with the devaluation of the dollar through inflationary monetary policy that has led to the increased prices and the crippling of competition in the marketplace. That's why everything is so expensive these days and individual entrepreneurs are at an inherent disadvantage.
Free-market economists forget one fundamental thing about capitalism: the capitalism in advanced stage is not equal to capitalism in a beginning stage. In the beginning, the economy was mostly made by small family-owned companies. Now it's mostly an oligopolistic and monopolistic economy, which is a consequence of the system itself, and which is the reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This justifies social programs, and a change of system.
@kennedyt He's asking questions and seeking knowledge. That's what he's supposed to do as a college student. He's not a dick, he's a student. Chill out.
The free market is a scam to rob ordinary folk out of the profits of their hard work. But when the wealthy lost lots of money in the banking crisis they were the first there for the 'hand out'.The nanny state for the rich and the free market for all the rest of us. We've been conned! You didn't really believe that the wealthy actually believed in free markets did you? Did you really think that they would watch loads of their money dissapear because they said they believed in the free market
With the extraordinary amount of lobbying money coursing through American politics and now the unlimited spending power of Super PACs, the Money dictates which group of people are ultimately elected to office, and which type of laws are ultimately passed and enforced. As a result, there is no longer such a thing as "Free Market". It is a mythical creature that only exists in Theoretical Economics with as much actual legitimacy as Communism.
The "trickle-down" Theory: The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
The Free market system is "free" only in theory. Powerful interests within our society will never let us have a free market. So we see governments creating legal systems which allow some to squeeze more juice out of the system than others through the financial sector while we blame the welfare system for the poor.
@Franky4fingers78 Francis Fox Piven said almost the same argument you put to Milton Friedman. The answer was, "we are talking about mixed systems, and it is about what DIRECTION you are going in. I challenge you to find me ONE example in recorded history where a "fully" free society didn't have capitalism as the PREDOMINANT form of organizing resources."
But he would agree with you that government perverse markets.
@NoProbaloAmigo I challenge you to find me one example in human history where we have had a "fully" free society. The question is not about capitalism but rather about free markets. Free market is a myth. All governments and people exercise some type of protectionism either through subsidies, tariffs or regulations.
Friedman ideas are more or less ideological with very little practical implementation.
@Franky4fingers78 To an extent, you are right, which is why we are talking about mixed systems, which is why Friedman talked about the PREDOMINANT form of resource exchange, which is a competitive capitalist system. But you CANNOT find a "free" society WITHOUT competitive capitalism as the basis. This is not ideological, but true. He also pointed out it is a NECESSARY condition, but NOT sufficient conditon for freedom.
@NoProbaloAmigo Exactly. But Friedman does not promote mixed systems but rather a pure free market system. A free competitive market will result in efficiency but the fact is it doesn't exist. The basis of the fall of communism was greed which is inherent to humans and is also the reason why fully free markets can't exist. In this clip he is connecting morality to free thought. Yes, its a great ideal but it is an ideal without any factual existence in the history of mankind or of economics.
@Franky4fingers78 Every time governments go in that competitive direction, though, overall economic conditions improve, that's what Friedman meant, and he is right. Now, define carefully, a competitive free market requires property rights and a judicial system to resolve disputes. Literally, a "pure free market" system is what his son wants, and not what he is advocating, because he accepts the reality that nothing is really "pure."
@NoProbaloAmigo "Property rights and a judicial system" - You're right and who is going to assign these rights and adjudicate conflicts? I do not disagree with the "logic" that free systems offer prosperity but again, you need govt regulation. Free market ideology is currently being rebranded into a form of no-holds-barred system where govt needs to stay away from monetary policy. It has been proven time and again, markets left to people collapse due to manipulation.
@Franky4fingers78 What, do "computers" run the government to "fix" what "people" mess up, IT'S ALL PEOPLE! Free compeitive Markets by nature are resistant to systemic "collapse" due to the decentralized nature of them. There are DAILY collapses in the OTC (IE outside of the SEC's "NY Stock exchange") stock market, and NOTHING happens to the good companies, like Nestle, which trade "over the counter."
@NoProbaloAmigo On what basis are you suggesting free markets are resistant to systemic collapse? You can pick certain companies and use them as an example for your theory while i can pick 5 companies and show how they go crazy in a deregulated environment. The point is, if MF suggests some regulation is required then we are in agreement. But then you can't call it a FREE market system as it is being done in our current times, can you?
@Franky4fingers78 The OTC market is largely untouched by the SEC, and yet there are companies like Volkswagen and Nestle that do fine on them, while fly by night companies collapse, and there is NO "systemic" collapse. Again, it's about the direction, and MF is right in going in the direction of "compeitive capitalism." All the example YOU will give will have a mysterious connection to the SEC.
@NoProbaloAmigo In this particular clip he speaks of the welfare state and that FM will take care of the poor. This is a bogus claim which only offers good sound byte. A prosperous economy relieves poverty. However, wealth distribution is a key factor. As much as the right wants to push trickle down theories, the fact is the avg person lubricates the economy. The last 40 years are an shining example of that fact. MF's claims, people have responsibility is like being in a Sunday school. contd.
@Franky4fingers78 He actually said that the market mechanisms have a better record at reducing poverty compared to the welfare programs enacted since the 30's - and he was right. Almost EVERYTHING done then was reformed into "less worse" solutions by the Democrats. He really wasn't a "supply sider," he was a monetarist.
@NoProbaloAmigo Can you explain to me which market mechanism have a better record of reducing poverty and at what point of time in history was it implemented? If you are making a linear connection of better economy with less poverty, then you can't be any more obvious. Businesses have only one obligation, making profit. Everything else is subjective to the management of the business.
@Franky4fingers78 Friedman pointed to the reduction of poverty in Chile, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the "gilded age" in the US. He also would point out China, which was practically like NKorea in 1979, not because they are "free" but because of the competitive capitalist direction they went in. He also explained how the Great depression was caused by a 33% reduction in the money supply.
@NoProbaloAmigo Yes, we know we have responsibility but are we fulfilling those responsibilities? You have no obligation to be charitable so what do we do about the unfortunate in our "civilized" society? Leave them to their fates (as per MF) hoping that FM participants will take care of them?
@Franky4fingers78 He's not saying that, he was saying that the welfare system made the situation WORSE, and he was right. It was the reason why he pushed for a minimum graduated income: it avoids the welfare trap, DOES NOT encourage families to break up and women to have more kids, and eliminates most of the Federal paper pushers for HUD, social security, etc.
@NoProbaloAmigo Also, the funny thing about a free system is that the market actually doesn't like it. Freedom brings uncertainty to the market. Businesses prefer capital friendly authoritarian regimes because even with unequal laws they can forecast cash flow easily since laws aren't going to change with the moods of the republic. There is always pressure from market forces to control unknowns which is what government does, and in an unequal society in perverse ways.
@Franky4fingers78 The market loves the free system, CAPITALISTS don't. They all want something for nothing from government. The pressure isn't from "market forces" but from the political forces.
@newperve You are making the same argument as Friedman about the philosophy of free market. In an ideal situation, the market would be completely free. However a market exists because of its participants. Participants calculate risk based on the environment in which the market is located. Reduction in risk requires control of as many unknowns as possible which is done through government.
@Franky4fingers78 The government doesn't control unknowns it creates them. Pretending to reduce risk while simply transferring it to others with no control of those risks isn't something the market likes, it's something particular market participants like. Participants are prepared to take risks or they wouldn't be participants. Even if they didn't like risk there are plenty who will take the risk for them.
@newperve You speak of markets and then remove market participants who continuously try to pervert them as capitalists. The fact is capitalists in every shape and form are a part of the economy in REALITY, not in the la la land free market system that you're dreaming up here. Risk is a part of business but reduction of risk is a requirement for every business to be stable. Out of greed, participants try to manipulate markets through government policy.
@Franky4fingers78 I did not try to remove market participants. I merely said that markets aren't what goes against free markets, capitalists are. I am not making any "la la land" fantasies, merely describing reality, which you seem to have a problem with. I never denied participants try to manipulate markets through government policy, and Friedman certainly didn't. Stop strawmanning.
@newperve "I merely said that markets aren't what goes against free markets"
A market place consists of its "participants" without whom there won't be a fucking market, you jackass. The fantasyland that MF speaks about which is free from government intervention and participant manipulation does not exist. The value of a theory depends on how well you can implement it and MF's ideas are just hot air. For you to say markets are pure while its participants are manipulative is delusional.
@Franky4fingers78 I didn't say market are pure moron. I said that markets aren't what dislikes free markets. You are merely trying to divert attention from your claims that MF theories don't work. Saying that "market participants" (and who isn't one) corrupt the market through government isn't against MF theories, in fact it's part of them.
@newperve Here's what your dimwitted brain can't comprehend - For you to say "mixed" systems work is to agree with me. Freedom is the basis of liberalism and no liberal is against having freedom. What "lefties" say is uncontrolled freedom in economic markets is detrimental to our society. MF has time and again asked govt to stay out of controlling the economy which is being used now to deregulate and has caused the current depression. So thanks for idiots like you, we have to suffer.
@Franky4fingers78 You are right to extent, NOT only private businesses, but nearly everybody as well, because each individual can't see "what direction" they are going in. Friedman never though to the contrary.
@Franky4fingers78 He gave you several applications in the video, everything he says has practical applications. This cowardly furphy that because there isn't a pure free market we can't implement solutions based on becoming more free market is simply lies for stupid people.
@newperve More free? The idiocy of the argument lies right there. What is more free? Allowing the derivatives market to be deregulated is more free or allowing oil companies to police their oil rigs? The fact is support for impractical systems leads us to ignore basic realities of life - that markets need to be regulated because people's lives depend on it. FM concept believes markets will weed our inefficiencies (and rightly so) but how long would it take and at what cost to society?... contd
@Franky4fingers78 Yeah like you don't know what's more free. It's impossible to tell if having tariffs, minimum wage laws, taxi licensing etc. is more free or less. God you're a lowlife idiot liar. Calling something a "basic reality of life" as your only argument and then calling my argument idiotic? Fuck you.
@newperve You are another example of idiots parading around as intellectuals. You have no data to prove your hypothesis. Before the welfare state, poverty was being taken care of by private charities? You pulled that right out of your as s, didn't you? Poverty rates have reduced in this country after 1930s which were at the highest at the beginning of the 20th century contrary to the claims made by your God, Friedman. haha
@Franky4fingers78 Yes you are an example of that. You are the one who claimed history was full of examples, you provided none. So because poverty rates declined after the worst economic depression possibly in history (which was made and made worse by government) that indicates governemnt works? Of course poverty rates went down in an industrialised society, why wouldn't they with economic growth? What you need is evidence government made them go down. Moron.
@newperve I just provided you poverty figures before and after the New deal. Prior to 1920's the govt deregulated markets which led to the 1st depression. The govt tightened regulation, gave USA the new deal and things were stable until Reaganomics kicked in and now we have another depression. Taxes and community welfare were at the highest points in the 50s and we still had tremendous growth. So for you to say that govt made things worse is quite retarded. I mean seriously, do you even read?
@Franky4fingers78 (cont) You keep calling me stupid without giving any evidence for your claims. The poverty stats you gave don't prove that poverty was going up despite increasing GDP, they just prove ONE year was bad. I know you're lying because you'd give the source if you weren't.
@newperve One year was bad? Are you fucking retarded? The beginning of the 20th century has record growth in GDP. There was massive immigration to America from Europe but the growth was good enough to sustain increase in population. However, in times of unregulated labor, the poor class suffered. If you had read a single book on economic history you'd know that. Yes you are an idiot because you're incapable of reading data.
@Franky4fingers78 You have given me evidence of ONE year being bad. If you have further evidence then stop dodging and point to it you liar. If you can't figure out how to get me to a website with those figures then you're retarded. In any case if there was "massive immigration" then that would explain lower wages. Presumably the immigrants came because wages were higher. So all you've shown is that economic growth didn't solve poverty IN AMERICA but perhaps it solved poverty in Europe.
@newperve "You have given me evidence of ONE year being bad" Are you retarded? I gave you figures from years across the last century as a range showing fluctuations before and after the New Deal which you "white" right wingers hate so much because it helped the minorities.
Immigration to America was for work and to avoid persecution in Europe. America was an untouched market so obviously there was work here contd.
@newperve But all economic indicators show that the booming economy didn't necessarily improve the condition of the lower classes. Migration definitely skewed the numbers but the condition of natives didn't improve in relate to drastic improvement of the rich class. Why? Because avg american laborers worked in slavery like conditions which the LEFT took care of. So thank us for improving your life you ungrateful cunt!
@Franky4fingers78 No you lying little shitbag the governmet did not deregulate in the 1920s. In fact in bank especially government invovlement was far greater (you might have heard of the Federal Reserve). Taxes and "community welfare" were not at their highest point prior to the war on poverty, you're lying again. Things were not "stable" after the New Deal if they were you'd have given figures that showed that, not ones consistent with my theory.
@newperve You're quite an ignorant cunt. And you lie within 2 posts. I said, "Taxes and community welfare were at the highest points in the 50s" while you claim that I said, " Taxes and "community welfare" were not at their highest point prior to the war on poverty". Who is talking about war on poverty?
Are you stupid or just an illiterate who can't understand simple english LOL
@newperve War on Poverty is historically considered as the initiative started by Johnson in the 60s while I was talking about the 50s and post war US. New Deal was not war on poverty. In any case, you're the one who started using the term not me. And it turns out you have no clue what you're talking about. But you're an ignorant cunt with retarded levels of IQ. So what else can we expect. Which public school did you drop out of?
@newperve US TAXATION History: Look up taxfoundation . org. Although comparing marginal tax rates over different periods requires complicated calculations to incorporate deductions, returns, etc. the highest marginal tax rates are as follows: 1920 - 73% 1929 - 24% 1935 - 63% 1945- 94% 1950-1963 - 91% 65-80 - 70% 82-85 - 50% 87-92 - 31% 92-2000 - 40% 2000's 35% My assertion that 50s were highest tax times in peace time is correct. Dude, stop wasting my time, you ignorant fuck!
@newperve Hahaha I tried to summarize the tax rates because youtube allows limited characters. Everybody who has even a little bit of knowledge of economics knows tax rates were highest during the 50s. Even a small google search or wikipedia query will tell you that.
Your problem is you believe in ideologies like religion - on faith. I'm pretty sure you're a religious cunt too. Like if you believe in God, there is no proof, the world is a disaster but in theory He can make things rock! haha
@newperve The crash initiated due to loose monetary policy. Banks were leveraging $9 for $1 of capital after which the Feds tightened up capital which made matters worse. Anyway, the bottom line is, MF's theories only make sense in fantasyland. People who participate in Free markets do not allow the market to function freely. So go back to your tea party meeting and play with guns. Discussions about economics is not your forte.
@Franky4fingers78 So you admit the crash was due to government policy, not deregulation. Great now you've told the truth once, so fuck off. I doubt you'll do it again. What you are doing is saying "People like me will lie about the free market and prevent it happening therefore it's a bad idea." Fuck you.
@newperve You fucking moron. The financial sector had little restriction on how to use credit. Over leveraging sans any control of risk caused the crash. Does that sound similar to what we have right now? So you have two historical market crashes caused by the same thing - deregulation of the financial section something that MF always supported. I told you earlier, avoid thinking about complicated things like economics, its above your IQ level. haha what a joker...can't understand simple english
@newperve "What you need is evidence government made them go down" You have no clue how arguments work, do you? YOU make a claim that FM is the way to go, govt intervention is bad, etc and when you find figures which correspond to big govt action that don't support your claim, you again start your delusional behavior. On the other hand, economic catastrophes happened not once, but twice after massive deregulation but you still think deregulation is good?
@Franky4fingers78 No liar you made the claim that history was full of examples. It's not, in fact you couldn't find one. You did not give fugures that backed up your claim. You gave (unsourced, unreliable) figures that suggested that in a modern western society over time poverty goes down. Nobody denied that. Both the 1920s and the present catastrophe, both of which were preceded by INCREASES in regulation, moron.
@newperve "in a modern western society over time poverty goes down. Nobody denied that"
Poverty went down when the labor movement picked up. Workers had little to no rights at the end of the 19th century. At the end of the 19th century unions started fighting against unfair work conditions. In the 1930s labor reforms were enacted which led to improved wages and conditions for labor until 60s after which right winged union busting especially after Reagan had stagnated wages vs inflation.
@newperve Also, people with weak mindsets tend to call people lefty or whatever so they can assign them to a group for generalization purposes. That way you can assign them characteristics that they may or may not share. A person could be fiscally conservative and socially liberal or vice versa and that puts idiots like you in a dizzy.
You have presented no evidence to support MF's claims, his arguments in this clip are quite rudimentary, his claims unsubstantiated are removed from reality..
@newperve Freedom is necessary but the kind of laissez-faire ideology that MF and his followers support blindly, puts half assed policies in place which destroy social infrastructure and replace it with NOTHING. The value of your critique of govt action relies on the alternative you can provide. Saying private charities can take care of social problems without any historical evidence that it is possible, is a disingenuous way of passing on responsibility to non-existent figures.
@Franky4fingers78 There is plenty of historical evidence look up "fraternal socieities". They looked after the poor and provided cheap medical insurance. You wouldn't know about that because you have only ignorance and lies. You couldn't find ONE example of what you claimed history was full of.
@newperve Youtube does not allow anybody to post links to other websites which is why I told you to look at the Millenium Project on American Poverty. You'll find all that data you need.
The fact is, "fraternal societies" weren't taking care of poverty but rather helping them survive. The welfare state didn't do a great job in canceling out poverty but did a good job in reducing it. The figures of reduction in poverty coincide with the exact times when the New deal was implemented
@newperve Please stop wasting my time and go read a book and educate yourself. Or go masturbate watching Milton Friedman's economic porn...whatever floats your boat. But stop proving again and again that you're dimwit who follows ideologies with no background analysis or data to support it
@Franky4fingers78 If you have time to lie you have time to back up your arguments. Calliong me an idiot while posting only figures consistent with what I said happened and really vague to boot (whose source you've chosen to conceal) just means you can't deal with real analysis.
@newperve You moron. I have provided you the source. Your entire argument is based on a hypothetical system for which even MF does not have any historical data to provide. MF has been proved wrong multiple times when he speaks of these FM societies which don't exist. If he is talking about mixed system societies then we have one although it is a perverted version but morons like you do not stop at restrained deregulation.
@Franky4fingers78 No you provided me with the name of an organisation, with no way to distinguish it from the dozens of other organisations with similar names. You did this deliberately because you don't want me checking out your figures, because they back me up. That's why all the specific figures you've given me are consistent with my theory.
@newperve I have given you ample "DATA" which supports my claims. YOU have yet to provide a single figure or proof to support your dumb theories. All you've said is "Fraternal societies look after poor" in a vague manner and such similar claims. I'm calling you an idiot because you are one. You think you can make posts on the internet and make yourself feel like an intellectual. You sound like a complete jackass without any knowledge of economics or social structures. Fuck off!
@Franky4fingers78 No you've simply claimed that there is data and given me no way to check. Either you're an idiot or you're simply making shit up. I think on reflection it's the second one. After all you STILL haven't given me a way to check your data even after I told you how to do so. You claimed to know all of history, why should I need to give you the information? I will though mises dot org slash daily slash 5388
@newperve Here little twat w w w . sp2 . upenn . edu / america2000 / wp7all . pdf. As for your fraternal societies, there have been and always will be organizations that help the poor privately. The question is whether it is sufficient or not. Your provides details of the existence of socially organized help but what was their impact on poverty is not shown.
From figures for poverty, it WASN'T enough! You think posting a page is enough to prove your hypothesis? Uneducated moron!
@Franky4fingers78 Calling me a twat just because I point out that claimed figures with no way to check simply means you're a twat. You are posting a page to prove your hypothesis, which it doesn't. The author admits that the increase in poverty was probably due to immigration, which means even the poor were probably less poor than they were. Whether the fraternal societies were "enough" depends on what you call "enough". They did work better than the war on poverty or the New Deal.
@newperve I called you a twat because you speak out of your ass. Saying that fraternal societies worked better than the new deal is also another item right out of your ass. After the New Deal poverty levels went down dramatically after the New Deal and Johnson's initiative. STFU retard. You are now denying research with figures and citations right in front of your eyes. YOu right wingers have no character. Just a bunch of phonies.
@newperve I'm done educating you. MF made unsubstantiated claims in this clip. In theory, a booming economy would reduce poverty but from the cycles of deregulation we've seen historically booms are accompanied by busts. This was avoided by govt control of gambling with taxpayer money from 1930s to 80s after which Reagan jizzed all over the economy with his idiotic deregulatory policies which we're suffering from now.
@Franky4fingers78 Poverty stopped going down when the War On Poverty started, not when Reagan came in. You have not educated me, you've just talked shit.
@newperve You have all the evidence that poverty rates went down after the New Deal kicked in. And now after the GOP is working on eliminating social infrastructure, poverty is going up again.
I will agree the welfare state isn't the most efficient but you're offering HOT AIR instead of that. I feel sorry for people like you who blindly follow ideologies without any background knowledge of how your vote messes up people's lives. I'm done arguing with you. You are an ignorant idiot
@newperve I pity your existence. Another item right out of your ass. For a person demanding evidence doesn't provide any evidence even though the burden of proof lies on YOU to provide evidence to suggest WHY all your unimplemented theories are worthy of consideration. You can shove your worthless opinion right back into your ass, moron!
@newperve hahaha your God is making these claims in front of a crowded room how current system of welfare is rubbish. And he made some random claims about how things were better earlier when the data doesn't support it. You support his claim and you have no evidence to prove it. All I said was MF is lying.
Man, you are really really dumb. To not be able to analyze data is one thing. You don't even get simple logic in argument. hahaha Now wonder people think America is full of idiots.
@Franky4fingers78 You made the claims liar. You claimed all history showed that this wasn't true, then couldn't find a single instance where this is true. Not that you defined what an example would be anyway. BTW I'm not America fucktard. You haven' used logic, you've just made claims you can't back up.
@newperve haha Idiot. MF makes the claims here in the fucking video, got it retard? I said he was lying because data doesn't prove his claims. You started defending it without any substance or any proof. A lame website with an article that reference 2 citations over and over again is NOT proof especially when its laced with ambiguous words about "some" "many" organizations in fraternal societies.
I SHOWED you poverty figures which you fail to discuss because you're too dumb to understand it.
@newperve I'm putting you on ignore list now because you're like a pile of shit. If I touch you, I will start stinking too! Have fun living your ignorant life.
@newperve Friedman says govt has no responsibility but people have responsibility towards poverty in our society. Look around you and tell me how many of us are fulfilling our responsibility? He blames the govt for creating a welfare class. I would agree with him that the welfare system in this country is ill conceived. But what is he proposing instead of it? Let people starve until we as "people" accept that weaker sections of the society need assistance from our profits?
@Franky4fingers78 If you weren't lying about knowing history you'd know that fraternal societies and charities looked after the poor quite well prior to the welfare state. What he is proposing is that people stop pretending that their responsibilities to the poor are satisfied by voting to rob from rich people. The welfare state has over 50% support so clearly people do accept the responsibility to the poor already. Yet again you demonstrate you don't care for the truth.
@newperve Several applications? His joke about cancer was a cheap attempt at diverting the argument which idiots in the audience bought. His assertion that poverty was reduced due to free enterprise is only partly correct. USA was mired with poverty while GDP increased rapidly at the dawn of the 20th century. After the new deal, poverty levels plummeted until the 70s. You're welcome!
@Franky4fingers78 MF continually talked about applications of his theory throughout his life. After the New Deal poverty stayed at the abysmal levels you'd expect from a massively depressed economy whilst around the world almost every country recovered before America did. Poverty went down when poor people were hired to die fighting Nazis and work replacing others who were doing so. I believe you are simply making up the claim about increasing poverty in early 20th C USA.
@newperve False. Poverty stats (est) for you: 62% in 1870. 39% in 1900. 44% in 1909 at a time GNP was increasing rapidly. In 1939 60% of rural households were poor while avg poverty was 44%. Poverty rate dropped 44 percent in 1939 to 13 percent in 1989: the rate dropped 27 percent in the 1940s, 36 percent in the 1950s, 29 percent in the 1960s, 20 percent in the 1970s, and not at all in the 1980s.
Economy jumpstarted during WW2 but for you to say poverty stayed at abysmal levels is just wrong.
@Franky4fingers78 Unsourced poverty stats that reference 5 particular years out of 140. Real convincing. If 44% isn't abysmal what is? Especially considering that it was the same as a rate you criticise from 25 years earlier. You don't show the numbers that would actually disprove my claims. In fact only 2 of your figures reference "The dawn of the 20th century" which is what your claim was about. You're lying.
@newperve Poverty stats started being recorded from the late 50s. The previous stats are all estimates which MF used (and lied about). You said after the welfare society was created i.e. the new deal (which you rightwingers hate) poverty stats went down drastically until Reagan years. All these figures are from a research project at the Millenium Project. At the "Dawn of the century" American GDP increased rapidly but the share of income was unevenly focused towards the top class. Idiot!
@Franky4fingers78 No I didn't say what you claimed I said. You still have not given me a source for your stats that I could conceivable follow up on. You're lying. If MF really lied about the stats you'd give a source. Calling me an idiot while hiding your data isn't all that convincing liar.
@Franky4fingers78 I've Seen Krugman's piece and then the critique response from one of Friedman's research partners, on "A Monetary HIstory," which got Friedman the Nobel Prize.
You don't seem to understand that those INTERFERENCES that resulted in more money for "evil" corps have been mostly defended and implemented by LEFT WING people
Even today, you see Stiglitz, Krugman & co. defending MORE regulations/bailouts more viciously than anyone else
No offense, but, to me, you people are just a joke. You rig the markets for your own ideological purposes and then, when the results don't turn out as expected, you blame markets and corps
@CollectivePreference Moro.n alert! A jackass trying to parade around as an intellectual.
Politics aside, this argument is not about "who" did what but rather the philosophy of free markets and its implementation. Try to understand the argument before opening that hole in your face.
FYI, there is no monolithic LEFT out there where everybody believes in the same thing like there on the right. I'd comment more but I reckon its a waste of time discussing this with someone like you.
You really are too stupid to understand what I just told you, aren't you?
The philosophy/principles are based on human behaviour observed in history, you fucking retard. "Who" and "Where" and the most important questions to be asked here
"there is no monolithic LEFT [...] like there on the right" <- And wtf is this even supposed to mean? Miss english much?
Oh and by the way, I bet any amount of money you want that my IQ is at least 10 points higher than yours.
@CollectivePreference Too difficult to understand? You used terms from oft used talking points such as "evil corps", "left wing people". You're a dumbass who's too brainwashed watching Fox news.
Let me explain to you very s l o w l y what I meant by a monolithic left. You used the term "Left wing people" as if everybody who's a liberal thinks alike. There are liberals who are anti-free market philosophy while some support it. But a moron like you wouldn't understand that now, can you?
@CollectivePreference Who and where are important questions but when the onus is on free market philosophy in the current discussion, bringing up left wing or right wing is just a display of your stupidity.
And by the way, I can bet you any money, I make 5 times as much money as you. AND I'm at lest twice as educated as you at a university 10 times better than the community college you went to. IQ? Watch out there, you might just blow your mind talking about things you don't understand.
@CollectivePreference hahaha Wow you're much more stupid than I thought. Is that Mitt Romney there? How are you going to pay up? Nigerian prince email scam?
Just sit back, read what you just typed, think about, "$5000 bet on a youtube forum" and then go kill yourself. What waste of oxygen!
@Franky4fingers78 Yes, since deregulation the financiers work in 'futures' buying at todays prices but buying up so much that they push prices sky high. After 6 months they don't take delivery of anything but just buy at the low previously agreed price and then sell at the inflated price which they drove up. They do this to all commodities and they are stealing other people's hard work. It's like tax where they keep raking money off everyone else to pay the rich without making anything.
For the 2nd question, he says you cannot have equality and liberty. Here he takes a practical approach instead of the hypothetical belief that he went with for the 1st question.
The big problem with the free market belief that friendman promoted through out his life is that there has never been a free market. We always want to control our markets for our interests. Britain which initiated the free market idea controlled all its colonies. America protected its markets when it was weak.
Friedman uses contradictory methods of argument for the 1st and 2nd questions. In response to the 1st question he claims Free market enterprise is the only way to eliminate poverty and the people not the government have responsibility towards the poor. The fact is people do not fulfill their social responsibility and the history of mankind has many examples of it. So his answer is impractical and non existent. He blamed the govt for welfare but didn't provide an alternative.
@Franky4fingers78 "People do not fulfill their social responsibility and the history of mankind has many examples of it" that as usual leftist won't provide. In fact of course prior to the development of the welfare state there were many organisations that satisfied this "social responsibility". He did not contradict himself anywhere, stop pretending.
@newperve Who exactly is fulfilling this social responsibility? Are we supporting the lower rungs of the society through some formalized scheme built by every business on their own as part of their social outreach program? Don't hide behind BS philosophies of systems that do not exist. How many businesses are regularly diverting dollars to eliminate poverty? And what happens in times of recession when one can't support philanthropies? Rubbish argument sans any practical implications.
@Franky4fingers78 As usual the leftist has missed the point and can't understand the use of the past tense. _Prior_ to the welfare state there were many charities and fraternal organizations that looked after the poor. These naturally declined in importance when the government started forcibly taking money to "deal with" poverty. Why should business pay money to reduce poverty when their shareholders could do it? You are not interested in truth.
@newperve Let me tell you something - name calling (leftist) is a sign of weak argumentative skills. The fact is you're basing your argument on a hypothetical system shows how bad your ideas are.
Welfare state? Can you tell me some time lines for creation of welfare state? Do you have any statistics or numbers to prove that prior to creation of the welfare state, private charities were taking care of the poor? You are so blind to the truth you will go to any extent to fabricate it.
@Franky4fingers78 I'm not basing my arguments on a hypothetical system but a historical one. You are a leftist, this is undeniable, how is it "name calling". You're the one making the claim of historical knowledge, why do I need to tell you when the welfare state started? You claim there are lots of examples, you haven't provided any. You are simply lying.
@newperve "I'm not basing my arguments on a hypothetical system" Oh, boy you are quite dumb. I blame the public education system. A FM system has never been implement in the history of mankind. HENCE, it is a hypothetical system. Communism/Socialism were implemented and they failed. Do you understand these SIMPLE realities.
When you make claims that FM is good, the burden of proof lies with you to prove it. You said "Prior_ to the welfare state there were many charities" ...contd
@newperve So you have to tell me at what point of time in American history were these charities relieving poverty. The fact is the welfare state didn't improve poverty by much but where MF's alternative? Private charities? Even if the welfare state was created what was stopping private charities from continuing their work? Did the govt stop them? You promote a system and then when you fail to substantiate your claims, you just run like a little girl screaming "la la la la la!"
Hahaha, 30 years later we are witnessing the true effects of Friedmanism, AKA neo-liberalism. Poverty rates have skyrocketed, the wealth has been concentrated into the hands of the 1%, and the snakes who still follow the ideas of this king cobra still blame it on "laziness". He has the most silver lined words but his actions show his true motives. Just another method of making the rich richer and poor poorer.
@MrRagnarocks I do not agree with Obama that Americans are "lazy." But he hates Friedman. He is only a crony capitalist. Btw, his friends at Solyndra want bonuses. But he makes everybody else poorer. hahaha
@MrRagnarocks All of what you say happened with INCREASING GOVERNMENT POWER OVER THE ECONOMY. Stop pretending that massive increases in government spending didn't occur, it makes you look like a fool. By blaming those who opposed the increase in government spending you are letting those really responsible off the hook.
@1253bryan i will attempt to. what we have now due to the sanctity held for the free market is a position where is it governmentally legitimate to cut benefits and other programs before any inkling of taxation is considered, inspite of the almost farcical funds concentrated in the hands of the few - 38% of the wealth for 1% of the populace etc. In regard to freedoms friedman is blinkered, no fucker on the earth is free. i cant piss in public with a beer in one hand and hooker in the other...
@p1nkAcid Well I object to that, I live in Vegas, where you can in fact do all of those things. And we dont have a free market, we have a market thats regulated to death. Taxing isnt the awnser, Bringing troops homes, and actually letting the market work is. I agree with you, were not free now, but we can be. Even though I doubt that the Establishment would let us have freedoms it doesnt stop us for fighting for out freedom.
@1253bryan what you call the establishment, thats all us man. Democratic government enforces the will of the people, they can be our best friend. But what we have now is a 2 party state where no 2 viewpoints will differ by 20%, ergo not a lot changes. As for taxes they can be the some of the most useful tools to inspire change in advanced economies, and if enforced in a progressive way could shit all over the deficit etc., but now there should be some global legislature, combating wealth shifts
@1253bryan in the situation below who is being harmed aside from myself? No one really. Same with something like the rights of homosexuals. THe right are the first to defend the liberties of the individual, its like the reason for their existence or something, but if one man wants to marry another that isnt allowed, inspite of it having little if any effect on anyone beside the individuals involved. What i think im saying is that it comes down to bare bones morality; we're in this shit together
What the real "issue" is here and also today in America is exactly what that young hippie expressed:
"...it is not immediately easy to become in the wealthy class..."
That's the big problem: Most people feel that "the system" prevents them from attaining instant, easy wealth.
None stop to ask themselves if our or any other system should be expected to grant immediate wealth. I'd wager the majority of wealthy people in the world did not become so weathy "immediately."
RonaldPaulstein 3 days ago in playlist Economics
@RonaldPaulstein One of the problems is that young people are taught contempt for the capitalistic system rather than how to profit from it. Keeping the rabble dependent is one way for big government politicians to secure their power.
fzqlcs 3 days ago
@fzqlcs Im glad i had an uncle who gave me games like Roller Coaster Tycoon and Capitalism II when I was a kid so I did not become a moron. And looking around my college campus, A LOT of people did not have uncles that cared that much for them.
CWScott24 4 hours ago
cuando en la soberania se pierde el equilibrio de las concesiones intercambiadas entre la sociedad, ya no se le puede llamar asi; y el gobierno es el responsable por mantener ese equilibrio, para eso es que son elegidos, en el cual van a preocuparse por las necesidades del pueblo y por los deberes que tiene que cumplir y que cuando surgan situaciones problematicas, sera cooperacion de pueblo y gobierno
yaygare 1 week ago
The core issue here is opportunity or "economic mobility." The countries at the top in this measure tend to be those with strong social welfare programs. In fact, economic mobility is about two to three times greater in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark than it is in the US. These are difficult facts to reconcile with the notion that state intervention is antithetical to promoting socioeconomic mobility.
RhinestoneReverie 1 week ago
@RhinestoneReverie You're forgetting that the U.S. boasts a population which is larger than all the populations of those countries you mentioned when added together.
You can't make a direct correlation between the way a national economy functions (or should function) in a country of only seven million citizens as compared to a country of four-hundred million.
RonaldPaulstein 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Friedman. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
IlirMr 1 week ago
That was a mistake asking Mr. Friedman if he had ever been poor.
Vacidity 2 weeks ago
It's such a fucking strawman to say that the government is responsible for poverty. I mean, yes, over-regulation is a bad thing in most cases, but capitalism is a heirarchical system. Some people have to have shit pay, and shit jobs for someone to get rich. That's just how it works.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 you are so right! if everyone could afford a maid, there would be no maids.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs That's just a complete caricature of what I'm saying. Libertarians are equally fucking blind to their ideology as communists are and were. Capitalism is not, and I repeat, not a perfect system. Laissez-faire capitalism, just like theoretical communism, sounds like a miracle, and a fucking utopia on earth, and when you try to make it work, it just doesn't work. Period.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 Friedman has said "nirvana is not for this world". Capitalism is not perfect BUT it is the best system that we have seen to improve the lot of the ordinary man.
Lunarisx718 2 weeks ago
@Lunarisx718 Doesn't matter if Friedman has said that. He's an ultra-capitalist economist who has benefitted from the system. Capitalism works fine if you are okay with the notion that most people have a shit job, and low wages, and bad opportunities in their lives, and a minority don't do an honest day's work at all and reap the benefits. The only reason you say it's the best system that we have is because there's only been a few other, like communism, that haven't worked.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 So the only reason it is the best system we have seen is because there have only been a few others that HAVEN"T worked? Then my statement is correct no? It is the best system we have seen so far. In a true free market economy without minimum wage laws those in a shit job would aquire skills and them move up in the ranks. You would only stay in a shit job if you had no ambition or are mentally handicapped in which case there would be charities set for you.
Lunarisx718 1 week ago
@Lunarisx718 Yes, the only reason you say it's the best system is because no one has made a solid argument for one yet. It will come believe you me. And no, that is a caricature of the real deal. You wouldn't just stay in a shit job if you had no ambition or were handicapped, the fact is the system DOES NOT WORK, if NO ONE does shit jobs with shit pay. The system NEEDS people at the bottom with no ambition and willingness to work for shit pay, cuz they got no other alternative.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 Shit pay for shit workers.
discremal 1 week ago
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither." - Milton Friedman.
Norie92 2 weeks ago
people were so groovy in those days
SatiricalStewie 2 weeks ago 2
I love how Friedman was so open to debate and civil discussion. You don't see this much anymore especially among those on the left. Now the "intellectuals" dig a foxhole into their ideology and protect their ego by surrounding themselves with like-minded people while immediately labeling anyone who disagrees as "brainwashed liar sheep".
stebecool 3 weeks ago 24
@stebecool you are doing just what you are describing
p1nkAcid 3 weeks ago
@stebecool It's funny because that's typical of conservatives, just watch Fox News... If anyone disagrees with their ideology, they get their mic cut and they don't go to Fox News anymore.
TradingTutor 1 week ago
@stebecool, I don't see the right as being any more open. The right is quick to demonize you if you appose their view.
ndyt 1 week ago
@ndyt The right does it too, but I dont think it's anywhere near as bad as the left. Even Maxine Waters just a couple days ago speaking at a deomcratic event declared that reublicans are"demons" bent on destroying the country. People on the right might call people on the left funny names, but it seems like many people on the left truely believe the the people are the right are inherently evil and must be destroyed. The demonization from the left seems to be much more vulgar.
stebecool 1 week ago
3:50 -many other countries in the world that are even more capitalistic....
23lFrench 3 weeks ago
@TradingTutor You know what those social programs and government intervention lead to? You end up with a bankrupt nation where crony capitalist monopolies control the economy. That's how America is right now. It's a bankrupt welfare state. In a free market society, the free market would stop monopolies. Also watch the video "Are the poor getting poorer" by LearnLiberty. It will debunk your "the poor are getting poorer" statement.
556deltawolf 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TradingTutor No, it's governmental regulation and bureaucracy coupled with the devaluation of the dollar through inflationary monetary policy that has led to the increased prices and the crippling of competition in the marketplace. That's why everything is so expensive these days and individual entrepreneurs are at an inherent disadvantage.
sbalusu94 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
sbalusu94 4 weeks ago
Free-market economists forget one fundamental thing about capitalism: the capitalism in advanced stage is not equal to capitalism in a beginning stage. In the beginning, the economy was mostly made by small family-owned companies. Now it's mostly an oligopolistic and monopolistic economy, which is a consequence of the system itself, and which is the reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This justifies social programs, and a change of system.
TradingTutor 4 weeks ago
@TradingTutor those problems are caused by government, please read up
Thentox 2 weeks ago
look at this handsome, white, privileged, enlightened young college student with his furrowed brow and concern for the common man. what a dick.
kennedyt 1 month ago 12
@kennedyt He's asking questions and seeking knowledge. That's what he's supposed to do as a college student. He's not a dick, he's a student. Chill out.
thetroubleclefs 1 week ago
@kennedyt On top of that, he's parroting what his moron professors taught him.
ItsAllAboutGuitar 1 week ago
Milton was so fucking charismatic. Epic man to spread the truth.
stebecool 1 month ago
What did that audience member shout out to him?
yesman2079 1 month ago
The opening music is really chill.
praheresey 1 month ago
Where can I find the full lecture?
DavidJHilt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The free market is a scam to rob ordinary folk out of the profits of their hard work. But when the wealthy lost lots of money in the banking crisis they were the first there for the 'hand out'.The nanny state for the rich and the free market for all the rest of us. We've been conned! You didn't really believe that the wealthy actually believed in free markets did you? Did you really think that they would watch loads of their money dissapear because they said they believed in the free market
nivekvb 1 month ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 1 month ago
With the extraordinary amount of lobbying money coursing through American politics and now the unlimited spending power of Super PACs, the Money dictates which group of people are ultimately elected to office, and which type of laws are ultimately passed and enforced. As a result, there is no longer such a thing as "Free Market". It is a mythical creature that only exists in Theoretical Economics with as much actual legitimacy as Communism.
What we have today is a reversion to Feudalism.
yongy2000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "trickle-down" Theory: The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
JoshMan522 1 month ago
Contd..
The Free market system is "free" only in theory. Powerful interests within our society will never let us have a free market. So we see governments creating legal systems which allow some to squeeze more juice out of the system than others through the financial sector while we blame the welfare system for the poor.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Francis Fox Piven said almost the same argument you put to Milton Friedman. The answer was, "we are talking about mixed systems, and it is about what DIRECTION you are going in. I challenge you to find me ONE example in recorded history where a "fully" free society didn't have capitalism as the PREDOMINANT form of organizing resources."
But he would agree with you that government perverse markets.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo I challenge you to find me one example in human history where we have had a "fully" free society. The question is not about capitalism but rather about free markets. Free market is a myth. All governments and people exercise some type of protectionism either through subsidies, tariffs or regulations.
Friedman ideas are more or less ideological with very little practical implementation.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 To an extent, you are right, which is why we are talking about mixed systems, which is why Friedman talked about the PREDOMINANT form of resource exchange, which is a competitive capitalist system. But you CANNOT find a "free" society WITHOUT competitive capitalism as the basis. This is not ideological, but true. He also pointed out it is a NECESSARY condition, but NOT sufficient conditon for freedom.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo Exactly. But Friedman does not promote mixed systems but rather a pure free market system. A free competitive market will result in efficiency but the fact is it doesn't exist. The basis of the fall of communism was greed which is inherent to humans and is also the reason why fully free markets can't exist. In this clip he is connecting morality to free thought. Yes, its a great ideal but it is an ideal without any factual existence in the history of mankind or of economics.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Every time governments go in that competitive direction, though, overall economic conditions improve, that's what Friedman meant, and he is right. Now, define carefully, a competitive free market requires property rights and a judicial system to resolve disputes. Literally, a "pure free market" system is what his son wants, and not what he is advocating, because he accepts the reality that nothing is really "pure."
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo "Property rights and a judicial system" - You're right and who is going to assign these rights and adjudicate conflicts? I do not disagree with the "logic" that free systems offer prosperity but again, you need govt regulation. Free market ideology is currently being rebranded into a form of no-holds-barred system where govt needs to stay away from monetary policy. It has been proven time and again, markets left to people collapse due to manipulation.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 What, do "computers" run the government to "fix" what "people" mess up, IT'S ALL PEOPLE! Free compeitive Markets by nature are resistant to systemic "collapse" due to the decentralized nature of them. There are DAILY collapses in the OTC (IE outside of the SEC's "NY Stock exchange") stock market, and NOTHING happens to the good companies, like Nestle, which trade "over the counter."
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo On what basis are you suggesting free markets are resistant to systemic collapse? You can pick certain companies and use them as an example for your theory while i can pick 5 companies and show how they go crazy in a deregulated environment. The point is, if MF suggests some regulation is required then we are in agreement. But then you can't call it a FREE market system as it is being done in our current times, can you?
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 The OTC market is largely untouched by the SEC, and yet there are companies like Volkswagen and Nestle that do fine on them, while fly by night companies collapse, and there is NO "systemic" collapse. Again, it's about the direction, and MF is right in going in the direction of "compeitive capitalism." All the example YOU will give will have a mysterious connection to the SEC.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo In this particular clip he speaks of the welfare state and that FM will take care of the poor. This is a bogus claim which only offers good sound byte. A prosperous economy relieves poverty. However, wealth distribution is a key factor. As much as the right wants to push trickle down theories, the fact is the avg person lubricates the economy. The last 40 years are an shining example of that fact. MF's claims, people have responsibility is like being in a Sunday school. contd.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 He actually said that the market mechanisms have a better record at reducing poverty compared to the welfare programs enacted since the 30's - and he was right. Almost EVERYTHING done then was reformed into "less worse" solutions by the Democrats. He really wasn't a "supply sider," he was a monetarist.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo Can you explain to me which market mechanism have a better record of reducing poverty and at what point of time in history was it implemented? If you are making a linear connection of better economy with less poverty, then you can't be any more obvious. Businesses have only one obligation, making profit. Everything else is subjective to the management of the business.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Friedman pointed to the reduction of poverty in Chile, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the "gilded age" in the US. He also would point out China, which was practically like NKorea in 1979, not because they are "free" but because of the competitive capitalist direction they went in. He also explained how the Great depression was caused by a 33% reduction in the money supply.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo Yes, we know we have responsibility but are we fulfilling those responsibilities? You have no obligation to be charitable so what do we do about the unfortunate in our "civilized" society? Leave them to their fates (as per MF) hoping that FM participants will take care of them?
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 He's not saying that, he was saying that the welfare system made the situation WORSE, and he was right. It was the reason why he pushed for a minimum graduated income: it avoids the welfare trap, DOES NOT encourage families to break up and women to have more kids, and eliminates most of the Federal paper pushers for HUD, social security, etc.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo Also, the funny thing about a free system is that the market actually doesn't like it. Freedom brings uncertainty to the market. Businesses prefer capital friendly authoritarian regimes because even with unequal laws they can forecast cash flow easily since laws aren't going to change with the moods of the republic. There is always pressure from market forces to control unknowns which is what government does, and in an unequal society in perverse ways.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 The market loves the free system, CAPITALISTS don't. They all want something for nothing from government. The pressure isn't from "market forces" but from the political forces.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve You are making the same argument as Friedman about the philosophy of free market. In an ideal situation, the market would be completely free. However a market exists because of its participants. Participants calculate risk based on the environment in which the market is located. Reduction in risk requires control of as many unknowns as possible which is done through government.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 The government doesn't control unknowns it creates them. Pretending to reduce risk while simply transferring it to others with no control of those risks isn't something the market likes, it's something particular market participants like. Participants are prepared to take risks or they wouldn't be participants. Even if they didn't like risk there are plenty who will take the risk for them.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve You speak of markets and then remove market participants who continuously try to pervert them as capitalists. The fact is capitalists in every shape and form are a part of the economy in REALITY, not in the la la land free market system that you're dreaming up here. Risk is a part of business but reduction of risk is a requirement for every business to be stable. Out of greed, participants try to manipulate markets through government policy.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 I did not try to remove market participants. I merely said that markets aren't what goes against free markets, capitalists are. I am not making any "la la land" fantasies, merely describing reality, which you seem to have a problem with. I never denied participants try to manipulate markets through government policy, and Friedman certainly didn't. Stop strawmanning.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve "I merely said that markets aren't what goes against free markets"
A market place consists of its "participants" without whom there won't be a fucking market, you jackass. The fantasyland that MF speaks about which is free from government intervention and participant manipulation does not exist. The value of a theory depends on how well you can implement it and MF's ideas are just hot air. For you to say markets are pure while its participants are manipulative is delusional.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 I didn't say market are pure moron. I said that markets aren't what dislikes free markets. You are merely trying to divert attention from your claims that MF theories don't work. Saying that "market participants" (and who isn't one) corrupt the market through government isn't against MF theories, in fact it's part of them.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve Here's what your dimwitted brain can't comprehend - For you to say "mixed" systems work is to agree with me. Freedom is the basis of liberalism and no liberal is against having freedom. What "lefties" say is uncontrolled freedom in economic markets is detrimental to our society. MF has time and again asked govt to stay out of controlling the economy which is being used now to deregulate and has caused the current depression. So thanks for idiots like you, we have to suffer.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 You are right to extent, NOT only private businesses, but nearly everybody as well, because each individual can't see "what direction" they are going in. Friedman never though to the contrary.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 He gave you several applications in the video, everything he says has practical applications. This cowardly furphy that because there isn't a pure free market we can't implement solutions based on becoming more free market is simply lies for stupid people.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve More free? The idiocy of the argument lies right there. What is more free? Allowing the derivatives market to be deregulated is more free or allowing oil companies to police their oil rigs? The fact is support for impractical systems leads us to ignore basic realities of life - that markets need to be regulated because people's lives depend on it. FM concept believes markets will weed our inefficiencies (and rightly so) but how long would it take and at what cost to society?... contd
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Yeah like you don't know what's more free. It's impossible to tell if having tariffs, minimum wage laws, taxi licensing etc. is more free or less. God you're a lowlife idiot liar. Calling something a "basic reality of life" as your only argument and then calling my argument idiotic? Fuck you.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve You are another example of idiots parading around as intellectuals. You have no data to prove your hypothesis. Before the welfare state, poverty was being taken care of by private charities? You pulled that right out of your as s, didn't you? Poverty rates have reduced in this country after 1930s which were at the highest at the beginning of the 20th century contrary to the claims made by your God, Friedman. haha
You people are a joke!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Yes you are an example of that. You are the one who claimed history was full of examples, you provided none. So because poverty rates declined after the worst economic depression possibly in history (which was made and made worse by government) that indicates governemnt works? Of course poverty rates went down in an industrialised society, why wouldn't they with economic growth? What you need is evidence government made them go down. Moron.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve I just provided you poverty figures before and after the New deal. Prior to 1920's the govt deregulated markets which led to the 1st depression. The govt tightened regulation, gave USA the new deal and things were stable until Reaganomics kicked in and now we have another depression. Taxes and community welfare were at the highest points in the 50s and we still had tremendous growth. So for you to say that govt made things worse is quite retarded. I mean seriously, do you even read?
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 (cont) You keep calling me stupid without giving any evidence for your claims. The poverty stats you gave don't prove that poverty was going up despite increasing GDP, they just prove ONE year was bad. I know you're lying because you'd give the source if you weren't.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve One year was bad? Are you fucking retarded? The beginning of the 20th century has record growth in GDP. There was massive immigration to America from Europe but the growth was good enough to sustain increase in population. However, in times of unregulated labor, the poor class suffered. If you had read a single book on economic history you'd know that. Yes you are an idiot because you're incapable of reading data.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 You have given me evidence of ONE year being bad. If you have further evidence then stop dodging and point to it you liar. If you can't figure out how to get me to a website with those figures then you're retarded. In any case if there was "massive immigration" then that would explain lower wages. Presumably the immigrants came because wages were higher. So all you've shown is that economic growth didn't solve poverty IN AMERICA but perhaps it solved poverty in Europe.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve "You have given me evidence of ONE year being bad" Are you retarded? I gave you figures from years across the last century as a range showing fluctuations before and after the New Deal which you "white" right wingers hate so much because it helped the minorities.
Immigration to America was for work and to avoid persecution in Europe. America was an untouched market so obviously there was work here contd.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve But all economic indicators show that the booming economy didn't necessarily improve the condition of the lower classes. Migration definitely skewed the numbers but the condition of natives didn't improve in relate to drastic improvement of the rich class. Why? Because avg american laborers worked in slavery like conditions which the LEFT took care of. So thank us for improving your life you ungrateful cunt!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 No you lying little shitbag the governmet did not deregulate in the 1920s. In fact in bank especially government invovlement was far greater (you might have heard of the Federal Reserve). Taxes and "community welfare" were not at their highest point prior to the war on poverty, you're lying again. Things were not "stable" after the New Deal if they were you'd have given figures that showed that, not ones consistent with my theory.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve You're quite an ignorant cunt. And you lie within 2 posts. I said, "Taxes and community welfare were at the highest points in the 50s" while you claim that I said, " Taxes and "community welfare" were not at their highest point prior to the war on poverty". Who is talking about war on poverty?
Are you stupid or just an illiterate who can't understand simple english LOL
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 You are talking about the welfare state, which is the war on poverty. If you didn't know this you're a moron.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve War on Poverty is historically considered as the initiative started by Johnson in the 60s while I was talking about the 50s and post war US. New Deal was not war on poverty. In any case, you're the one who started using the term not me. And it turns out you have no clue what you're talking about. But you're an ignorant cunt with retarded levels of IQ. So what else can we expect. Which public school did you drop out of?
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Marginal != total moron.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve Hahaha I tried to summarize the tax rates because youtube allows limited characters. Everybody who has even a little bit of knowledge of economics knows tax rates were highest during the 50s. Even a small google search or wikipedia query will tell you that.
Your problem is you believe in ideologies like religion - on faith. I'm pretty sure you're a religious cunt too. Like if you believe in God, there is no proof, the world is a disaster but in theory He can make things rock! haha
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve The crash initiated due to loose monetary policy. Banks were leveraging $9 for $1 of capital after which the Feds tightened up capital which made matters worse. Anyway, the bottom line is, MF's theories only make sense in fantasyland. People who participate in Free markets do not allow the market to function freely. So go back to your tea party meeting and play with guns. Discussions about economics is not your forte.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 So you admit the crash was due to government policy, not deregulation. Great now you've told the truth once, so fuck off. I doubt you'll do it again. What you are doing is saying "People like me will lie about the free market and prevent it happening therefore it's a bad idea." Fuck you.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve You fucking moron. The financial sector had little restriction on how to use credit. Over leveraging sans any control of risk caused the crash. Does that sound similar to what we have right now? So you have two historical market crashes caused by the same thing - deregulation of the financial section something that MF always supported. I told you earlier, avoid thinking about complicated things like economics, its above your IQ level. haha what a joker...can't understand simple english
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve "What you need is evidence government made them go down" You have no clue how arguments work, do you? YOU make a claim that FM is the way to go, govt intervention is bad, etc and when you find figures which correspond to big govt action that don't support your claim, you again start your delusional behavior. On the other hand, economic catastrophes happened not once, but twice after massive deregulation but you still think deregulation is good?
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 No liar you made the claim that history was full of examples. It's not, in fact you couldn't find one. You did not give fugures that backed up your claim. You gave (unsourced, unreliable) figures that suggested that in a modern western society over time poverty goes down. Nobody denied that. Both the 1920s and the present catastrophe, both of which were preceded by INCREASES in regulation, moron.
newperve 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@newperve "in a modern western society over time poverty goes down. Nobody denied that"
Poverty went down when the labor movement picked up. Workers had little to no rights at the end of the 19th century. At the end of the 19th century unions started fighting against unfair work conditions. In the 1930s labor reforms were enacted which led to improved wages and conditions for labor until 60s after which right winged union busting especially after Reagan had stagnated wages vs inflation.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve Also, people with weak mindsets tend to call people lefty or whatever so they can assign them to a group for generalization purposes. That way you can assign them characteristics that they may or may not share. A person could be fiscally conservative and socially liberal or vice versa and that puts idiots like you in a dizzy.
You have presented no evidence to support MF's claims, his arguments in this clip are quite rudimentary, his claims unsubstantiated are removed from reality..
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve Freedom is necessary but the kind of laissez-faire ideology that MF and his followers support blindly, puts half assed policies in place which destroy social infrastructure and replace it with NOTHING. The value of your critique of govt action relies on the alternative you can provide. Saying private charities can take care of social problems without any historical evidence that it is possible, is a disingenuous way of passing on responsibility to non-existent figures.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 There is plenty of historical evidence look up "fraternal socieities". They looked after the poor and provided cheap medical insurance. You wouldn't know about that because you have only ignorance and lies. You couldn't find ONE example of what you claimed history was full of.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve Youtube does not allow anybody to post links to other websites which is why I told you to look at the Millenium Project on American Poverty. You'll find all that data you need.
The fact is, "fraternal societies" weren't taking care of poverty but rather helping them survive. The welfare state didn't do a great job in canceling out poverty but did a good job in reducing it. The figures of reduction in poverty coincide with the exact times when the New deal was implemented
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve Please stop wasting my time and go read a book and educate yourself. Or go masturbate watching Milton Friedman's economic porn...whatever floats your boat. But stop proving again and again that you're dimwit who follows ideologies with no background analysis or data to support it
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 If you have time to lie you have time to back up your arguments. Calliong me an idiot while posting only figures consistent with what I said happened and really vague to boot (whose source you've chosen to conceal) just means you can't deal with real analysis.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve You moron. I have provided you the source. Your entire argument is based on a hypothetical system for which even MF does not have any historical data to provide. MF has been proved wrong multiple times when he speaks of these FM societies which don't exist. If he is talking about mixed system societies then we have one although it is a perverted version but morons like you do not stop at restrained deregulation.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 No you provided me with the name of an organisation, with no way to distinguish it from the dozens of other organisations with similar names. You did this deliberately because you don't want me checking out your figures, because they back me up. That's why all the specific figures you've given me are consistent with my theory.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve I have given you ample "DATA" which supports my claims. YOU have yet to provide a single figure or proof to support your dumb theories. All you've said is "Fraternal societies look after poor" in a vague manner and such similar claims. I'm calling you an idiot because you are one. You think you can make posts on the internet and make yourself feel like an intellectual. You sound like a complete jackass without any knowledge of economics or social structures. Fuck off!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 No you've simply claimed that there is data and given me no way to check. Either you're an idiot or you're simply making shit up. I think on reflection it's the second one. After all you STILL haven't given me a way to check your data even after I told you how to do so. You claimed to know all of history, why should I need to give you the information? I will though mises dot org slash daily slash 5388
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve Here little twat w w w . sp2 . upenn . edu / america2000 / wp7all . pdf. As for your fraternal societies, there have been and always will be organizations that help the poor privately. The question is whether it is sufficient or not. Your provides details of the existence of socially organized help but what was their impact on poverty is not shown.
From figures for poverty, it WASN'T enough! You think posting a page is enough to prove your hypothesis? Uneducated moron!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Calling me a twat just because I point out that claimed figures with no way to check simply means you're a twat. You are posting a page to prove your hypothesis, which it doesn't. The author admits that the increase in poverty was probably due to immigration, which means even the poor were probably less poor than they were. Whether the fraternal societies were "enough" depends on what you call "enough". They did work better than the war on poverty or the New Deal.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve I called you a twat because you speak out of your ass. Saying that fraternal societies worked better than the new deal is also another item right out of your ass. After the New Deal poverty levels went down dramatically after the New Deal and Johnson's initiative. STFU retard. You are now denying research with figures and citations right in front of your eyes. YOu right wingers have no character. Just a bunch of phonies.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve I'm done educating you. MF made unsubstantiated claims in this clip. In theory, a booming economy would reduce poverty but from the cycles of deregulation we've seen historically booms are accompanied by busts. This was avoided by govt control of gambling with taxpayer money from 1930s to 80s after which Reagan jizzed all over the economy with his idiotic deregulatory policies which we're suffering from now.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Poverty stopped going down when the War On Poverty started, not when Reagan came in. You have not educated me, you've just talked shit.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve You have all the evidence that poverty rates went down after the New Deal kicked in. And now after the GOP is working on eliminating social infrastructure, poverty is going up again.
I will agree the welfare state isn't the most efficient but you're offering HOT AIR instead of that. I feel sorry for people like you who blindly follow ideologies without any background knowledge of how your vote messes up people's lives. I'm done arguing with you. You are an ignorant idiot
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 No we have the evidence that poverty rates went down when poor people got paid to kill Japanese. Now fuck off.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve I pity your existence. Another item right out of your ass. For a person demanding evidence doesn't provide any evidence even though the burden of proof lies on YOU to provide evidence to suggest WHY all your unimplemented theories are worthy of consideration. You can shove your worthless opinion right back into your ass, moron!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 no shithead you made the claim. Now fuck off liar.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve hahaha your God is making these claims in front of a crowded room how current system of welfare is rubbish. And he made some random claims about how things were better earlier when the data doesn't support it. You support his claim and you have no evidence to prove it. All I said was MF is lying.
Man, you are really really dumb. To not be able to analyze data is one thing. You don't even get simple logic in argument. hahaha Now wonder people think America is full of idiots.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 You made the claims liar. You claimed all history showed that this wasn't true, then couldn't find a single instance where this is true. Not that you defined what an example would be anyway. BTW I'm not America fucktard. You haven' used logic, you've just made claims you can't back up.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve haha Idiot. MF makes the claims here in the fucking video, got it retard? I said he was lying because data doesn't prove his claims. You started defending it without any substance or any proof. A lame website with an article that reference 2 citations over and over again is NOT proof especially when its laced with ambiguous words about "some" "many" organizations in fraternal societies.
I SHOWED you poverty figures which you fail to discuss because you're too dumb to understand it.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve Are you a scientologist? You sound like you believe in some fancy stuff that you can't prove! What a joker!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve I'm putting you on ignore list now because you're like a pile of shit. If I touch you, I will start stinking too! Have fun living your ignorant life.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Wow! that is a good answer. Well done!
nivekvb 1 month ago
@newperve Friedman says govt has no responsibility but people have responsibility towards poverty in our society. Look around you and tell me how many of us are fulfilling our responsibility? He blames the govt for creating a welfare class. I would agree with him that the welfare system in this country is ill conceived. But what is he proposing instead of it? Let people starve until we as "people" accept that weaker sections of the society need assistance from our profits?
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 If you weren't lying about knowing history you'd know that fraternal societies and charities looked after the poor quite well prior to the welfare state. What he is proposing is that people stop pretending that their responsibilities to the poor are satisfied by voting to rob from rich people. The welfare state has over 50% support so clearly people do accept the responsibility to the poor already. Yet again you demonstrate you don't care for the truth.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve Several applications? His joke about cancer was a cheap attempt at diverting the argument which idiots in the audience bought. His assertion that poverty was reduced due to free enterprise is only partly correct. USA was mired with poverty while GDP increased rapidly at the dawn of the 20th century. After the new deal, poverty levels plummeted until the 70s. You're welcome!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 MF continually talked about applications of his theory throughout his life. After the New Deal poverty stayed at the abysmal levels you'd expect from a massively depressed economy whilst around the world almost every country recovered before America did. Poverty went down when poor people were hired to die fighting Nazis and work replacing others who were doing so. I believe you are simply making up the claim about increasing poverty in early 20th C USA.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve False. Poverty stats (est) for you: 62% in 1870. 39% in 1900. 44% in 1909 at a time GNP was increasing rapidly. In 1939 60% of rural households were poor while avg poverty was 44%. Poverty rate dropped 44 percent in 1939 to 13 percent in 1989: the rate dropped 27 percent in the 1940s, 36 percent in the 1950s, 29 percent in the 1960s, 20 percent in the 1970s, and not at all in the 1980s.
Economy jumpstarted during WW2 but for you to say poverty stayed at abysmal levels is just wrong.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Unsourced poverty stats that reference 5 particular years out of 140. Real convincing. If 44% isn't abysmal what is? Especially considering that it was the same as a rate you criticise from 25 years earlier. You don't show the numbers that would actually disprove my claims. In fact only 2 of your figures reference "The dawn of the 20th century" which is what your claim was about. You're lying.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve Poverty stats started being recorded from the late 50s. The previous stats are all estimates which MF used (and lied about). You said after the welfare society was created i.e. the new deal (which you rightwingers hate) poverty stats went down drastically until Reagan years. All these figures are from a research project at the Millenium Project. At the "Dawn of the century" American GDP increased rapidly but the share of income was unevenly focused towards the top class. Idiot!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 No I didn't say what you claimed I said. You still have not given me a source for your stats that I could conceivable follow up on. You're lying. If MF really lied about the stats you'd give a source. Calling me an idiot while hiding your data isn't all that convincing liar.
newperve 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo You won't like this but you should read this: nybooks com / articles / archives / 2007 / feb / 15 / who-was-milton-friedman / ?page=1
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 I've Seen Krugman's piece and then the critique response from one of Friedman's research partners, on "A Monetary HIstory," which got Friedman the Nobel Prize.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78
You don't seem to understand that those INTERFERENCES that resulted in more money for "evil" corps have been mostly defended and implemented by LEFT WING people
Even today, you see Stiglitz, Krugman & co. defending MORE regulations/bailouts more viciously than anyone else
No offense, but, to me, you people are just a joke. You rig the markets for your own ideological purposes and then, when the results don't turn out as expected, you blame markets and corps
CollectivePreference 1 month ago
@CollectivePreference Moro.n alert! A jackass trying to parade around as an intellectual.
Politics aside, this argument is not about "who" did what but rather the philosophy of free markets and its implementation. Try to understand the argument before opening that hole in your face.
FYI, there is no monolithic LEFT out there where everybody believes in the same thing like there on the right. I'd comment more but I reckon its a waste of time discussing this with someone like you.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78
You really are too stupid to understand what I just told you, aren't you?
The philosophy/principles are based on human behaviour observed in history, you fucking retard. "Who" and "Where" and the most important questions to be asked here
"there is no monolithic LEFT [...] like there on the right" <- And wtf is this even supposed to mean? Miss english much?
Oh and by the way, I bet any amount of money you want that my IQ is at least 10 points higher than yours.
CollectivePreference 1 month ago
@CollectivePreference Too difficult to understand? You used terms from oft used talking points such as "evil corps", "left wing people". You're a dumbass who's too brainwashed watching Fox news.
Let me explain to you very s l o w l y what I meant by a monolithic left. You used the term "Left wing people" as if everybody who's a liberal thinks alike. There are liberals who are anti-free market philosophy while some support it. But a moron like you wouldn't understand that now, can you?
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@CollectivePreference Who and where are important questions but when the onus is on free market philosophy in the current discussion, bringing up left wing or right wing is just a display of your stupidity.
And by the way, I can bet you any money, I make 5 times as much money as you. AND I'm at lest twice as educated as you at a university 10 times better than the community college you went to. IQ? Watch out there, you might just blow your mind talking about things you don't understand.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78
Right, let's make this official. $5000 ?
CollectivePreference 1 month ago
@CollectivePreference hahaha Wow you're much more stupid than I thought. Is that Mitt Romney there? How are you going to pay up? Nigerian prince email scam?
Just sit back, read what you just typed, think about, "$5000 bet on a youtube forum" and then go kill yourself. What waste of oxygen!
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78
Let's make this offical, so don't sleaze your way out of this, you little weasel. Let's exchange numbers and compare IQs in real life.
CollectivePreference 1 month ago
I've got a better idea, first one to get me to a website that provides evidence for their case is smarter. BTW I'm smarter than both of you.
newperve 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 Yes, since deregulation the financiers work in 'futures' buying at todays prices but buying up so much that they push prices sky high. After 6 months they don't take delivery of anything but just buy at the low previously agreed price and then sell at the inflated price which they drove up. They do this to all commodities and they are stealing other people's hard work. It's like tax where they keep raking money off everyone else to pay the rich without making anything.
nivekvb 1 month ago
Contd..
For the 2nd question, he says you cannot have equality and liberty. Here he takes a practical approach instead of the hypothetical belief that he went with for the 1st question.
The big problem with the free market belief that friendman promoted through out his life is that there has never been a free market. We always want to control our markets for our interests. Britain which initiated the free market idea controlled all its colonies. America protected its markets when it was weak.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
Friedman uses contradictory methods of argument for the 1st and 2nd questions. In response to the 1st question he claims Free market enterprise is the only way to eliminate poverty and the people not the government have responsibility towards the poor. The fact is people do not fulfill their social responsibility and the history of mankind has many examples of it. So his answer is impractical and non existent. He blamed the govt for welfare but didn't provide an alternative.
contd..
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 "People do not fulfill their social responsibility and the history of mankind has many examples of it" that as usual leftist won't provide. In fact of course prior to the development of the welfare state there were many organisations that satisfied this "social responsibility". He did not contradict himself anywhere, stop pretending.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve Who exactly is fulfilling this social responsibility? Are we supporting the lower rungs of the society through some formalized scheme built by every business on their own as part of their social outreach program? Don't hide behind BS philosophies of systems that do not exist. How many businesses are regularly diverting dollars to eliminate poverty? And what happens in times of recession when one can't support philanthropies? Rubbish argument sans any practical implications.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 As usual the leftist has missed the point and can't understand the use of the past tense. _Prior_ to the welfare state there were many charities and fraternal organizations that looked after the poor. These naturally declined in importance when the government started forcibly taking money to "deal with" poverty. Why should business pay money to reduce poverty when their shareholders could do it? You are not interested in truth.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve Let me tell you something - name calling (leftist) is a sign of weak argumentative skills. The fact is you're basing your argument on a hypothetical system shows how bad your ideas are.
Welfare state? Can you tell me some time lines for creation of welfare state? Do you have any statistics or numbers to prove that prior to creation of the welfare state, private charities were taking care of the poor? You are so blind to the truth you will go to any extent to fabricate it.
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@Franky4fingers78 I'm not basing my arguments on a hypothetical system but a historical one. You are a leftist, this is undeniable, how is it "name calling". You're the one making the claim of historical knowledge, why do I need to tell you when the welfare state started? You claim there are lots of examples, you haven't provided any. You are simply lying.
newperve 1 month ago
@newperve "I'm not basing my arguments on a hypothetical system" Oh, boy you are quite dumb. I blame the public education system. A FM system has never been implement in the history of mankind. HENCE, it is a hypothetical system. Communism/Socialism were implemented and they failed. Do you understand these SIMPLE realities.
When you make claims that FM is good, the burden of proof lies with you to prove it. You said "Prior_ to the welfare state there were many charities" ...contd
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
@newperve So you have to tell me at what point of time in American history were these charities relieving poverty. The fact is the welfare state didn't improve poverty by much but where MF's alternative? Private charities? Even if the welfare state was created what was stopping private charities from continuing their work? Did the govt stop them? You promote a system and then when you fail to substantiate your claims, you just run like a little girl screaming "la la la la la!"
Franky4fingers78 1 month ago
From 2:45 - 3:25 Milton obliterates that man in the audience.
karozans 1 month ago
Hahaha, 30 years later we are witnessing the true effects of Friedmanism, AKA neo-liberalism. Poverty rates have skyrocketed, the wealth has been concentrated into the hands of the 1%, and the snakes who still follow the ideas of this king cobra still blame it on "laziness". He has the most silver lined words but his actions show his true motives. Just another method of making the rich richer and poor poorer.
MrRagnarocks 1 month ago
@MrRagnarocks I do not agree with Obama that Americans are "lazy." But he hates Friedman. He is only a crony capitalist. Btw, his friends at Solyndra want bonuses. But he makes everybody else poorer. hahaha
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@MrRagnarocks All of what you say happened with INCREASING GOVERNMENT POWER OVER THE ECONOMY. Stop pretending that massive increases in government spending didn't occur, it makes you look like a fool. By blaming those who opposed the increase in government spending you are letting those really responsible off the hook.
newperve 1 month ago
superb!
Hokitt 1 month ago 2
@tomtaylor1 Im not sure how you came to that conclusion, but if ypu can please explain it to.
1253bryan 1 month ago
@1253bryan i will attempt to. what we have now due to the sanctity held for the free market is a position where is it governmentally legitimate to cut benefits and other programs before any inkling of taxation is considered, inspite of the almost farcical funds concentrated in the hands of the few - 38% of the wealth for 1% of the populace etc. In regard to freedoms friedman is blinkered, no fucker on the earth is free. i cant piss in public with a beer in one hand and hooker in the other...
p1nkAcid 1 month ago
@p1nkAcid Well I object to that, I live in Vegas, where you can in fact do all of those things. And we dont have a free market, we have a market thats regulated to death. Taxing isnt the awnser, Bringing troops homes, and actually letting the market work is. I agree with you, were not free now, but we can be. Even though I doubt that the Establishment would let us have freedoms it doesnt stop us for fighting for out freedom.
1253bryan 1 month ago
@1253bryan what you call the establishment, thats all us man. Democratic government enforces the will of the people, they can be our best friend. But what we have now is a 2 party state where no 2 viewpoints will differ by 20%, ergo not a lot changes. As for taxes they can be the some of the most useful tools to inspire change in advanced economies, and if enforced in a progressive way could shit all over the deficit etc., but now there should be some global legislature, combating wealth shifts
p1nkAcid 1 month ago
@1253bryan in the situation below who is being harmed aside from myself? No one really. Same with something like the rights of homosexuals. THe right are the first to defend the liberties of the individual, its like the reason for their existence or something, but if one man wants to marry another that isnt allowed, inspite of it having little if any effect on anyone beside the individuals involved. What i think im saying is that it comes down to bare bones morality; we're in this shit together
p1nkAcid 1 month ago
Milton was absolute bonkers. We see the effects of his teachings with the financial nightmare that we have today.
tomtaylor1 1 month ago
Mencken's Law - Whenever A takes money from B to help C, A is a scoundrel.
donpjen515 1 month ago
wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
MMZen 1 month ago
i don't have a problem with the government helping the poor, as long as it's not using my money to do it.
topperheartramada 1 month ago
@topperheartramada Well, in that case the government simply CANT help the poor, because the government has no resources of it's own.
FumTech 1 month ago