This guy is a genious, I just started watching his videos about a month ago and I'm yet to find a video where someone has proven him wrong. Who would be the counter to Milton's philosophy? (please save the jokes). Other than maybe Ron Paul, who would are today's Friedman's?
@KurtBeekeeper - You're blaming Friedman for people following policies in direct opposition to all of his philosophies. Do you always feel the need to spread your ignorance about all the topics you know nothing about, or is this your first time?
That's right. The best flow of capital occurs when left to the individual. However, he's neglecting 1/2 of the story. Greedy corporate elite don't pay employees equitably & keep the overwhelming majority of the profits in the hands of the few. People can't make the choice of how they'll spend if they never see the money in the 1st place. If he really believed that the individual makes the best decisions, why does he show no concern that 10% owns 70% of the wealth? Because he was in the top 10%.
I don't think him or his followers understand how social safety nets work. Social security doesn't redistribute money from rich to poor but from young to old; Medicare is redistributes from the young & health to the old and unhealthy.
Nothing wrong with capitalism at all. It inspires competition and invention. However what we would like to see is everyone have equal or close to oppurtunity to access the resources they require to become productive members of society. Why should it be a richest only club .On top of that I will add that every civilised society is obliged to help and aid the less fortunate. In terms of education, medical services,care of the elderly and unemployment. This is a balanced society.
With just a little help all those people on the street in Capitalistic America could actually be productive tax paying citizens. You give a little but you gain more.
He has some good points that are valid in some situations. But its all not black and white. Literally. Socialism has its place in some countries. Until they rise and learn to be productive.
Contrary to what my history teacher tells us, there is nothing "corrupt" or wrong with pursuing our own personal interests! I want to make a lot of money so I can travel, have a good life, and donate to animal rights organizations... because that's what I feel passionate about! I'd rather not pay for my governor's curtains and bathroom remodeling, thank you very much.
@historyfairgirl "That's the thing you gotta remember about WASPs kid: they love animals, but they hate people" - Gordon Gekko. Truer words have never been spoken. I swear, there is no bigger waste of money than spending it on animals. They do not have the means to reciprocate. My family was financially helped when we moved to this country by the catholic church (even though we were not catholic), and because of that I have the desire to help people in the same way.Animals lack the intellect to.
Goddamn this guys fucking rules! I wish I could build a time machine and bring him to our time and just tell him to explain shit to the country, why Obama and socialism suck. Then again if I was granted a wish I would probably just wish for my language skills to be equivalent to Milton Friedman's
Your Czechoslovakia example is pathetic ( don't take it personal). You can't give the example of a country who got the system imposed by an invader(willing obedience always beat forced obedience). Correct me if I'm wrong but the Nordic states have pretty strong economies for the size of their population (keeping in mind that they are not parasite to other countries like Switzerland).
@royalplaylist102 The only time CzechoSlovakia was invaded was in 1968. The reason they were invaded was due to the fact that many people realized that the socialist experiment was bogus, and they pushed for freedom. Something socialism is dead set against.
These countries are quite wealthy, but that's DESPITE their socialistic system.
Seriously, instead of just spouting nonsense, you should try study economics for a bit.
@Romeowasbleeding1 I can't comment on your thoughts about socialistic systems and economies 'cause I ain't no expert on economics or finance, but you sure don't know history. Or maybe you don't consider Adolf Hitler's incursion into the Sudatenland and eventually the whole of Czechoslovakia, as invasion. Well, the Czechs certainly did.
It doesn't take an expert to know the basics of economy.
If you were to have read previous arguments, it would be apparent to you that we are talking about Socialist systems. So I only referred to the Soviets crushing of the Prague Spring. I could have been more precise I guess. I admit, Czechoslovakia, and those respective lands have been invaded many times, Ottoman, Magyar, Tatar invasions to think of a few. However none of them relate to what I was talking about.
@Romeowasbleeding1 Sheath your sword, dude! This inverted form of perusal may be okay for dyslexics, but not a 65 year-old used to reading top down, western world style. And you might want to be a little more definitive with verb usage. "Invade" is not a word normally used in finance. "Hostile takeover" or something like that, maybe. "Invade" is a forceful foray of 'physical' aggression into the territoty of another for purposes of conquest. I'm jus' say'n.
I apologize, I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I agree with you, the chronology of youtube's comments makes everything a convoluted mess.
I agree, saying "invasion" would be a bit extreme in a financial context. However, I used it to describe the Soviet attack on CzechoSlovakia during the Prague Spring of 1968. Under president Dubcek, Czechoslovakia started to push for freedom, however this was crushed by Breznev, who in the end enacted the tyrannical Breznev Doctrine.
Of course if people prefer having fun instead of taking an active part in their government they will get what they deserve.A government ruled by the few who take an active part in politic commonly known as lobeyist. There is no magic solution, people have to work(by work I mean thinking) almost all the time and right now they do the exact opposit , they only think at work and turn the switch off as soon as the day is over.
I guess I will need another word to explain my point of view. Free market is a synonym for economic anarchy. If you want no rule imposed by the elected government you have to accept the fact that some people out there will group together and one day or the other become influent enough to impose their own rule. Now which one do you prefer?
I want to point out one last thing. I'm not poor nor leftist of rightist. My family made a good amount of money developing good agricultural land in parking lots for human (real estate development is the right term I guess).Personally the system work on my side but I can still say it: it's wrong just wrong. It's not that I don't like jew the fact is that I don't like the way they think. We should share together instead of trying to crooks each other with worthless pieces of paper.
I can't believe after 30 years of destruction of the middle class people are still praying this crooks. You know there is a term for what Friedman wanted: Savage capitalism. This is nothing new it's what we had from 1750 to 1945. We are definitely heading toward it right now , congressmen and senators are speaking of destroying the minimum wage aka they want people in america to work for less than 7 dollar an hour welcome to the third world country realm.
Now let get back to Friedman with his shitty economic, let me tell you something really simple. If your neighbors are starving to death and you are rich do you think it is a sustainable situation? In theory it may but in reality one day or the other your neighbors will kill you and share your wealth.That's exactly what's going to happen soon in our society because nuts like Friedman are devaluing money to keep their rich friends rich while commoner see their purchasing power melt.
Reading this comment plainly shows your ignorance.
Libertarians believe that the market should not be distorted by the government! Let me ask you? What devalues money? Inflation. How does inflation come about? When there is more money in circulation. Who increases the amount of money? the FED. The FED are interventionist. Just think about it, Quantitive Easing, the buying of government bonds....
I also believe in the republic which is a greco roman concept. I think the elite should serve the people instead of exploiting them and the people shouldn't try to mingle in policy matter. Jewish people have an addiction to "truth" all those leftist jew who wish to tell everyone the truth are basically destroying our society from my point of view. What's the point of showing out of context horrors to people who don't care anyway?
I can agree with everything Milton says here, I am a New York City landlord with a rent stabalized building. When I "creativly" liberated 3 apartments from the yoke of oppression I used the money i was getting to beef up the building and make it nicer for those higher paying folks, it was my insentive. When i have all apartments with filthy rent stabalized tenants, I didn't give a crap how it looked and couldn't really pay to improve it anyway.
... the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people's money at it's very bottom is a philosophy of violence and coercion...
1) err, other people's money ??? Best friends' jealously and violently guarded possessions, presumably?
2) violence and coercion - why the insistent and irritating tapping on the desk? He appears not too convinced himself of his ideological bullwax, and presumably is somewhat aware it completely lacks empirical evidence of any kind - at the very bottom.
@royalplaylist102 - working under a persecution complex, heh? Why don't you try to deal with Friedman's argument per se without getting all worked up about his background. That will make your argumentation a bit more effective.
In the 2007 list of 100 most powerful people in the world 50% are jews. They are roughly 13 millions and they have 50 of the most powerful people in the world. The real Israel is New York there is more jews in New York than there is in Israel. More than 50% of the professional in Berlin and Vienna in the 30's were jewish while they represented only 10% of the population. They have 50% of the powerful post in the U.S and represent 2% of the population.Look like history repeat itself.
Few people who have lived in relative exile and still have many people illogically hating them (such as your ignorant self) have made so much out of so little.
No one is stopping you from being one of the most powerful people in the world, except for yourself.
You should respect them, not hate them for their achievements.
@Romeowasbleeding1 I don't hate jews I was only stating facts and historical similitude. I've been raised in what was the last bunker of catholicism in America ( I had catholic classes up to my 5th grade in PUBLIC school). if you put aside the miracle and resurrection stuff I think what I've learn in those classes made sens , help the poor , share if you have too much etc.
The Christian way of thinking fits well into a free market. People should share, and support each other, out of the goodness of their hearts. Being charitable is very different from supporting a socialist system. A socialist system uses tacit force to take money away from individuals that have worked hard to earn it, and then distribute it according to how the government sees fit. That is not being charitable, that is legalized theft, that threatens freedom, and the economy.
@Romeowasbleeding1 The world we are living in today is the exact opposite and I personally believe it have to do with one thing the jewish religion allow while christian and muslim used to forbid it: interest rate. Why would you give money to someone instead of letting it sleep somewhere while it ''multiply''. You see all this principle of living money make no sens to me and it keep inflating the price of every commodity aka people have to work more for less.
WHAT????? Interest rate has nothing to do with increasing the price of commodities! That is inflation. You increase inflation to drop the interest rates.
Study something called the SI LM curve.
If you are against the Fiat money system- which most free marketeers are, you would support the Gold standard right?
Anyway, interest is the reason people borrow money at all, the fact they get rewarded gives people incentives to borrow.
This is basically the jewish view of the world against the christian view of the world and since the 70's the jewish view of the world won hands up. Take care of the poor do good around you, share if you have to much that's what Christianity told us. Socialist is just an atheist form of Christianity. Friedman , just like Greenspan and Bernakee now they are all jews. You want to ear about economy on the left? Stiglitz , Krugman jews again. Does it make me anti-Semite?
@Romeowasbleeding1 Israel have the second largest gap between the poor and the rich in the ''western world'' after..... the United States of America. If it fit your definition of socialist I highly recommend you update it (I live in a socialist ''sate'' by the way I know what socialism is). The province of Québec is more socialist than France itself.
I also live in a Socialist state, one of the Nordic countries. The gap between rich and poor has little do with socialism. In fact, socialism fits very well with poverty. Look at the entire eastern bloc, they suffered under a tyrannical socialist system that forced once rich countries like Czechoslovakia to enter economic stagnation since the 60's. Only now, after they are able to free themselves, have they started to grow once again. Socialism is a system of government.
@Romeowasbleeding1 Socialism is a religion and it's god is the human being. Socialism is basicaly applyed christianity, it aimes at making everyone equal which is clearly impossible. It usually work at the begining but sooner or later wise people find way to crooks the system and it end up with a middle class supporting the poor and eventualy no middle class at all.
"The welfare state ... is a philosophy of violence & coercion."
I guess Milty skipped Labor History 101 as an undergraduate.
Hey Milt! you dead fuck: What would you call Rockefeller's massacre of women and children during the 1914 Ludlow coal mine strike in Colorado? Beach blanket bingo?
This stupid fuck was so far up his own ass sniffing his shit and likin' it, it never seemed to dawn on him: at IT'S root, capitalism IS violence and coercion. Stupid fuck.
@bapyou Your example is nearly 100 years old. Government oversight during that period would not of stopped such an act, considering everyone killing was a willing participant. Last i checked deranged murderers are usually dealt with after the act is commited, in this day and age, what are you purposing? some sort of crime fighting Government oversight to make sure CEO's don't slaughter their workers?
Capitalism isn't evil men are, so why would you trust a government run by MEN to protect you?
The USA is a fascist country. Take socialism, but only give it to the corporations, then give the dog-eat-dog society to the working class. Why was Michael Moore's "Capitalism" a huge hit, in THEATERS non the less. I'm a big fan of documentaries. There are hundreds of excellent ones. None would ever make it to the big screen, or be talked about in the mainstream. WHY? Because they're trying to turn us against the very system they preached. It's the last phase of the NWO. Worldwide USSR
@arzoyan So because I'm a capitalist and my business has done well, I'm a gang member??? The $25,000 US dollars I donate EACH YEAR is bad?? I guess I'll stop freely giving to people (perhaps like you) that might benifit from my "Evil Capitalistic Ways". PS How much do you give each year to those less fortunate?? if you dont mind me asking.
@CanYouAffordObama Good for you to be in a position to donate, however the Charity Industry is not going to eradicate perpetual War,Enviornmental destructions,Animal cruelty of industrial proportions,Food Production that is the cause of so much diseases,Medical industry that is literallly killing for monetary PROFIT,Working Class exploitation where 3billion are on less than 2 dollars a day and so on , We are hert to not discuss individual anomalies or charities, BUT A SYSTEMIC CONTRADICTION
@CanYouAffordObama Pat your self on the back for giving to charity and the tax breaks you get because you do.
But don't ever ever ever ever ask yourself this question:
Why do we live in a society in which charity is required?
Don't ask yourself that question, because, if you do, and you take the answer seriously (as I have), you will become a socialist. A real one. Not the imagined stupidities with which right-wingers paint everyone to the left of Attila the Hun.
As Margaret Thatcher said "the problem with Socialism is that you run out of other people's money". In a Liberal Democracy if you spend other people's money to help the Less Fortunate you should use that money to help those people get on their own feet & support themselves so they can create their own wealth. In a Socialist Democracy spending other people's money is used to subsidize them indefinitely because nothing is expected out of them.
intersteing that the old plbucit hoseing that hes talking about back kind of sound like fanny and fready of today intersting that hes perdiceting freeadom for ever one finacly..cool..video..bye
@hieronomy Let me help you with this. Advocates of a free market want no government interference in the market at all--not subsidies, bailouts or the like. Government was created expressly to protect the rights of the individual, not pick the winners and losers with wealth redistribution schemes.
@hieronomy I think you're misrepresenting everything that Milton would have said. But that's okay, intellectual honesty never really was your side's strongest suit.
@migu9999 There literally is not that much money in the world. You could literally sell every single thing on the planet and you would not make that much.
@u0455294 I believe in Friedman's concepts as you do, unfortunately, there are billions of losers that think they are "victims" that don't understand that these beliefs are best for EVERYONE! Take care of yourself and then GIVE if/when you choose out of caring. America is the most giving country on the face of the earth!
@ProudConservative2 Rubbish america is a murdering thieveing country, who funded it's own greed via farming of cannabis on it's very own soil, now all it does is invade and murder other countrys, and you lot piss&moan when your troops come home dead and mutilated, you sad pathetic country. Im white and from the uk and we are not your allies most people in the uk are with europe as america officially owns the flag of being the worlds most hated country you bunch of little sheep.
LOL this from someone who lives in a country formally known as the British Empire? That follows us into battle EVERYtime there is a conflict. "little sheep"? You don't take a shit unless we tell you you can. LOLOLOLOL
@indydaisy1 World's most hated. Hmmm. Let's see who your country comes groveling to the next time it gets its ass in a sling, a la WWII you tea-swilling crumpet monkey.
The government is not dangerous compared to the private sector because you are guaranteed to have control over it. In the case of a private company you can just hope for pareto optimal allocation.
Not true. Government can take (is taking) your liberty. No private sector entity can do that! I have no control over government. If you do, I suggest you have done an extremely poor job.
Ok we are talking about police and the justice system. Those are functions controlled exclusively by the government. Imagine the police being controlled privately, in that case if I give a nice sum of money to Police Co. you would go into jail regardless of you having done anything wrong. And I agree that the majority of the people done a poor job regarding control over the government. If they stopped voting retarded monkeys into office the resulting government policies would be different.
Police and the justice system are not the same. Even if it were thought that private police were the way to go, you could not operate outside of the justice system. That would be anarchy. Law should be what protects individual liberty, not a weapon of government.
I do support the idea of private police, but to supplement the services of the government run police. South Africa is a good example, crime is so out of control and the police so corrupted and understaffed that private security companies have been able to carve out a place in the market.
In that case the main problem is funding and corruption and not the fundamentals of a state police system. I guess the corruption just get worse with the introduction of private security companies, they still have to pay those companies for their services. If they did not have the money in the first place they must pay in other ways, looking the other way when this security company does something illegal for example.
No, absolutely not, I said I believe one of the functions of a government should be the police. I want to be able to dial 999, and I'm sure Americans want to be able to dial 911, and know there is someone on the other end who will come and stop a criminal regardless of whether you've paid them.
Don't assume the same goes for medical care, its important the police are neutral, medical care is a different matter.
Laws are proposed by the government, the government is elected by private individuals. The police enforces these laws with its "powers" that derive from a public agreement. This democratic system guarantees the protection of individual liberty.
The aim of my 'scenario' of a private police was to show how the private sector could threat individual rights if they gained control over particular functions.
Democracy does not protect individual liberty. It only protects majority rule. Liberty must be protected by law ---- the Constitution in general, and tthe Bill of Rights, in specific. Otherwise, you have tyranny by the majority.
But who make laws. The government that represents the majority. Even in the case of the constitution you could say that it was tyranny (tyranny of the Philadelphia Convention in that case). Democracy is not perfect, its just we don't know any better system.
"if I give a nice sum of money to Police Co. you would go into jail regardless of you having done anything wrong." you are wrong, due to the fact that libertarian policies allow free market enterprises "as long as they don't interfere with the rights of other individuals". The nice sum of money that you'd give to a corporation to jail an individual would also require evidence. Since according to our constitution, the accused has habeas corpus, and the right to a just and speedy trial
@smiledammit24 This is only true if you are holding stock certificates or are in a DRP program. If you have your shares in a brokerage account, the broker decides how to cast your vote. There's a .pdf on my website stpadvisors[dot]com. Under Speaking, look for my September 18, 2006 speech in New York.
@hieronomy - We have NO control over the gov't - NONE - stop assuming and start researching and see for yourself. Stand up and take responsibility - All is not as is seems. What has to happen is an Equal Money System for All as One as Equal..
@clk211bu So, I work 45-50 hours a week, and create lots of wealth (for example, turning $5 in raw materials into a product worth $50.) Now you want to take part of what I earn and hand it to my neighbor who hasn't done an honest day's work in his life? Equal, yes. Fair? Just? No way.
You are the one supporting the idea to build a system legally on these oligarchies. Those corporations are the result of free market operations.
Remember Adam Smith: People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.
The Bolivian water privatization was a good example of such adverse effects on the public. The system only works when there is competition, but with just a few big company, no guarantee.
I have read the animal farm and I really enjoyed it. Its also true, that such transformation can happen (and did many times), but that doesn't mean that a government inevitably leads to tyranny. Non-government institutions would also go corrupt (as they do) because they are from the same corrupt people. The only difference is that a non-governmental entity is not entitled to support the 'well-being' of the entire public just certain parts of it.
Just because it is not an absolute doesnt mean either that it isnt the overwhelming majority for which we should act accordingly. You dont dictate policy on the outside chance. Non government institutions have to be for profit, otherwise they couldnt exist unless totally altruistic so there is no reason to be corrupt, their interests are always aligned. Just look at the last two presidents. Only the color of their skin and the hype around them is different. All else remains same. Or WORSE!
The difference is that a non-governmental entity is directly answerable to someone. A business is answerable to its customers. A charity is answerable to its donors. Therefore, they have incentives to produce good results or they don't get money.
On the other hand, if a governmental entity fails to produce good results, people assume it's because it doesn't have ENOUGH money!
As for tyranny, read Hayek: every overlarge state has to choose between tyrannical inefficiency and even greater inefficiency. So you either get a grossly inefficient democratic state or a slightly less inefficient authoritarian state.
The only alternative to these options is to keep the state dealing with what it does best: law & order, national defence and alleviation of the needs of the DESERVING poor. That's the essence of classical liberalism.
I respect Milton Friedman because he contributed enormously to the understanding of free-market system. However his view on government has a flaw. The government is elected by the people and acts on their behalf. There is an agreement between the public and the government. This agreement involves that the public provides money to the government to build roads,hospitals and also to reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. It is in its own self-interest of the public.
the flaw in your point of view is that forked tongue politicians actually mean what they promise. The increasing rise of power for governmental officers will leads to self-interested and greedy people to be elected for government and have effective lobbying against the people's own civic interest.
You have a valid point, corruption does distort the representation of the public. What I was trying to explain is why the government isn't fundamentally "evil". I think that the problem is not in the system. In a democracy people can fight corruption by not voting on the corrupt guy. However people seem to be uninterested and shallow regarding politics, something that is indicated (and intensified) by the media. You have to defend you citizen's rights by being aware and voting thoughtfully.
you are right that government is not fundamentally evil. Government is an institution, like religion, and corporations. However these institutions are flawed because they are not built by perfect individuals, their own flaws mark the very systems they create. Government will ALWAYS be rife with self-interest, is not because the "government" is self interested, is because the people IN government are self-interest and corrupt. Government is a means to an end. So the less government the better off
You make a good point and I would concede that in civilised societies at least the people do elect the government (in a first past the post system it may not be by a majority but that's going off on a tangent).
But, as Friedman points out, let's say 10%of people rely on government handouts and another 75% of society funds these handouts (let's say 15% are in full time education or retired on a private pension). Is it really in the public interest when 75% of people lose out to benefit 10%?
I believe that it benefits the whole society. I write an example. Let's say the government provides some sort of benefit to the poorest 10% for educational purposes. In the short-run it benefits only this 10%, but in the long-run it has positive effects on the rest of the public as well. Because of the governmental aid the 10% will have similar opportunities on the job market , so poor kids see that there is a way out by learning. The educated workforce then leads to higher productivity.
Ah yes, it will benefit those 10% maybe, but then again look at how many people receive government handouts and how many are chronic welfare recipients or criminals? Indicating handouts are not the answer to everything.
I also can't see how one can justify taking from one group of people and giving to another, under some sort of mandate like yours, your method of using these people's money for the betterment of society are nebulous and its very hit and miss in my view.
I justify it by making something that is good for everyone in the long run. I give my money to build hospitals am I being robbed if I never get ill. No because the fact that people don't die on my left and right makes me better off. I am not saying all government handouts are good, far from it. It is difficult to construct them properly, and there are tons of redundant ones. A good one motivates people. I think it really is about whether we give fish to the ppl or we teach them how to fish.
Its not good for everyone, most people in the US have private healthcare and with lower taxes more functions could be given over to non-governmental entities.
We? You seem to see the government as some kind of nurturing, benevolent force, a view I do not share.
Basically, what's wrong with this system, YOU pay into some type of communual fund and if you lose your job you will get a handout, but don't try to coerce others into your system. Sound fair?
Sounds absolutely fair, but why do you see the government as some kind of alien force. It represents the public. The decisions are made by the majority of the people, they are the ones who authorize the government to spend their tax dollars. Think of a system where everything is handled by the private sectors, in that case you may end up having no influence over the decisions (no elections) and they will be less likely to take long-term consequences into consideration. (just look at the crisis)
Government need not be a dangerous force, government not confined to its correct role is a dangerous force.
A government is there to stop one entity being aggressive to another and to resolve disputes based upon a set of laws. I think in terms of tax you can speak for yourself and no-one else, what authorises you to give the government the power to steal my money? This is why I think every man for himself, pursuing his own dreams makes for the best society.
I just cannot think of any function the government performs, with the exception of the police and armed forces, which could not be done by a non-governmental body, either a charity or a corportion.
I think when people have to pay for things it encourages accountability, even the government recognises this, look at the tax on a pack of cigarettes (in the UK anyway, I don't know about the US), its so high because smokers end up costing the government money when they get ill.
Lets suppose that all functions are transferred to the private sector. (could be possible) In this case the public would have no control over those functions. You cannot influence their decisions unless you have a stake in their companies. Ok this will sound a bit extreme: To regain control you would need to buy stakes in all those companies schools, healthcare etc. that is a lot of money so you would need to take out a loan and pay it back monthly/yearly. Same system with different names..
Firstly, I never said companies should control these services I said none governmental entities should, that could mean a charity or another not-for-profit.
If you disliked the type of education your children were receiving you could move them to another school, if you disliked your healtchare package you could move to another provider, under the current system in the UK you cannot choose another healthcare provider than the NHS, which is why I envy Americans
No offense but in a free market system the people have the money that they are willing to spend "provided you give them a good deal". Transactions are never zero-sum. You need to keep in mind that the people can choose (with their money) who, what, which entity or corporation to support by means of giving them money in exchange of goods.
The government starts by representing the people and gets turned into an alien force through self-interest. If you have never read animal farm, i highly suggest you read on this accurate step by step transformation of government into a tyrannical entity.
The idea that it creates dependency has been proven, it is called learned helplessness. Second of all look at how they obtain the money for giving to the 10% they want to help. Through taxes, and as we all know, if you don't pay taxes you go to jail. So it is through coercion and force that we are somehow doing good to this people. Second of all. When you take money from 75% of the people you are now making that 75% worse off than before creating an artificial class conflict.
Also non-governmental entities would also use force to exercise their rights. If you don't pay your loan they will take your house/car by coercion if necessary, because you don't fulfill your side of the agreement. When you are a citizen of a country you automatically enter an agreement, where you pay tax and receive certain services. You can change this agreement by changing the laws. (This is done through representation). Or you can quit it, by moving to another country and gain citizenship.
@mourantell Because when you get a loan, the money isn't your money. The reason they use coercion to take your car or your house is because it's THEIR MONEY.
Read again what I wrote. The bank is allowed to take your car because the agreement you sign gives them this right. There are other types of loans when the bank has no collateral and then they cannot take your house or car even though it is their money. The same way when you become a citizen of a country you enter an agreement in which the state has a right to take taxes, put you in jail if you commit a crime etc.
Except only a small fraction of my taxes actually are returned to me as a service (I attended private school). The difference with a government is that often times people don't get to choose--it isn't voluntary, it's imposed. You mention "representation," which really is just your way of saying that it's okay to coerce someone so long as they're the minority. Emigration is possible, but often when people flee coercive governments the powers that be usually move to make emigration illegal.
Well yes, in the democracy the majority rules. Guess what, in the case of a company if you have a problem with a product, but 99% of the customers are fine with it, they won't give a damn about you. Majority rules in societies too. That being said the majority agreed (through representation) to give rights to minorities too. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so, ask people who lived under communism or national socialism how they think about it.
1. "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." - Ben Franklin.
The United States is not a democracy, but a representative republic. This form was chosen to prevent the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority, like the right to own property.
2. What exactly is your point about products? Why would I care if 99% of consumers buy a product I don't like? If I don't like it, I just won't buy it.
The US is basically a representative democracy, but there is no point arguing about the definition, the last time I checked the dude who gets a lot of votes got to be president. So it seems the wolves will decide what to eat.
2. About the products: It is not only governments that care more about what the majority wants (it was an answer to this:"You mention "representation," which really is just your way of saying that it's okay to coerce ")
I'm sorry I'm just seeing this. Some tool marked it as spam when it clearly isn't.
1. Read the Federalist Papers. Almost every single essay in there goes to great lengths to mark why our form of government differs from democracy. What you are describing is mob rule, not governance. I wonder what your opinion would be if the wolves decided to eat you?
2. Here is where your analogy fails: If 99% of consumers buy a product, and 1% don't, the company can't *coerce* that 1% into buying it.
1. I don't want to go into such a fight about the US government system. In the sense that the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power, it is a democracy, but yes there can be more precise definitions.
2. You don't have to live in the country you were born into and monopoly exists.
I want to ask a question. Imagine that you and your neighbors decide that you want your street look better. You all agree and decide that you will contribute a part of your salary to this cause. After 2 month you find out that some of your neighbors realized that if they don't give a penny (although they agreed to do so) the other 20 neighbor could still pay for renovations/improvement. They are happy cause they benefit freely although they didn't pay anything. Would it be ok?
@mourantell I think the answer to that question depends on the mode of payment. If you were to impose a toll then only the people that use the road would pay for it, which seems fair. If everyone uses it equally, then they should all pay equally, should they not?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here because you're basically describing the American system. About a third of Americans pay no income tax. In fact, sometimes we pay them to be poor.
Ok so if evreyone uses it they should all pay. So what would you do if 2 of them decided not to pay because they realized that they can have a free ride. What would be the next step?
@mourantell You'd either have to force them to pay or bar them from using the roads until they do. After all, it was an agreement they voluntarily entered. If I go into a store, grab an item, and leave without paying, am I not committing a crime?
@smiledammit24 So the majority would decide to use coercion to get the money and to spend it . This is what the governments do, based on the citizen's agreement
Let's change the situation. Suppose of the 20 neighbors, only 15 agree that the roads should be renovated. Do you think it would be ethical for the other 15 to force them to pay for the renovation?
Your making an error in presuming that the way I interact with a government is the same way I interact with a business. With a business it's a 1-to-1 relationship. With a government it's a 1-to-many relationship. If I give a business my money, its of my own choice. Governments make a *claim* to it.
It is mine by right, as given to me by an agreement. That agreement also includes the special cases when these rights are taken from me. I have right for freedom, but if I commit a crime they ca take it. I have a right for my own property, but if my asset happens to be a biological weapon they can take it. I have right to my own money, but they can take a part it.
So if your money is yours by right, by what right do I stake a claim to it? By what mechanism? My need? Because it seems to me that overarching argument from those on the statist side of this debate is that "each should give according to his ability, and receive according to his need." Do you agree with that assertion?
The main idea is instead of destroying this agreement every year and making a new one we take the original agreement that is hundreds of years old and change it. We elect people to do this work for us and they change the agreement as they change tax rates, policies.
To answer you first question, out of that 20 neighbors I would be one of five that pays nothing, but uses everything, if all I have to say is that I didn't want it and you would be the fool for paying it for me.
I feel like the basic argument you are making is that the government is allowed to take our money simply because it's able to, and you're allowed to leech simply because you can. In other words, "Might makes Right." If this is your view of the matter I don't think any further discussion would be fruitful.
I have to ask if you think that freedom is your's by right then why is it possible or acceptable that if you commit a crime you can be jailed?
I wrote that I would be the one that pays nothing not because I really would be that one, but because some people would do it because they are able to and thats why I believe if we have a common goal (and a state represents that) then all should contribute, as all benefits.
Argument about this common goal is important though, the first idea is that we indirectly vote about it, but there is also representation of minorities that ensures that not only the majority benefits.
My basic argument is that we empower the government to do the administration and there are mechanism that ensure that if a government does a lousy job in it then it can be removed.
You say only a small fraction is returned to you because you attended a private school. Hmm really? First off, education is 6% of the GDP, I guess you still go out to the streets, live in a country that is not invaded by enemy forces, where you are not robbed/killed, where you can go to court..Those things are not free. And if we talk only about public education: Your living standard would drop if those others would not receive education. Even if it's only about ME ME ME.
@mourantell I apologize I was referring mostly to my property tax which goes almost entirely to my school district, which does nothing but dick around and give raises to their incompetent staff. You'll note that the US education system is pretty shitty and that has nothing to do with a lack of funding, as Detroit has some of the most well-funded schools in the country and a ~20% graduation rate. I simply hold that if people were allowed to keep their money they would spend it more effectively.
Deitroit is a special case with extremely high unemployment, but we can agree on the US education system being shitty, but I believe that in the end people must realize that you have to spend money on it, because it benefits everyone in the long run. Now I agree that government bodies are often ineffective and way too costly, but you can see that in the private sector too. Just think of the major banks.
If you closely examine Detroit you'll find that almost every single social ill in that city can be traced directly back to a program instituted by government. Similarly with the banks, a large part of why the economy collapsed was due in part to a law signed by Bill Clinton *restricting* banks from denying loans to financially destitute people on the grounds that it was "racist." In short, the banks were forced to give loans they knew would not be paid back.
In the case of Detroit the problem is that the car manufacturers left the city and moved production to other countries. Although political pressure was part of the financial crisis I don't believe that there was any law that required the creation of any MBS or one that pressured rating agencies to rate grouped sub-prime loans as AAA securities.
@mourantell You also might want to consider that defense spending is bloated (though not nearly as much as SS or Medicare) so much so that we spend more on toy rockets than any other country on the planet combined, and police (as the supreme court ruled quite recently) are not bound by law to protect you. The police in my area are also grossly overpaid for doing practically no work. Interestingly enough the majority always votes in favor for increases because they're largely uninformed.
This guy is a genious, I just started watching his videos about a month ago and I'm yet to find a video where someone has proven him wrong. Who would be the counter to Milton's philosophy? (please save the jokes). Other than maybe Ron Paul, who would are today's Friedman's?
NYCDurrani 2 days ago
Liberals should listen to his video and drop their filthy ideology
RRNYC1998 2 weeks ago 3
I am not sure what web blog i am at, but Bush really sux
BigKahunaz888 2 weeks ago
This man sounds just like Bernie Maddoff
BigKahunaz888 2 weeks ago
$14 trillion in debt. Way to go, Milton.
KurtBeekeeper 6 months ago
@KurtBeekeeper way to go in pointing the coercive nature of monopolized printing and fiat authority? sure I guess.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
@KurtBeekeeper God, you naive child. We don't operate on Milton's principals at ALL.
HammerOvThor 5 months ago 2
@KurtBeekeeper
You're uneducated.
TimeWarp66 5 months ago
@KurtBeekeeper - You're blaming Friedman for people following policies in direct opposition to all of his philosophies. Do you always feel the need to spread your ignorance about all the topics you know nothing about, or is this your first time?
mpc91 3 months ago
That's right. The best flow of capital occurs when left to the individual. However, he's neglecting 1/2 of the story. Greedy corporate elite don't pay employees equitably & keep the overwhelming majority of the profits in the hands of the few. People can't make the choice of how they'll spend if they never see the money in the 1st place. If he really believed that the individual makes the best decisions, why does he show no concern that 10% owns 70% of the wealth? Because he was in the top 10%.
eyeammi 6 months ago
I don't think him or his followers understand how social safety nets work. Social security doesn't redistribute money from rich to poor but from young to old; Medicare is redistributes from the young & health to the old and unhealthy.
girardbcp 8 months ago 2
@girardbcp social security is a ponzi scheme that makes bernie madoff look like a pre-schooler
2dum2getsocialism 8 months ago 5
Nothing wrong with capitalism at all. It inspires competition and invention. However what we would like to see is everyone have equal or close to oppurtunity to access the resources they require to become productive members of society. Why should it be a richest only club .On top of that I will add that every civilised society is obliged to help and aid the less fortunate. In terms of education, medical services,care of the elderly and unemployment. This is a balanced society.
newromantic888 8 months ago
With just a little help all those people on the street in Capitalistic America could actually be productive tax paying citizens. You give a little but you gain more.
newromantic888 8 months ago
He has some good points that are valid in some situations. But its all not black and white. Literally. Socialism has its place in some countries. Until they rise and learn to be productive.
newromantic888 10 months ago
@newromantic888
Socialism has its place- on the back of a toilet bowl like the parasite that it is.
swu880 9 months ago
@swu880 Well go and print some toilet rolls with some Socialist leaders on the tissue and sell them.lol.
newromantic888 8 months ago
@swu880 death to all Nazis, and all Fascists, AMEN
BigKahunaz888 2 weeks ago
Contrary to what my history teacher tells us, there is nothing "corrupt" or wrong with pursuing our own personal interests! I want to make a lot of money so I can travel, have a good life, and donate to animal rights organizations... because that's what I feel passionate about! I'd rather not pay for my governor's curtains and bathroom remodeling, thank you very much.
historyfairgirl 10 months ago 7
@historyfairgirl "That's the thing you gotta remember about WASPs kid: they love animals, but they hate people" - Gordon Gekko. Truer words have never been spoken. I swear, there is no bigger waste of money than spending it on animals. They do not have the means to reciprocate. My family was financially helped when we moved to this country by the catholic church (even though we were not catholic), and because of that I have the desire to help people in the same way.Animals lack the intellect to.
martydrooo 9 months ago
@historyfairgirl there are two people in this world people who have money and thoese who dont the one that dont think money is evil
classicdinner 1 week ago
Goddamn this guys fucking rules! I wish I could build a time machine and bring him to our time and just tell him to explain shit to the country, why Obama and socialism suck. Then again if I was granted a wish I would probably just wish for my language skills to be equivalent to Milton Friedman's
mikedd56 11 months ago
@royalplaylist102 were jewish*
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
Your Czechoslovakia example is pathetic ( don't take it personal). You can't give the example of a country who got the system imposed by an invader(willing obedience always beat forced obedience). Correct me if I'm wrong but the Nordic states have pretty strong economies for the size of their population (keeping in mind that they are not parasite to other countries like Switzerland).
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
@royalplaylist102 The only time CzechoSlovakia was invaded was in 1968. The reason they were invaded was due to the fact that many people realized that the socialist experiment was bogus, and they pushed for freedom. Something socialism is dead set against.
These countries are quite wealthy, but that's DESPITE their socialistic system.
Seriously, instead of just spouting nonsense, you should try study economics for a bit.
Romeowasbleeding1 11 months ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 I can't comment on your thoughts about socialistic systems and economies 'cause I ain't no expert on economics or finance, but you sure don't know history. Or maybe you don't consider Adolf Hitler's incursion into the Sudatenland and eventually the whole of Czechoslovakia, as invasion. Well, the Czechs certainly did.
lamontlewis 11 months ago
@lamontlewis
It doesn't take an expert to know the basics of economy.
If you were to have read previous arguments, it would be apparent to you that we are talking about Socialist systems. So I only referred to the Soviets crushing of the Prague Spring. I could have been more precise I guess. I admit, Czechoslovakia, and those respective lands have been invaded many times, Ottoman, Magyar, Tatar invasions to think of a few. However none of them relate to what I was talking about.
Romeowasbleeding1 11 months ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 Sheath your sword, dude! This inverted form of perusal may be okay for dyslexics, but not a 65 year-old used to reading top down, western world style. And you might want to be a little more definitive with verb usage. "Invade" is not a word normally used in finance. "Hostile takeover" or something like that, maybe. "Invade" is a forceful foray of 'physical' aggression into the territoty of another for purposes of conquest. I'm jus' say'n.
lamontlewis 11 months ago
@lamontlewis
I apologize, I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I agree with you, the chronology of youtube's comments makes everything a convoluted mess.
I agree, saying "invasion" would be a bit extreme in a financial context. However, I used it to describe the Soviet attack on CzechoSlovakia during the Prague Spring of 1968. Under president Dubcek, Czechoslovakia started to push for freedom, however this was crushed by Breznev, who in the end enacted the tyrannical Breznev Doctrine.
Romeowasbleeding1 11 months ago
Of course if people prefer having fun instead of taking an active part in their government they will get what they deserve.A government ruled by the few who take an active part in politic commonly known as lobeyist. There is no magic solution, people have to work(by work I mean thinking) almost all the time and right now they do the exact opposit , they only think at work and turn the switch off as soon as the day is over.
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
I guess I will need another word to explain my point of view. Free market is a synonym for economic anarchy. If you want no rule imposed by the elected government you have to accept the fact that some people out there will group together and one day or the other become influent enough to impose their own rule. Now which one do you prefer?
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
@royalplaylist102
I want freedom, I want to rise and fall based on my skill.
If you don't see which system supports freedom, there's little point in talking.
Romeowasbleeding1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As true then as it is now.
TonyGehrig 1 year ago
I want to point out one last thing. I'm not poor nor leftist of rightist. My family made a good amount of money developing good agricultural land in parking lots for human (real estate development is the right term I guess).Personally the system work on my side but I can still say it: it's wrong just wrong. It's not that I don't like jew the fact is that I don't like the way they think. We should share together instead of trying to crooks each other with worthless pieces of paper.
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
I can't believe after 30 years of destruction of the middle class people are still praying this crooks. You know there is a term for what Friedman wanted: Savage capitalism. This is nothing new it's what we had from 1750 to 1945. We are definitely heading toward it right now , congressmen and senators are speaking of destroying the minimum wage aka they want people in america to work for less than 7 dollar an hour welcome to the third world country realm.
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
Now let get back to Friedman with his shitty economic, let me tell you something really simple. If your neighbors are starving to death and you are rich do you think it is a sustainable situation? In theory it may but in reality one day or the other your neighbors will kill you and share your wealth.That's exactly what's going to happen soon in our society because nuts like Friedman are devaluing money to keep their rich friends rich while commoner see their purchasing power melt.
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102
Reading this comment plainly shows your ignorance.
Libertarians believe that the market should not be distorted by the government! Let me ask you? What devalues money? Inflation. How does inflation come about? When there is more money in circulation. Who increases the amount of money? the FED. The FED are interventionist. Just think about it, Quantitive Easing, the buying of government bonds....
Romeowasbleeding1 11 months ago
I also believe in the republic which is a greco roman concept. I think the elite should serve the people instead of exploiting them and the people shouldn't try to mingle in policy matter. Jewish people have an addiction to "truth" all those leftist jew who wish to tell everyone the truth are basically destroying our society from my point of view. What's the point of showing out of context horrors to people who don't care anyway?
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
Galbraith is so irritating...
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
I can agree with everything Milton says here, I am a New York City landlord with a rent stabalized building. When I "creativly" liberated 3 apartments from the yoke of oppression I used the money i was getting to beef up the building and make it nicer for those higher paying folks, it was my insentive. When i have all apartments with filthy rent stabalized tenants, I didn't give a crap how it looked and couldn't really pay to improve it anyway.
RightWingCon81 1 year ago
... the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people's money at it's very bottom is a philosophy of violence and coercion...
1) err, other people's money ??? Best friends' jealously and violently guarded possessions, presumably?
2) violence and coercion - why the insistent and irritating tapping on the desk? He appears not too convinced himself of his ideological bullwax, and presumably is somewhat aware it completely lacks empirical evidence of any kind - at the very bottom.
noteworthiness 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102 - working under a persecution complex, heh? Why don't you try to deal with Friedman's argument per se without getting all worked up about his background. That will make your argumentation a bit more effective.
mimfri 1 year ago
i love how people think everytime they buy something some corporation is stealing their money ... government is force not businesses
mumuchu99 1 year ago 2
In the 2007 list of 100 most powerful people in the world 50% are jews. They are roughly 13 millions and they have 50 of the most powerful people in the world. The real Israel is New York there is more jews in New York than there is in Israel. More than 50% of the professional in Berlin and Vienna in the 30's were jewish while they represented only 10% of the population. They have 50% of the powerful post in the U.S and represent 2% of the population.Look like history repeat itself.
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102
To me, that sounds like a people to respect. rather than hate.
Romeowasbleeding1 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102
I that that's a good reason to respect them.
Few people who have lived in relative exile and still have many people illogically hating them (such as your ignorant self) have made so much out of so little.
No one is stopping you from being one of the most powerful people in the world, except for yourself.
You should respect them, not hate them for their achievements.
Romeowasbleeding1 1 year ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 I don't hate jews I was only stating facts and historical similitude. I've been raised in what was the last bunker of catholicism in America ( I had catholic classes up to my 5th grade in PUBLIC school). if you put aside the miracle and resurrection stuff I think what I've learn in those classes made sens , help the poor , share if you have too much etc.
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102
The Christian way of thinking fits well into a free market. People should share, and support each other, out of the goodness of their hearts. Being charitable is very different from supporting a socialist system. A socialist system uses tacit force to take money away from individuals that have worked hard to earn it, and then distribute it according to how the government sees fit. That is not being charitable, that is legalized theft, that threatens freedom, and the economy.
Romeowasbleeding1 1 year ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 The world we are living in today is the exact opposite and I personally believe it have to do with one thing the jewish religion allow while christian and muslim used to forbid it: interest rate. Why would you give money to someone instead of letting it sleep somewhere while it ''multiply''. You see all this principle of living money make no sens to me and it keep inflating the price of every commodity aka people have to work more for less.
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102
WHAT????? Interest rate has nothing to do with increasing the price of commodities! That is inflation. You increase inflation to drop the interest rates.
Study something called the SI LM curve.
If you are against the Fiat money system- which most free marketeers are, you would support the Gold standard right?
Anyway, interest is the reason people borrow money at all, the fact they get rewarded gives people incentives to borrow.
I'm done with this.
Romeowasbleeding1 11 months ago
Comment removed
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
This is basically the jewish view of the world against the christian view of the world and since the 70's the jewish view of the world won hands up. Take care of the poor do good around you, share if you have to much that's what Christianity told us. Socialist is just an atheist form of Christianity. Friedman , just like Greenspan and Bernakee now they are all jews. You want to ear about economy on the left? Stiglitz , Krugman jews again. Does it make me anti-Semite?
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102
BTW you obviously don't realize that Israel is a socialist state?
Romeowasbleeding1 1 year ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 Israel have the second largest gap between the poor and the rich in the ''western world'' after..... the United States of America. If it fit your definition of socialist I highly recommend you update it (I live in a socialist ''sate'' by the way I know what socialism is). The province of Québec is more socialist than France itself.
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102
I also live in a Socialist state, one of the Nordic countries. The gap between rich and poor has little do with socialism. In fact, socialism fits very well with poverty. Look at the entire eastern bloc, they suffered under a tyrannical socialist system that forced once rich countries like Czechoslovakia to enter economic stagnation since the 60's. Only now, after they are able to free themselves, have they started to grow once again. Socialism is a system of government.
Romeowasbleeding1 1 year ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 Socialism is a religion and it's god is the human being. Socialism is basicaly applyed christianity, it aimes at making everyone equal which is clearly impossible. It usually work at the begining but sooner or later wise people find way to crooks the system and it end up with a middle class supporting the poor and eventualy no middle class at all.
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
"The welfare state ... is a philosophy of violence & coercion."
I guess Milty skipped Labor History 101 as an undergraduate.
Hey Milt! you dead fuck: What would you call Rockefeller's massacre of women and children during the 1914 Ludlow coal mine strike in Colorado? Beach blanket bingo?
This stupid fuck was so far up his own ass sniffing his shit and likin' it, it never seemed to dawn on him: at IT'S root, capitalism IS violence and coercion. Stupid fuck.
Right-wingers are scum.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou Your example is nearly 100 years old. Government oversight during that period would not of stopped such an act, considering everyone killing was a willing participant. Last i checked deranged murderers are usually dealt with after the act is commited, in this day and age, what are you purposing? some sort of crime fighting Government oversight to make sure CEO's don't slaughter their workers?
Capitalism isn't evil men are, so why would you trust a government run by MEN to protect you?
ocanator 1 year ago
@ocanator "Your example is nearly 100 years old."
There have been dozens of similar incidents around the world in the name of proifts.
"Government oversight during that period would not of stopped such an act"
What kind of stupid fuck are you? The GOVERNMENT WAS IN ON THE MASSACRE!
"Last i checked deranged murderers are usually dealt with after the act is commited"
Cop in Oakland shot a kid point blank in the back of the head last year. What'd he get? A suspended sentence.
bapyou 1 year ago
arzoyan doesnt get it
camillo1234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
She is my sister and become naughty benaughtyman.info
dilsanikasuni 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get and meet be naughty female benaughtyman.info
omasanilmini 1 year ago
The USA is a fascist country. Take socialism, but only give it to the corporations, then give the dog-eat-dog society to the working class. Why was Michael Moore's "Capitalism" a huge hit, in THEATERS non the less. I'm a big fan of documentaries. There are hundreds of excellent ones. None would ever make it to the big screen, or be talked about in the mainstream. WHY? Because they're trying to turn us against the very system they preached. It's the last phase of the NWO. Worldwide USSR
paintyourwall 1 year ago
@paintyourwall whats wrong with fascism ? its not that bad, I enjoy it
wikiwikidrumbass 1 year ago
when was this interview? what year?
jadegoke2003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The biggest prick ever. Glad you're dead, mother fucker
buddylovely 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Republican Jesus says: "Who needs Social Security? Are there not homeless shelters for the elderly poor?"
AtlasShruggery 1 year ago
arzoyan you are an idiot.
HMG76 1 year ago
damn that friedman....
trainthemind 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Capitalism is the organised legalised robbery of the immense humanity in the interest of the gangs of have
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan So because I'm a capitalist and my business has done well, I'm a gang member??? The $25,000 US dollars I donate EACH YEAR is bad?? I guess I'll stop freely giving to people (perhaps like you) that might benifit from my "Evil Capitalistic Ways". PS How much do you give each year to those less fortunate?? if you dont mind me asking.
CanYouAffordObama 1 year ago
@CanYouAffordObama Good for you to be in a position to donate, however the Charity Industry is not going to eradicate perpetual War,Enviornmental destructions,Animal cruelty of industrial proportions,Food Production that is the cause of so much diseases,Medical industry that is literallly killing for monetary PROFIT,Working Class exploitation where 3billion are on less than 2 dollars a day and so on , We are hert to not discuss individual anomalies or charities, BUT A SYSTEMIC CONTRADICTION
arzoyan 1 year ago
@CanYouAffordObama Pat your self on the back for giving to charity and the tax breaks you get because you do.
But don't ever ever ever ever ask yourself this question:
Why do we live in a society in which charity is required?
Don't ask yourself that question, because, if you do, and you take the answer seriously (as I have), you will become a socialist. A real one. Not the imagined stupidities with which right-wingers paint everyone to the left of Attila the Hun.
bapyou 1 year ago
This man is a true genius...an American hero.
SeaWolfe59 1 year ago 37
As Margaret Thatcher said "the problem with Socialism is that you run out of other people's money". In a Liberal Democracy if you spend other people's money to help the Less Fortunate you should use that money to help those people get on their own feet & support themselves so they can create their own wealth. In a Socialist Democracy spending other people's money is used to subsidize them indefinitely because nothing is expected out of them.
FrsBigeasy 1 year ago
intersteing that the old plbucit hoseing that hes talking about back kind of sound like fanny and fready of today intersting that hes perdiceting freeadom for ever one finacly..cool..video..bye
spmandmtgr 1 year ago
Umm ............lets see now others ppls money .... does that include TARP ?
you free mkt utopianists ! You hate the gov't unless its baling your asses out !
You love the gov't if it provides you with contracts for housing the prison population ,
but hate the gov't if it feeds school children .
hieronomy 1 year ago
@hieronomy Let me help you with this. Advocates of a free market want no government interference in the market at all--not subsidies, bailouts or the like. Government was created expressly to protect the rights of the individual, not pick the winners and losers with wealth redistribution schemes.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@fzqlcs
Love the gov't when its benefit you , Hate the gov't when it tries to act justly , that is ,
in the general interest of all as opposed to the masters of the universe set .
hieronomy 1 year ago
@hieronomy I think you're misrepresenting everything that Milton would have said. But that's okay, intellectual honesty never really was your side's strongest suit.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
rothschild have 500 trillions yes with T , they are the master of the world, they own federal reserve like all the central banks in the world.
migu9999 2 years ago
@migu9999 There literally is not that much money in the world. You could literally sell every single thing on the planet and you would not make that much.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
Look at Michael Jackson. As I understand it, he was 500 million in DEBT when he died.
Here's an entertainer who sold millions of records, made millions on his tours and merchandise, and blew it...
Another example is MC Hammer
all028 2 years ago
the gloved one's fiscal policy was much the same as the prevailing wisdom of our pitiful political class.
fzqlcs 2 years ago 2
@fzqlcs Lets see .........if we totally hate the Gov't then we hate the representatives
which we elected who are representative of US therefore we hate ourselves and
would rather there be only an I or a ME. I an an individual BY GOD therefore I AM !!
hieronomy 1 year ago
This man should have been the president of every country everywhere.
u0455294 2 years ago 52
he would've refused the job, had it been offered to him ;-)
Claytrainor 2 years ago 25
@Claytrainor no would've taken the job and then fired everyone
tubebellator 1 year ago
@u0455294
Wrong ! JKG should have been president !
hieronomy 1 year ago
@u0455294 I believe in Friedman's concepts as you do, unfortunately, there are billions of losers that think they are "victims" that don't understand that these beliefs are best for EVERYONE! Take care of yourself and then GIVE if/when you choose out of caring. America is the most giving country on the face of the earth!
ProudConservative2 1 year ago 23
@ProudConservative2 Rubbish america is a murdering thieveing country, who funded it's own greed via farming of cannabis on it's very own soil, now all it does is invade and murder other countrys, and you lot piss&moan when your troops come home dead and mutilated, you sad pathetic country. Im white and from the uk and we are not your allies most people in the uk are with europe as america officially owns the flag of being the worlds most hated country you bunch of little sheep.
indydaisy1 6 months ago
@indydaisy1
LOL this from someone who lives in a country formally known as the British Empire? That follows us into battle EVERYtime there is a conflict. "little sheep"? You don't take a shit unless we tell you you can. LOLOLOLOL
FSUAlumn 6 months ago
@indydaisy1 World's most hated. Hmmm. Let's see who your country comes groveling to the next time it gets its ass in a sling, a la WWII you tea-swilling crumpet monkey.
doelstu 4 months ago
@doelstu @indydaisy1 Does not speak for all brits. I think Milton Friedman needed to live for at least another 50 years.
samsamm77 1 month ago
@samsamm77 I wouldn't think she did for a second because Brits are like most of the world's people: reasonable.
doelstu 1 month ago
@indydaisy1 you obviously have never eaten a really good bagel, much less a great pizza. i offer you a pretzel. Mozeltov
BigKahunaz888 2 weeks ago
The government is not dangerous compared to the private sector because you are guaranteed to have control over it. In the case of a private company you can just hope for pareto optimal allocation.
mourantell 2 years ago
Not true. Government can take (is taking) your liberty. No private sector entity can do that! I have no control over government. If you do, I suggest you have done an extremely poor job.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Ok we are talking about police and the justice system. Those are functions controlled exclusively by the government. Imagine the police being controlled privately, in that case if I give a nice sum of money to Police Co. you would go into jail regardless of you having done anything wrong. And I agree that the majority of the people done a poor job regarding control over the government. If they stopped voting retarded monkeys into office the resulting government policies would be different.
mourantell 2 years ago
Police and the justice system are not the same. Even if it were thought that private police were the way to go, you could not operate outside of the justice system. That would be anarchy. Law should be what protects individual liberty, not a weapon of government.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
I do support the idea of private police, but to supplement the services of the government run police. South Africa is a good example, crime is so out of control and the police so corrupted and understaffed that private security companies have been able to carve out a place in the market.
theporksicle 2 years ago
In that case the main problem is funding and corruption and not the fundamentals of a state police system. I guess the corruption just get worse with the introduction of private security companies, they still have to pay those companies for their services. If they did not have the money in the first place they must pay in other ways, looking the other way when this security company does something illegal for example.
mourantell 2 years ago
No, absolutely not, I said I believe one of the functions of a government should be the police. I want to be able to dial 999, and I'm sure Americans want to be able to dial 911, and know there is someone on the other end who will come and stop a criminal regardless of whether you've paid them.
Don't assume the same goes for medical care, its important the police are neutral, medical care is a different matter.
theporksicle 2 years ago
Laws are proposed by the government, the government is elected by private individuals. The police enforces these laws with its "powers" that derive from a public agreement. This democratic system guarantees the protection of individual liberty.
The aim of my 'scenario' of a private police was to show how the private sector could threat individual rights if they gained control over particular functions.
mourantell 2 years ago
Democracy does not protect individual liberty. It only protects majority rule. Liberty must be protected by law ---- the Constitution in general, and tthe Bill of Rights, in specific. Otherwise, you have tyranny by the majority.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
But who make laws. The government that represents the majority. Even in the case of the constitution you could say that it was tyranny (tyranny of the Philadelphia Convention in that case). Democracy is not perfect, its just we don't know any better system.
mourantell 2 years ago
"if I give a nice sum of money to Police Co. you would go into jail regardless of you having done anything wrong." you are wrong, due to the fact that libertarian policies allow free market enterprises "as long as they don't interfere with the rights of other individuals". The nice sum of money that you'd give to a corporation to jail an individual would also require evidence. Since according to our constitution, the accused has habeas corpus, and the right to a just and speedy trial
Ven3z01an0 2 years ago
But how do you enforce the law on Police Co. when there is no other police?
mourantell 2 years ago
@fzqlcs
Actually , you do have control over gov't its called VOTING genius . Whereas ,
how many corporate decisions have you voted on ?
hieronomy 1 year ago
@hieronomy Well, in all the companies in which I hold stock, I am able to vote on their decisions.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24 This is only true if you are holding stock certificates or are in a DRP program. If you have your shares in a brokerage account, the broker decides how to cast your vote. There's a .pdf on my website stpadvisors[dot]com. Under Speaking, look for my September 18, 2006 speech in New York.
EconLaw2009 1 year ago
@hieronomy - We have NO control over the gov't - NONE - stop assuming and start researching and see for yourself. Stand up and take responsibility - All is not as is seems. What has to happen is an Equal Money System for All as One as Equal..
clk211bu 1 year ago
@clk211bu So, I work 45-50 hours a week, and create lots of wealth (for example, turning $5 in raw materials into a product worth $50.) Now you want to take part of what I earn and hand it to my neighbor who hasn't done an honest day's work in his life? Equal, yes. Fair? Just? No way.
ostlandr 1 year ago 5
@hieronomy lol if you think that we have control over government then you are indeed terribly naive,
is01231 1 year ago
Guaranteed to have control over it? Most countries in the world are oligarchies, not democracies.
Companies who don't provide the service people want will soon go out of business, the system holds them accountable.
theporksicle 2 years ago
You are the one supporting the idea to build a system legally on these oligarchies. Those corporations are the result of free market operations.
Remember Adam Smith: People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.
The Bolivian water privatization was a good example of such adverse effects on the public. The system only works when there is competition, but with just a few big company, no guarantee.
mourantell 2 years ago
I have read the animal farm and I really enjoyed it. Its also true, that such transformation can happen (and did many times), but that doesn't mean that a government inevitably leads to tyranny. Non-government institutions would also go corrupt (as they do) because they are from the same corrupt people. The only difference is that a non-governmental entity is not entitled to support the 'well-being' of the entire public just certain parts of it.
mourantell 2 years ago
Just because it is not an absolute doesnt mean either that it isnt the overwhelming majority for which we should act accordingly. You dont dictate policy on the outside chance. Non government institutions have to be for profit, otherwise they couldnt exist unless totally altruistic so there is no reason to be corrupt, their interests are always aligned. Just look at the last two presidents. Only the color of their skin and the hype around them is different. All else remains same. Or WORSE!
RonnocUAE 2 years ago
The difference is that a non-governmental entity is directly answerable to someone. A business is answerable to its customers. A charity is answerable to its donors. Therefore, they have incentives to produce good results or they don't get money.
On the other hand, if a governmental entity fails to produce good results, people assume it's because it doesn't have ENOUGH money!
Myndir 2 years ago
As for tyranny, read Hayek: every overlarge state has to choose between tyrannical inefficiency and even greater inefficiency. So you either get a grossly inefficient democratic state or a slightly less inefficient authoritarian state.
The only alternative to these options is to keep the state dealing with what it does best: law & order, national defence and alleviation of the needs of the DESERVING poor. That's the essence of classical liberalism.
Myndir 2 years ago
I respect Milton Friedman because he contributed enormously to the understanding of free-market system. However his view on government has a flaw. The government is elected by the people and acts on their behalf. There is an agreement between the public and the government. This agreement involves that the public provides money to the government to build roads,hospitals and also to reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. It is in its own self-interest of the public.
mourantell 2 years ago
the flaw in your point of view is that forked tongue politicians actually mean what they promise. The increasing rise of power for governmental officers will leads to self-interested and greedy people to be elected for government and have effective lobbying against the people's own civic interest.
Ven3z01an0 2 years ago
You have a valid point, corruption does distort the representation of the public. What I was trying to explain is why the government isn't fundamentally "evil". I think that the problem is not in the system. In a democracy people can fight corruption by not voting on the corrupt guy. However people seem to be uninterested and shallow regarding politics, something that is indicated (and intensified) by the media. You have to defend you citizen's rights by being aware and voting thoughtfully.
mourantell 2 years ago
you are right that government is not fundamentally evil. Government is an institution, like religion, and corporations. However these institutions are flawed because they are not built by perfect individuals, their own flaws mark the very systems they create. Government will ALWAYS be rife with self-interest, is not because the "government" is self interested, is because the people IN government are self-interest and corrupt. Government is a means to an end. So the less government the better off
Ven3z01an0 2 years ago 3
You make a good point and I would concede that in civilised societies at least the people do elect the government (in a first past the post system it may not be by a majority but that's going off on a tangent).
But, as Friedman points out, let's say 10%of people rely on government handouts and another 75% of society funds these handouts (let's say 15% are in full time education or retired on a private pension). Is it really in the public interest when 75% of people lose out to benefit 10%?
theporksicle 2 years ago
I believe that it benefits the whole society. I write an example. Let's say the government provides some sort of benefit to the poorest 10% for educational purposes. In the short-run it benefits only this 10%, but in the long-run it has positive effects on the rest of the public as well. Because of the governmental aid the 10% will have similar opportunities on the job market , so poor kids see that there is a way out by learning. The educated workforce then leads to higher productivity.
mourantell 2 years ago
Ah yes, it will benefit those 10% maybe, but then again look at how many people receive government handouts and how many are chronic welfare recipients or criminals? Indicating handouts are not the answer to everything.
I also can't see how one can justify taking from one group of people and giving to another, under some sort of mandate like yours, your method of using these people's money for the betterment of society are nebulous and its very hit and miss in my view.
theporksicle 2 years ago
I justify it by making something that is good for everyone in the long run. I give my money to build hospitals am I being robbed if I never get ill. No because the fact that people don't die on my left and right makes me better off. I am not saying all government handouts are good, far from it. It is difficult to construct them properly, and there are tons of redundant ones. A good one motivates people. I think it really is about whether we give fish to the ppl or we teach them how to fish.
mourantell 2 years ago
Its not good for everyone, most people in the US have private healthcare and with lower taxes more functions could be given over to non-governmental entities.
We? You seem to see the government as some kind of nurturing, benevolent force, a view I do not share.
Basically, what's wrong with this system, YOU pay into some type of communual fund and if you lose your job you will get a handout, but don't try to coerce others into your system. Sound fair?
theporksicle 2 years ago
Sounds absolutely fair, but why do you see the government as some kind of alien force. It represents the public. The decisions are made by the majority of the people, they are the ones who authorize the government to spend their tax dollars. Think of a system where everything is handled by the private sectors, in that case you may end up having no influence over the decisions (no elections) and they will be less likely to take long-term consequences into consideration. (just look at the crisis)
mourantell 2 years ago
Government need not be a dangerous force, government not confined to its correct role is a dangerous force.
A government is there to stop one entity being aggressive to another and to resolve disputes based upon a set of laws. I think in terms of tax you can speak for yourself and no-one else, what authorises you to give the government the power to steal my money? This is why I think every man for himself, pursuing his own dreams makes for the best society.
theporksicle 2 years ago
I just cannot think of any function the government performs, with the exception of the police and armed forces, which could not be done by a non-governmental body, either a charity or a corportion.
I think when people have to pay for things it encourages accountability, even the government recognises this, look at the tax on a pack of cigarettes (in the UK anyway, I don't know about the US), its so high because smokers end up costing the government money when they get ill.
theporksicle 2 years ago
Lets suppose that all functions are transferred to the private sector. (could be possible) In this case the public would have no control over those functions. You cannot influence their decisions unless you have a stake in their companies. Ok this will sound a bit extreme: To regain control you would need to buy stakes in all those companies schools, healthcare etc. that is a lot of money so you would need to take out a loan and pay it back monthly/yearly. Same system with different names..
mourantell 2 years ago
Firstly, I never said companies should control these services I said none governmental entities should, that could mean a charity or another not-for-profit.
If you disliked the type of education your children were receiving you could move them to another school, if you disliked your healtchare package you could move to another provider, under the current system in the UK you cannot choose another healthcare provider than the NHS, which is why I envy Americans
theporksicle 2 years ago
No offense but in a free market system the people have the money that they are willing to spend "provided you give them a good deal". Transactions are never zero-sum. You need to keep in mind that the people can choose (with their money) who, what, which entity or corporation to support by means of giving them money in exchange of goods.
Ven3z01an0 2 years ago
The government starts by representing the people and gets turned into an alien force through self-interest. If you have never read animal farm, i highly suggest you read on this accurate step by step transformation of government into a tyrannical entity.
Ven3z01an0 2 years ago
The idea that it creates dependency has been proven, it is called learned helplessness. Second of all look at how they obtain the money for giving to the 10% they want to help. Through taxes, and as we all know, if you don't pay taxes you go to jail. So it is through coercion and force that we are somehow doing good to this people. Second of all. When you take money from 75% of the people you are now making that 75% worse off than before creating an artificial class conflict.
Ven3z01an0 2 years ago
Also non-governmental entities would also use force to exercise their rights. If you don't pay your loan they will take your house/car by coercion if necessary, because you don't fulfill your side of the agreement. When you are a citizen of a country you automatically enter an agreement, where you pay tax and receive certain services. You can change this agreement by changing the laws. (This is done through representation). Or you can quit it, by moving to another country and gain citizenship.
mourantell 2 years ago
@mourantell Because when you get a loan, the money isn't your money. The reason they use coercion to take your car or your house is because it's THEIR MONEY.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
Read again what I wrote. The bank is allowed to take your car because the agreement you sign gives them this right. There are other types of loans when the bank has no collateral and then they cannot take your house or car even though it is their money. The same way when you become a citizen of a country you enter an agreement in which the state has a right to take taxes, put you in jail if you commit a crime etc.
mourantell 1 year ago
Except only a small fraction of my taxes actually are returned to me as a service (I attended private school). The difference with a government is that often times people don't get to choose--it isn't voluntary, it's imposed. You mention "representation," which really is just your way of saying that it's okay to coerce someone so long as they're the minority. Emigration is possible, but often when people flee coercive governments the powers that be usually move to make emigration illegal.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
Well yes, in the democracy the majority rules. Guess what, in the case of a company if you have a problem with a product, but 99% of the customers are fine with it, they won't give a damn about you. Majority rules in societies too. That being said the majority agreed (through representation) to give rights to minorities too. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so, ask people who lived under communism or national socialism how they think about it.
mourantell 1 year ago
@mourantell
1. "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." - Ben Franklin.
The United States is not a democracy, but a representative republic. This form was chosen to prevent the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority, like the right to own property.
2. What exactly is your point about products? Why would I care if 99% of consumers buy a product I don't like? If I don't like it, I just won't buy it.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smiledammit24
1.
The US is basically a representative democracy, but there is no point arguing about the definition, the last time I checked the dude who gets a lot of votes got to be president. So it seems the wolves will decide what to eat.
2. About the products: It is not only governments that care more about what the majority wants (it was an answer to this:"You mention "representation," which really is just your way of saying that it's okay to coerce ")
mourantell 1 year ago
I'm sorry I'm just seeing this. Some tool marked it as spam when it clearly isn't.
1. Read the Federalist Papers. Almost every single essay in there goes to great lengths to mark why our form of government differs from democracy. What you are describing is mob rule, not governance. I wonder what your opinion would be if the wolves decided to eat you?
2. Here is where your analogy fails: If 99% of consumers buy a product, and 1% don't, the company can't *coerce* that 1% into buying it.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
about the 2 points.
1. I don't want to go into such a fight about the US government system. In the sense that the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power, it is a democracy, but yes there can be more precise definitions.
2. You don't have to live in the country you were born into and monopoly exists.
mourantell 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
I want to ask a question. Imagine that you and your neighbors decide that you want your street look better. You all agree and decide that you will contribute a part of your salary to this cause. After 2 month you find out that some of your neighbors realized that if they don't give a penny (although they agreed to do so) the other 20 neighbor could still pay for renovations/improvement. They are happy cause they benefit freely although they didn't pay anything. Would it be ok?
mourantell 1 year ago
@mourantell I think the answer to that question depends on the mode of payment. If you were to impose a toll then only the people that use the road would pay for it, which seems fair. If everyone uses it equally, then they should all pay equally, should they not?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here because you're basically describing the American system. About a third of Americans pay no income tax. In fact, sometimes we pay them to be poor.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
Ok so if evreyone uses it they should all pay. So what would you do if 2 of them decided not to pay because they realized that they can have a free ride. What would be the next step?
mourantell 1 year ago
@mourantell You'd either have to force them to pay or bar them from using the roads until they do. After all, it was an agreement they voluntarily entered. If I go into a store, grab an item, and leave without paying, am I not committing a crime?
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24 So the majority would decide to use coercion to get the money and to spend it . This is what the governments do, based on the citizen's agreement
mourantell 1 year ago
Let's change the situation. Suppose of the 20 neighbors, only 15 agree that the roads should be renovated. Do you think it would be ethical for the other 15 to force them to pay for the renovation?
Your making an error in presuming that the way I interact with a government is the same way I interact with a business. With a business it's a 1-to-1 relationship. With a government it's a 1-to-many relationship. If I give a business my money, its of my own choice. Governments make a *claim* to it.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
Let me ask you a different question: Do you believe that your life/liberty/wealth/property/money/etc. is yours by right, or by permission?
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
It is mine by right, as given to me by an agreement. That agreement also includes the special cases when these rights are taken from me. I have right for freedom, but if I commit a crime they ca take it. I have a right for my own property, but if my asset happens to be a biological weapon they can take it. I have right to my own money, but they can take a part it.
mourantell 1 year ago
So if your money is yours by right, by what right do I stake a claim to it? By what mechanism? My need? Because it seems to me that overarching argument from those on the statist side of this debate is that "each should give according to his ability, and receive according to his need." Do you agree with that assertion?
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
I agree that each should give according his ability, but I would advocate a flat tax system.
mourantell 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
The main idea is instead of destroying this agreement every year and making a new one we take the original agreement that is hundreds of years old and change it. We elect people to do this work for us and they change the agreement as they change tax rates, policies.
To answer you first question, out of that 20 neighbors I would be one of five that pays nothing, but uses everything, if all I have to say is that I didn't want it and you would be the fool for paying it for me.
mourantell 1 year ago
I feel like the basic argument you are making is that the government is allowed to take our money simply because it's able to, and you're allowed to leech simply because you can. In other words, "Might makes Right." If this is your view of the matter I don't think any further discussion would be fruitful.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
I have to ask if you think that freedom is your's by right then why is it possible or acceptable that if you commit a crime you can be jailed?
I wrote that I would be the one that pays nothing not because I really would be that one, but because some people would do it because they are able to and thats why I believe if we have a common goal (and a state represents that) then all should contribute, as all benefits.
mourantell 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
Argument about this common goal is important though, the first idea is that we indirectly vote about it, but there is also representation of minorities that ensures that not only the majority benefits.
My basic argument is that we empower the government to do the administration and there are mechanism that ensure that if a government does a lousy job in it then it can be removed.
mourantell 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
jesus H. christ ! You are both a couple of dumbass pompous motherfuckers !
Read a fucking book . Turn off the TV .
hieronomy 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
You say only a small fraction is returned to you because you attended a private school. Hmm really? First off, education is 6% of the GDP, I guess you still go out to the streets, live in a country that is not invaded by enemy forces, where you are not robbed/killed, where you can go to court..Those things are not free. And if we talk only about public education: Your living standard would drop if those others would not receive education. Even if it's only about ME ME ME.
mourantell 1 year ago
@mourantell I apologize I was referring mostly to my property tax which goes almost entirely to my school district, which does nothing but dick around and give raises to their incompetent staff. You'll note that the US education system is pretty shitty and that has nothing to do with a lack of funding, as Detroit has some of the most well-funded schools in the country and a ~20% graduation rate. I simply hold that if people were allowed to keep their money they would spend it more effectively.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
Deitroit is a special case with extremely high unemployment, but we can agree on the US education system being shitty, but I believe that in the end people must realize that you have to spend money on it, because it benefits everyone in the long run. Now I agree that government bodies are often ineffective and way too costly, but you can see that in the private sector too. Just think of the major banks.
mourantell 1 year ago
I'm sorry I'm just seeing this now.
If you closely examine Detroit you'll find that almost every single social ill in that city can be traced directly back to a program instituted by government. Similarly with the banks, a large part of why the economy collapsed was due in part to a law signed by Bill Clinton *restricting* banks from denying loans to financially destitute people on the grounds that it was "racist." In short, the banks were forced to give loans they knew would not be paid back.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
In the case of Detroit the problem is that the car manufacturers left the city and moved production to other countries. Although political pressure was part of the financial crisis I don't believe that there was any law that required the creation of any MBS or one that pressured rating agencies to rate grouped sub-prime loans as AAA securities.
mourantell 1 year ago
@mourantell You also might want to consider that defense spending is bloated (though not nearly as much as SS or Medicare) so much so that we spend more on toy rockets than any other country on the planet combined, and police (as the supreme court ruled quite recently) are not bound by law to protect you. The police in my area are also grossly overpaid for doing practically no work. Interestingly enough the majority always votes in favor for increases because they're largely uninformed.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@smiledammit24
"Interestingly enough the majority always votes in favor for increases because they're largely uninformed."
This is the problem, that the majority does not care about it, but that is not the system's fault.