I love what he says regarding the underlying FALLACY of collectivist political philosophy: "It assumes somehow that GOVERNMENT is a way in which you put UNSELFISH and UNGREEDY men in charge of SELFISH and GREEDY men. But government is an institution whereby people who have the greatest drive to get POWER over their fellow men get into a position of CONTROLLING them." --- for their own shitty good.
The american dream has gone to hell,the people that have brought this blessing to you since 1913 are those from the Synagogue of satan(Revelation 2:9,,3:9),read this book for free on internet to see what else they have in store for you,more blessing like 9/11,more war and total destruction of your country.
Read the book.
Who Is Esau-Edom..Who Is Esau-Edom
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia.We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America
He's liberal in the old sense of liberal, not todays. Conservative in the fact of less taxes and less spending. Left on social issues, right on economical issues. That is libertarian. What the republicans, or conservatives used to be. In a nutshell, SMALL GOV, LESS RULES, MORE INTERDEPENDENCY.
A world of cooperation for our common needs and well being is possibility moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity, where human creative genius is not limited to minority private gain. We can achieve together a social reality of harmony within and without and evolve a true civilisation We can transcend the ruling class ideological hold and emotional manipulation, The rulers have colonised our mind for commercial use in a Market system of alienation dominated by state/corporations
Friedman is arguing from an insane standpoint, i.e. does not have anything to do with reality. We don't let people produce child pornography however profitable it may be. The argument here is that we REGULATE and FORBID the unsafe pinto car. YES, we STOP production if it's not beneficial, WHATEVER it costs "FORD". If an insane industry cannot produce humane products, we GUT it. If we had any REAL democracy that is. Milton is deranged. Like the rest of the right wing.
@gunthaarz You should understand that producing child pornography is using coercion which forces the child into porn without them having the mental capability to understand the ramifications of such an action.
That would be the opposite of freedom...
You contradict yourself because you are saying force = freedom.
@sbank you are mistaken. Capitalist Production all over the world is what is coerced and forced: by "necessity", through and because of poverty, for food and survival. A poverty created through the unequal distribution of economic power access to land, food, moneys, services, health care etc. the Phillipines know this. China and all the third world experiences this. You are terribly mistaken.
@gunthaarz WHAT?! There is no such thing as "Capitalist Production..." There is production, sure but Capitalism is founded on the Consensual trade of goods (meaning mutual exchange whether it's for labor, sales, etc. Nothing is forced lol). There are places in the world where there is capitalism and not freedom sure... but show me an example of somewhere in the world where there is freedom without capitalism. You are getting confused and for some reason thing capitalism == production...
@gunthaarz "A poverty created through the unequal distribution of economic power" What about the poverty that came before classical economics? Humanity has always had poverty; it's the basic state of the world, but Capitalism has elevated some more than others (and the one's truly in poverty usually live in centrally planned states) which has highlighted poverty for the haves. Capitalism only created a standard of living for us to recognize poverty.
@HerrSchenkel - thats such a faulty statement that I do not know where to begin. Try youtube search "Michael Parenti" a Yale professor historian who has debunked that view / "assertion" claim thoroughly along with Howard Zinn, Chomsky, David Korten, John Kenneth Galbraith and others. Theres a difference between scarcity and poverty.
@gunthaarz I looked it up and you're right, scarcity is when everybody is in want (because there is not enough of something), whilst poverty is when some (the poor) are in want (because they don't currently have the means of acquiring something). So, capitalism helped to alleviate us of some scarcity, but in leaving people behind (or nor raising them fast enough), it created poverty. Not ideal, but preferable to scarcity.
@HerrSchenkel Under free market capitalism (which is NOT the US system at all), even if the poor become more poor relative to the rich, they're still richer than they were before. However, it should be noted that there's no reason to assume that free market capitalism would even create a widening rich/poor gap. In the US this gap does exist because of monopolies created by the state.
We live in a paradox. On one hand, I always hear people complaining about how much the gov't wastes our tax $. At the same time, I hear people complaining that the gov't should do more & intervene whenever there is a problem. Let's face it: The gov't can't be everything to everyone. I believe in less gov't not more.
For example, the gov't has no business being in the arts or sports. Let the private sector handle that. What a waste of tax payers money.
Those who object to the things that other people do which cannot be identified with measurable harm caused to an identifiable person are invariably, fundamentally, people who can justify theft, murder and fraud as a moral way to achieve social and political goals.
The great thing is that a country CAN return to freedom, free capitalism and prosperity. Milton mentioned the fall of Chile. That country was completely destroyed by elected, populist leftists. But they are turning it around. Check out the Chileans privatized social security system that is even better than America or Europe! See: watch?v=8IOVKtMiuas
Surely Milton is a libertarian. He believes in peoples rights to go about their lives without government interference. Just look at his view on drug legalisation, he promotes the legalisation of drugs and their cheap sale to reduce the crime that goes with addicts need to aid their addiction. By making drugs legal, addicts cease to be a drain on the economy and therefore can actually contribute to the economy.
The current economic crisis, has shown up the failures of Friedman's economic view of the Future. The irrationality of "Laissez-Faire" Capitalism is now easy for anyone to see. Imagine this: You have masses of capital, and masses of labor, unemployed, side by side, in the midst of a world which is FULL of social need. Now, how stupid is that? You look around, there's sure no lack of work that needs to be done in this country. But, there's no money to pay anyone to do it! That's a stupid system!
iuhhhhh no. Actually unions are mostly responsible for the unemployment. The wage contracts they negotiate don't allow for downward flexibility in wages that would be essential for a smooth adjustment. If there was downward wage flexibility during times of contraction like there is upward flexibility in other times we wouldn't be here. DOn't hate milton. Hate on the AFL-CIO and FDR and all those morons. I'm not saying that caused the crisis... they have made this as bad as it is though!!!
Of course, on planet Earth, the causes of the current economic crisis (and the resultant unemployment) were entirely of the government's making (Fed policy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.) and were not even remotely related to anything resembling laissez-faire capitalism. It is those same government failures that have created so much "social need" including a Welfare State that has unequivocally INCREASED poverty.
very true...we have advanced mercantilism in this country, not capitalism...we have mixed market mercantilism...mercantilism and government favoring of corporations, combined with socialist programs.
There is a huge discrepancy between the ideal of "free-markets" supported by strident libertarians, and their actual manifestations in the real world. People can be told the truth, that a truly free-market has never existed, yet they'll listen to this crap by Friedman. But, what I want to talk about is Friedmans' ideological consequences on the real world as seen in Reagonomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years", and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England, better.
There is nothing subjective about what happened to workers under Reagan. Under Reagan and Bush 41, OSHA agency was a "Hands-Off" Agency encouraging lawlessness, so workplace Safety Regulations lapsed. This led to an increase in days lost to workplace injuries from 58 per 100 workers in 1983 to 86 per 100 workers in 1991. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. This example I gave about OSHA, is just one example of how things got worse for hourly workers under Reagonomics.
I did NOT write 86 percent of all workers in 1991 had workplace injuries. The DAYS LOST to workplace injuries increased from 58 DAYS LOST per 100 workers in 1983 to 86 DAYS LOST per 100 workers in 1991. This was just one example of how things got worse for workers under Reagan. You read what I had written, INCORRECTLY! Is that my fault?
The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". The Reagan State made it very clear that it simply would not enforce the law, so that was carte blanche to employers to just ignore The Wagner Act and just carry out criminal actions. This illegal destruction of Unions under Reagan was a major factor in lowering wages, and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, in the U.S. to Great Depression Era Levels. But there was a huge increase in profits for Business
How could a Labor Union protect the individual rights of anyone not represented by it? That doesn't even make sense. But, then again, not much of anything that the Ulra-Right Wing Conservatives believe makes any sense, anyway. Well, I can see that caltrop69's "Favorites" are videos on Antonin Scalia, Milton Friedman, and World of Warcraft (just what we need, more Warcraft to kill each other, Jezze!) We have nothing politically in common... P. U. That is Stinky! Right-Wing Stinky!
I say this as constructive criticism, but drop the lame kindergarden insults. You can't have a serious debate with anyone, when you say, see ya, in the funny papers, or, stink! Right-wing Stinky! It really gives people the impressions that you are A. Too immature for a political debate. B. Too Immature for a debate in general, and C. Not worth debating if he's going use ideology insults like Right-wing stinky
I'm not old enough to vote yet, but I can see using insults in debate is un-intelligent
Well, Gee, Betty5150, I'm sorry that I offended your "Delicate Sensibilities"... I hardly think that Stinky qualifies as horrible insult. LOOK, I'm working class! I've been called things a thousand-times worse that "Stinky". It's useless to argue with a cop about a ticket, It's useless for a kid to argue about Bed Time, and it's useless to argue with a "Libertarian", ABOUT ANYTHING! So, I'll just politely say Good Bye, But you people have a totally whacked view of the world!
Libertarians DO have a whacked view of the world, because they believe that if there was absolutely no governmental interference what-so-ever, then we all would live in Utopia. I'm here to say, No We Wouldn't! Without Laws, and Rules, as Thomas Hobbes said; "Men's lives would be poor, nasty, brutish, and short!" You Libertarians forget how quickly Human Nature turns liberty into license, and then the Rich and the Powerful Rule, at the expense of the Poor and the Weak. You are Blind Guides!
What are you still doing here? You're obviously biased towards our ideology. You only see you're side as the winner. Well, I didn't just choose my side out of the blue. I looked at facts.We have government inference now, and the Rich and the Powerful still rule, what's you're point? I don't think you know much about libertarians, Government is necessary. I would be an ANARCHIST if I wanted no government., you must have mixed the two up. I'm for more freedom, what's wrong with that?
What am I still doing here? I'm questioning the basic assumptions about government and the economy that libertarians have. Friedman with his rhetorical attacks on "big government" for interfering with business succeeded in obscuring the fact that it is Big Business, not big government, that primarily regulates the lives of ordinary Americans. Until "big government" intervened, corporations were free to exploit child labor!
Until "big government" protected workers' bargaining rights, corporations could pay even less than The Minimum Wage. Until "big government" provided unemployment compensation and Social Security benefits, the worker cast off by a corporate employer (like me) had no where to turn. When corporate management of the economy resulted in the loss of Millions of jobs of willing workers during the Great Depression, it was "big government" that came to the rescue. Friedman fails to mention this.
I don't think you've realized that I'm not going to debate you on this. You only see your side as the right one, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you're thought is an idiot, as shown from your childish and immature insults. I don't see you as a crazy fool, because you don't hold the same philosophy I do. I always look at things as if I'm wrong, to stop myself from becoming people like you, who think people like me are crazy. Btw, I'm more for austrian economics, then freidmans. Just an fyi
Oh, Austrian Economics... well, I freely admit I don't understand the intricacies of that economic theory! Only thing I know about Austrian Economics is the fundamental idea that welfare is maximized by a liberal regime of free choice within a framework of strong personal property rights. But, myself... I'm tired of "The God of Property" ruling all our lives with an iron hand. I dream of a time in the future where people will be valued more than property or money... but that will never happen!
Sorry I know this is an old thread, but had to chip in. How can you value something in anything other than non property or money terms when the value (or price) of something is inherently how much you would be willing to pay for it?
You are stupid. Libertarians do not believe in no govt., our govt. is in place to protect us from one another in case someone is taken advantage of. We simply believe that people should not be forced or coerced by the govt. into something they do not want to do. Maybe you should pay attention to the video, the key words are VOLUNTARY and COOPERATION. But I guess we should all listen to what the govt. has to say because they know what is best for everyone. You ignoramus.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
iatemytwin57 you're pretty good at insulting people, let's see... you called me stupid, and an ignoramus, for starters. I can see from your Channel Page, which is totally BLANK, like your mind, that you have no interests other than your stupid Conservative Agenda. (Probably a phony-"sock" account, to insult people with.) Take a Hike, Right-Wing Troll!
Libertarians are not conservative.... why do you consist on labeling us Right-Wing like it insults us? That guy in this video, Milton Friedman, has stated he is not conservative. The Right wing today is for federal ban of gay marriage. I don't think you know anything of the Libertarian philosophy. You said earlier that we think government is wrong. And that is not necessary. That alone proves that you don't know about our ideology. Please stop associating us with conservatives and the RightWing
As I understand the political stance of Libertarians they seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize or even abolish the state. Isn't this correct? Most Libertarians believe that the Liberty and Freedom of the individual, can only be guaranteed by free markets, free trade, and a strong system of private property rights. To me, that's a very strong conservative, Pro-Property, Right-Wing Political stance. Help me out... How is my thinking wrong?
While what you said there is correct of the Libertarian Stance, but you only listed what was similar between the conservatism, and libertarianism. Well, if I go by you're logic, which is to take something similar to something else, and apply it to that, then liberals are socialists.Does that make sense to hear that?Because cons and libertarians believe in the free markets, this means they are similar in all other areas?Thus making them equal? Thus making Libertarians right wingers? No....
Right-Wing politics have been expanding government continuously and raising taxes all the while, even during the Reagan years. Conservatives want to regulate behavior as well, following subjective religious or "moral" ideals on what people can do with their bodies and their livelihoods. A libertarian would take exception to that on both counts.
@CosmicFork When you write "Libertarians believe that the Liberty and Freedom of the individual, can only be guaranteed by free markets, free trade, and a strong system of private property rights. To me, that's a very strong conservative, Pro-Property, Right-Wing Political stance. Help me out... How is my thinking wrong?" you are most correct. But do not confuse "conservative" and Republican or Libertarian or any other term.
Libertarians are fiscally conservative, and believe in limited Government. Some Libertarians are split on issues of Abortion, and Gay marriage. But generally are for Pro Choice, and Gay marriage. Almost all Libertarians would like limited Government on Republican Morality issues which is the big difference between Republicans, and Libertarians. Libertarians are Conservatives concerning Limited Government.
@Betty5150 Agreed. Libertarians are usually for gay rights, ending the war on drugs, and proliferation of science, technology and engineering. What about that sounds Right Wing?
@Betty5150 afaik libertarian stand for lowering violence and coersion as much as possible. They don't like government, because it is entitled with the licence to coersion - something, noone else, even fucking corporations have right to do.
@Betty5150 its a sticky discussion.. it causes misunderstandings...for example, ron paul described himself as a conseratie (my keys broke), because he wanted to consere the original form of goernment america had...ya know, freedom of the indiidual, liberty, rights, minimal goernment regulation of our affairs...and hes right in using the word in that way, but obiously, if you consider a conseratie, one that wants to consere the current goernment, or path were following, well, ron paul is...
@Betty5150 "Libertarian", "conservative" and "liberal" are labels much like "grid-iron", "rugby" and "soccer". The underlying vision upon which the ideologies are based, IMHO, puts everyone into two camps. In other countries the labels and politics are different, the weight and focus vary but vision is the same.
One camp is unsatisfied with the world and want to better it. The other prefer the change be in themselves and defer to a higher power all other matters.
Milton Friedman is agnostic I believe. And yet his proposals, one might say, are for the preservation of natural principles (not concocted). He is concerned that we do not forsake or trample over such values. He argues the case from within his field of expertise, to his credit. I put him in the latter camp -- those on the right.
@Betty5150 Libertarians do think that government is wrong, essentially. I'm not sure where you're getting that they don't. Conservative is a relative term. You could be conservative in the sense that you want to conserve a liberal ideology. You could be a monarchical conservative, etc. Libertarians can be conservative on some issues and not on others. The main point is that they don't want to use government power or any other form of coercion to push their beliefs.
@Betty5150 I'm a Conservative Libertarian as are many others. Meaning SOCIALLY we do not buy into Libertarian ideology but in property rights/economics.
@daobagua Meaning supporting a system of economics does not mean you inherently support any social normality outside of protecting property rights and not physically harming someone else.
@IrminC But what social views of libertarians do you not buy?All of them? If so, then how can you possible support private property rights. these are based off the rights that all people are free to pursue their own happiness without state impediment or coercion as long as they don't cause direct harm to others. If you believe that premise, then you have a philosophical background to believe in private property rights. If not, how do you justify private property rights?
@daobagua What does private party have to do with happiness? That has to do with infringing on someones resource capacity not their own abstract notion of a condition.
So you don't have to support some extreme Ayn Rand secular religion to support property rights.
Marriage was established as a form of property rights regarding inheritance and last I checked same sex couples can not have children, so what is the point?
@IrminC Ahhh, so it is gay mariage you do not support. I finally got a straight answer on that. Notice that I did not say anything about gay mariage.
Secondly, private property rights are established under the principle that it is wrong to use coersion on any individual so long as they are not harming others. That is why you should own your property and be able to do what you want on your property so long as you don't harm others. This is not Ayn Rand but Benjamin franklin.
@IrminC It should be noted that not all libertarians believe in absolute property rights. For example, Milton Friedman believed government should be used for those things that government provides most efficiently. If government is used, taxes must be levied, this would be against Ayn Rands View of absolutly no force.
Finally, what harm does it do to you if some gay couple get married? Perhaps to you marriage is just a way of sorting inheritance, but that is not the case for everyone.
@daobagua I agree with your first point which is why I lean more towards Conservative Libertarian or Moderate Libertarians like Friedman rather than a quasi-Anarchist like Rand.
Marriage is an arrangement for inheritance and social institution for child rearing. Gay couples can enter into any social contract they want, but that's not the same as marriage for the previously mentioned statement. Children should be protected by the "state" because they can not enter contracts independently.
@IrminC Why can gay people not adopt children if they provide loving homes for those children? Your bigotry is very unbecomming by the way.
Marriage is not just about children or inheritance, but rather a social institution that can be used to ensure that the relationship stays more stable in the future. But lets say it just about inheritance, do gay people not have money to give when they die?
You say children should be protected by the state. Who is protecting them from the state?
@daobagua Bigot merely means you're winning against a Liberal. If you do not see the male-female dynamic as not only the means of procreation but also the rightful means of child rearing you have let wishful thinking override sensible, objective interpretation of reality.
As a social institution the moral majority have every right to influence society as they see fit. Parents are protecting them from the state, another necessity of marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.
@daobagua Plenty of lifestyles which do not facilitate to conducive child rearing. Should a single parent have a right to adopt? They might provide a adequate home but is it worth experimenting to replace traditional father-mother dichotomy on the whim that somehow the intentions of someones subjective reality overrides biological necessity? This is where the feel-good liberalism of Libertarianism ends, when you bring children into it which do not have the facilities to enter into soc. contract.
@IrminC First of all, you have no evidence showing that children raised by two same sex parents are statistically more likely to be less of a delinquent than those raised by traditional family's. To me it seems that having parents or gaurdians who care about the child, and having the financial support are more likely to have an effect on a childs successful development. You mentioned biological necessity biological necessity, please elaborate with your evidence.
@daobagua What is biologically necessary to make a child? Male & Female.
No need to elaborate on what is self-evident. You elaborate how an alternative lifestyle with extremely disproportionate levels of pedophilia, drug abuse, depression, and suicide should be state sanctioned?
Gay cant naturally produce children, if they are so stable there are ways to have children like a surrogate. That is no ones business but they can not demand the state subsidize a universally regard unnatural union.
@IrminC First, we are not argueing whether homosexuals can "have" children, we are aguing if they can raise them. Raising has nothing to do with biology.
Second, your statistics are absolute bunk. The same risk of pedophilia exists with both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Third, mariage is not a government subsidy for gays (unless it is a government subsidy to straight). ALL individuals should be the same in the eyes of the government.
@IrminC Secondly, you are completely forgetting about the adopted childrens other options. Most children who are adopted, do NOT come from perminant, two parent, heterosexual, stable, not abusive, financial sound families. They are put up for adoption, precisly because they do not have such lofty ideal lifes at home. And yet you would like the state, to deny them the chance of having a better, more stable life. Just because the parents are of the same sex (or single).
@IrminC Thirdly, as friedman put it, democracies influence policy through majority vote as a matter of convenience, not as a matter of principle. The majority do not have the right to influence policies that deny minorities the same rights under the rule of law.
Your point about children's rights being counted is absolutly correct. But to do so you need to provide evidence that their life would be worse if adopted, and this doesn't effect your decision to allow homosexuals to marry.
@daobagua As I said before, people can legally enter any contract they want.
There are several lifestyles not suitable for having children. And people have every right to pursue them but that does not give them to right to contract another human being as an accessory. The state has no obligation to provide them with something they cant provide themselves! In that case there is absolutely & rightfully so societal norms that come into play on the rational of collective morality.
@IrminC The state does not have to give homosexuals the right to adopt children. The state has to get out of their way. If the state monopolizes the adoption process, then they need to allow all individuals the same rights to adopt. Which means that unless they have a criminal record, financial problems, or a history of abuse, they should be allowed to adopt. For the state to be biased on race or sexual orientation is ridiculous.
@IrminC Did you choose to be straight? If you did, was it a 50/50 choice, or did biology play a factor in here? Imagine being told, by the state, that homosexuality is the only proper lifestyle and that you are expected to find a suitable same sex mate. Imagine the thought of having to choose between living alone or having to have sex with another guy. Just imagine how you feel about having sex with another guy. That is how a homosexual male feels when we tell them to have sex with women.
@daobagua That's fine but it's not relevant. If homosexuality was the norm we would cease to exist, the topic at hand goes beyond human asset into a biological imperative to procreate. If homosexuals could procreate it wouldn't be an issue. If they're able to pursue a private adoption (surrogate) then that is their right but they do not have the right to force the government to subsidize a lifestyle the vast majority of people find unnatural and a cause of degeneracy.
@IrminC You keep saying subsidize a lifestyle? What exactly do you mean by that? If they adopt a kid from a government run orphanage, then they reduce the cost to the government (i.e. the government is not having to raise the kid). Furthermore, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RIGHT TO MARRYYYYYYYYY. Yes, capitalization was necessary, you do not seem to argue this point, you always turn it to adoption.
Finally, what if science allows homosexuals to reproduce, would you mind?
Actually, I think the bankruptcy of the world by our corrupt governments stand to help facilitate the advent of anarchy as much as they do the socialism/slavery models being advocated now. if not more so.
What Friedman explains is more than economics. I'd call it economic psychology. He explains cleary that those who think stealing other people's money for "good" actually achives the exact opposite result. Social security, poverty, wellfare, the list goes on and on. Every time a liberal thinks they are doing good in these areas, it,s a terrible failure. Are any of these areas better off today when created? No. Social engineering fails to account for human nature. Liberal views are just cosmetic.
As an anarchist, I really think the stateless model would really thrive in a freemarket society. And, in the end, with far less corruption and war. Without government, how much war and corruption would we have?
A stateless society is just another utopian dream that we will never see. We see all over the world how people prefer to be "classified" in some category either by their nationality, race and/or ethnicity. The idea od a stateless society is just a pipe dream. The 2nd reason is that there are far too many people who want to be leaders of other people and way far too many people who love to follow their messiahs. We see it all over the world and throughout world history including here in America.
Don't tell that to the Icelanders. They had just such a government for about 300 years. Longer and with less violence than ours. And these were the infamous Viking people fleeing from a more centralised government in Norway. Probably less centralised than a modern Libertarian, but still. It has worked. And it could work again. Only the state prevents us from castrating it.
Are you not talking about a stateless world society? If so, you can't point to such a homganized place like Iceland and say that one island society can be applied as the model to make the entire world stateless. Again I have to point at your unrealistic utopian view which ignores human nature. If you think all nationalities, races, ethnicities and religions are going to come together and form your utopia, I have some swamp land to sell you. It just aint going happen.
Why would it have to be a world govenment. There are many types of societies co-existing right now. Being state-less is far less defenseless than the traditional state models. AFter all, how many of our wars have been for self-defense? It can happen, and it should happen. I already live in swamp country though, it's near the Okeefenokee actually, and it's beautiful. lol
The basic underlying fallacy of the people who post these Milton Friedman Videos, is that they can't see the huge discrepancy between the ideal of a quote "Free-Market", and its' actual manifestation in the real world. What we should talk about instead is really existing "Free-Market Theory". That's the one that is really applied, not the one just talked about, (like in these Friedman Videos).
Really existing "Free-Market Theory", means market discipline for the poor and the defenseless, but plenty of protection and subsidy for those who really need it, i.e. (the rich and the powerful.) So, if Third-World Debt gets out of control, you socialize it. It's not the problem of the banks that made the money. When the Savings and Loans Collapse, then the public bails them out. Like when Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989 at a cost of over $3 BILLION to the Federal Government.
When American Investment Firms get into trouble because, say, (the Mexican Bubble Bursts), then you bail out Goldman Sachs. Or, when A.I.G. is on the hook for $173 BILLION Dollars of U.S. taxpayers money, their executives get $165 MILLION in bonuses paid to them. There's case after case of this. Basically rich capitalists' like to be able to rant and rave about the marvels of "The Free-Market", while they're getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else through the nanny state!
Also what is so ridiculous and biased also are people who think government is what gives loans to these people and make these things. Again its a biased view, they both help each other. Majority of the presidents or politicians who make it make most of their campaign money from corporations and business. Both work together, business and corporations tell government we will fund you and vote for you and do this for you, if you do this for us and at times its vice-versa
You do realise that libertarianism and socialism are fundamentally opposed right? I get the impression you don't have much of an idea what you're talking about.
Um yes I do know the difference you jackass. I do know what I am talking about also. I actually don't think you have a single idea what your talking about. We never lived in a complete free-market and giving people the right to do whatever they want will lead to problems in the end. I don't what is so hard fucking realizing the risks of that. Its like parents never disciplining their child so they grow up and become complete assholes thinking they are above everything.
Also since you obviously don't know me you have no room to judge me because one. I believe humans should of more rights and control of themselves in this world then government and I think we should end the FED. I just get tired of ignorant people blaming everything on liberals saying that liberal ideology is socialists and bigger government which that is 100% false. Democrats thing that, liberals don't know the difference.
But if you think that every single business that is started in the market cares about everyone's interests and well being and they will help everyone in the world with their business and markets then you are living in a dream world. Cause the whole point of an entire free-market ideology is my interest my own interests not anyone else. Business is a money favoring thing and that is the point of business cause with competition that means they could lose more money and consumers.
Do you not realize that this isn't a government problem or a business problem that it is a human problem. That no matter what, some humans if not most are greedy self-centered assholes. And that is the point of a real free-market, no government or law intervention people know how to handle themselves. People with money have power. People with money a lot don't want to bother stimulating or creating progress for all people just their ourselves and people with money.
And yes I know the difference between corporatism and free-market. I know corporatism is when big business and government work side by side. But that doesn't mean that is the only issue. We live in a world that is more populated more industrial and not farming. Real free-markets will end up basically being the same thing. Business control how our society should run.Things will lead to problems and just how now corporations fun politicians if they help out their corporation same thing will happen
if free-markets want control. Cause the whole point is a free-market can't interfere with other peoples rights but the thing is. Words are cheap, something might sound good but the fact is, a lot of business cares about themselves and in the end, the laws won't apply and business people and markets in the end will start making deals with government to help themselves when there is too much competition. Which is why we never had a true free-market and most people in the world are self-centered.
Which is why a true free-market will never work and truly was never here to begin with.But just like any other big political parties there are branches that branch off of their to change a little bit of things.Also if you didn't know our founding fathers said that we have the right to change and not follow everything from the constitution.Now that doesn't mean we should ignore it cause we shouldn't it. Our founding fathers know things and the future changes and sometimes changes will be needed
I think we shouldn't ignore the constitution we should follow it more then anything but things and history changes, the world advances, we advance in technology in science and knowledge, we advance in population and in the world. Things change and sometime we can't follow the constitution 100% the way it was originally written which is why our fathers said if things need to be change slightly in them you have the right.
But you are really ignorant and truly follow a lot of biased views. How about you learn more about the world and about things instead of one sided things. Learn that Karl Marx wasn't a communist dictator and learn that Marxism today is ruined by people some people and ruined by the public making it seem like it was like that. Karl Marx didn't believe in the communism or the fascism or socialism we all think of today.
Also read about Howard Zinn, who proves with facts and historic documents that Socialism never truly controlled the world and never was in favor and in supported the monopolies and corporations. And that Stalin,Soviet Union,USSR etc etc. Was never really socialists it was fascist.
duh. it was just a cloak of "communism". communism or socialism can never work because that's not how people work. the only way that it can come to pass is if you remove their self interest. but if you remove their self interest, you remove their drive to work or get things accomplished. and if nobody works or gets things accomplished, then you have a failed system. communism and socialism are just grown up fairy tales.
Just read into Stalinism, this guy destroyed the meaning of it. And now people fear socialism when they are thinking of Stalinism and fascism but people keep throwing the fear out and it really now has controlled the public into think something that isn't socialism. NOW I DON'T LOVE socialism but I am not ignorant and I can read into everyone facts and realize there is flaws in EVERY SYSTEM. BUT I support LESS GOVERNMENT AND THE END TO THE FED!
I know I am rambling but I just like to get everything out at once instead of arguing for a long time. But think of it like this also. People who have a lot of money and got involved with some crimes and are put into court usually never got punished either at all or the way they should be because they have money and they have lawyers really good lawyers. Its not a matter of business and government but people with money can get away with things more then people who are poor or middle class.
What I hate is how people ruined the term American Dream. LIke American dream was to be free and to be wealthy. People deep down inside even though most of you guys think isn't true but most people who are their own person doesn't want to make a lot of money and they want to do what they love and what makes them happy. Some of these things are things that don't make a lot money,so should these people be screwed because they didn't want to be business people and make a lot of money?That is wrong
And all their supposed help would by only for people who want to be rich or have a lot of money. They work with each other all who are rich cause people with money will help other people in money and people with no matter or not a lot or enough doesn't help them so they at times use exploitation towards them cause business is all about money and many times leads to wrong things and they are a group that only helps themselves and people who only care about business and wanting to be rich.
Markets have been known for lying a lot at times to gain interests and when failing or doing bad a lot leads to abuse laying off people who did nothing. Black mail, theft, harming people if they aren't making enough money. Money equals power and through history always government and markets and business have worked together at least some of them. In the end very little people are helped and its people who only care about making a lot of money. Stuff will mostly focus their greedy self interests
I know many laws with governments and free-markets. Both have control if one rules over another and both depending on who has control and the most money is usually at some point will abuse their control and freedoms. That is why we never had a true free-market and that is why things that are private a lot are corrupted!
The thing is people look back on history on governments run by countries supposedly communist or socialists but deep down inside were fascist and totalitarianism.They use this fear and people keep throwing fear and fear to scare people. Both systems are flawed someone will be screwed over then another.What I hate is that people use the whole welfare thing and living off government because your lazy and not hardworking is so untrue.People still and will always have to work hard for what they want
There has been private run hospitals that have pulled plugs early on sick kids manipulated them into taken certain medicines that don't work so they can buy more. All of this is profit for them. A lot of the Markets tend to have this freedom aspect to them but when they abuse their freedoms its inhuman and it takes a lot of the human rights and freedoms towards other people. The fact is we were never a true free-market. Our founding fathers supported government even if little same does friedman
They would create their own laws and would use racism and other forms of hate to make money if they aren't making as much as they want. Its interest! If someone is making as much as they want at lot especially if private would use harsh punishments and hate to make profit. Same with private schools teachers teaching false history and abusing the rules and rights of students at the schools. And just business anyways, business and corporations have this very self centered attitudes about things.
The issue is people. What is so funny is people use the whole idea of private markets and business don't want to hurt people because they want the consumer and they work for the people so they will make sure they won't hurt them so they can keep making money. What is so funny is people and markets tend to screw and hurt people and manipulate them for profit just as much or more then helping. I know about full private prisons that used racism and segregation and harsh punishments to make money
Damn you full on supporters of free-Markets sicken me. I am a Libertarian Socialists. Its pathetic how the world is viewed as black and white like its some goddamn WWE wrestling match. In one corner you got free-markets blaming government for everything. Then you have government blaming markets for everything. Christ the world isn't black and white. Both are too blame. But I am sick of this fear of government like its the most evil thing in the world.
By the way, monopolies do not occur without the intrusion of government by way of subsidies, tariffs, and oh yeah the labor unions which is government and business hand and hand.
It still amazes me that people think government is the answer when everything it touches fails. Its not business or corporations fault that people do not read their contract that they themselves have signed for. The consumers are responsible for their purchases with their money not the government. Why don't you try saving your money for what you want rather than spending money that you dont have...just like the government. Wake up!!
We don't elect CEOs and corporate officials at he ballot box. Where do you want your political power to be. At the ballot box or the marketplace? Which do you believe in more? I do not trust the market like most people do nowadays. They trust it as if it were God. That invisible hand of the market is very human and gives too many people the middle finger if you ask me.
Our ballot box has become a joke. Politicians do not answer to the people. They answer to their campaign contributors, while they lie to the people. In a free market, companies have no choice but to fill the needs and desires of the people. If they don't they cannot maintain a profit. Without a profit they go out of business. The only way a company can ignore the needs and desires of the people is if government gives the company unfair support and protection.
You're damn right our ballot box has become a joke. And it's because business interferes with government. Not because government interferes with business. The truth is that marketing and advertising manipulate people's perceptions and desires. They also practice predatory and parasitic lending practices that weren't legal all that long ago. Lobbyists. Ridiculous interest rates, hidden fees, all that stuff in the fine print. Consumers deceived into thinking they can afford the American Dream.
At least 9 federal agencies regulate advertising of products. Who regulates political ads? Nobody. You dont think politicians manipulate your perceptions and desires with advertising? Thats how they get elected.
Government gave birth to predatory lending. Why would anyone give a loan (money) to a person who couldnt pay it back? Because it was profitable. Why on earth would it be profitable? Because Fannie Mae, created by government, bought up massive numbers of bad loans in the name of helping the poor and minorities.
And don't forget, a lot of people made a lot of money until the house of cards fell apart. People at Fannie Mae, people in the real estate industry, people who bundled up these bad mortgages, real estate speculators. And they all were being funded by the taxpayers ultimately, because they made their profits, but everyone else is paying for the risks they took.
That's it, blame the rich last. They're always the least to blame right? Heaven forbid if people should happen to participate in their government or ask it to protect them from slimeball, cons like the ones who slither around Wall-Street.
"Government gave birth to predatory lending. Why would anyone give a loan (money) to a person who couldnt pay it back?" Sure, the government loans out $ all the time. That's sarcasm. Believe me, credit card cos. and mortgage lenders love it when people get behind. They slam them with added fees thataway. Have you ever heard of a "confirmation bias"? "There are no facts only interpretations" -Nietzsche. Try disproving your absolute faith in the free-market for a week. Theological undertones.
No facts? I guess Nietzsche is just a figment of your imagination then. I despise faith. I'm an atheist. I believe things based on evidence. I never said the government loans out money all the time. I said it created Fannie Mae. It also passed laws forcing banks to meet racial & geographic quotas. In order to meet these quotas, banks were forced to overlook an applicant's financial history. & don't get me started on the Fed. Once again, how would this be profitable without gov intervention?
Sure, the extreme relativism of Nietzsche can be counter-productive, for lack of a better word. However, his wisdom has revealed to me that people often have thoughts structured very similar to religious beliefs while believing themselves to be complete atheists. Then again, who am I to talk. And he appreciated and was inspired by Dostoevsky who was often passionately religious. At least in some respects but certainly not all. He was not without his doubts. See the "Brothers Karamazov" -wow!
I often tend to overlook the unintended consequences of government intervention. At one time, "redlining" had caused neighborhoods to be extremely segregated by race. "Exclusionary contracts" also contributed to this. Real estate cos., with their "panic peddlers", made plenty of profits off of white peoples' fears of black neighbors. Slum lords, and renters, also made tons of $ off of charging blacks more for rent than whites. Fannie and Freddie were meant to change this. Was it successful?
Your absolutely right. Credit card companies have treated customers like crap. But naturally after people are treated like crap by banks, they learn their lesson, and throw their cards in the trash. But what if the government comes in and says, "poor baby, let me pay for your bills." Then people never learn their lesson. What if the government says, "poor banks, let me bail you out." Then banks never learn their lesson. It's common sense.
Gov. used to protect citizens from "usury" by putting lower caps on interest rates. This has happened even as far back as the MIddle-Ages. Jews weren't allowed to own land but could lend $ from the towns (boroughs). The Catholic Church had forbidden gentiles from usury. The Jews, however, could get around this. Even royalty went to them for loans. Much of modern Anti-Antisemitism spread from the Jews becoming wealthy in periods of economic crisis and boom. Should the gov. regulate interest?
If you limit the government, which is constituted of elected officials who are at least accountable to the people, then corporations will have free reign to do whatever the heck they want like pollute the environment and sell me medicine that I don't know will kill me but take away my heartburn. We need to limit corporations because they are only accountable to we consumers in the marketplace. Which is pretty damn pathetic. Where do you want your power to be? At the ballot box or marketplace?
What are you talking about? At least capitalize the first word of your sentences and the nouns. Maybe peeps will take you seriously. You live in a mythological lala land if you ever think that gov. and private interests can ever be completely separated. You wouldn't have the internet, the interstate highway system, the police forces as we know it, or a good military if it weren't for gov. spending. Grow the hell up.
"To generalize is to be an idiot. To particularize is the alone distinction of merit." -William Blake.
There are exceptions to every generalization. You may want to try to disprove what you believe. That will make it more accurate. It's true that regulation can harm the public. It can also save us from all sorts of abuses by the elite.
It distracts you from real issues. Go look up what "Regulatory Committees" are. While your at it, consider the fact that there are seventy corporate lobbyists per congressman in Washington. Big Business is so much more powerful than governent it is pathetic. And your ideas will continue to make them more powerful. That's why you are an idiot.
What we need to do is limit the government. When a wealthy corporation tries to influence legislation they won't be able to because government wouldn't have the power to enact those types of laws.
Go pay someone a dollar for an hours work and see how much you get out of them you stupid bastard. While your at it, take the corporate cocks out of your ears and stick them in your mouth and ass where they belong. Then you can actually listen to someone else. Face it, corporate America bought our politicians off years ago. Corporations and government are so in bed that they should get gay married. It's just a myth to think that they conflict as much as you think they do.
Propaganda. I'd love to see this bastard go work in a factory for minimum wage. Friedman that is. With is manicured nails, soft hands, and smug attitude.
Do you know anything about economics? Do you understand that minimum wage actually hurts low or unskilled workers by pricing them out of the market? Did you even listen to what Friedman said? Would you rather have a high minimum wage and many people who are unemployed or no minimum wage and many more people employed? Every major economist in the world is against minimum wage for the aforementioned reasons. The only arguments for minimum wage are emotional ones, not factual.
You're a fucking idiot. Friedman argues AGAINST the minimum wage because it does not reward good work! If you were a skilled laborer at all you would not be getting paid minimum wage if the government kept it's nose out of business.
c'mon i can't understand how he can say that social security is another form of violnece and corruption. Mr. friedman should've known how much taxes he paid to finance vietnam, kuwait, iraq...
Forcefully stealing from one man to give to another, no matter how good the intentions are, is ultimately wrong. And doing such under a bureaucracy of political elite leads to corruption and abuse of powers, in all cases. It is easier and with more incentive (from government) for a man to stay in the welfare class receiving checks from the government than it is to exceed beyond that.
Corporations have all the power now. As the size and power of business enterprises increased, this great change caused the size and nature of government to increase in response. So-called big government is thus a creation of corporate power, not its antithesis. Giant corporations played a key role in bringing on The Great Depression and impoverishing the nation, government was called upon to try to solve the horrible economic deprivation of people. That's where "Big Bad Government" came from!!!
mo welfare free for al tax the rich !
quadcatfly 9 months ago
@quadcatfly
Quit skipping school, and stay off the drugs, junkie. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
DraughtOfPeace 3 months ago
I love what he says regarding the underlying FALLACY of collectivist political philosophy: "It assumes somehow that GOVERNMENT is a way in which you put UNSELFISH and UNGREEDY men in charge of SELFISH and GREEDY men. But government is an institution whereby people who have the greatest drive to get POWER over their fellow men get into a position of CONTROLLING them." --- for their own shitty good.
.
Where are the philosopher kings, indeed...
ConquerorWorm2012 10 months ago 2
Friedman is great.But what that fucking bloody "V" have to do with him?
ErnstJoy 10 months ago
The american dream has gone to hell,the people that have brought this blessing to you since 1913 are those from the Synagogue of satan(Revelation 2:9,,3:9),read this book for free on internet to see what else they have in store for you,more blessing like 9/11,more war and total destruction of your country.
Read the book.
Who Is Esau-Edom..Who Is Esau-Edom
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia.We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America
(The Jew,December 1925,Zinobit
MsMihailescu 1 year ago
@MsMihailescu WHAT?!
eric5335 1 year ago
I wish he could have been our president.
carlenecarter52 1 year ago
He's liberal in the old sense of liberal, not todays. Conservative in the fact of less taxes and less spending. Left on social issues, right on economical issues. That is libertarian. What the republicans, or conservatives used to be. In a nutshell, SMALL GOV, LESS RULES, MORE INTERDEPENDENCY.
AroundSun 1 year ago
i think, taxes should be voluntary
coturnix19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A world of cooperation for our common needs and well being is possibility moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity, where human creative genius is not limited to minority private gain. We can achieve together a social reality of harmony within and without and evolve a true civilisation We can transcend the ruling class ideological hold and emotional manipulation, The rulers have colonised our mind for commercial use in a Market system of alienation dominated by state/corporations
arzoyan 1 year ago
Brilliant!
kingryanarthur 1 year ago
Friedman is arguing from an insane standpoint, i.e. does not have anything to do with reality. We don't let people produce child pornography however profitable it may be. The argument here is that we REGULATE and FORBID the unsafe pinto car. YES, we STOP production if it's not beneficial, WHATEVER it costs "FORD". If an insane industry cannot produce humane products, we GUT it. If we had any REAL democracy that is. Milton is deranged. Like the rest of the right wing.
gunthaarz 1 year ago
@gunthaarz You should understand that producing child pornography is using coercion which forces the child into porn without them having the mental capability to understand the ramifications of such an action.
That would be the opposite of freedom...
You contradict yourself because you are saying force = freedom.
sbank 1 year ago
@sbank you are mistaken. Capitalist Production all over the world is what is coerced and forced: by "necessity", through and because of poverty, for food and survival. A poverty created through the unequal distribution of economic power access to land, food, moneys, services, health care etc. the Phillipines know this. China and all the third world experiences this. You are terribly mistaken.
gunthaarz 1 year ago
@gunthaarz WHAT?! There is no such thing as "Capitalist Production..." There is production, sure but Capitalism is founded on the Consensual trade of goods (meaning mutual exchange whether it's for labor, sales, etc. Nothing is forced lol). There are places in the world where there is capitalism and not freedom sure... but show me an example of somewhere in the world where there is freedom without capitalism. You are getting confused and for some reason thing capitalism == production...
sbank 1 year ago 2
@gunthaarz "A poverty created through the unequal distribution of economic power" What about the poverty that came before classical economics? Humanity has always had poverty; it's the basic state of the world, but Capitalism has elevated some more than others (and the one's truly in poverty usually live in centrally planned states) which has highlighted poverty for the haves. Capitalism only created a standard of living for us to recognize poverty.
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
@HerrSchenkel - thats such a faulty statement that I do not know where to begin. Try youtube search "Michael Parenti" a Yale professor historian who has debunked that view / "assertion" claim thoroughly along with Howard Zinn, Chomsky, David Korten, John Kenneth Galbraith and others. Theres a difference between scarcity and poverty.
gunthaarz 1 year ago
@gunthaarz I looked it up and you're right, scarcity is when everybody is in want (because there is not enough of something), whilst poverty is when some (the poor) are in want (because they don't currently have the means of acquiring something). So, capitalism helped to alleviate us of some scarcity, but in leaving people behind (or nor raising them fast enough), it created poverty. Not ideal, but preferable to scarcity.
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago 2
@HerrSchenkel Under free market capitalism (which is NOT the US system at all), even if the poor become more poor relative to the rich, they're still richer than they were before. However, it should be noted that there's no reason to assume that free market capitalism would even create a widening rich/poor gap. In the US this gap does exist because of monopolies created by the state.
drewmandan 1 year ago 2
@HerrSchenkel from an economic point there's always scarcity. But... keep going you're doing great!
dmowings 1 year ago
We live in a paradox. On one hand, I always hear people complaining about how much the gov't wastes our tax $. At the same time, I hear people complaining that the gov't should do more & intervene whenever there is a problem. Let's face it: The gov't can't be everything to everyone. I believe in less gov't not more.
For example, the gov't has no business being in the arts or sports. Let the private sector handle that. What a waste of tax payers money.
all028 1 year ago
Dear God- thank you- i have found my new political hero
bazzascot 1 year ago 2
wake the fuck up americans!
waterse 1 year ago
Those who object to the things that other people do which cannot be identified with measurable harm caused to an identifiable person are invariably, fundamentally, people who can justify theft, murder and fraud as a moral way to achieve social and political goals.
j1a2r34 1 year ago
The great thing is that a country CAN return to freedom, free capitalism and prosperity. Milton mentioned the fall of Chile. That country was completely destroyed by elected, populist leftists. But they are turning it around. Check out the Chileans privatized social security system that is even better than America or Europe! See: watch?v=8IOVKtMiuas
XCritonX 1 year ago
Surely Milton is a libertarian. He believes in peoples rights to go about their lives without government interference. Just look at his view on drug legalisation, he promotes the legalisation of drugs and their cheap sale to reduce the crime that goes with addicts need to aid their addiction. By making drugs legal, addicts cease to be a drain on the economy and therefore can actually contribute to the economy.
benallen9 2 years ago 5
CosmicFork. Go whatch the video about Milton wanting drugs to be legal. Does that sound right wing to you?
JoeyNavinski 2 years ago
Is there a version of this without the lame graphic and sound interrupting the point?
NativeNewMexican 2 years ago 4
Milton Friedman is a Philospher of Freedom
mccarrpo 2 years ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
Farting on the watermelons.
zpobric 2 years ago
ahhhhh...... Okay?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The current economic crisis, has shown up the failures of Friedman's economic view of the Future. The irrationality of "Laissez-Faire" Capitalism is now easy for anyone to see. Imagine this: You have masses of capital, and masses of labor, unemployed, side by side, in the midst of a world which is FULL of social need. Now, how stupid is that? You look around, there's sure no lack of work that needs to be done in this country. But, there's no money to pay anyone to do it! That's a stupid system!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
iuhhhhh no. Actually unions are mostly responsible for the unemployment. The wage contracts they negotiate don't allow for downward flexibility in wages that would be essential for a smooth adjustment. If there was downward wage flexibility during times of contraction like there is upward flexibility in other times we wouldn't be here. DOn't hate milton. Hate on the AFL-CIO and FDR and all those morons. I'm not saying that caused the crisis... they have made this as bad as it is though!!!
GenitalGrinder69 2 years ago
Of course, on planet Earth, the causes of the current economic crisis (and the resultant unemployment) were entirely of the government's making (Fed policy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.) and were not even remotely related to anything resembling laissez-faire capitalism. It is those same government failures that have created so much "social need" including a Welfare State that has unequivocally INCREASED poverty.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago 5
very true...we have advanced mercantilism in this country, not capitalism...we have mixed market mercantilism...mercantilism and government favoring of corporations, combined with socialist programs.
slev09 2 years ago
There is a huge discrepancy between the ideal of "free-markets" supported by strident libertarians, and their actual manifestations in the real world. People can be told the truth, that a truly free-market has never existed, yet they'll listen to this crap by Friedman. But, what I want to talk about is Friedmans' ideological consequences on the real world as seen in Reagonomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years", and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England, better.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Nice subjective rant. I'm not convinced.
caltrop69 2 years ago
There is nothing subjective about what happened to workers under Reagan. Under Reagan and Bush 41, OSHA agency was a "Hands-Off" Agency encouraging lawlessness, so workplace Safety Regulations lapsed. This led to an increase in days lost to workplace injuries from 58 per 100 workers in 1983 to 86 per 100 workers in 1991. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. This example I gave about OSHA, is just one example of how things got worse for hourly workers under Reagonomics.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
86 percent of all workers in 1991 had workplace injuries?
That number is so far beyond laughable, I'm almost afraid to ask you for your source.
What's your source?
caltrop69 2 years ago
I did NOT write 86 percent of all workers in 1991 had workplace injuries. The DAYS LOST to workplace injuries increased from 58 DAYS LOST per 100 workers in 1983 to 86 DAYS LOST per 100 workers in 1991. This was just one example of how things got worse for workers under Reagan. You read what I had written, INCORRECTLY! Is that my fault?
CosmicFork 2 years ago
No. You did not say 86 percent. You are correct. I misread.
After looking it up on the BLS web-site, it appears as if these numbers have been decreasing for years, as an overall trend.
A spike did happen later in the Reagan Presidency, and then it continued to decline.
I'm curious about what's happened since 2001. I couldn't find any data regarding it.
I don't necessarily trust your conclusions, however. We've been moving to a safer, service oriented economy over the same time period.
caltrop69 2 years ago
"Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England, better. "
Yes, i would much rather have a government subsidized and completely inefficient nationalized industries...
bettertobealive 2 years ago
The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". The Reagan State made it very clear that it simply would not enforce the law, so that was carte blanche to employers to just ignore The Wagner Act and just carry out criminal actions. This illegal destruction of Unions under Reagan was a major factor in lowering wages, and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, in the U.S. to Great Depression Era Levels. But there was a huge increase in profits for Business
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Explain how Labor Unions protect the individual rights of anyone who isn't in the union, and your point may be worth debating.
caltrop69 2 years ago
How could a Labor Union protect the individual rights of anyone not represented by it? That doesn't even make sense. But, then again, not much of anything that the Ulra-Right Wing Conservatives believe makes any sense, anyway. Well, I can see that caltrop69's "Favorites" are videos on Antonin Scalia, Milton Friedman, and World of Warcraft (just what we need, more Warcraft to kill each other, Jezze!) We have nothing politically in common... P. U. That is Stinky! Right-Wing Stinky!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
CosmicFork: Youtube ate my original response. I'm not interested enough in reiterating.
Suffice it to say that you broke down into personal insults.
I shouldn't have even bothered giving you the time.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Hey, caltrop69... we finally agree on something... Any communication between us, IS A WASTE OF TIME! See YA, in the funny papers.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
I say this as constructive criticism, but drop the lame kindergarden insults. You can't have a serious debate with anyone, when you say, see ya, in the funny papers, or, stink! Right-wing Stinky! It really gives people the impressions that you are A. Too immature for a political debate. B. Too Immature for a debate in general, and C. Not worth debating if he's going use ideology insults like Right-wing stinky
I'm not old enough to vote yet, but I can see using insults in debate is un-intelligent
Betty5150 2 years ago
Well, Gee, Betty5150, I'm sorry that I offended your "Delicate Sensibilities"... I hardly think that Stinky qualifies as horrible insult. LOOK, I'm working class! I've been called things a thousand-times worse that "Stinky". It's useless to argue with a cop about a ticket, It's useless for a kid to argue about Bed Time, and it's useless to argue with a "Libertarian", ABOUT ANYTHING! So, I'll just politely say Good Bye, But you people have a totally whacked view of the world!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Well, you've completely missed my point, but ok. Good Bye. But you people have a totally whacked view of the world.
Betty5150 2 years ago
Libertarians DO have a whacked view of the world, because they believe that if there was absolutely no governmental interference what-so-ever, then we all would live in Utopia. I'm here to say, No We Wouldn't! Without Laws, and Rules, as Thomas Hobbes said; "Men's lives would be poor, nasty, brutish, and short!" You Libertarians forget how quickly Human Nature turns liberty into license, and then the Rich and the Powerful Rule, at the expense of the Poor and the Weak. You are Blind Guides!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
What are you still doing here? You're obviously biased towards our ideology. You only see you're side as the winner. Well, I didn't just choose my side out of the blue. I looked at facts.We have government inference now, and the Rich and the Powerful still rule, what's you're point? I don't think you know much about libertarians, Government is necessary. I would be an ANARCHIST if I wanted no government., you must have mixed the two up. I'm for more freedom, what's wrong with that?
Betty5150 2 years ago
What am I still doing here? I'm questioning the basic assumptions about government and the economy that libertarians have. Friedman with his rhetorical attacks on "big government" for interfering with business succeeded in obscuring the fact that it is Big Business, not big government, that primarily regulates the lives of ordinary Americans. Until "big government" intervened, corporations were free to exploit child labor!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Until "big government" protected workers' bargaining rights, corporations could pay even less than The Minimum Wage. Until "big government" provided unemployment compensation and Social Security benefits, the worker cast off by a corporate employer (like me) had no where to turn. When corporate management of the economy resulted in the loss of Millions of jobs of willing workers during the Great Depression, it was "big government" that came to the rescue. Friedman fails to mention this.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
I don't think you've realized that I'm not going to debate you on this. You only see your side as the right one, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you're thought is an idiot, as shown from your childish and immature insults. I don't see you as a crazy fool, because you don't hold the same philosophy I do. I always look at things as if I'm wrong, to stop myself from becoming people like you, who think people like me are crazy. Btw, I'm more for austrian economics, then freidmans. Just an fyi
Betty5150 2 years ago
Oh, Austrian Economics... well, I freely admit I don't understand the intricacies of that economic theory! Only thing I know about Austrian Economics is the fundamental idea that welfare is maximized by a liberal regime of free choice within a framework of strong personal property rights. But, myself... I'm tired of "The God of Property" ruling all our lives with an iron hand. I dream of a time in the future where people will be valued more than property or money... but that will never happen!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Sorry I know this is an old thread, but had to chip in. How can you value something in anything other than non property or money terms when the value (or price) of something is inherently how much you would be willing to pay for it?
benjiebr0074l 2 years ago
You are stupid. Libertarians do not believe in no govt., our govt. is in place to protect us from one another in case someone is taken advantage of. We simply believe that people should not be forced or coerced by the govt. into something they do not want to do. Maybe you should pay attention to the video, the key words are VOLUNTARY and COOPERATION. But I guess we should all listen to what the govt. has to say because they know what is best for everyone. You ignoramus.
iatemytwin57 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
iatemytwin57 you're pretty good at insulting people, let's see... you called me stupid, and an ignoramus, for starters. I can see from your Channel Page, which is totally BLANK, like your mind, that you have no interests other than your stupid Conservative Agenda. (Probably a phony-"sock" account, to insult people with.) Take a Hike, Right-Wing Troll!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Libertarians are not conservative.... why do you consist on labeling us Right-Wing like it insults us? That guy in this video, Milton Friedman, has stated he is not conservative. The Right wing today is for federal ban of gay marriage. I don't think you know anything of the Libertarian philosophy. You said earlier that we think government is wrong. And that is not necessary. That alone proves that you don't know about our ideology. Please stop associating us with conservatives and the RightWing
Betty5150 2 years ago 31
As I understand the political stance of Libertarians they seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize or even abolish the state. Isn't this correct? Most Libertarians believe that the Liberty and Freedom of the individual, can only be guaranteed by free markets, free trade, and a strong system of private property rights. To me, that's a very strong conservative, Pro-Property, Right-Wing Political stance. Help me out... How is my thinking wrong?
CosmicFork 2 years ago
While what you said there is correct of the Libertarian Stance, but you only listed what was similar between the conservatism, and libertarianism. Well, if I go by you're logic, which is to take something similar to something else, and apply it to that, then liberals are socialists.Does that make sense to hear that?Because cons and libertarians believe in the free markets, this means they are similar in all other areas?Thus making them equal? Thus making Libertarians right wingers? No....
Betty5150 2 years ago
There are two types of conservatives..
Neo-conservatives, and traditional conservatives..
BOTH tend to agree overall, that we should be free to do what we wan't with our own money..
HOWEVER, neo-conservatives believe in nanny laws.
Would you say it isa a "right wing" opinion to deny a terminal ill person marijuana? I would say so..
But is that libertarian? HELL NO
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
Right-Wing politics have been expanding government continuously and raising taxes all the while, even during the Reagan years. Conservatives want to regulate behavior as well, following subjective religious or "moral" ideals on what people can do with their bodies and their livelihoods. A libertarian would take exception to that on both counts.
D0g63rt 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CosmicFork When you write "Libertarians believe that the Liberty and Freedom of the individual, can only be guaranteed by free markets, free trade, and a strong system of private property rights. To me, that's a very strong conservative, Pro-Property, Right-Wing Political stance. Help me out... How is my thinking wrong?" you are most correct. But do not confuse "conservative" and Republican or Libertarian or any other term.
dmowings 1 year ago
@Betty5150
Libertarians are fiscally conservative, and believe in limited Government. Some Libertarians are split on issues of Abortion, and Gay marriage. But generally are for Pro Choice, and Gay marriage. Almost all Libertarians would like limited Government on Republican Morality issues which is the big difference between Republicans, and Libertarians. Libertarians are Conservatives concerning Limited Government.
goomee3d 1 year ago
@Betty5150 Libertarianism is just Conservatism on campus ;)
WickerVideos 1 year ago
@Betty5150 Agreed. Libertarians are usually for gay rights, ending the war on drugs, and proliferation of science, technology and engineering. What about that sounds Right Wing?
supahsekzy 1 year ago
@supahsekzy Is there anyone against the proliferation of science (aside from rotting mystics)?
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
@HerrSchenkel Historically funding for science is lower under Democrats than
Republicans (pre-Obama)
supahsekzy 1 year ago
@Betty5150 afaik libertarian stand for lowering violence and coersion as much as possible. They don't like government, because it is entitled with the licence to coersion - something, noone else, even fucking corporations have right to do.
coturnix19 1 year ago
@Betty5150 its a sticky discussion.. it causes misunderstandings...for example, ron paul described himself as a conseratie (my keys broke), because he wanted to consere the original form of goernment america had...ya know, freedom of the indiidual, liberty, rights, minimal goernment regulation of our affairs...and hes right in using the word in that way, but obiously, if you consider a conseratie, one that wants to consere the current goernment, or path were following, well, ron paul is...
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@Betty5150...... definently not that!
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@Betty5150 If only I could like your comment more than once, it would have 10,000 thumbs up.
DimeLivesInUs 1 year ago
@Betty5150 "Libertarian", "conservative" and "liberal" are labels much like "grid-iron", "rugby" and "soccer". The underlying vision upon which the ideologies are based, IMHO, puts everyone into two camps. In other countries the labels and politics are different, the weight and focus vary but vision is the same.
One camp is unsatisfied with the world and want to better it. The other prefer the change be in themselves and defer to a higher power all other matters.
mhearstify 1 year ago
Milton Friedman is agnostic I believe. And yet his proposals, one might say, are for the preservation of natural principles (not concocted). He is concerned that we do not forsake or trample over such values. He argues the case from within his field of expertise, to his credit. I put him in the latter camp -- those on the right.
mhearstify 1 year ago
@Betty5150 Libertarians do think that government is wrong, essentially. I'm not sure where you're getting that they don't. Conservative is a relative term. You could be conservative in the sense that you want to conserve a liberal ideology. You could be a monarchical conservative, etc. Libertarians can be conservative on some issues and not on others. The main point is that they don't want to use government power or any other form of coercion to push their beliefs.
WanderingSeer 1 year ago
@Betty5150 I'm a Conservative Libertarian as are many others. Meaning SOCIALLY we do not buy into Libertarian ideology but in property rights/economics.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC So what do you mean by "socially" you do not buy into libertarian views?
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua Meaning supporting a system of economics does not mean you inherently support any social normality outside of protecting property rights and not physically harming someone else.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC But what social views of libertarians do you not buy?All of them? If so, then how can you possible support private property rights. these are based off the rights that all people are free to pursue their own happiness without state impediment or coercion as long as they don't cause direct harm to others. If you believe that premise, then you have a philosophical background to believe in private property rights. If not, how do you justify private property rights?
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua What does private party have to do with happiness? That has to do with infringing on someones resource capacity not their own abstract notion of a condition.
So you don't have to support some extreme Ayn Rand secular religion to support property rights.
Marriage was established as a form of property rights regarding inheritance and last I checked same sex couples can not have children, so what is the point?
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC Ahhh, so it is gay mariage you do not support. I finally got a straight answer on that. Notice that I did not say anything about gay mariage.
Secondly, private property rights are established under the principle that it is wrong to use coersion on any individual so long as they are not harming others. That is why you should own your property and be able to do what you want on your property so long as you don't harm others. This is not Ayn Rand but Benjamin franklin.
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua No you didn't Betty51 did, who I was responding to.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC It should be noted that not all libertarians believe in absolute property rights. For example, Milton Friedman believed government should be used for those things that government provides most efficiently. If government is used, taxes must be levied, this would be against Ayn Rands View of absolutly no force.
Finally, what harm does it do to you if some gay couple get married? Perhaps to you marriage is just a way of sorting inheritance, but that is not the case for everyone.
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua I agree with your first point which is why I lean more towards Conservative Libertarian or Moderate Libertarians like Friedman rather than a quasi-Anarchist like Rand.
Marriage is an arrangement for inheritance and social institution for child rearing. Gay couples can enter into any social contract they want, but that's not the same as marriage for the previously mentioned statement. Children should be protected by the "state" because they can not enter contracts independently.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC Why can gay people not adopt children if they provide loving homes for those children? Your bigotry is very unbecomming by the way.
Marriage is not just about children or inheritance, but rather a social institution that can be used to ensure that the relationship stays more stable in the future. But lets say it just about inheritance, do gay people not have money to give when they die?
You say children should be protected by the state. Who is protecting them from the state?
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua Bigot merely means you're winning against a Liberal. If you do not see the male-female dynamic as not only the means of procreation but also the rightful means of child rearing you have let wishful thinking override sensible, objective interpretation of reality.
As a social institution the moral majority have every right to influence society as they see fit. Parents are protecting them from the state, another necessity of marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.
IrminC 9 months ago
@daobagua Plenty of lifestyles which do not facilitate to conducive child rearing. Should a single parent have a right to adopt? They might provide a adequate home but is it worth experimenting to replace traditional father-mother dichotomy on the whim that somehow the intentions of someones subjective reality overrides biological necessity? This is where the feel-good liberalism of Libertarianism ends, when you bring children into it which do not have the facilities to enter into soc. contract.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC First of all, you have no evidence showing that children raised by two same sex parents are statistically more likely to be less of a delinquent than those raised by traditional family's. To me it seems that having parents or gaurdians who care about the child, and having the financial support are more likely to have an effect on a childs successful development. You mentioned biological necessity biological necessity, please elaborate with your evidence.
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua What is biologically necessary to make a child? Male & Female.
No need to elaborate on what is self-evident. You elaborate how an alternative lifestyle with extremely disproportionate levels of pedophilia, drug abuse, depression, and suicide should be state sanctioned?
Gay cant naturally produce children, if they are so stable there are ways to have children like a surrogate. That is no ones business but they can not demand the state subsidize a universally regard unnatural union.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC First, we are not argueing whether homosexuals can "have" children, we are aguing if they can raise them. Raising has nothing to do with biology.
Second, your statistics are absolute bunk. The same risk of pedophilia exists with both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Third, mariage is not a government subsidy for gays (unless it is a government subsidy to straight). ALL individuals should be the same in the eyes of the government.
daobagua 9 months ago
@IrminC Secondly, you are completely forgetting about the adopted childrens other options. Most children who are adopted, do NOT come from perminant, two parent, heterosexual, stable, not abusive, financial sound families. They are put up for adoption, precisly because they do not have such lofty ideal lifes at home. And yet you would like the state, to deny them the chance of having a better, more stable life. Just because the parents are of the same sex (or single).
daobagua 9 months ago
@IrminC Thirdly, as friedman put it, democracies influence policy through majority vote as a matter of convenience, not as a matter of principle. The majority do not have the right to influence policies that deny minorities the same rights under the rule of law.
Your point about children's rights being counted is absolutly correct. But to do so you need to provide evidence that their life would be worse if adopted, and this doesn't effect your decision to allow homosexuals to marry.
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua As I said before, people can legally enter any contract they want.
There are several lifestyles not suitable for having children. And people have every right to pursue them but that does not give them to right to contract another human being as an accessory. The state has no obligation to provide them with something they cant provide themselves! In that case there is absolutely & rightfully so societal norms that come into play on the rational of collective morality.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC The state does not have to give homosexuals the right to adopt children. The state has to get out of their way. If the state monopolizes the adoption process, then they need to allow all individuals the same rights to adopt. Which means that unless they have a criminal record, financial problems, or a history of abuse, they should be allowed to adopt. For the state to be biased on race or sexual orientation is ridiculous.
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua Race is not sexual orientation, it is behavior and lifestyle.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC Did you choose to be straight? If you did, was it a 50/50 choice, or did biology play a factor in here? Imagine being told, by the state, that homosexuality is the only proper lifestyle and that you are expected to find a suitable same sex mate. Imagine the thought of having to choose between living alone or having to have sex with another guy. Just imagine how you feel about having sex with another guy. That is how a homosexual male feels when we tell them to have sex with women.
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua That's fine but it's not relevant. If homosexuality was the norm we would cease to exist, the topic at hand goes beyond human asset into a biological imperative to procreate. If homosexuals could procreate it wouldn't be an issue. If they're able to pursue a private adoption (surrogate) then that is their right but they do not have the right to force the government to subsidize a lifestyle the vast majority of people find unnatural and a cause of degeneracy.
IrminC 9 months ago
@IrminC You keep saying subsidize a lifestyle? What exactly do you mean by that? If they adopt a kid from a government run orphanage, then they reduce the cost to the government (i.e. the government is not having to raise the kid). Furthermore, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RIGHT TO MARRYYYYYYYYY. Yes, capitalization was necessary, you do not seem to argue this point, you always turn it to adoption.
Finally, what if science allows homosexuals to reproduce, would you mind?
daobagua 9 months ago
Actually, I think the bankruptcy of the world by our corrupt governments stand to help facilitate the advent of anarchy as much as they do the socialism/slavery models being advocated now. if not more so.
wingsuitfreak 2 years ago
Milton's words are so true today as yesterday. He says it in plain english, even that, politicans have no inkling whatever.
mtube620 2 years ago
Milton Friedman is a genius.
NWOSupporter2012 2 years ago
What Friedman explains is more than economics. I'd call it economic psychology. He explains cleary that those who think stealing other people's money for "good" actually achives the exact opposite result. Social security, poverty, wellfare, the list goes on and on. Every time a liberal thinks they are doing good in these areas, it,s a terrible failure. Are any of these areas better off today when created? No. Social engineering fails to account for human nature. Liberal views are just cosmetic.
aSingleDallasGuy 2 years ago
As an anarchist, I really think the stateless model would really thrive in a freemarket society. And, in the end, with far less corruption and war. Without government, how much war and corruption would we have?
wingsuitfreak 2 years ago
A stateless society is just another utopian dream that we will never see. We see all over the world how people prefer to be "classified" in some category either by their nationality, race and/or ethnicity. The idea od a stateless society is just a pipe dream. The 2nd reason is that there are far too many people who want to be leaders of other people and way far too many people who love to follow their messiahs. We see it all over the world and throughout world history including here in America.
aSingleDallasGuy 2 years ago
Don't tell that to the Icelanders. They had just such a government for about 300 years. Longer and with less violence than ours. And these were the infamous Viking people fleeing from a more centralised government in Norway. Probably less centralised than a modern Libertarian, but still. It has worked. And it could work again. Only the state prevents us from castrating it.
wingsuitfreak 2 years ago
Are you not talking about a stateless world society? If so, you can't point to such a homganized place like Iceland and say that one island society can be applied as the model to make the entire world stateless. Again I have to point at your unrealistic utopian view which ignores human nature. If you think all nationalities, races, ethnicities and religions are going to come together and form your utopia, I have some swamp land to sell you. It just aint going happen.
aSingleDallasGuy 2 years ago
Why would it have to be a world govenment. There are many types of societies co-existing right now. Being state-less is far less defenseless than the traditional state models. AFter all, how many of our wars have been for self-defense? It can happen, and it should happen. I already live in swamp country though, it's near the Okeefenokee actually, and it's beautiful. lol
wingsuitfreak 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The basic underlying fallacy of the people who post these Milton Friedman Videos, is that they can't see the huge discrepancy between the ideal of a quote "Free-Market", and its' actual manifestation in the real world. What we should talk about instead is really existing "Free-Market Theory". That's the one that is really applied, not the one just talked about, (like in these Friedman Videos).
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Really existing "Free-Market Theory", means market discipline for the poor and the defenseless, but plenty of protection and subsidy for those who really need it, i.e. (the rich and the powerful.) So, if Third-World Debt gets out of control, you socialize it. It's not the problem of the banks that made the money. When the Savings and Loans Collapse, then the public bails them out. Like when Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989 at a cost of over $3 BILLION to the Federal Government.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
When American Investment Firms get into trouble because, say, (the Mexican Bubble Bursts), then you bail out Goldman Sachs. Or, when A.I.G. is on the hook for $173 BILLION Dollars of U.S. taxpayers money, their executives get $165 MILLION in bonuses paid to them. There's case after case of this. Basically rich capitalists' like to be able to rant and rave about the marvels of "The Free-Market", while they're getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else through the nanny state!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Also what is so ridiculous and biased also are people who think government is what gives loans to these people and make these things. Again its a biased view, they both help each other. Majority of the presidents or politicians who make it make most of their campaign money from corporations and business. Both work together, business and corporations tell government we will fund you and vote for you and do this for you, if you do this for us and at times its vice-versa
Tarantino101 2 years ago
You do realise that libertarianism and socialism are fundamentally opposed right? I get the impression you don't have much of an idea what you're talking about.
mrblack888 2 years ago
Um yes I do know the difference you jackass. I do know what I am talking about also. I actually don't think you have a single idea what your talking about. We never lived in a complete free-market and giving people the right to do whatever they want will lead to problems in the end. I don't what is so hard fucking realizing the risks of that. Its like parents never disciplining their child so they grow up and become complete assholes thinking they are above everything.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
Also since you obviously don't know me you have no room to judge me because one. I believe humans should of more rights and control of themselves in this world then government and I think we should end the FED. I just get tired of ignorant people blaming everything on liberals saying that liberal ideology is socialists and bigger government which that is 100% false. Democrats thing that, liberals don't know the difference.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
But if you think that every single business that is started in the market cares about everyone's interests and well being and they will help everyone in the world with their business and markets then you are living in a dream world. Cause the whole point of an entire free-market ideology is my interest my own interests not anyone else. Business is a money favoring thing and that is the point of business cause with competition that means they could lose more money and consumers.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
Do you not realize that this isn't a government problem or a business problem that it is a human problem. That no matter what, some humans if not most are greedy self-centered assholes. And that is the point of a real free-market, no government or law intervention people know how to handle themselves. People with money have power. People with money a lot don't want to bother stimulating or creating progress for all people just their ourselves and people with money.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
And yes I know the difference between corporatism and free-market. I know corporatism is when big business and government work side by side. But that doesn't mean that is the only issue. We live in a world that is more populated more industrial and not farming. Real free-markets will end up basically being the same thing. Business control how our society should run.Things will lead to problems and just how now corporations fun politicians if they help out their corporation same thing will happen
Tarantino101 2 years ago
if free-markets want control. Cause the whole point is a free-market can't interfere with other peoples rights but the thing is. Words are cheap, something might sound good but the fact is, a lot of business cares about themselves and in the end, the laws won't apply and business people and markets in the end will start making deals with government to help themselves when there is too much competition. Which is why we never had a true free-market and most people in the world are self-centered.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
Which is why a true free-market will never work and truly was never here to begin with.But just like any other big political parties there are branches that branch off of their to change a little bit of things.Also if you didn't know our founding fathers said that we have the right to change and not follow everything from the constitution.Now that doesn't mean we should ignore it cause we shouldn't it. Our founding fathers know things and the future changes and sometimes changes will be needed
Tarantino101 2 years ago
I think we shouldn't ignore the constitution we should follow it more then anything but things and history changes, the world advances, we advance in technology in science and knowledge, we advance in population and in the world. Things change and sometime we can't follow the constitution 100% the way it was originally written which is why our fathers said if things need to be change slightly in them you have the right.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
But you are really ignorant and truly follow a lot of biased views. How about you learn more about the world and about things instead of one sided things. Learn that Karl Marx wasn't a communist dictator and learn that Marxism today is ruined by people some people and ruined by the public making it seem like it was like that. Karl Marx didn't believe in the communism or the fascism or socialism we all think of today.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
Also read about Howard Zinn, who proves with facts and historic documents that Socialism never truly controlled the world and never was in favor and in supported the monopolies and corporations. And that Stalin,Soviet Union,USSR etc etc. Was never really socialists it was fascist.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
duh. it was just a cloak of "communism". communism or socialism can never work because that's not how people work. the only way that it can come to pass is if you remove their self interest. but if you remove their self interest, you remove their drive to work or get things accomplished. and if nobody works or gets things accomplished, then you have a failed system. communism and socialism are just grown up fairy tales.
KingMissile9 2 years ago
Just read into Stalinism, this guy destroyed the meaning of it. And now people fear socialism when they are thinking of Stalinism and fascism but people keep throwing the fear out and it really now has controlled the public into think something that isn't socialism. NOW I DON'T LOVE socialism but I am not ignorant and I can read into everyone facts and realize there is flaws in EVERY SYSTEM. BUT I support LESS GOVERNMENT AND THE END TO THE FED!
Tarantino101 2 years ago
I know I am rambling but I just like to get everything out at once instead of arguing for a long time. But think of it like this also. People who have a lot of money and got involved with some crimes and are put into court usually never got punished either at all or the way they should be because they have money and they have lawyers really good lawyers. Its not a matter of business and government but people with money can get away with things more then people who are poor or middle class.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
What I hate is how people ruined the term American Dream. LIke American dream was to be free and to be wealthy. People deep down inside even though most of you guys think isn't true but most people who are their own person doesn't want to make a lot of money and they want to do what they love and what makes them happy. Some of these things are things that don't make a lot money,so should these people be screwed because they didn't want to be business people and make a lot of money?That is wrong
Tarantino101 2 years ago
And all their supposed help would by only for people who want to be rich or have a lot of money. They work with each other all who are rich cause people with money will help other people in money and people with no matter or not a lot or enough doesn't help them so they at times use exploitation towards them cause business is all about money and many times leads to wrong things and they are a group that only helps themselves and people who only care about business and wanting to be rich.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
Markets have been known for lying a lot at times to gain interests and when failing or doing bad a lot leads to abuse laying off people who did nothing. Black mail, theft, harming people if they aren't making enough money. Money equals power and through history always government and markets and business have worked together at least some of them. In the end very little people are helped and its people who only care about making a lot of money. Stuff will mostly focus their greedy self interests
Tarantino101 2 years ago
I know many laws with governments and free-markets. Both have control if one rules over another and both depending on who has control and the most money is usually at some point will abuse their control and freedoms. That is why we never had a true free-market and that is why things that are private a lot are corrupted!
Tarantino101 2 years ago
The thing is people look back on history on governments run by countries supposedly communist or socialists but deep down inside were fascist and totalitarianism.They use this fear and people keep throwing fear and fear to scare people. Both systems are flawed someone will be screwed over then another.What I hate is that people use the whole welfare thing and living off government because your lazy and not hardworking is so untrue.People still and will always have to work hard for what they want
Tarantino101 2 years ago
There has been private run hospitals that have pulled plugs early on sick kids manipulated them into taken certain medicines that don't work so they can buy more. All of this is profit for them. A lot of the Markets tend to have this freedom aspect to them but when they abuse their freedoms its inhuman and it takes a lot of the human rights and freedoms towards other people. The fact is we were never a true free-market. Our founding fathers supported government even if little same does friedman
Tarantino101 2 years ago
They would create their own laws and would use racism and other forms of hate to make money if they aren't making as much as they want. Its interest! If someone is making as much as they want at lot especially if private would use harsh punishments and hate to make profit. Same with private schools teachers teaching false history and abusing the rules and rights of students at the schools. And just business anyways, business and corporations have this very self centered attitudes about things.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
The issue is people. What is so funny is people use the whole idea of private markets and business don't want to hurt people because they want the consumer and they work for the people so they will make sure they won't hurt them so they can keep making money. What is so funny is people and markets tend to screw and hurt people and manipulate them for profit just as much or more then helping. I know about full private prisons that used racism and segregation and harsh punishments to make money
Tarantino101 2 years ago
Damn you full on supporters of free-Markets sicken me. I am a Libertarian Socialists. Its pathetic how the world is viewed as black and white like its some goddamn WWE wrestling match. In one corner you got free-markets blaming government for everything. Then you have government blaming markets for everything. Christ the world isn't black and white. Both are too blame. But I am sick of this fear of government like its the most evil thing in the world.
Tarantino101 2 years ago
By the way, monopolies do not occur without the intrusion of government by way of subsidies, tariffs, and oh yeah the labor unions which is government and business hand and hand.
esculent69 2 years ago
It still amazes me that people think government is the answer when everything it touches fails. Its not business or corporations fault that people do not read their contract that they themselves have signed for. The consumers are responsible for their purchases with their money not the government. Why don't you try saving your money for what you want rather than spending money that you dont have...just like the government. Wake up!!
esculent69 2 years ago
Milton is the man!
strongbadXCP 2 years ago 4
Milton Friedman is a huge joke.
shumich 2 years ago
FAKE
mcguire8919 2 years ago
We don't elect CEOs and corporate officials at he ballot box. Where do you want your political power to be. At the ballot box or the marketplace? Which do you believe in more? I do not trust the market like most people do nowadays. They trust it as if it were God. That invisible hand of the market is very human and gives too many people the middle finger if you ask me.
shumich 2 years ago
Our ballot box has become a joke. Politicians do not answer to the people. They answer to their campaign contributors, while they lie to the people. In a free market, companies have no choice but to fill the needs and desires of the people. If they don't they cannot maintain a profit. Without a profit they go out of business. The only way a company can ignore the needs and desires of the people is if government gives the company unfair support and protection.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
You're damn right our ballot box has become a joke. And it's because business interferes with government. Not because government interferes with business. The truth is that marketing and advertising manipulate people's perceptions and desires. They also practice predatory and parasitic lending practices that weren't legal all that long ago. Lobbyists. Ridiculous interest rates, hidden fees, all that stuff in the fine print. Consumers deceived into thinking they can afford the American Dream.
shumich 2 years ago
At least 9 federal agencies regulate advertising of products. Who regulates political ads? Nobody. You dont think politicians manipulate your perceptions and desires with advertising? Thats how they get elected.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
Government gave birth to predatory lending. Why would anyone give a loan (money) to a person who couldnt pay it back? Because it was profitable. Why on earth would it be profitable? Because Fannie Mae, created by government, bought up massive numbers of bad loans in the name of helping the poor and minorities.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
And don't forget, a lot of people made a lot of money until the house of cards fell apart. People at Fannie Mae, people in the real estate industry, people who bundled up these bad mortgages, real estate speculators. And they all were being funded by the taxpayers ultimately, because they made their profits, but everyone else is paying for the risks they took.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
That's it, blame the rich last. They're always the least to blame right? Heaven forbid if people should happen to participate in their government or ask it to protect them from slimeball, cons like the ones who slither around Wall-Street.
shumich 2 years ago
"Government gave birth to predatory lending. Why would anyone give a loan (money) to a person who couldnt pay it back?" Sure, the government loans out $ all the time. That's sarcasm. Believe me, credit card cos. and mortgage lenders love it when people get behind. They slam them with added fees thataway. Have you ever heard of a "confirmation bias"? "There are no facts only interpretations" -Nietzsche. Try disproving your absolute faith in the free-market for a week. Theological undertones.
shumich 2 years ago
No facts? I guess Nietzsche is just a figment of your imagination then. I despise faith. I'm an atheist. I believe things based on evidence. I never said the government loans out money all the time. I said it created Fannie Mae. It also passed laws forcing banks to meet racial & geographic quotas. In order to meet these quotas, banks were forced to overlook an applicant's financial history. & don't get me started on the Fed. Once again, how would this be profitable without gov intervention?
truthadvocate 2 years ago
Sure, the extreme relativism of Nietzsche can be counter-productive, for lack of a better word. However, his wisdom has revealed to me that people often have thoughts structured very similar to religious beliefs while believing themselves to be complete atheists. Then again, who am I to talk. And he appreciated and was inspired by Dostoevsky who was often passionately religious. At least in some respects but certainly not all. He was not without his doubts. See the "Brothers Karamazov" -wow!
shumich 2 years ago
I often tend to overlook the unintended consequences of government intervention. At one time, "redlining" had caused neighborhoods to be extremely segregated by race. "Exclusionary contracts" also contributed to this. Real estate cos., with their "panic peddlers", made plenty of profits off of white peoples' fears of black neighbors. Slum lords, and renters, also made tons of $ off of charging blacks more for rent than whites. Fannie and Freddie were meant to change this. Was it successful?
shumich 2 years ago
Your absolutely right. Credit card companies have treated customers like crap. But naturally after people are treated like crap by banks, they learn their lesson, and throw their cards in the trash. But what if the government comes in and says, "poor baby, let me pay for your bills." Then people never learn their lesson. What if the government says, "poor banks, let me bail you out." Then banks never learn their lesson. It's common sense.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
Gov. used to protect citizens from "usury" by putting lower caps on interest rates. This has happened even as far back as the MIddle-Ages. Jews weren't allowed to own land but could lend $ from the towns (boroughs). The Catholic Church had forbidden gentiles from usury. The Jews, however, could get around this. Even royalty went to them for loans. Much of modern Anti-Antisemitism spread from the Jews becoming wealthy in periods of economic crisis and boom. Should the gov. regulate interest?
shumich 2 years ago
If you limit the government, which is constituted of elected officials who are at least accountable to the people, then corporations will have free reign to do whatever the heck they want like pollute the environment and sell me medicine that I don't know will kill me but take away my heartburn. We need to limit corporations because they are only accountable to we consumers in the marketplace. Which is pretty damn pathetic. Where do you want your power to be? At the ballot box or marketplace?
shumich 2 years ago
well shit, i guess it was a good thing that hilter and stalin didn't go into the private sectore or else they might have gotten away with less murder
amagilly 2 years ago
What are you talking about? At least capitalize the first word of your sentences and the nouns. Maybe peeps will take you seriously. You live in a mythological lala land if you ever think that gov. and private interests can ever be completely separated. You wouldn't have the internet, the interstate highway system, the police forces as we know it, or a good military if it weren't for gov. spending. Grow the hell up.
shumich 2 years ago
"To generalize is to be an idiot. To particularize is the alone distinction of merit." -William Blake.
There are exceptions to every generalization. You may want to try to disprove what you believe. That will make it more accurate. It's true that regulation can harm the public. It can also save us from all sorts of abuses by the elite.
shumich 2 years ago
It distracts you from real issues. Go look up what "Regulatory Committees" are. While your at it, consider the fact that there are seventy corporate lobbyists per congressman in Washington. Big Business is so much more powerful than governent it is pathetic. And your ideas will continue to make them more powerful. That's why you are an idiot.
shumich 2 years ago
What we need to do is limit the government. When a wealthy corporation tries to influence legislation they won't be able to because government wouldn't have the power to enact those types of laws.
billfro1 2 years ago
Go pay someone a dollar for an hours work and see how much you get out of them you stupid bastard. While your at it, take the corporate cocks out of your ears and stick them in your mouth and ass where they belong. Then you can actually listen to someone else. Face it, corporate America bought our politicians off years ago. Corporations and government are so in bed that they should get gay married. It's just a myth to think that they conflict as much as you think they do.
shumich 2 years ago
Propaganda. I'd love to see this bastard go work in a factory for minimum wage. Friedman that is. With is manicured nails, soft hands, and smug attitude.
shumich 3 years ago
Do you know anything about economics? Do you understand that minimum wage actually hurts low or unskilled workers by pricing them out of the market? Did you even listen to what Friedman said? Would you rather have a high minimum wage and many people who are unemployed or no minimum wage and many more people employed? Every major economist in the world is against minimum wage for the aforementioned reasons. The only arguments for minimum wage are emotional ones, not factual.
thinkingrationally 3 years ago
You're a fucking idiot. Friedman argues AGAINST the minimum wage because it does not reward good work! If you were a skilled laborer at all you would not be getting paid minimum wage if the government kept it's nose out of business.
tonyt173 2 years ago
c'mon i can't understand how he can say that social security is another form of violnece and corruption. Mr. friedman should've known how much taxes he paid to finance vietnam, kuwait, iraq...
cram720 3 years ago
Forcefully stealing from one man to give to another, no matter how good the intentions are, is ultimately wrong. And doing such under a bureaucracy of political elite leads to corruption and abuse of powers, in all cases. It is easier and with more incentive (from government) for a man to stay in the welfare class receiving checks from the government than it is to exceed beyond that.
zzx2847 3 years ago
Corporations have all the power now. As the size and power of business enterprises increased, this great change caused the size and nature of government to increase in response. So-called big government is thus a creation of corporate power, not its antithesis. Giant corporations played a key role in bringing on The Great Depression and impoverishing the nation, government was called upon to try to solve the horrible economic deprivation of people. That's where "Big Bad Government" came from!!!
CosmicFork 3 ye