The "trickle-down" Theory: The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
It's no question Ron Paul can win the Presidency, but can he win the Republican nomination? Unfortunately a good chunk of registered Republicans won't vote for Dr. Paul in their state's primaries, and most states have closed primaries. So if you want Dr. Paul to be a Presidential candidate, register Republican(even if you hate Republican's or belong to another party) and vote for Ron Paul in your state's Republican primaries. You can always switch later.
Milton Friedman caused more problems in the 20th century than Hitler. "Economic freedom" is merely a fluffy term for what is simply a method of stealing all economic power from the majority into the hands of the few. Milton Friedman was responsible for putting one of the most brutal dictators into power in the latter half of the 20th cntry (Pinochet) and his economics drove unemployment from 8% to 40 - 50%. His claim that he stands for democracy is complete and utter hypocrisy.
@MrRagnarocks How was Milton Friedman "responsible" for putting Pinochet into power? His only contact with Pinochet was during a state visit when Friedman influenced Pinochet to follow the economic policies that ultimately made Chile the continent's greatest success story, producing a middle class that ultimately overthrew Pinochet -- as Friedman (and Hayek) predicted would happen. Economic freedom leads inexorably to political freedom. Thanks Miltie!
@mjbowerman Ha. Tell that to China and Singapore. Friedman himself said that Beijing was the free market at work, and it is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. The sort of economic system China and Singapore have are the most healthy and productive forms of capitalism, yet the most politically repressive. The ball is in your court.
@normalkuriboh I have not read such positions from Friedman. If you source the positions you are attributing to him I will be happy to take a look at them and reply. I am also not clear on your position. You seem to be a fan of China and Singapore, calling them "healthy and productive"? In the meantime, I do think China's political structure is under immense pressure from the growing middle class. They struggle to censor dissent, and are rapidly changing. As Friedman predicted.
His ideal society all went out the window when corporations created monopolies and decided to screw the people every chance they got. The reacation was to create bigger government.
Capitalism if left unchecked eventually devours itself because certain people are never happy or satidfied with what they have or how much wealth they have accumulated
@1963danno and then what, do they go steal from other people, or do they just keep producing more. People who commit crimes go to jail, so the only way those "super greedy people" can obtain more wealth would be to be even more productive.
@Mezey5 Huh?????? They get super wealthy by screwing over the next person in line. "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." No one gets super rich by equality and fairness. They get super rich by taking advantage of other people in some way. shape, or form. Either by paying employees for shit or taking advantage of overseas labor, or by tax loopholes.There are many productive people in society that never get super wealthy
@1963danno Its amazing your idiocy gets a few thumbs up. Yup, that's it. Everyone is a cheat. If that were the case...why aren't companies colluding now to pay engineers, for example, minimum wage? Why not just pay everyone shit? Oh. That's right, because the business actually has to make a profit. Danny boy, you really should stop posting your idiocy on youtube. How many times do you need to get schooled by me before you decide to go learn something?
@ALJR223 why are you so mad? hes completely right. why do you think laissez faire capitalism has historically led to corruption? its simply illogical to have zero regulation. your statement has almost nothing to do with what he said. he said "some people (abuse the system)" and you took that to "everyone is a cheat". of course businesses need to make a profit, but as freidman said, not at the unreasonable expense of others, which is the only degree to which government should intervene.
@InfiniteGXT And what forms of economics or government HAVENT let to corruption? Point to me where is better? Also who is advocating ZERO regulation? However, the point in history when the U.S had the least amount of regulation caused the U.S to become the world's economic superpower by 1900. Also, during that highly profitable time of opportunity you had the formation of non profits like The Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, United Way...
@InfiniteGXT Also, why do you think historically power has led to corruption? Where would you like that power? In companies were people are free to work or not work, buy or not buy...or in governments? Governments who do things like regulate...and create barriers to entry into markets, making it more expensive and complicated for small business to start up, thereby protecting the larger companies. Which gives people less choices--a result of government, not business.
@Mezey5 snicker no offence but did you really say that the super rich that commit crimes go to jail????? lol ,..hmmm i don't see many perp walks over all this fraud thats caused this crash,..
@1963danno: and your solution is a mammoth over bloated central government that has a 7 million page tax code and has created a 17 trillion dollar deficit. I'd rather take my chances with the bully at the end of the street.
@marcparella I won't argue that the government is wasteful, but eventually someone has to work for somebody else. We can't all be at the top of the heap. There needs to be classes of people. I would like that the classes are a little bit closer to each other, not with the enormous disparity that there is now
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 Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years," and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better!
@jeffiek Take a Hike, Colonel Klink! I know exactly what I'm talking about. When it came to money matters, Reagan looked to "Nobel" laureate and economic advisor Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman and the Chicago School were the intellectual architects of Thatcherite and Reaganite economics. That's not my opinion, that's a historical fact. That's not calling an orange a pumpkin, that's calling A Spade A Spade! I am speaking honestly and directly about a topic, something YOU are unable to do!
@CosmicFork It's a historical fact that Reagan and Thatcher SAID they were influenced by Friedman. I don't know about Thatcher, but I do know about Reagan. Does the phrase "war on drugs" ring a bell? What about nearly tripling the national debt? Sounds more like Keynes to me. What about intensifying the cold war? Hardly a Friedman idea.
Speaking of honestly and directly. Why can't you answer HOW corporations have free reign? It's a rather simple question, especially compared to national policy.
The "free market" myth denies the success of all of the corporations efforts at merger, combination, concentration, and control. The great irony of the free-market myth is that it is perpetuated by the very same corporations which have done everything possible to eliminate the free market. Despite overwhelming evidence that the free market is a myth, it is spoken of (especially by these people who post Friedman videos) as if it were the central truth about our economy. It is not!!!
@scienceatheism, What I am saying is look at the huge discrepancy between the ideal of "Free Markets" supported by 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. I know about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through Reagan Years and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better!
@CosmicFork You couldn't be more wrong about a free market never existing, as it exists right now. Yet some markets possess more freedom than others. Likewise you don't have a clue of what creates incentive in a market. If I hand out the same wage to everyone no matter what; then where's the incentive to work? Money is worthless outside of the work it takes to receive it. Likewise the value of money decreases on the same basis, so it takes more to make up the difference; hence inflation.
@MRKetter81 You're the one who is clueless. Friedman & the so-called guidance of the Chicago School are the reason we have an economic crisis today, where working people are being thrown from their homes, and jobs shipped to places where workers are exploited! Friedman denied any social responsibility and touted absolute free rein for corporations. The rest of us are reaping that bitter harvest now. Your Fantasy "Free Market" exists only in The Hypothetical Marketplace, not the REAL Marketplace!
@MrGuvnah Corporations wanted a market, but not a Free Market! They wanted the power to fix the terms and conditions of employment on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and to fix the cost of materials and the price of finished products in the same way. Therefore, the natural tendency of the corporate system was toward COMBINATION and CONCENTRATION. Corporations combined vertically to control each step of the production process. Corporations combined horizontally to control every area of the country.
@jeffiek The way Corporations have free reign is patently obvious! The first way is legally. The Supreme Court has ruled that a Corporation (a legal fiction) has the same rights and protections under The Constitution and The Bill of Rights that our Founding Fathers reserved for natural, living, breathing citizens. SCOTUS has ruled that Money = Free Speech. That's FREE REIGN to Corporations for political expenditures! They can buy votes and publicly hold politicians to the grill !!!
@CosmicFork It is patently obvious that I have hair. This does not answer how my head has hair.
You didn't answer the question.
As an added bonus. You have simply stated that corporations are just like you. It makes no sense to complain about this unless you think you should not have free reign to for political expenditures, buy votes, and publicly hold politicians to the grill.
@testmark1 If this is all so "obvious" then why do "Libertarians" preach "The Free Market"... when actually what they're advocating is Corporate Libertarianism? Corporate Libertarianism demands that all political, legal, and economic barriers to the free rein of corporate interests & capital be removed. THAT'S NOT THE FREE MARKET!!! THAT"S CORPORATISM !!! Why don't YOU learn the difference?!?!!
@CosmicFork: Corporatism requires involvement from the government to protect and augment the corporation. True Conservatism and Liberarianism rejects any cooperation between the government and the corporation. Jon Huntsman, who is a true conservative, believes that companies should be forced out of business if they fail in the marketplace. Therefore the free enterprise system requires a business model provide value to the marketplace while accepting risk.
@CosmicFork : Wrong. Corporations cannot have such power unless they buy off the government. That's called "Cronyism" and that cannot happen unless the government is corrupt. No corporation can force anyone to do anything unless the government provides them the means to do so.
Corporatism is the result of Friedman's ideas. His ideas are great for The Mega-Corporation, The I.M.F. The World Bank and The Pentagon's clearing house of contractors. They are a CLASS WAR against the Middle & Working Class. His dreams, when practiced are Nightmares! The people who post these videos are deluded. Just like "Lefties" who are deluded enough to think that Russian Communism isn't "real communism". Wrong. When you try communism in any form you get authoritarian states.
How so? how does it lead to Corporatism? You are saying that with out free market ideals that the government wouldnt try to step in and favor a certain company which totally eliminates the competition? Or only has one company compete with the state, and sometimes they dont even compete they collaborate. Is that what you are saying?
@CosmicFork wrong..that is the result of crony capitalism, something Friedman did not agree with. Crony Capitalism can only exist so long as the government interferes with the free market.
@oneNonly1fullofsome oh really, you one of those weak sisters that has to be told what to do and given you govt cheese every day by the gov. LOL f-ing pathtic , your one of the idiots that will always be paying rent and buying food from the producers like me...luv it !! LOL LOL LOL LMAO
Sorry RP and Milton Friedman are of not just different species but of different kingdoms as well.
While RP may be of the Austrian school he is also an isolationist and minimalist group which Milton as a Capitalist must be against. Actually he's said as much.
Actually an isolationist is a policy where the nation does not enter any sort of commitment with another nation. Which includes military alliances and economical trade, sharing of ideas etc. A non-interventionist policy (which is what RP advocates) is the policy that a country should do everything (trades, exchange ideas etc.) except setting up entangling alliances and enter war for said those alliances, with the exception of defense.
Please explain to me how RP does not believe in a strong national defense. How does nation building contribute to national defense. How does bombing civilians which in turn cause them to hate us, improve our national defense. How does bankrupting our country through the current wars and the sustaining of existing bases improve national defense. Please give me your two cents.
@Trifonsdude RON PAUL does want national defence... he wants to cut military spending not defence spending. this includes unnessiary bases and these "extended kenetic engagments" where we do preemptive wars with out congressional approval for control of resources that some washington employee deems "ours" even though its proven to be at great risk to our national security.
@yuri303030 i tnd to think otherwise,. friedman was a master of relabling things with terms that inspired thoughts of freedom ect, professed it was for the common man, yet it is clear his true motivation was elite capitalism meaning his only true meassure of a good system was one that the rich had as much as possible ,.. on top of that ,.. his so called free market has obviously been proven to be a failure. self regulation is a pipedream , greed is king and things don't trickle, fail
@xxddyz and Ron Paul has a son, his name is Rand Paul, and if people are smart when choosing the republican nominee he will be running for vice president in 2012.
these trolls don't even listen to the man and their hatred for freedom shows..why don't y'all go watch some chomsky move to norway or some shit and leave this great country to the adults who live in the real world
Friedm. error is to assume that money can create unlimited investments. But investment opportunities are directly dependend on demand and consumption. There is no investment without demand. If u cut demand (wage supression, spending cuts) you actually destroy jobs and the possibility for rich households to invest in production
When demand is too small for investments,the money goes in economy bubbles or consumption by credit.. as seen today.. Friedm. ideology is wrong and dangerous
@roaris1 Do you really think if there is less demand for, say, an Aircraft Carrier that people will not put the money elsewhere? Even if they saved every penny then all that would mean would is that there would be more money to lend to people for starting new businesses or buying homes.
A small government implies a great deficit in demand and so the downfall of production. If you lower the taxes for the richer households and cut government spending, actually less an less money is used for consumption because richer households save more money then poorer households. (google saving rate by income)
If you want a small government, you have to explain where your demand is gonna come from. Friedmans ideology leads into the destruction of our economy as it is witnessed today..
@roaris1 That's absurd. The government cannot create demand, it can only allocate other people's resources to causes it sees fit, however unwise or unfair it may be. Comparative analysis reveals that nations with low taxes, relatively small governments and free trade, like Hong Kong and Singapore, demand is high for serives and consumer goods. When Canada cut its government spending and privatized air traffic and rail service, the economy grew, not shrank.
@kev3d The government can create additional demand if it taxes money that is only used for investment and not consumption. And with investment i mean investment in production, private debt, national debt and speculation. The last three are increasing factors that we don't need for a healthy economy.. at least not in a dimension as seen today.Today nearly every serious economist believes that massive cuts alone, like in Greece or the US, will lead into a recession. Spending cuts are not an option
@roaris1 That is demonstrably false on all accounts. There is no difference between money for investing and money for consumption because invested money is spent on consumables and services. Speculation and private debt are very necessary for a healthy economy. The national debt is so massive because the government SPENDS TOO MUCH and by selling debt, it takes away investment dollars from productive sectors of the economy. Spending cuts are not an option? It worked wonders for Canada.
@roaris1 A nation cannot continually spend money it does not have. But if cutting spending creates recessions, then why is the economy in such bad shape when there has been more money spent than ever before? In fact the situation has become very clear; governments in much of the world MUST CUT. The big three, Germany, France and the UK have all announced austerity measures. It comes down to this; who spends money better, the owners of that money or politicians?
@roaris1 Actually, it's an economic impossibility for the governmnet to "create additional demand" - no example in all of human history exists to even suggest such a thing. Private debt and speculation are both absolutely necessary to facilitate capital flows and feed conomic growth; the national debt on the other hand is but one of the disastrous results of governmnet spending. And your characterization of what economists believe is contrary to reality.
Due in part to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth. Since wealth often begets power, capitalism is not a whole lot different from the medieval societies where we had kings(the wealthy) and peasants(the working class)
Milton's corporate fantasy world of small government & everybody happily 'joined together' via a 'private and competitive' Market is working so well atm. NOT! GFC2 is here #FAIL
@dbvalentine It's not working because we don't have that now and haven't for almost a century. That is why we have a $14,000,000,000,000 debt problem. We have followed Keynsian economic policies for over 80 years now and that is what is failing.
@jme6141994 It has very few to do with keynesian economics and more with the nature and the works of a monetary economy. The debt problem comes from this fact: in a market economy everything has a price... including money!! (Aka interest rates). Each time money is created it is not given away "for free" but at an interest: a percentage of the money which does not exist in the economy yet and which in order to be paid, more money has to be created, creating an exponential expansion of debt.
@jrvillela I don't borrow. I live debt free. The government should be able to do the same. By the way-I'm only making 32K a year. I save and invest my money. i have fiscal discipline.
@jme6141994 Well, you are unfortunately the exception to the rule. Can you please google for "u.s. private debt", please? Your country is going down not because of the government but because it's growth is nothing but an illusion: it's based mostly on debt!!
@jme6141994 You are unfortunately the exception to the rule. Can you please google for "u.s. private debt"? Your country is going down not because of government spending but because of the debt-based nature of the market itself!!
@jme6141994 That on 1 side (but what makes U think there can be a market without government intervetion: there has never been one and there is going to never been one since the market requires the government in order to (1) protect priv. prop. (2) protect competition since succesful businesses tend to grow BIG displacing the competition, and (3) to do something against the externalities). On the other side you miss the point: with or without government the makets generates its own doom: debt!
@rickbruner why are all the right-wing americans calling obama a bolchevik, communist, socialist or whatever? healthcare is communism, yeah, but you have no good argument against it...
@polvotierno yeah in what way mate ? explain how ? as if it would. feudalism has no private sector so how do you come up with this assumption. feudalism a king owns all the land and the people have none. nothing to do with a free society.
@polvotierno In Feudalism those on the bottom don't have the same opportunity to rise up the latter. In his society the system is created in a way that rewards personal worth and the ability to develop your human capitol to meet the standard of living you personally would like to accomplish.
@cisseshairdresser actually libertarianism would do more for the poor than than all of the current welfare system is now.
firstly it lowers the amount of regulation of businesses and would allow poor local entrepeneurs to create businesses and hire locals aka their neighbors.
secondly a system that goes far beyond welfare would take place. firstly it would be a social system that would promote communities to form close knit centers that manage finances and promote education and employment.
People seem to have an unyielding faith in representative democracy (republicanism). People forget that political parties represent the interests of their constituents. Representatives will continue to enact these policies If the majority of their constituents support welfare, social security, the progressive tax, economic regulations beyond regulating natural monopolies and preventing artificial monopolies, etc. Democratic republicanism is practically destined for failure.
He's got it. Rampant unemployment, rampaging deficits, closed factories, record corporate profits, financial manipulation, destruction of governments and the social contract, foreclosures and unbridled corporate power over our social, political and economic processes. Heckuva job, Miltie, now rot in hell you vile, insane little prick and take your stupid Chicagop School of fucking Nazi economic terrorism with you.
Rampant unemployment, rampaging deficits, closed factories, record public sector salaries and pensions, financial manipulation by crony capitalism, unions, Fannie and Freddie, and their Liberal nursemaids in Congress, destruction of individual responsibility, foreclosures and unbridled government power. Heckuva job, NoBama, now rot in hell you vile, insane little prick and take your stupid Chicagop School of fucking Bolshevik government terrorism with you.
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME You sound like you can't think for yourself. Hate unions? Indeed not. Great concept. I just despise their hypocrisy. If only Socialists applied their rules to themselves. The only hate present is the intense loathing you have for yourself.
Laissez-faire government should only provide to the people essential services: police, fire, military, etc. Everything else should be outsourced to the private sector and it would bring less stress on our taxes. Infrastructure is debatable but I can see it being outsourced to the private sector.
So if you are a libertarian, by Miltons view, you must be for the draft. As the government must supply national defense, but must protect people from coercion, which paying someone to sign up for the military is a form of coercion. So the only way to have both is through a draft of everyone at a set age. Like the year you turn 20, everyone in that year gets randomly picked to fill the needs of the military.
The fabians failed miserably... look around... they took a dependable growth economy and turned it into the shit we see today..... Socialism... is just neo-feuadlism.
Socialism - when you absolutely, positively need to kill 100 million people in a century.
@ORACLE063 No we have corporate Facism. Capitalism in the end will collapse. Cause capitalism is a very flawed system. You know why? Cause capitalism depends on infinite growth, well we live on a finite planet, and that can't happen.
@235RB What essential resources would u consider finite? I'm going to assume u MAINLY mean resources for energy, i.e. fossil fuels. Keep in mind the laws of physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed it can only change form. Therefore CO2 + H2 = methanol/ethanol, which can be used in diesel engines. Plants do this with energy for the conversion of CO2 to sugar through the sun. We can also do this artificially (sunshine to petrol project). Also, ideas are resources also & infinite.
@235RB One more thing, I don't know of an example in nature that behaves on an infinite slope. Most observations in nature even at the molecular level behave on SIGMOIDAL curves. When resources such as rare earths start to dwindle then they growth in that part of the economy that uses rare earths will level out. The rare earths can be recycled if a better use if found for them, which requires energy.
@jaeLAX23 Thats not the problem, your missing the point. even renewable rescources, are being depleted, cause we use them faster than the rate of return. What part of this dont you get? Capitalism depends of infinite growth, and that is a HUGE problem, because countries like India and China are now major players. Especially with oil, Oil will be our down fall, if there is not immediate action. Watch some realistic documentaries like the Blind spot and A Crude awakening.
@235RB Yes I hear you, we are using faster than return rate, but economics CHANGE all time & physical restraints will LIMIT growth no matter what, hence growth will follow a sigmoidal curve. Growth need not come at permanent destruction of environment either. I watched the vids & they misinform people. Did you watch the vid I posted? This machine was demonstrated for 6 months before being muscled out. Technical challenges exist but there are no show stoppers & that goes for fusion tech as well.
@jaeLAX23 Everything we observe in reality indicates that the environment will absolutely continue to be destroyed in the absence of regulation. Your argument is literally "It will be okay because I think it will be okay." There has never been a time in human history when people thrived under deregulation and low taxes/spending. The best time (median income) in American history was 1950-1970 or so. A time with much higher taxes and programs like Medicare, the interstate highway system, etc.
@BenkaiDebussy 1950s-1970s USA was also a major exporter (steel) & MIC was booming. The markets have much stricter regulations than governments, where lobbyist can bend the rules as they please & in the process cause additional damages. The thorium story & the NRC is a good example of this. Because of regulations of more powerful & efficient, therefore less destructive, energy source was suppressed. Watch the following clip & related clips and you'll see what I mean.
@BenkaiDebussy Main point is overregulation causes inefficiency, hence is more destructive in the long run. The markets encourage high efficiency and property rights protect against those who would otherwise take short cuts.
I have environmental concerns as well that's why we need debt free money & property rights so people behave properly, live within their means & respect the environment.
@jaeLAX23 Yea absolutely, My argument is that people need to realize that. I am not a tree hugger, But I would like to see a sustainable future for this country and the rest of modern countries, and the path The U.S is taking right now, the future is not very bright at all. The enviroment should come first before profit.
@235RB We have arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements-agriculture, medicine, environment, etc- depends on science & technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
@Onieracraft Your type are what/ maybe will cause a technological stagnation. The point Sagan was making is we turn back from science at our own peril.
@Onieracraft When the US students went from 1st -> 4th -> 48th in the world on standardized test. Half of PhDs earned in the US are from overseas students, 100% in some specific fields (computer tech) are foreigners.
From another point of view, we are stagnating in technological developments in all fields. Part due to shitty education & part due to crony capitalism. The energy sector is a great example of stagnation, the nuclear renaissance now should have happened a two decades ago.
@ORACLE063 What exactly are you calling a "dependable growth economy"? Life in any currently developed country prior to the creation of labor laws and social safety nets was absolutely terrible. Poverty rates were 30-50%, and factory towns, poorhouses, etc were commonplace.
It's both funny and disturbing that libertarians have revised history to the extent that they think the mid-late 19th century (industrial revolution) was a time when people were happy and free.
@BenkaiDebussy In the late mid-late 19th century lots of people were free and plenty were free & miserable. Good economies raise prosperity rates, but science & technology was the engine of prosperity in the 20th century raising many out of poverty. Unfortunately in the hands of the ignorant & greedy it is also impoverishing people in the 3rd world & developing countries, and will soon spread throughout the world as well.
@BenkaiDebussy When you consider the 19th century, I presume you are talking only of those countries involved in the industrial revolution. Unfortunately we have very little to go on vis the conditions of life of the majority of the populations in other countries. However, let us compare the conditions of the 19th century to those of the Medieval Britain. Hard as it was during the Industrial Revolution it was infinitely harder and shorter before then.
I always find it odd that some people can't wrap their heads around the logic of libertarianism...maximum freedom, limited government...is it a mistrust of themselves? Or the unwillingness to do the work needed to prosper and help their neighbor if needed?
@owenander If that that is why some people don't think libertarianism is a good idea, (because they don't trust others) why would they trust (others) in government to intrude in their lives?
I know Friedman is speaking about the US, but I'm surprised at his claim that polls consistently show the majority in favor of less public spending. In the UK for example the vast majority of people support the existence of the NHS. Perhaps the wording of the poll was something on the lines of 'Do you think Government spends too much?'. People love to criticize governments and would say yes but then answer 'Do you think government does enough to help the poor/disabled/sick' and they'd say no.
I would bet my left nut, there is a quote-mined clip out there chopped up of milton talking about minorities having undue influence in order to paint him as a racist.
I find him difficult to pin down. I wish someone asked him if an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. I might not agree with everything, or anything for that matter, but he's still a very fascinating guy.
@TheGrindsprint Same video you're watching. What do I mean by vs.? Like I said at the very start of my post. I love the setup. Three guys on one side, a mediator, and Friedman on one side, all by himself. I thought I made myself pretty clear, he is in a league of his own, and the way they are seated shows that, to me.
I find this video difficult to masturbate to.
juantrippe82 3 days ago
well, this video sounds pretty good to me, of course there are two issues I haven't seen addressed really ever
freaking sweet, he describes what needs to get done even, lol awesome
noobler9 5 days ago
Ron Paul.
ikilledAeris 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "trickle-down" Theory: The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
JoshMan522 1 week ago
It's no question Ron Paul can win the Presidency, but can he win the Republican nomination? Unfortunately a good chunk of registered Republicans won't vote for Dr. Paul in their state's primaries, and most states have closed primaries. So if you want Dr. Paul to be a Presidential candidate, register Republican(even if you hate Republican's or belong to another party) and vote for Ron Paul in your state's Republican primaries. You can always switch later.
walmartpimp2 1 week ago
Milton Friedman caused more problems in the 20th century than Hitler. "Economic freedom" is merely a fluffy term for what is simply a method of stealing all economic power from the majority into the hands of the few. Milton Friedman was responsible for putting one of the most brutal dictators into power in the latter half of the 20th cntry (Pinochet) and his economics drove unemployment from 8% to 40 - 50%. His claim that he stands for democracy is complete and utter hypocrisy.
MrRagnarocks 2 weeks ago
@MrRagnarocks I think I smell a troll.
ratrat222 2 weeks ago
@MrRagnarocks How was Milton Friedman "responsible" for putting Pinochet into power? His only contact with Pinochet was during a state visit when Friedman influenced Pinochet to follow the economic policies that ultimately made Chile the continent's greatest success story, producing a middle class that ultimately overthrew Pinochet -- as Friedman (and Hayek) predicted would happen. Economic freedom leads inexorably to political freedom. Thanks Miltie!
mjbowerman 1 week ago 2
@mjbowerman Ha. Tell that to China and Singapore. Friedman himself said that Beijing was the free market at work, and it is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. The sort of economic system China and Singapore have are the most healthy and productive forms of capitalism, yet the most politically repressive. The ball is in your court.
normalkuriboh 1 week ago
@normalkuriboh I have not read such positions from Friedman. If you source the positions you are attributing to him I will be happy to take a look at them and reply. I am also not clear on your position. You seem to be a fan of China and Singapore, calling them "healthy and productive"? In the meantime, I do think China's political structure is under immense pressure from the growing middle class. They struggle to censor dissent, and are rapidly changing. As Friedman predicted.
mjbowerman 1 week ago
what this filth says and what he does are two different things
nxu89 2 weeks ago
His ideal society all went out the window when corporations created monopolies and decided to screw the people every chance they got. The reacation was to create bigger government.
cesar333 3 weeks ago
@cesar333 government has helped monopolies, not opposed them..
DREwestcoast 3 weeks ago
meh. he could have just said "libertarian- ism" and i would have been saved 3 minutes of time. completely un-original.
Captain0Newman 3 weeks ago
I hope Ron Paul uses his idea for limiting government even more
tommy35ss 1 month ago
This shit makes me want to kill myself
rapinglife 1 month ago
Capitalism if left unchecked eventually devours itself because certain people are never happy or satidfied with what they have or how much wealth they have accumulated
1963danno 1 month ago 2
@1963danno and then what, do they go steal from other people, or do they just keep producing more. People who commit crimes go to jail, so the only way those "super greedy people" can obtain more wealth would be to be even more productive.
Mezey5 1 month ago
@Mezey5 Huh?????? They get super wealthy by screwing over the next person in line. "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." No one gets super rich by equality and fairness. They get super rich by taking advantage of other people in some way. shape, or form. Either by paying employees for shit or taking advantage of overseas labor, or by tax loopholes.There are many productive people in society that never get super wealthy
1963danno 1 month ago 2
@1963danno very well said ,..
MrMentalflossed 3 weeks ago
@MrMentalflossed Thank You!!!!!!!
1963danno 3 weeks ago
@1963danno Its amazing your idiocy gets a few thumbs up. Yup, that's it. Everyone is a cheat. If that were the case...why aren't companies colluding now to pay engineers, for example, minimum wage? Why not just pay everyone shit? Oh. That's right, because the business actually has to make a profit. Danny boy, you really should stop posting your idiocy on youtube. How many times do you need to get schooled by me before you decide to go learn something?
ALJR223 1 day ago
@ALJR223 why are you so mad? hes completely right. why do you think laissez faire capitalism has historically led to corruption? its simply illogical to have zero regulation. your statement has almost nothing to do with what he said. he said "some people (abuse the system)" and you took that to "everyone is a cheat". of course businesses need to make a profit, but as freidman said, not at the unreasonable expense of others, which is the only degree to which government should intervene.
InfiniteGXT 21 hours ago
@InfiniteGXT And what forms of economics or government HAVENT let to corruption? Point to me where is better? Also who is advocating ZERO regulation? However, the point in history when the U.S had the least amount of regulation caused the U.S to become the world's economic superpower by 1900. Also, during that highly profitable time of opportunity you had the formation of non profits like The Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, United Way...
ALJR223 20 hours ago
@InfiniteGXT Also, why do you think historically power has led to corruption? Where would you like that power? In companies were people are free to work or not work, buy or not buy...or in governments? Governments who do things like regulate...and create barriers to entry into markets, making it more expensive and complicated for small business to start up, thereby protecting the larger companies. Which gives people less choices--a result of government, not business.
ALJR223 20 hours ago
@ALJR223 no one is disagreeing with you.
InfiniteGXT 19 hours ago
@Mezey5 snicker no offence but did you really say that the super rich that commit crimes go to jail????? lol ,..hmmm i don't see many perp walks over all this fraud thats caused this crash,..
MrMentalflossed 3 weeks ago
It all sounds great in theory too bad in reality it would never work because someone somewhere is going to get taken advantage of
1963danno 1 month ago
@1963danno: and your solution is a mammoth over bloated central government that has a 7 million page tax code and has created a 17 trillion dollar deficit. I'd rather take my chances with the bully at the end of the street.
marcparella 1 month ago
@marcparella I won't argue that the government is wasteful, but eventually someone has to work for somebody else. We can't all be at the top of the heap. There needs to be classes of people. I would like that the classes are a little bit closer to each other, not with the enormous disparity that there is now
1963danno 1 month ago
Comment removed
1963danno 1 month 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 Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through "The Reagan Years," and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork "Reagonimics"
You want to call an orange a pumpkin and discuss why it doesn't make a good jack o'lantern. Brilliant.
jeffiek 2 months ago
@jeffiek Take a Hike, Colonel Klink! I know exactly what I'm talking about. When it came to money matters, Reagan looked to "Nobel" laureate and economic advisor Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman and the Chicago School were the intellectual architects of Thatcherite and Reaganite economics. That's not my opinion, that's a historical fact. That's not calling an orange a pumpkin, that's calling A Spade A Spade! I am speaking honestly and directly about a topic, something YOU are unable to do!
CosmicFork 2 months ago 2
@CosmicFork It's a historical fact that Reagan and Thatcher SAID they were influenced by Friedman. I don't know about Thatcher, but I do know about Reagan. Does the phrase "war on drugs" ring a bell? What about nearly tripling the national debt? Sounds more like Keynes to me. What about intensifying the cold war? Hardly a Friedman idea.
Speaking of honestly and directly. Why can't you answer HOW corporations have free reign? It's a rather simple question, especially compared to national policy.
jeffiek 2 months ago
The "free market" myth denies the success of all of the corporations efforts at merger, combination, concentration, and control. The great irony of the free-market myth is that it is perpetuated by the very same corporations which have done everything possible to eliminate the free market. Despite overwhelming evidence that the free market is a myth, it is spoken of (especially by these people who post Friedman videos) as if it were the central truth about our economy. It is not!!!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@scienceatheism, What I am saying is look at the huge discrepancy between the ideal of "Free Markets" supported by 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. I know about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world as seen in Reaganomics. I lived through Reagan Years and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork You couldn't be more wrong about a free market never existing, as it exists right now. Yet some markets possess more freedom than others. Likewise you don't have a clue of what creates incentive in a market. If I hand out the same wage to everyone no matter what; then where's the incentive to work? Money is worthless outside of the work it takes to receive it. Likewise the value of money decreases on the same basis, so it takes more to make up the difference; hence inflation.
MRKetter81 2 months ago
@MRKetter81 You're the one who is clueless. Friedman & the so-called guidance of the Chicago School are the reason we have an economic crisis today, where working people are being thrown from their homes, and jobs shipped to places where workers are exploited! Friedman denied any social responsibility and touted absolute free rein for corporations. The rest of us are reaping that bitter harvest now. Your Fantasy "Free Market" exists only in The Hypothetical Marketplace, not the REAL Marketplace!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork
Please specify how corporations have 'free rein' and how that 'free rein' of the corporations caused us to reap a bitter harvest.
MrGuvnah 2 months ago
@MrGuvnah Corporations wanted a market, but not a Free Market! They wanted the power to fix the terms and conditions of employment on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and to fix the cost of materials and the price of finished products in the same way. Therefore, the natural tendency of the corporate system was toward COMBINATION and CONCENTRATION. Corporations combined vertically to control each step of the production process. Corporations combined horizontally to control every area of the country.
CosmicFork 2 months ago 25
@CosmicFork
Which corporations?
MrGuvnah 2 months ago
@CosmicFork by MrGuvnah: "Please specify HOW ...." (emphasis added)
by Cosmick force: "Corporations wanted ...."
You didn't answer the question.
jeffiek 2 months ago
@jeffiek The way Corporations have free reign is patently obvious! The first way is legally. The Supreme Court has ruled that a Corporation (a legal fiction) has the same rights and protections under The Constitution and The Bill of Rights that our Founding Fathers reserved for natural, living, breathing citizens. SCOTUS has ruled that Money = Free Speech. That's FREE REIGN to Corporations for political expenditures! They can buy votes and publicly hold politicians to the grill !!!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork It is patently obvious that I have hair. This does not answer how my head has hair.
You didn't answer the question.
As an added bonus. You have simply stated that corporations are just like you. It makes no sense to complain about this unless you think you should not have free reign to for political expenditures, buy votes, and publicly hold politicians to the grill.
jeffiek 2 months ago
@jeffiek (cont)
To clarify. You have not stated why corporation's political expenditures are wrong. You have simply complained that they are better at it than you.
jeffiek 2 months ago
@CosmicFork This is all obvious.
testmark1 1 month ago
@testmark1 If this is all so "obvious" then why do "Libertarians" preach "The Free Market"... when actually what they're advocating is Corporate Libertarianism? Corporate Libertarianism demands that all political, legal, and economic barriers to the free rein of corporate interests & capital be removed. THAT'S NOT THE FREE MARKET!!! THAT"S CORPORATISM !!! Why don't YOU learn the difference?!?!!
CosmicFork 1 month ago
@CosmicFork: Corporatism requires involvement from the government to protect and augment the corporation. True Conservatism and Liberarianism rejects any cooperation between the government and the corporation. Jon Huntsman, who is a true conservative, believes that companies should be forced out of business if they fail in the marketplace. Therefore the free enterprise system requires a business model provide value to the marketplace while accepting risk.
marcparella 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Great comment!!!!!!
1963danno 1 month ago
@CosmicFork : Wrong. Corporations cannot have such power unless they buy off the government. That's called "Cronyism" and that cannot happen unless the government is corrupt. No corporation can force anyone to do anything unless the government provides them the means to do so.
eimb1999 1 month ago
Corporatism is the result of Friedman's ideas. His ideas are great for The Mega-Corporation, The I.M.F. The World Bank and The Pentagon's clearing house of contractors. They are a CLASS WAR against the Middle & Working Class. His dreams, when practiced are Nightmares! The people who post these videos are deluded. Just like "Lefties" who are deluded enough to think that Russian Communism isn't "real communism". Wrong. When you try communism in any form you get authoritarian states.
CosmicFork 2 months ago
How so? how does it lead to Corporatism? You are saying that with out free market ideals that the government wouldnt try to step in and favor a certain company which totally eliminates the competition? Or only has one company compete with the state, and sometimes they dont even compete they collaborate. Is that what you are saying?
scienceatheism 2 months ago
@CosmicFork wrong..that is the result of crony capitalism, something Friedman did not agree with. Crony Capitalism can only exist so long as the government interferes with the free market.
johndillinger1932 2 months ago
this is a failed economic theory tried by the CIA in Argentina under Pinochet
it is insanity people are still considering ideals that are such bullshit!
oneNonly1fullofsome 3 months ago
@oneNonly1fullofsome oh really, you one of those weak sisters that has to be told what to do and given you govt cheese every day by the gov. LOL f-ing pathtic , your one of the idiots that will always be paying rent and buying food from the producers like me...luv it !! LOL LOL LOL LMAO
xerakis 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oneNonly1fullofsome go read some more. you didn't get it from the first time.
innulja 3 months ago
FREEDOM=RON PAUL 2012!!
watertonrivers 3 months ago
@watertonrivers right on dude!
jaeLAX23 3 months ago
This guy has a twin, he name is Ron Paul, and he is running for the Presidency 2012.
xxddyz 3 months ago 27
@xxddyz nope
tbtab15 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxddyz YES SIR!!! RON PAUL 2012!!
iluvpoliticzz 3 months ago
@xxddyz
Sorry RP and Milton Friedman are of not just different species but of different kingdoms as well.
While RP may be of the Austrian school he is also an isolationist and minimalist group which Milton as a Capitalist must be against. Actually he's said as much.
dibaterman 2 months ago
@dibaterman
Actually an isolationist is a policy where the nation does not enter any sort of commitment with another nation. Which includes military alliances and economical trade, sharing of ideas etc. A non-interventionist policy (which is what RP advocates) is the policy that a country should do everything (trades, exchange ideas etc.) except setting up entangling alliances and enter war for said those alliances, with the exception of defense.
beexsama 1 month ago
@xxddyz Except this guy wants national defense and Ron Paul doesn't.
Trifonsdude 1 month ago
Please explain to me how RP does not believe in a strong national defense. How does nation building contribute to national defense. How does bombing civilians which in turn cause them to hate us, improve our national defense. How does bankrupting our country through the current wars and the sustaining of existing bases improve national defense. Please give me your two cents.
beexsama 1 month ago
@Trifonsdude RON PAUL does want national defence... he wants to cut military spending not defence spending. this includes unnessiary bases and these "extended kenetic engagments" where we do preemptive wars with out congressional approval for control of resources that some washington employee deems "ours" even though its proven to be at great risk to our national security.
justforpoox 1 month ago
@xxddyz : RuPaul can't win. Although his economic theory is good, he's a nutjob when it comes to foreign policy.
eimb1999 1 month ago
@xxddyz No disrespect to Dr. Ron Paul but Prof Friedman is miles away in terms of economic genius...
yuri303030 4 weeks ago
@yuri303030 i tnd to think otherwise,. friedman was a master of relabling things with terms that inspired thoughts of freedom ect, professed it was for the common man, yet it is clear his true motivation was elite capitalism meaning his only true meassure of a good system was one that the rich had as much as possible ,.. on top of that ,.. his so called free market has obviously been proven to be a failure. self regulation is a pipedream , greed is king and things don't trickle, fail
MrMentalflossed 3 weeks ago
@xxddyz and Ron Paul has a son, his name is Rand Paul, and if people are smart when choosing the republican nominee he will be running for vice president in 2012.
d3ltadrive 2 weeks ago
"Free acts of individuals"??? "Less government"??? Those ideas scare the hell out of parasitic lice.
HomelessOnline 4 months ago
@Ozscii The word you're looking for is "libertarian".
yfirkaldan 4 months ago
Milton Friedman=Edward Bernays=Cancer of Society
=Another Operational Quest.
NamasTE.
AntiChrista4WPeace 4 months ago
these trolls don't even listen to the man and their hatred for freedom shows..why don't y'all go watch some chomsky move to norway or some shit and leave this great country to the adults who live in the real world
yakbills 5 months ago
@yakbills " ...move to norway or some shit.."
Knowledge makes you free..
VogonJ 5 months ago
Holy fuck!!.... It's Beaker!
lightfighter36 5 months ago
Comment removed
roaris1 5 months ago
Friedm. error is to assume that money can create unlimited investments. But investment opportunities are directly dependend on demand and consumption. There is no investment without demand. If u cut demand (wage supression, spending cuts) you actually destroy jobs and the possibility for rich households to invest in production
When demand is too small for investments,the money goes in economy bubbles or consumption by credit.. as seen today.. Friedm. ideology is wrong and dangerous
roaris1 5 months ago
@roaris1 Do you really think if there is less demand for, say, an Aircraft Carrier that people will not put the money elsewhere? Even if they saved every penny then all that would mean would is that there would be more money to lend to people for starting new businesses or buying homes.
kev3d 5 months ago
A small government implies a great deficit in demand and so the downfall of production. If you lower the taxes for the richer households and cut government spending, actually less an less money is used for consumption because richer households save more money then poorer households. (google saving rate by income)
If you want a small government, you have to explain where your demand is gonna come from. Friedmans ideology leads into the destruction of our economy as it is witnessed today..
roaris1 5 months ago
@roaris1 That's absurd. The government cannot create demand, it can only allocate other people's resources to causes it sees fit, however unwise or unfair it may be. Comparative analysis reveals that nations with low taxes, relatively small governments and free trade, like Hong Kong and Singapore, demand is high for serives and consumer goods. When Canada cut its government spending and privatized air traffic and rail service, the economy grew, not shrank.
kev3d 5 months ago
@kev3d The government can create additional demand if it taxes money that is only used for investment and not consumption. And with investment i mean investment in production, private debt, national debt and speculation. The last three are increasing factors that we don't need for a healthy economy.. at least not in a dimension as seen today.Today nearly every serious economist believes that massive cuts alone, like in Greece or the US, will lead into a recession. Spending cuts are not an option
roaris1 5 months ago
@roaris1 That is demonstrably false on all accounts. There is no difference between money for investing and money for consumption because invested money is spent on consumables and services. Speculation and private debt are very necessary for a healthy economy. The national debt is so massive because the government SPENDS TOO MUCH and by selling debt, it takes away investment dollars from productive sectors of the economy. Spending cuts are not an option? It worked wonders for Canada.
kev3d 5 months ago
@roaris1 A nation cannot continually spend money it does not have. But if cutting spending creates recessions, then why is the economy in such bad shape when there has been more money spent than ever before? In fact the situation has become very clear; governments in much of the world MUST CUT. The big three, Germany, France and the UK have all announced austerity measures. It comes down to this; who spends money better, the owners of that money or politicians?
kev3d 5 months ago
@roaris1 Actually, it's an economic impossibility for the governmnet to "create additional demand" - no example in all of human history exists to even suggest such a thing. Private debt and speculation are both absolutely necessary to facilitate capital flows and feed conomic growth; the national debt on the other hand is but one of the disastrous results of governmnet spending. And your characterization of what economists believe is contrary to reality.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman
What he is talking about is reinventing the United States as it was intended.
sportster16301 5 months ago
Milton Friedman on his Ideal Society = Rich completely enslave the Poor.
mba2ceo 5 months ago
.
Due in part to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth. Since wealth often begets power, capitalism is not a whole lot different from the medieval societies where we had kings(the wealthy) and peasants(the working class)
.
Someideasandstuff 5 months ago
@Someideasandstuff all centralized systems work this way. free market or command.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
Milton Friedman would vote for Ron Paul.
HammerOvThor 5 months ago
Milton's corporate fantasy world of small government & everybody happily 'joined together' via a 'private and competitive' Market is working so well atm. NOT! GFC2 is here #FAIL
dbvalentine 5 months ago
@dbvalentine It's not working because we don't have that now and haven't for almost a century. That is why we have a $14,000,000,000,000 debt problem. We have followed Keynsian economic policies for over 80 years now and that is what is failing.
jme6141994 5 months ago
@jme6141994 It has very few to do with keynesian economics and more with the nature and the works of a monetary economy. The debt problem comes from this fact: in a market economy everything has a price... including money!! (Aka interest rates). Each time money is created it is not given away "for free" but at an interest: a percentage of the money which does not exist in the economy yet and which in order to be paid, more money has to be created, creating an exponential expansion of debt.
jrvillela 5 months ago
@jrvillela Listen-I'm no economic expert, but I know I can't borrow 40 cents of every dollar I spend which is what the US government is doing.
jme6141994 5 months ago
@jme6141994 Well, that's something not just government is doing but enterprises and families too. Ask yourself why.
jrvillela 5 months ago
@jrvillela I don't borrow. I live debt free. The government should be able to do the same. By the way-I'm only making 32K a year. I save and invest my money. i have fiscal discipline.
jme6141994 5 months ago
@jme6141994 Well, you are unfortunately the exception to the rule. Can you please google for "u.s. private debt", please? Your country is going down not because of the government but because it's growth is nothing but an illusion: it's based mostly on debt!!
jrvillela 5 months ago
@jme6141994 You are unfortunately the exception to the rule. Can you please google for "u.s. private debt"? Your country is going down not because of government spending but because of the debt-based nature of the market itself!!
jrvillela 5 months ago
@jme6141994
(1) The market requires a mean of exchange, aka MONEY!!
(2) In a market everything has a price: including money!! (aka interest rates).
(3) No money can be issued without generating debt.
(4) Since the profit motive generates economic growth, the market is always demanding the issuing of more money (that is, more debt!!).
It is not government spending what's causing your country to go down, but the market itself!! Growth which is nothing but an illusion: pure debt!!
jrvillela 5 months ago
@jrvillelaYou mean the markets that are constantly manipulated by the government.
jme6141994 5 months ago
@jme6141994 That on 1 side (but what makes U think there can be a market without government intervetion: there has never been one and there is going to never been one since the market requires the government in order to (1) protect priv. prop. (2) protect competition since succesful businesses tend to grow BIG displacing the competition, and (3) to do something against the externalities). On the other side you miss the point: with or without government the makets generates its own doom: debt!
jrvillela 5 months ago
Essentially there is no democracy then, from Friedman himself. If we keep electing people who enact policies we detect, taxing us and overspending.
alexkvaskov 5 months ago
Comment removed
seppsters 6 months ago
The world needs a new Milton Friedman.
seppsters 6 months ago
@rickbruner why are all the right-wing americans calling obama a bolchevik, communist, socialist or whatever? healthcare is communism, yeah, but you have no good argument against it...
Mussi93 6 months ago
his second answer to question 2 is fucking brilliant. the constitution is design to restrict government.
RPJunky 6 months ago
Sounds like a society which would lead to a state like feudalism.
polvotierno 7 months ago
@polvotierno yeah in what way mate ? explain how ? as if it would. feudalism has no private sector so how do you come up with this assumption. feudalism a king owns all the land and the people have none. nothing to do with a free society.
RPJunky 6 months ago
@polvotierno In Feudalism those on the bottom don't have the same opportunity to rise up the latter. In his society the system is created in a way that rewards personal worth and the ability to develop your human capitol to meet the standard of living you personally would like to accomplish.
BellaKoei 6 months ago
Who establishes what those rights are ? Is the need for money conversion ?
mba2ceo 7 months ago
Thank God this libertarianism horseshit will never come to pass. It would cause nothing but pain and suffering to the poor, moreso than now.
cisseshairdresser 7 months ago
@cisseshairdresser actually libertarianism would do more for the poor than than all of the current welfare system is now.
firstly it lowers the amount of regulation of businesses and would allow poor local entrepeneurs to create businesses and hire locals aka their neighbors.
secondly a system that goes far beyond welfare would take place. firstly it would be a social system that would promote communities to form close knit centers that manage finances and promote education and employment.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
The point of "Professor Friedman" is majorities don't count as long as you don't need to quote them not wanting more taxes.
code933k 7 months ago
People seem to have an unyielding faith in representative democracy (republicanism). People forget that political parties represent the interests of their constituents. Representatives will continue to enact these policies If the majority of their constituents support welfare, social security, the progressive tax, economic regulations beyond regulating natural monopolies and preventing artificial monopolies, etc. Democratic republicanism is practically destined for failure.
bxjam85 7 months ago
@TZMRevolution Do you really know anything about Chile or are you just repeating what that whore Naomi Klein said?
MastersOfInfinity 8 months ago
Hear hear, Mr. Friedman!
Nationalisten 8 months ago 2
He's got it. Rampant unemployment, rampaging deficits, closed factories, record corporate profits, financial manipulation, destruction of governments and the social contract, foreclosures and unbridled corporate power over our social, political and economic processes. Heckuva job, Miltie, now rot in hell you vile, insane little prick and take your stupid Chicagop School of fucking Nazi economic terrorism with you.
ChrisDutch 8 months ago
Rampant unemployment, rampaging deficits, closed factories, record public sector salaries and pensions, financial manipulation by crony capitalism, unions, Fannie and Freddie, and their Liberal nursemaids in Congress, destruction of individual responsibility, foreclosures and unbridled government power. Heckuva job, NoBama, now rot in hell you vile, insane little prick and take your stupid Chicagop School of fucking Bolshevik government terrorism with you.
rickbruner 8 months ago
Eliminate the undue influence of special interest minorities?
I'll drink to that!
muzzster1970 9 months ago 21
@muzzster1970 Starting with the criminal American Oligarchy.
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 5 months ago
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME You seem to be making many "friends" at your home page. Perhaps it's because you couldn't buy a clue....
muzzster1970 5 months ago
@muzzster1970 You sound like the typical low-rent republican,bet you hate unions as well.
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 5 months ago
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME You sound like you can't think for yourself. Hate unions? Indeed not. Great concept. I just despise their hypocrisy. If only Socialists applied their rules to themselves. The only hate present is the intense loathing you have for yourself.
muzzster1970 5 months ago
milton hated the draft
he put stan mcchyrstal in his place
(mcchyrstal was in favor of draft)
milton considered the draft to be conscripting "slaves" to be your army versus a motivated and dedicated volunteer force
(guess who was right)
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
Laissez-faire government should only provide to the people essential services: police, fire, military, etc. Everything else should be outsourced to the private sector and it would bring less stress on our taxes. Infrastructure is debatable but I can see it being outsourced to the private sector.
all028 9 months ago
So if you are a libertarian, by Miltons view, you must be for the draft. As the government must supply national defense, but must protect people from coercion, which paying someone to sign up for the military is a form of coercion. So the only way to have both is through a draft of everyone at a set age. Like the year you turn 20, everyone in that year gets randomly picked to fill the needs of the military.
bluefootedpig 9 months ago
Now is the time on sprockets when we dance.
feck2112 9 months ago
The fabians failed miserably... look around... they took a dependable growth economy and turned it into the shit we see today..... Socialism... is just neo-feuadlism.
Socialism - when you absolutely, positively need to kill 100 million people in a century.
ORACLE063 9 months ago 16
@ORACLE063 No we have corporate Facism. Capitalism in the end will collapse. Cause capitalism is a very flawed system. You know why? Cause capitalism depends on infinite growth, well we live on a finite planet, and that can't happen.
235RB 4 months ago
@235RB Yes, you are right. We must expand.
We haven't conquered space yet.
Cleric775 4 months ago
@235RB What essential resources would u consider finite? I'm going to assume u MAINLY mean resources for energy, i.e. fossil fuels. Keep in mind the laws of physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed it can only change form. Therefore CO2 + H2 = methanol/ethanol, which can be used in diesel engines. Plants do this with energy for the conversion of CO2 to sugar through the sun. We can also do this artificially (sunshine to petrol project). Also, ideas are resources also & infinite.
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@235RB I think you'll like this video
/watch?v=RYBnCJAZD1A&feature=channel_video_title
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@235RB One more thing, I don't know of an example in nature that behaves on an infinite slope. Most observations in nature even at the molecular level behave on SIGMOIDAL curves. When resources such as rare earths start to dwindle then they growth in that part of the economy that uses rare earths will level out. The rare earths can be recycled if a better use if found for them, which requires energy.
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@jaeLAX23 Thats not the problem, your missing the point. even renewable rescources, are being depleted, cause we use them faster than the rate of return. What part of this dont you get? Capitalism depends of infinite growth, and that is a HUGE problem, because countries like India and China are now major players. Especially with oil, Oil will be our down fall, if there is not immediate action. Watch some realistic documentaries like the Blind spot and A Crude awakening.
235RB 4 months ago
@235RB Yes I hear you, we are using faster than return rate, but economics CHANGE all time & physical restraints will LIMIT growth no matter what, hence growth will follow a sigmoidal curve. Growth need not come at permanent destruction of environment either. I watched the vids & they misinform people. Did you watch the vid I posted? This machine was demonstrated for 6 months before being muscled out. Technical challenges exist but there are no show stoppers & that goes for fusion tech as well.
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@jaeLAX23 Everything we observe in reality indicates that the environment will absolutely continue to be destroyed in the absence of regulation. Your argument is literally "It will be okay because I think it will be okay." There has never been a time in human history when people thrived under deregulation and low taxes/spending. The best time (median income) in American history was 1950-1970 or so. A time with much higher taxes and programs like Medicare, the interstate highway system, etc.
BenkaiDebussy 4 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy 1950s-1970s USA was also a major exporter (steel) & MIC was booming. The markets have much stricter regulations than governments, where lobbyist can bend the rules as they please & in the process cause additional damages. The thorium story & the NRC is a good example of this. Because of regulations of more powerful & efficient, therefore less destructive, energy source was suppressed. Watch the following clip & related clips and you'll see what I mean.
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy Main point is overregulation causes inefficiency, hence is more destructive in the long run. The markets encourage high efficiency and property rights protect against those who would otherwise take short cuts.
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy /watch?v=mrDeB86YpV4&feature=feedlik
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
I have environmental concerns as well that's why we need debt free money & property rights so people behave properly, live within their means & respect the environment.
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@jaeLAX23 Yea absolutely, My argument is that people need to realize that. I am not a tree hugger, But I would like to see a sustainable future for this country and the rest of modern countries, and the path The U.S is taking right now, the future is not very bright at all. The enviroment should come first before profit.
235RB 4 months ago
@235RB We have arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements-agriculture, medicine, environment, etc- depends on science & technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
-Carl Sagan
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@jaeLAX23
How did we build this civilization in the first place, by everyone knowing science? i don't think so.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft What's your point?
jaeLAX23 3 months ago
@jaeLAX23 What I wrote.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft If you don't understand the point Dr Sagan was trying to make then I can't help that your a blithering idiot.
jaeLAX23 3 months ago
@jaeLAX23
And ditto when it comes to you understanding my point.
Onieracraft 2 months ago
@Onieracraft Your type are what/ maybe will cause a technological stagnation. The point Sagan was making is we turn back from science at our own peril.
jaeLAX23 2 months ago
@jaeLAX23
When did we turn back?
Onieracraft 2 months ago
@Onieracraft When the US students went from 1st -> 4th -> 48th in the world on standardized test. Half of PhDs earned in the US are from overseas students, 100% in some specific fields (computer tech) are foreigners.
From another point of view, we are stagnating in technological developments in all fields. Part due to shitty education & part due to crony capitalism. The energy sector is a great example of stagnation, the nuclear renaissance now should have happened a two decades ago.
jaeLAX23 2 months ago
@Onieracraft
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@ORACLE063 What exactly are you calling a "dependable growth economy"? Life in any currently developed country prior to the creation of labor laws and social safety nets was absolutely terrible. Poverty rates were 30-50%, and factory towns, poorhouses, etc were commonplace.
It's both funny and disturbing that libertarians have revised history to the extent that they think the mid-late 19th century (industrial revolution) was a time when people were happy and free.
BenkaiDebussy 4 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy In the late mid-late 19th century lots of people were free and plenty were free & miserable. Good economies raise prosperity rates, but science & technology was the engine of prosperity in the 20th century raising many out of poverty. Unfortunately in the hands of the ignorant & greedy it is also impoverishing people in the 3rd world & developing countries, and will soon spread throughout the world as well.
jaeLAX23 4 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy When you consider the 19th century, I presume you are talking only of those countries involved in the industrial revolution. Unfortunately we have very little to go on vis the conditions of life of the majority of the populations in other countries. However, let us compare the conditions of the 19th century to those of the Medieval Britain. Hard as it was during the Industrial Revolution it was infinitely harder and shorter before then.
ritchloui 2 months ago
So... Milton Friedman believes in roughly the same Utopian vision as Noam Chomsky?
Go to the Chomsky-Foucault debate to see similarities of ideadlogy.
owenhunt 10 months ago
@owenhunt youll be suprised that most are close just getting to things different the GOALS the same the means to get there different
ssjwes 8 months ago
Sweden was a socialist country and no wonder that its professors were socialists :)
Yotta1983 10 months ago
A responsible libertarian, thats me.
warriorprince1010 10 months ago
I always find it odd that some people can't wrap their heads around the logic of libertarianism...maximum freedom, limited government...is it a mistrust of themselves? Or the unwillingness to do the work needed to prosper and help their neighbor if needed?
zepDzen 10 months ago
@zepDzen It's because people believe they are generally better than other people. Their distrust isn't of themselves - it's of others.
owenander 10 months ago
@owenander If that that is why some people don't think libertarianism is a good idea, (because they don't trust others) why would they trust (others) in government to intrude in their lives?
zepDzen 10 months ago
WONDERFUL! NO COULD LAY OUT HIS LIBERTARIAN VISION LIKE FREIDMAN!
Mwaterfall 11 months ago
I know Friedman is speaking about the US, but I'm surprised at his claim that polls consistently show the majority in favor of less public spending. In the UK for example the vast majority of people support the existence of the NHS. Perhaps the wording of the poll was something on the lines of 'Do you think Government spends too much?'. People love to criticize governments and would say yes but then answer 'Do you think government does enough to help the poor/disabled/sick' and they'd say no.
wowsa0 11 months ago
I would bet my left nut, there is a quote-mined clip out there chopped up of milton talking about minorities having undue influence in order to paint him as a racist.
mikeochenballs 11 months ago
@mikeochenballs Haha no kidding.
Christian121y 10 months ago
I find him difficult to pin down. I wish someone asked him if an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. I might not agree with everything, or anything for that matter, but he's still a very fascinating guy.
criticalsection 11 months ago
Haha, I love the setup too. Milton Friedman vs. three other guys. He really was in a league of his own.
bweazel 11 months ago
@bweazel Wow, what video were you watching? in this video he is not refuted or challenged by the other three! What do you mean "vs."?
TheGrindsprint 10 months ago
@TheGrindsprint Same video you're watching. What do I mean by vs.? Like I said at the very start of my post. I love the setup. Three guys on one side, a mediator, and Friedman on one side, all by himself. I thought I made myself pretty clear, he is in a league of his own, and the way they are seated shows that, to me.
bweazel 10 months ago
@bweazel Cool. way to read a great deal out of how they are seated. You must have a special gift :)
TheGrindsprint 10 months ago