Lots of haters down in the comments page. Especially followers who pissed on their bed when they found out that it's only a good warm feeling in their dreams. NOT when you're awake!
i m just happy to show real facts to the intelligent people with no dogmas in their mind, just travel and see things by yourselves, dont trust in official informations before ask yourself why are they so interested to show friedman subhuman ideas as the golden key????
Only ignorance of those blinded by dogmas could fail to address, in a diatribe of such length, the fact of, yet, ANOTHER year of 6% growth for the nation of Chile.
@BustyerUniongoon who are the people who take advantage of that growth???in a country with the deepest gap between poors and riches? its not enough the general growht of a country to analize social welfare. Social Inequality promotes future social inestability and other social diseases. Go to chile and show your statistics to the million of students in debt and try to convince them with such arguments!!! thats the difference between to KNOW and to read a magazine to create an opinion.
The state of “inequality” denotes there is a state called “equality.” Otherwise, the term would be meaningless. So if we assume there is such a thing as “equality” then we therefore have to assume that someone must be responsible for defining what “equality” looks like.
The idea of inequality is a Marxist fable, if translated means envy. It's used to incite useful idiots into a class war and eventually a communist/socialist revolution.
@BustyerUniongoon equality means a society where exists the conditions to social mobility, education for all is the key to achieve that. Before fredman model in chile people studied for free at the universities, nowadays there are millions of students in debt protesting in the streets, it has no relation with communism at all (???!!!!) but with SOCIAL JUSTICE. i fear that my answer is not for you but for people REALLY interested in REAL information about the chilean fake
i speak from my experience i have been in england and chile where people dont want to know more about unpopular friedman economic politices, how statistics are manipulated, i am really surprissed how people who make their opinions based in economic magazines can not understand whats evident...why you dont show to the chilean students in debt your statistics and try to show you are "right"??its very easy to make opinions based in biased and manipulated informations, can you smell the stinky lie?
obviouly protectionism is sometimes good and sometimes bad, you quoted hong kong example, thats an example of the good economic measure...what about the bad examples, in chile for example where the clothes industry was erased creating thousand of unempoloyed people? what happen if US dont protect their industries leaving chinese industries compete in american territory? have you thought the implicances, how many people would loose their jobs??? we have to see beyond the short time
open your minds and discover how the statistics are politically manipulated and showing just a part of the truth, look at the news and see MILLION OF CHILEAN STUDENTS DEBTORS of the friedman system of privatization fighting in the streets, look how chilean families send their children to ecuador or aregentina to study because the education in chile is debt, look how south american countries are not following the neoliberal system as they saw those facts in chile. chile its no longer the "model"
friedman ideas are not just economic ones but an IDEOLOGY behind wher students and patients become "clients", proffessional services become a "product", to be aggressively ambitious become a "virtue" no mater the rest as society is a "competitive market" where all of us fight to be WINNERS because to be a Looser means you have no social prestige.IN THIS EVIL AND ANTI-HUMANISTIC VISION THE ECONOMIC SUCCESS IS THE SUPREME AIM IN LIFE. that is the kind of man created by those poor ideas
economic statistics about the chilean successful economy are manipulated as that issue is a POLITICAL ISSUE remember that chile took off its rich coper mines from american corporations (ITT) and it was something that the rest os south american countries wanted to follow, thats why the nixon.adm planned the coup d'etat in 973 and friedman economic ideas WERE IMPOSSED DURING !^ YEARS OF DICTATORSHIP in chile, the idea was very clear Chile was and is showed as the "pretty girl" of south america
many people can not understand how evil are milton friedman ideas, economic magazines show the successful chilean economy for example, what they dont show is tha that success is for the oligarchic groups because people suffer an incredible inequality due to those policies
if some of you are interested to know the facts please write to me, i dont want unpolite vocubalary just to show the facts
@maisantaerikakirea Under Allende - inflation 120%, economy was stagnant, there was no growth and people were starving. After the reformation today Chile is the richest country (by nominal per capita) in South America and the most stable economy. It has averaged 4% growth since the 80s (as compared to .7% before). Chile had one of the lowest life expectancy in S. America, 57 years, today it's 79, almost the same as America. Poverty 48% in 1980 is today 11%.
@H1TMANactual economic statistics about chile are biased as there is a strong political interest to show chile as the most successful economy in latin america, remember chile took off its rich coper mines from american corporations and it was a very "bad example" for the region, thats why nixon adm. planned the coup d'etat on chile and they IMPOSSED FRIEDMAN IDEAS ON THAT COUNTRY DURING 16 YEARS OF A WILD DICTATORSHIP according the friedman shock doctrine
@maisantaerikakirea Biased by whom? Provide sources. ALL economic measures show Chile is magnitudes better off than under Allende. GDP, per capita, standard of living, infant mortality, poverty, life expectancy. You and Naomi Klein can't change facts. Try again.
@H1TMANactual obviously statistic are your bible, and you can swear on them with your hand without think the obvious relation between politics and economic subjects, statistics can show how successful was the national socialist government in germany the same in chile under the fascist friedman docrine of shock where friedman ideas were impossed during 16 years of the most cruel dictatorship...what would you say to the million of students in debt protesting in chile against the friedman policies?
@H1TMANactual the only loyalty in friedman ideas is the market, no nation just open competitivity thats how national industries and their workers are exposed to the foreign competence (chinese competence broke out chilean industries).friedman ideas privatize everything even the strategic natural resources as the WATER, health and education, state loans the students as they become debtors for many years...in one word thats wild-capitalism where the supreme aim in life is money, to be a "winner"
@maisantaerikakirea Hong Kong was "exposed" to foreign trade, they had no tariffs and the lowest taxes. Why didn't they "break down"? Instead it became one of the richest countries in the world from a slum. Mercantilism and protectionism were debunked a long time ago. Might want to grab a book on basic economics instead of reading Naomi Klein. Comparative advantage (go look it up). Try again.
@H1TMANactual hey dude, they are trying to impose Friedman's ideas in Greece and people are every day at the streets. Close the statistics and open your television. What statistics?? If we have 100 people and one of them has 1.000.000 dollars while the rest have 1 dollar each, your statistics will say 10.000 dollars average income, while actually there will be one rich and 99 poor. Close the book. open your eyes. Justice can not be countable, you know..
@barasko They are imposing reality on Greece. Greece borrowed and lived beyond it's means and spend lavishly on it's social programs. Money doesn't grow on trees and bills come due someday. That's what's happening to Greece. If you want to see Friedman's ideas in action, look at Estonia.
Has anyone noticed that only people from countries that have not implemented Friedmans policies support them? Most Chileans do not, most Argentinians do not, most Russians do not and there was a resent mass-protest in South Korea against his policies becoming law. Simply put, Friedmans policies only help a few (who are already better off then everyone else), at the expence of the rest. His policies have even turned South Africa, a former first worls nation, into a 3ed world one.
if milton friedman would visit chile he should be protected by thousand of cops because there are MILLIONS of chilean people really happy to kick his dirty ass!!!
the so called successful chilean economy has made richer to the oligarchy and poorer to the people. Milton Friedman reduces everything to a merchandise. Milton friedman admits to be many times in chile and he pretends we believe that was for nothing???? , thats an evident lie. Why the neoliberal Chilean government of pinera cant stop students protests, they are fighting because they want to study but they are all in debt due to friedman policies while the generations before study for free!!!
We must not forget she is Canadian and has lived under socialism her entire life.
The role of the immigrants is critical to understand the process, and it is something critical for socialism, for you can have either immigrants for cheap labor or for welfare. In the first case people like it, in the second, they hate it.
I disagree with you on that. I hate Naomi Klein with a passion and am against socialism to but Canada is not much of a social democracy in the european sense. Quebec is to an extent but not the rest of Canada.
The truth is Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
@logtype47 She was NOT a libertarian, she was an Objectivist. She in fact hated libertarians, please go to the Ayn Rand Institute's website and read her quotes on the matter. Objectivists are not libertarians or vice versa. The fools who popularly (as the mob is fickle, stupid, and violent) consider the two very separate philosophies to be the same philsophy destroy their own arguments before making them, by declaring their ignorance. Libertarians like her FICTION books, not her philosophy.
@ProIndividual LMAO. Libertarians absolutely LOVE Ayn Rand's raggedy ass and her mythological BS writings. All of them are a heaping mass fairly tale enthusiasts who used to watch WWF as if it was a real sport. No way am I going to try and reason with a dude who likely has a Dungeons and Dragons game in his mom's garage. Fuck that.
Your ignorant name calling is typical of a liberal moron. You can't debate much nor have any ideas relevant in the 21st century. I tend to find libtards like you to either be young and uninformed or unable to think for your self. Either way your beliefs are against human nature and the more implemented they become into society the more down the human race will be. Don't blindly attack on youtube because you have nothing proper to say you fucking fool.
Were not speaking of frauds my friend. Were talking about two ideologies being very separate from each other when they should be combined in a democratic institution. I just don't like that pig Naomi Klein because she is using social problems to push an ideology. Can her situation work? NOPE because the liberal left in Canada are like the radical right in America. Different beliefs and policies but radical all the same with distortion of facts,manipulating independents etc
@logtype47 BTW, had the state not taxed her for during her entire life who is to say she would not of had the money to care for herself?
She was NOT a libertarian, as she did rail for a state constantly in many ways libertarians do not. She was majorly PRO-WAR and was the influence on the neoconservative movement, not the paleoconservative or libertarian movement which adhered (and do adhere) to noninterventionist foreign policy. You do realize, there are left libertarians, right?
@logtype47 I'd like to remember that the first people in this country to oppose slavery were libertarians (individualist anarchists) and classical liberals (libertarians of the small government persuasion). They also were the first to be feminists. They (Henry David Thoreau) invented the concept of Civil Disobedience that later Gandhi and MLKjr credited to them when achieving the goals of their movements through nonviolent resistance. Every huge historical issue, they were on the right side of.
@logtype47 To reduce libertarianism (individualist anarchism and classical liberalism) to Objectivism is to take a philosophy born in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment in the 18th century and reduce it to a philosophy just founded in the last century. Obviously libertarianism has endured 3 centuries, and now is in it's 4th, while Objectivism isn't even 100 years old yet.
Please educate yourself before you regurgitate statist/leftist talking points. It's embarassing for you.
To no one's surprise, like Michael Moore, bashing capitalism has made her rich. How ironic. I wonder how she would feel if she had to share all her earnings with unemployed writers.
That was terrible. There is no structure to this video. You just take certain clips of Naomi Klein and certain clips or writings of Milton Friedman when they are talking about the similar subjects and put them together. No refutation occurs here, not even comparison. There's nothing informative in this video, and I don't think you have an opinion to give. I don't think you grasp the concepts.
And to quote Milton Friedman "do you know of any society that wasnt ran on greed? Its never you thats greedy its always the other person." Milton is far more brilliant then you or I can even imagine. He would run circles around Noam Chomsky. But im not saying I dont like Noam, I like Noam but I seem to agree with Milton more. The problem with Milton was that he tried to apply his economics with a president who didnt believe in peace or the constitution.
No point in trying to 'debate' with socialists, marxists or some other delusional leftist fundamentalists.
The facts are there for everyone to see, the history of the failure of socialism is there to see, the poorest people in capitalist countries have always been richer than most people under socialism.
The state cannot allocate resources better than the market, the former is worse in both quality and quantity. It is clear that reasons other than logic are directing the fundamentalists.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with either ideological party here, but the unaccounted for variables make that, on the whole, a very weak argument. Furthermore, your claim isn't even true. The poorest people in capitalist countries live in places like Kenya or India. Pretending that the first world is the only part of the globe that has ever had a free market is an absurdity.
@TheTdotPyro Not every capitalist country has been successful, poor instituions, legal and political systems, corruption, no rule of law etc have often held back economic growth in these places. The point is that there has been no successful country both democratic and prosperous that has not been capitalist. I was making generalisations, it is true that capitalist countries have higher output than socialist ones, and that the poor in successful ones are better off than most in socialist ones.
@gulbirk Good of you to allow us to believe what we want, since your stance is based entirely upon belief. In actual fact, living standards are higher in lower tax countries, like the United States. Socialists are, in fact, so distressed by this actual fact that they are frequently forced to invent meaningless measures that say absolutely nothing about living standards - like the HDI or the Gini coefficient - or make things up - like the discredited WHO rankings.
@FletchforFreedom Are you stupid. Go to the UN development index. People live longer here Crime is lower People are generally more educated Less drop outs Better health care Lower Unemployment Better social security stronger Unions etc.
@gulbirk No, stupid is referring to the bogus HDI statistic. The US has the highest livig standards in the world (excepting a few tiny countries). The US has the longest life expectancy in the world adjusted for instant deaths from accident/homicide. The native born population in the US has literacy and education levels as high as any other country (lowered only because so many people with less education come to the US for better lives). The US has the finest health care in the world
@FletchforFreedom Boy have you been living a lie. We are low on literacy, health care and life expectancy. Get educated and stop listening to those tea baggers.
@uwmarkymark I've been living the life of a rewsearcher who can read anderstand data. In actual fact, the US literacy rate is as high as anywhere in the world (particularly among the native born); life expectancy adjusted for instant deaths from accidents/murder is the highest in the world and studies of actual care (as opposed to the long discredited WHO rankings) have the US uniformly at the top. I AM educated. Stop listenting to bogus socialist talking points.
@FletchforFreedom I am open to debate, However, I still disagree with your numbers. Life expectancy-I see us at about 30th in the world. Literacy-Well, we may up there as far as reading is concerned, but we lack in math and science. Health care- Now that is a joke. As the wealthiest nation in the world, we have a pretty high percentage that go without insurance. I am so for Obama care, and the rest of you can purchase supplemental insurance. \m/ uwmarkymark@gmail.com
@uwmarkymark Again, the study indicating that, adjusted for instant death from accident/homicide, the US has the highest life expectancy is easily located. The issue was literacy, not innumeracy, which is not measured as such in a consistent manner. Lack of insurance is not the same thing as lack of care (nor are they correlated). Socialized medicine has always resulted in delays receiving care that are more lethal than any impact from lack of insurance.
@gulbirk ...according to actual measures of care - survivability after diagnosis of a serious illness, etc. (again, the WHO rankings are completely debunked). The statement you make about unemployment is completely wrong. Long term unemployment rates in the US are lower than all of the socialist countries of Europe and by a factor of two (only the recent governmnet caused fiasco has narroed the long-term gap). And unions are an economic disaster...
@gulbirk Again, literally every study of survivability after diagnosis of a serious illness places the US on top. The Us has the highest life expectancy adjusted for instant death due to accident/homicide (which have nothing to do with health care quality). Americans have greater access to diagnostic car and equipment and see a primary care physician faster and for longer (all of this INCLUDING the poor).
@gulbirk There is no such thing as "free" healthcare. The countries with universal health care are plagued by doctor shortages and care rationing. This results in long wait times while people wait for treatment that is at least as lethal as lack of health insurance in the US.
Referencing the laughable HDI again hardly helps your (destroyed) case. And since the alternative to unions is not slavery - but, historically, higher wages and a stronger economy...
Historically? FUCK YOU. If you want to go back in time then FUCK NO. I am not supporting anyone who wants our society to move to the kind of rules it used to be. 90% of the population before 1900 lived in what we today recognise as POOVERTY.
And another thing.
Crime rates are higher in america. Normal people DONT have more money to spend, even though you pay less taxes.
@gulbirk Yes, back in 1900, 90% of the population lived in what we consider poverty today. Fortunately in the United States, where union participation has been lowest and, particularly during periods when union membership has waned, the US has been the most rapid to increase living standards. Thank capitalism.
And are you really the last to know that the link between poverty and crime has been debunked and, if anything, the link is that crime lead to poverty not vice versa?
@gulbirk Some of the lowest tax rates in the world - Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland. Highest tax rates around the world - Cuba, North Korea, Bangladesh. Go live.
Bahamas - 0% income tax - richest country in the Carribean.
Higher taxes mean govt and politicians have more money to spend, doesn't necessarily mean it will trickle down to the poor.
Ok first off.... since the birth of the federal reserve we havent been capitalist. So thats where klien is wrong. Secondly i love socialsts. The past 70 yrs of the raping of our dollars net worth was a direct result of it...yet they think its the solution.
what a jerk, didn't you see the transformation of Chile? I live in south america and chile and brasil are by far the best economies on the region. I don't approve tanks dpinochet dictatorship and allende's death but the economic rules changed chile thanks to friedman ideas.
She can't debate him toe to toe based on ideas, so she must attack his persona. She's just trying to profit off Friedman's coattails. Any idiot could do what Ms. Klein does; it takes true brilliance to do what Friedman did.
@jbnwc Friedman's true achievement, in my opinion, is his world record for creating more poor people than anyone in history. It's truly staggering. No one's ever gonna come even close to him. He was the greatest OF ALL TIME.
@jbnwc It's very hard to debate a person throwing around illogical dribble. In a jist he is saying government is evil but ppl's greed is "less" evil therefore we should allow a person's greed. He completely omits that we all live on this planet and have a stake in it's resources. But very few are acting to control these resource for their own benefit. The reason we allow governments to control such things is because we have the power to control them. In history, we had to hunt down and kill ppl.
@jbnwc Milton Friedman debates the very worst of humanity as the rule. and uses it as a basis for economics. Today his school of economics is reaching its limit, and soon will destroy itself. If we continue to hold greed to a value of a virtue, we will not depart from the insidiousness of. The end game result of run away greed is the destruction of the majority(have nots) as well as the minority(haves). we are destroying resources for the benefit of a few. this will end soon.
@JRMCNEA dude what is wrong with you, people pursuing their own self interests (with their abilities) within the rule of law is what the world runs on, not greed. You can say the two are synonymous but then you would be an idiot.
@eorobinson3 People always try to use nice terms like "self interests" to justify People's lack of restraint and inability to think of other as well as themselves. When you Make billions of dollars on the back of millions of people. And then do everything in your power to prevent others from doing for themselves you have gone beyond greed. Not everything that SHOULD be criminal is. Laws tend to be reactive not proactive. And most of the laws are to limit my ability to fend for myself-
@JRMCNEA Of course, since no one made money "off the backs" of anyone nor prevented you (or anyone else) from doing for themselves and the current financial crisis that put so many out of work was entirely of the government's making (specifically the Fed with more than a little help from Fannie and Freddie which created an artificial market for high-risk loans), I'm not sure how the facts help your case.
@FletchforFreedom We like to think we can buy a plot of land and raise our own food. But if your corn crops are infiltrated by Monsanto GMO crops you are liable for being sued by them. If you don't cook your dairy products The FBI will come down on your farm like you are a drug lord in a movie. why? Because the "approved" Dairy you get at the store is filled with boiled down Blood and puss. They feed us toxins and tell us their good for us. And if you protest they will sue you for slander.
@JRMCNEA No one has ever been sued for raising their own food on their own property with their own property. Needless laws requiring pasteurization are not becasue of any real problem with dairy provided today. You are less exposed to toxins in your food than at any time in history. And the moral hazard created by immigration law enforcement (or lack thereof) is a state created problem. Not one of your examples holds up in support of your argument.
@JRMCNEA In fact, you completely misc haracterize the Monsanto issue which was determined in every case not to be any accidental "infiltration" but, instead, a deliberate use of Monsanto product without the company's consent (usually in violation of a pre-existing purchase agreement. It is no accident that Monsanto wins these cases and one farmer was even prosecuted criminally for his deliberate act.
@FletchforFreedom I'm not talking about the cases where seed harvesting was done. I am in fact talking about the Monsanto suits where they tested plants in fields near their farms and found their DNA stain in the crops. Where these people had no contract with Monsanto for their seeds. And in fact where refusing to buy them. Monsanto Tried to blackmail farmers into buying their seeds by claiming they had obtained proof that the farmers had crops growing in their fields without license.
@JRMCNEA Except, of course, Monsanto denies suing anyone for inadvertant contamination (and has the paperword to back it up and defendants who have made that claim have been proven to be making false statements. In fact, every time the issue has come up in front of a jury, Monsanto has been awarded damages (something that doesn't happen if jurors believe the little guy is getting shafted). The claims made by those in a counter-suit, not adjudicated, are not the same thing as facts.
@JRMCNEA And before you bring up the Schmeiser case, it bears absolutely no resemblance to the situation you describe. In fact, while the initial presence of GMO canola contamination MAY have been inadvertent, the subsequent actions to preserve that specific strain solely for seed to further grow much more of that crop (amounting to 95% of Schmeier's sizeable fields) did constitute a deliberate act for which Monsanto had a case.
@JRMCNEA And before you bring uop the Schmeiser case, it bears absolutely no resemblace to what you have decribed. While the initial presence of GMO on Scheiser's filed MAY have been inadvertant, the subsequent deliberate saving of that strain to grow significantly more of it (95% of Schmeiser's fields) didconstitute a legitimate basis for a case as essentially everyone with a grasp of law agrees.
It was no persecution by any stretch of the imagination.
@JRMCNEA And before you dishonestly bring up the Schmeiser case, it bears no resemblance to the persecution fairy tale you've presented. While the initial presence of GMO crops MAY have been inadvertent, Schmeiser's deliberate act to preserve and grow that specific strain over 95% of his field constituted a deliberate act about which everyone with a grasp of law agrees gave Monsanto legitimate grounds for a case.
@FletchforFreedom If the water I use to water my garden inadvertently waters my neighbor's Garden I can't sue them t pay for the water. And because they put their garden close to the fence to take advantage of my reckless us of water does not give me claim to their garden's yield. In this Schmeiser case he didn't not bring in the GMO onto his field he cultivated it once it was there. That is not his fault. If I put my money in someone else's bank account i can't sue them if they spend it.
@JRMCNEA One must wonder whether that analogy was unintentionally dumb or deliberately dishonest. There is no titkle held to water. If your neighbor inadvertantly parks his car on your property, you do not get to keep it and, more to the point, you don't get to USE it either. And, in fact, if you do not return the car (or if you use money inadvertantly put in your bank account) you can and will be sued for its return.
@FletchforFreedom Your analogy of a car parked on my property doesn't really work. because I can call and have it towed away. And my neighbor can't sue me for the cost of getting it out of tow. And I wouldn't be sued if I spend money wrongfully put into my account. They would try to collect it later but if you for example close out your account and cancel any funds coming into that account they can't sue you to get it back. Well they could but they wouldn't win.
@JRMCNEA In the first case, Monsanto could have been called to remove their property at their expense. In the latter case, you are absolutely wrong. Numerous times either a bank or the IRS has deposited money (or sent a check) erroneously in someone's account. When that money was spent, the individual was sued for return of the funds. I am familiar with several cases and in not one did the defendant ever win. The facts are entirely against you.
@FletchforFreedom f they find out you are hiring illegal Aliens to cut your grass you go to jail. But Companies with plants on the boarder of Mexico have trailer parks for their illegals and when they workers demand better treatment, the company calls ICE and have them deported so they don't have any recourse. Yes the Aliens are wrong but they are the bottom of the totem. There are millions more waiting in line to be abuse in this way. Btu the people on the top get off Scott free. We don't.
@eorobinson3 -My problem is as an individual im limited to what i can do for myself to protect the stability of a system a system where Greedy people make the rules. to protect their ability to encroach on our ability to take care of ourselves and they don't care about the few million that falls through the cracks. When it comes to the the top who could buy the bottom 90% with 40% of their wealth we see them as sacred. But millions they made that wealth off of is seen as lazy and unworthy.
@eorobinson3 and whats wrong with me is I know too many people who went to college got "good jobs". were paying back their loans. Until they lost their jobs and where unable to find work for years. And for them to find out after years of searching for work and being called deadbeats. They are being turned down for positions to this day because their lenders have no compassion for the situation they created. By giving people loans with time bombs in them. where the rates at the front tripled
@jbnwc Regardless of who or what is effected by the ideology. You are an idiot. Using brilliance and Friedman in the same sentence is not only ignorant, but can be very dangerous. I'd be honored to speak face to face with a fool such as yourself. I know I'D have fun. BTW, when did Milty finally return to hell? And he was how old? And when was Naomi, who is rather young, supposed to debate him face to face? Logic can be your friend too. Bet you're "brilliant" in your trailer park, not out here...
Strange.... this month, April 2011, we're finally facing the financial crises of the United States. So, if it is the financial crises that finally brings a change in the budget by Congress and the Executive, isn't Friedman correct? The Republicans should have been acting for the previous eight years under Bush but did not. Only when the opposition continues Bush's decline into financial burdens do the Republicans respond. Crises does bring change.
A more accurate way to put it is "crises precipitate change". The US has yet to see a real crisis. The 2008 episode was as far as I can tell an aberration in the normal pattern of business due to poor policy on the part of the US govt. but it was only temporary and life has continued on as normal for most people while the deckhands are busily trying to clear the ship of water and prevent it from sinking. The real crisis comes when the Dollar becomes so debased that it won't make
any sense for the Chinese to export to American markets on the scale that they do currently. There are already signs of this as the BRICS have all agreed to trade among one another in there own currencies revealing a lack of faith in the USD. Once the USA is sitting without the purchasing power to bring in cheap goods from abroad and with a bunch of bankrupt dysfunctional companies unfit for supplying its domestic needs, then you'll see the crisis hit.
WHY DON'T YOU TELL EVERYONE WHAT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CORNERSTONE OF MARXISM IS EH??? HOW ABOUT CAPITALISM DESTROYING ITSELF DUE TO *GASP* CRISES OF OVERPRODUCTION. BFIP3EBFWFDGWEGERRE3FR3F3RJFNO
I'm finding it difficult contemplating which is more emotionally depressing: watching these blatantly biased, incoherent videos or seeing the, "more to come" at the end, ensuring that you haven't fully exhausted your desire to release more of these monstrosities. Both of which make me want to go skydiving without a parachute. Just... Stop. Please.
Anyone who is so simple-minded as to believe that they're actually debating after watching this video can't be help. Such persons are prone to choking to death on thin air.
I was about to Vote negative on this video, but Friedman explains himself and I totally disagree that he should be blamed for what happened in Chile only because of the way he thinks.
I also can not give you a positive vote because you really don't explain the relation that Klein makes involving directly Friedman in Chile. To me both sides have their own arguments independent from each other
You try to make an explanation by breaking the video in parts and inputing your own opinion--Not Smart
@enerubara Friedman defends himself in one of these videos by advocate1234. He talks about his interaction with the Chilean Government & citizens. He also points out in an article that he had given speeches in Communist China & Yugoslavia but no one ever made a big deal out of it.
Free Enterprise is not 'economics', nor is it 'capitalism'. It is never undertaken by amorphous blobs known as Nations or Governments...it is undertaken between individual men. It is the acceptance of a trade of a mutually agreed upon value.
What 'economics' and 'govt' do is merely recharacterize the energy of a mans thought and production into a different unit. In undertaking that shell game...'energy' is 'lost' to the benefit of a select few.
Naomi and Milton, two sides of a Roman disinfo coin.
What is not mentioned is that economics is not at all a true science, but pseudo science. Economics, regardless of the school, is the limited hangout by which production is recharacterized and stolen from the common man.
Milton is quite right that it doesn't matter which economics one uses, for it is only a tool to one end. And it is only one of the many wedges Rome uses against her targets.
@WSWarthog I'm sorry...who is running society? No one. It is one of the primary trades on ignorance. The dominance of cycles on man has been known for millenia. Rome does love to establish pseudo sciences (like the pseudo science of 'risk') and then build entire industries around them.
@WSWarthog Reality. Look to the vast number of times supposedly immense probabilities of risk are violated. Its a trade on ignorance. The concept of 'averages' as valid basis is quite flawed. Establishing valid benchmarks is specifically avoided, because the data would show the system up for what it is.
As to 'management' via economists and mountebanks, one has only to look at family farming, one of the most basic trades. The thieves take the life of the farmer by degrees, then his land.
@WSWarthog Friedman isn't 'against' anything (other than the Republic), he's a slave of Rome. Part of their Companio. He served Reagan, a jesuit-of-the-short robe. No one of any arrete does so. Naomi Klein, also Companio. Two slaves of Rome undertaking false dialogue for the sheep. Puppet theater on googles conditioningtube.
I propose no use of 'statisticians'; "lies, damn lies, and statistics'. None of them know how to establish a valid baseline either.
total bastardization of what Naomi is saying Naomi is not championing centralized hardline soviet controlled economics. She is not a collectivist. When she says "we can make a more just society," she is referring to a society where people aren't reduced to the role where only their purchasing power counts. I love how the right only sees things in a pluralistic, us against them view. Can't you wake up to see we aren't fighting the cold war anymore. Christ!
@robsgotit what's wrong with a society based upon purchasing power? what other measure i there? what is a more just society? where has that happened? purchasing power is purely the ability to choose within means. what else is there? some greater virtue beyond pure economic ability?
friedman says that free market principles can be adopted by totalitarian regimes such as 1968 chile but that does not make the principles totalitarian or mean the free market system is best utilized in a totalitarian system. and he is right. but then free market true believers who claim their system is a force for moral good (as do virtually all republican politicians) should admit the free market on its own can boast no such claim & so its manifestations depend on the political context.
@canteluna yes, totalitarian regimes can use free market principles to their benefit, but only to a degree. chinese capitalism is not much different than american capitalism. in no case has a totalitarian regime ever allowed free markets. if they did, they wouldn't be considered totalitarian.
you're right about the political context, without a doubt. in order to get the free market to work in the USA, for example, the libertarians need a majority. tea baggers are feaux free market capitalists.
I love how all these people are all criticizing Friedman now that hes dead. They had to wait because they didnt have the balls to say a word against him while he was alive, because they knew they would get DESTROYED by him in a debate.
@swixican Did you pay royalties to Sowell for using his quote? lol. When did the Reaganites oppose using our money to prop up corporations? Ya, see it's ok if our money goes up, but it better not go down. Somehow it's better for it to "trickle down" rather than just giving it to people. Sad.
What a debate! I read through this first page here and, feeling the pull to respond, went back the full 8 pages to read the entire discussion. I'm so glad that i did. What an example of fundamental disagreement from two highly reasonable individuals!
ashxlon: I can agree with a number of points you've made, such as ambiguous language having no place in governing documents and non-aggression. It ends there, however. I feel the need to elaborate, but canteluna already has
Both Libertarians and Anarchists are right that our government seeks a level of totalitarianism that undermines the constitution that exists to protect individual freedom at risk by the unchecked power of the state--or any power elite. Republicans and Democrats, both of whom covet power for its own sake, keep Americans confused and distracted with their shell game. The problem with the Friedman style Libertarians is in their mis-understanding of private and public domains.
…the new world trade system was explained to me. It is a system with rules designed by corporations, run by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. Its rules exclude almost any feedback from any other sector of society.... It's a recipe for unleashing "success to the successful" loops, until they generate enormous accumulations of power and huge centralized planning systems that will destroy themselves -Donella Meadows
Real free markets are the bane of fascism. Real free markets require a pervasive freedom of information, protection of individual and private property rights, protection of agreements and contracts, and this allergy to corporations by the viewers of this video is ridiculous.
@EnnesX It is not the market that creates freedom, it is the social and government system aligned with free markets. 'Real free markets' are a fantasy, and a poisonous idea. Real and just society is what we should be striving for.
I hope that Milton Friedman dies an extremely potent version of his concept of economic freedom i.e. starvation in a regulation free state that has a leader who is bought and paid for by an imperial economic power. Rot in free market fascism douche Friedman.
@ashxlon It has played out with numerous examples in our history, and others. It seems that the only way these principles can work is with extreme business and government collusion. Without, the people rise up- because they starve. So they have the iron fist.
@happyhalberstam fascism is not what a free market becomes. it is what happens when the free market isn't allowed to work. friedman was no defender of corporatism.
@ashxlon unregulated free markets are the spoils of the ideology of freidman. they are the necessity of fascism. they are the fact of our times. fascism is not required, but it seems to be inevitable given the circumstances. immoral, inhumane and unjust. feel it.
Of course Friedman opposes the draft! Why use the public army when you can outsource and save more money from private ones? Not to mention it stirs up public sentiment which could make them more human-like.
No good law is ever based on morality, but, rather, efficiency, because to align any law with an ethic or a moral must necessarily state what is right and what is wrong, which would be tantamount to a state sponsored religion. The reason we have laws like do not steal, and do not murder is not because our founding fathers were christians (that is bullshit), but because it would not be efficient for a society to live without these rules.
@caulds989 "No good law is ever based on morality, but, rather, efficiency" WOW! I thought we dispensed with this fallacy in Philosophy 101! That ethics have a utilitarian component is obvious. However, if you don't believe a certain level of morality is intrinsic (just as language is) then what keeps you out of prison? If you act based only on efficacy and without regard to innate morality then you lack empathy and are likely a sociopath. Or maybe you just need a more rounded education.
@canteluna altruistic behavior is all about efficacy. moral laws have never kept anyone from going to prison. in fact, they only serve to fill the cells. on what basis do you define morals for all? such things are self-governing (just as language is). caulds989 is correct. the only good laws are the most efficient ones. how can you be so condescending? your tone is no reflection upon your target, it only reflects upon you.
@ashxlon it is not up to me to define morals for all but only to say all have morals. You say, "moral laws have never kept anyone from going to prison." Really? Never? How about some evidence for that. You guys need to back up your assertions with evidence. Give examples of jails filled with people there for their moral convictions. I assume you don't mean people like Thoreau, Nelson Mandela or the civil rights advocates who helped change the civil rights laws here?
@canteluna 1. moral laws are themselves social definitions of morality. their authors impose those morals onto society. 2. I cannot provide evidence for a negative. 3. I can provide evidence that moral laws fill the cells needlessly. Laws prohibiting drugs and prostitution are moral laws. Two examples of many. I'm not talking about political prisoners.
Yes, everyone has morals. Those morals are relative to the individual, not the state.
@ashxlon That laws regarding drugs + prostitution are “moral laws” is conjecture. A case on efficacy grounds can also be made.
Prop 19 in California that would have legalized marijuana just failed. Why? Given it’s decriminalized already for small possession, my guess is people objected less on grounds of morality than efficacy.
@ashxlon my argument with you guys is more a matter of degree than an attempt to categorically deny that your statements have any validity whatsoever. That "the BEST laws..." etc., is simply an opinion and not fact. That "moral laws have NEVER..." etc., is hyperbole. My argument is that legislating on the grounds of efficacy alone is problematic and leads to laws like the "Patriot Act" which, in my opinion, is not only unconstitutional but, more importantly, an assault on human dignity.
@ashxlon The ADA is an example of a law based more in morality than efficacy. Maintaining this law costs the tax payers a lot of money. Is that efficacious? Many would argue that because it isn’t efficacious, it should go. I disagree. This is a case where morality overrides efficacy.
Also, medical insurers have not been required by law to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. This policy may be efficacious but is it right?
@canteluna neither morality nor efficacy are good reasons for passing laws. 1. i am not opposed to getting rid of the ADA. 2. insurance companies are assessors of risk. you cannot assess risk without considering pre-existing conditions. 3. what is or isn't right isn't up to a society to impose on individuals.
i never consider the efficacy of a law. laws do not stop action, they only attempt to remove the incentive for taking action (this is not applicable to all laws, of course).
@ashxlon You begin by defending the assertion that "No good law is ever based on morality, but, rather, efficiency" and then say "neither morality nor efficacy are good reasons for passing laws." Then what is?
And, you said you can't prove a negative, then claim that laws do not stop action? You can't possibly know what actions never occurred due to the disincentive of laws. All you can say is that laws do not stop all actions.
@canteluna . to the question, 'then what is?': efficiency, in a word. the answer is definitely more complex than a word, however. 2. no, laws do not stop all actions (i really don't like how that sentence is worded, but i'll go along). i cannot gather data to support my claim. i needn't.
Lots of haters down in the comments page. Especially followers who pissed on their bed when they found out that it's only a good warm feeling in their dreams. NOT when you're awake!
tehatemachine 1 week ago
i m just happy to show real facts to the intelligent people with no dogmas in their mind, just travel and see things by yourselves, dont trust in official informations before ask yourself why are they so interested to show friedman subhuman ideas as the golden key????
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
@maisantaerikakirea
Only ignorance of those blinded by dogmas could fail to address, in a diatribe of such length, the fact of, yet, ANOTHER year of 6% growth for the nation of Chile.
BustyerUniongoon 1 week ago
@BustyerUniongoon who are the people who take advantage of that growth???in a country with the deepest gap between poors and riches? its not enough the general growht of a country to analize social welfare. Social Inequality promotes future social inestability and other social diseases. Go to chile and show your statistics to the million of students in debt and try to convince them with such arguments!!! thats the difference between to KNOW and to read a magazine to create an opinion.
maisantaerikakirea 1 week ago
@maisantaerikakirea “Inequality” isn’t a meaningful term.
The state of “inequality” denotes there is a state called “equality.” Otherwise, the term would be meaningless. So if we assume there is such a thing as “equality” then we therefore have to assume that someone must be responsible for defining what “equality” looks like.
The idea of inequality is a Marxist fable, if translated means envy. It's used to incite useful idiots into a class war and eventually a communist/socialist revolution.
BustyerUniongoon 1 week ago
@BustyerUniongoon equality means a society where exists the conditions to social mobility, education for all is the key to achieve that. Before fredman model in chile people studied for free at the universities, nowadays there are millions of students in debt protesting in the streets, it has no relation with communism at all (???!!!!) but with SOCIAL JUSTICE. i fear that my answer is not for you but for people REALLY interested in REAL information about the chilean fake
maisantaerikakirea 1 week ago
i speak from my experience i have been in england and chile where people dont want to know more about unpopular friedman economic politices, how statistics are manipulated, i am really surprissed how people who make their opinions based in economic magazines can not understand whats evident...why you dont show to the chilean students in debt your statistics and try to show you are "right"??its very easy to make opinions based in biased and manipulated informations, can you smell the stinky lie?
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
obviouly protectionism is sometimes good and sometimes bad, you quoted hong kong example, thats an example of the good economic measure...what about the bad examples, in chile for example where the clothes industry was erased creating thousand of unempoloyed people? what happen if US dont protect their industries leaving chinese industries compete in american territory? have you thought the implicances, how many people would loose their jobs??? we have to see beyond the short time
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
open your minds and discover how the statistics are politically manipulated and showing just a part of the truth, look at the news and see MILLION OF CHILEAN STUDENTS DEBTORS of the friedman system of privatization fighting in the streets, look how chilean families send their children to ecuador or aregentina to study because the education in chile is debt, look how south american countries are not following the neoliberal system as they saw those facts in chile. chile its no longer the "model"
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
friedman ideas are not just economic ones but an IDEOLOGY behind wher students and patients become "clients", proffessional services become a "product", to be aggressively ambitious become a "virtue" no mater the rest as society is a "competitive market" where all of us fight to be WINNERS because to be a Looser means you have no social prestige.IN THIS EVIL AND ANTI-HUMANISTIC VISION THE ECONOMIC SUCCESS IS THE SUPREME AIM IN LIFE. that is the kind of man created by those poor ideas
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
economic statistics about the chilean successful economy are manipulated as that issue is a POLITICAL ISSUE remember that chile took off its rich coper mines from american corporations (ITT) and it was something that the rest os south american countries wanted to follow, thats why the nixon.adm planned the coup d'etat in 973 and friedman economic ideas WERE IMPOSSED DURING !^ YEARS OF DICTATORSHIP in chile, the idea was very clear Chile was and is showed as the "pretty girl" of south america
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
many people can not understand how evil are milton friedman ideas, economic magazines show the successful chilean economy for example, what they dont show is tha that success is for the oligarchic groups because people suffer an incredible inequality due to those policies
if some of you are interested to know the facts please write to me, i dont want unpolite vocubalary just to show the facts
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
@maisantaerikakirea Under Allende - inflation 120%, economy was stagnant, there was no growth and people were starving. After the reformation today Chile is the richest country (by nominal per capita) in South America and the most stable economy. It has averaged 4% growth since the 80s (as compared to .7% before). Chile had one of the lowest life expectancy in S. America, 57 years, today it's 79, almost the same as America. Poverty 48% in 1980 is today 11%.
You were saying...
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual economic statistics about chile are biased as there is a strong political interest to show chile as the most successful economy in latin america, remember chile took off its rich coper mines from american corporations and it was a very "bad example" for the region, thats why nixon adm. planned the coup d'etat on chile and they IMPOSSED FRIEDMAN IDEAS ON THAT COUNTRY DURING 16 YEARS OF A WILD DICTATORSHIP according the friedman shock doctrine
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
@maisantaerikakirea Biased by whom? Provide sources. ALL economic measures show Chile is magnitudes better off than under Allende. GDP, per capita, standard of living, infant mortality, poverty, life expectancy. You and Naomi Klein can't change facts. Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual obviously statistic are your bible, and you can swear on them with your hand without think the obvious relation between politics and economic subjects, statistics can show how successful was the national socialist government in germany the same in chile under the fascist friedman docrine of shock where friedman ideas were impossed during 16 years of the most cruel dictatorship...what would you say to the million of students in debt protesting in chile against the friedman policies?
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual the only loyalty in friedman ideas is the market, no nation just open competitivity thats how national industries and their workers are exposed to the foreign competence (chinese competence broke out chilean industries).friedman ideas privatize everything even the strategic natural resources as the WATER, health and education, state loans the students as they become debtors for many years...in one word thats wild-capitalism where the supreme aim in life is money, to be a "winner"
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
@maisantaerikakirea Hong Kong was "exposed" to foreign trade, they had no tariffs and the lowest taxes. Why didn't they "break down"? Instead it became one of the richest countries in the world from a slum. Mercantilism and protectionism were debunked a long time ago. Might want to grab a book on basic economics instead of reading Naomi Klein. Comparative advantage (go look it up). Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago 3
@H1TMANactual hey dude, they are trying to impose Friedman's ideas in Greece and people are every day at the streets. Close the statistics and open your television. What statistics?? If we have 100 people and one of them has 1.000.000 dollars while the rest have 1 dollar each, your statistics will say 10.000 dollars average income, while actually there will be one rich and 99 poor. Close the book. open your eyes. Justice can not be countable, you know..
barasko 1 week ago
@barasko They are imposing reality on Greece. Greece borrowed and lived beyond it's means and spend lavishly on it's social programs. Money doesn't grow on trees and bills come due someday. That's what's happening to Greece. If you want to see Friedman's ideas in action, look at Estonia.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
LOL, so this stupid tart Naomi Kleins entire book is generated from misquoting and misunderstanding Friedmans ideas?!
As computer scientists would say-Garbage in Garbage out
ShishirYerramilli 1 month ago
Has anyone noticed that only people from countries that have not implemented Friedmans policies support them? Most Chileans do not, most Argentinians do not, most Russians do not and there was a resent mass-protest in South Korea against his policies becoming law. Simply put, Friedmans policies only help a few (who are already better off then everyone else), at the expence of the rest. His policies have even turned South Africa, a former first worls nation, into a 3ed world one.
dave19941000 1 month ago
@dave19941000 Please provideFacts and figures to back up your claim otherwise shut up
ShishirYerramilli 1 month ago
@ShishirYerramilli There is an entire book that has the figures, its called the Shock Doctrine, which Friedmanits have yet to disprove.
dave19941000 1 month ago
@dave19941000 You clearly haven't bothered to read any of the rebuttal and reviews to Shock Doctrine.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual And you clearly have not read any of the responses to those rebuttals or reviews.
dave19941000 1 month ago
@dave19941000 Umm NO. No one has bothered to rebutt me yet.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
if milton friedman would visit chile he should be protected by thousand of cops because there are MILLIONS of chilean people really happy to kick his dirty ass!!!
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
@maisantaerikakirea Please provide evidence for this fantastic claim
ShishirYerramilli 1 month ago
the so called successful chilean economy has made richer to the oligarchy and poorer to the people. Milton Friedman reduces everything to a merchandise. Milton friedman admits to be many times in chile and he pretends we believe that was for nothing???? , thats an evident lie. Why the neoliberal Chilean government of pinera cant stop students protests, they are fighting because they want to study but they are all in debt due to friedman policies while the generations before study for free!!!
maisantaerikakirea 1 month ago
We must not forget she is Canadian and has lived under socialism her entire life.
The role of the immigrants is critical to understand the process, and it is something critical for socialism, for you can have either immigrants for cheap labor or for welfare. In the first case people like it, in the second, they hate it.
bianodias2000 2 months ago
@bianodias2000
I disagree with you on that. I hate Naomi Klein with a passion and am against socialism to but Canada is not much of a social democracy in the european sense. Quebec is to an extent but not the rest of Canada.
Reido2828 2 months ago
I mean klein so stupid that the Shock Doctrine received rewards from right wing papers in britain. hmmm may be not so stupid
dancthegr 2 months ago
The truth is Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
logtype47 2 months ago
@logtype47 She was NOT a libertarian, she was an Objectivist. She in fact hated libertarians, please go to the Ayn Rand Institute's website and read her quotes on the matter. Objectivists are not libertarians or vice versa. The fools who popularly (as the mob is fickle, stupid, and violent) consider the two very separate philosophies to be the same philsophy destroy their own arguments before making them, by declaring their ignorance. Libertarians like her FICTION books, not her philosophy.
ProIndividual 2 months ago
@ProIndividual LMAO. Libertarians absolutely LOVE Ayn Rand's raggedy ass and her mythological BS writings. All of them are a heaping mass fairly tale enthusiasts who used to watch WWF as if it was a real sport. No way am I going to try and reason with a dude who likely has a Dungeons and Dragons game in his mom's garage. Fuck that.
logtype47 2 months ago
@logtype47
Your ignorant name calling is typical of a liberal moron. You can't debate much nor have any ideas relevant in the 21st century. I tend to find libtards like you to either be young and uninformed or unable to think for your self. Either way your beliefs are against human nature and the more implemented they become into society the more down the human race will be. Don't blindly attack on youtube because you have nothing proper to say you fucking fool.
Reido2828 2 months ago
@Reido2828 i would be remiss not mention that other welfare recipient, Hayek who took medicare. what a fraudulent hack.
logtype47 2 months ago
@logtype47
Were not speaking of frauds my friend. Were talking about two ideologies being very separate from each other when they should be combined in a democratic institution. I just don't like that pig Naomi Klein because she is using social problems to push an ideology. Can her situation work? NOPE because the liberal left in Canada are like the radical right in America. Different beliefs and policies but radical all the same with distortion of facts,manipulating independents etc
Reido2828 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Reido2828 do you consider yourself libertarian? how about a ron paul supporter?
logtype47 1 month ago
@logtype47 BTW, had the state not taxed her for during her entire life who is to say she would not of had the money to care for herself?
She was NOT a libertarian, as she did rail for a state constantly in many ways libertarians do not. She was majorly PRO-WAR and was the influence on the neoconservative movement, not the paleoconservative or libertarian movement which adhered (and do adhere) to noninterventionist foreign policy. You do realize, there are left libertarians, right?
ProIndividual 2 months ago
@logtype47 I'd like to remember that the first people in this country to oppose slavery were libertarians (individualist anarchists) and classical liberals (libertarians of the small government persuasion). They also were the first to be feminists. They (Henry David Thoreau) invented the concept of Civil Disobedience that later Gandhi and MLKjr credited to them when achieving the goals of their movements through nonviolent resistance. Every huge historical issue, they were on the right side of.
ProIndividual 2 months ago
@logtype47 To reduce libertarianism (individualist anarchism and classical liberalism) to Objectivism is to take a philosophy born in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment in the 18th century and reduce it to a philosophy just founded in the last century. Obviously libertarianism has endured 3 centuries, and now is in it's 4th, while Objectivism isn't even 100 years old yet.
Please educate yourself before you regurgitate statist/leftist talking points. It's embarassing for you.
ProIndividual 2 months ago
To no one's surprise, like Michael Moore, bashing capitalism has made her rich. How ironic. I wonder how she would feel if she had to share all her earnings with unemployed writers.
tjohn1986 2 months ago
That was terrible. There is no structure to this video. You just take certain clips of Naomi Klein and certain clips or writings of Milton Friedman when they are talking about the similar subjects and put them together. No refutation occurs here, not even comparison. There's nothing informative in this video, and I don't think you have an opinion to give. I don't think you grasp the concepts.
thediwall 3 months ago
Milton Friedman = Selfish,Greedy,Idiot
ridewave444 3 months ago
And to quote Milton Friedman "do you know of any society that wasnt ran on greed? Its never you thats greedy its always the other person." Milton is far more brilliant then you or I can even imagine. He would run circles around Noam Chomsky. But im not saying I dont like Noam, I like Noam but I seem to agree with Milton more. The problem with Milton was that he tried to apply his economics with a president who didnt believe in peace or the constitution.
scienceatheism 3 months ago
I would take a shit on Milton Friedman's grave and piss all over it.
angelwithbighorns 3 months ago in playlist Documentary
Dear Naomi Klein,
"There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the youth." ---Thomas Sowell
summercures2 4 months ago 11
No point in trying to 'debate' with socialists, marxists or some other delusional leftist fundamentalists.
The facts are there for everyone to see, the history of the failure of socialism is there to see, the poorest people in capitalist countries have always been richer than most people under socialism.
The state cannot allocate resources better than the market, the former is worse in both quality and quantity. It is clear that reasons other than logic are directing the fundamentalists.
spader49 4 months ago
@spader49
Not agreeing or disagreeing with either ideological party here, but the unaccounted for variables make that, on the whole, a very weak argument. Furthermore, your claim isn't even true. The poorest people in capitalist countries live in places like Kenya or India. Pretending that the first world is the only part of the globe that has ever had a free market is an absurdity.
TheTdotPyro 4 months ago
@TheTdotPyro Not every capitalist country has been successful, poor instituions, legal and political systems, corruption, no rule of law etc have often held back economic growth in these places. The point is that there has been no successful country both democratic and prosperous that has not been capitalist. I was making generalisations, it is true that capitalist countries have higher output than socialist ones, and that the poor in successful ones are better off than most in socialist ones.
spader49 4 months ago
Believe whatever you want, all statistics shows that high tax countries are better to live in then low tax ones.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk Good of you to allow us to believe what we want, since your stance is based entirely upon belief. In actual fact, living standards are higher in lower tax countries, like the United States. Socialists are, in fact, so distressed by this actual fact that they are frequently forced to invent meaningless measures that say absolutely nothing about living standards - like the HDI or the Gini coefficient - or make things up - like the discredited WHO rankings.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk No, stupid is referring to the bogus HDI statistic. The US has the highest livig standards in the world (excepting a few tiny countries). The US has the longest life expectancy in the world adjusted for instant deaths from accident/homicide. The native born population in the US has literacy and education levels as high as any other country (lowered only because so many people with less education come to the US for better lives). The US has the finest health care in the world
cont
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Boy have you been living a lie. We are low on literacy, health care and life expectancy. Get educated and stop listening to those tea baggers.
uwmarkymark 3 months ago
@uwmarkymark I've been living the life of a rewsearcher who can read anderstand data. In actual fact, the US literacy rate is as high as anywhere in the world (particularly among the native born); life expectancy adjusted for instant deaths from accidents/murder is the highest in the world and studies of actual care (as opposed to the long discredited WHO rankings) have the US uniformly at the top. I AM educated. Stop listenting to bogus socialist talking points.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I am open to debate, However, I still disagree with your numbers. Life expectancy-I see us at about 30th in the world. Literacy-Well, we may up there as far as reading is concerned, but we lack in math and science. Health care- Now that is a joke. As the wealthiest nation in the world, we have a pretty high percentage that go without insurance. I am so for Obama care, and the rest of you can purchase supplemental insurance. \m/ uwmarkymark@gmail.com
uwmarkymark 3 months ago
@uwmarkymark Again, the study indicating that, adjusted for instant death from accident/homicide, the US has the highest life expectancy is easily located. The issue was literacy, not innumeracy, which is not measured as such in a consistent manner. Lack of insurance is not the same thing as lack of care (nor are they correlated). Socialized medicine has always resulted in delays receiving care that are more lethal than any impact from lack of insurance.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@gulbirk ...according to actual measures of care - survivability after diagnosis of a serious illness, etc. (again, the WHO rankings are completely debunked). The statement you make about unemployment is completely wrong. Long term unemployment rates in the US are lower than all of the socialist countries of Europe and by a factor of two (only the recent governmnet caused fiasco has narroed the long-term gap). And unions are an economic disaster...
You prode yourself on evidence - try some
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom
Hahahah, you`re such a liar, you believe your own bullshit. There are no statistic telling us that the US has better health care for example?
Lots of people in the US dont even have insurence, as in europe, many countries have compleatly free health care. You dont need to pay.
The UN has documented that none of this is correct. Go to the UN development index and see for yourself.
Oh, ok Unions are bad? So slavery is fine then I gues.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk Again, literally every study of survivability after diagnosis of a serious illness places the US on top. The Us has the highest life expectancy adjusted for instant death due to accident/homicide (which have nothing to do with health care quality). Americans have greater access to diagnostic car and equipment and see a primary care physician faster and for longer (all of this INCLUDING the poor).
cont
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@gulbirk There is no such thing as "free" healthcare. The countries with universal health care are plagued by doctor shortages and care rationing. This results in long wait times while people wait for treatment that is at least as lethal as lack of health insurance in the US.
Referencing the laughable HDI again hardly helps your (destroyed) case. And since the alternative to unions is not slavery - but, historically, higher wages and a stronger economy...
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom
Historically? FUCK YOU. If you want to go back in time then FUCK NO. I am not supporting anyone who wants our society to move to the kind of rules it used to be. 90% of the population before 1900 lived in what we today recognise as POOVERTY.
And another thing.
Crime rates are higher in america. Normal people DONT have more money to spend, even though you pay less taxes.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk Yes, back in 1900, 90% of the population lived in what we consider poverty today. Fortunately in the United States, where union participation has been lowest and, particularly during periods when union membership has waned, the US has been the most rapid to increase living standards. Thank capitalism.
And are you really the last to know that the link between poverty and crime has been debunked and, if anything, the link is that crime lead to poverty not vice versa?
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@gulbirk Some of the lowest tax rates in the world - Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland. Highest tax rates around the world - Cuba, North Korea, Bangladesh. Go live.
Bahamas - 0% income tax - richest country in the Carribean.
Higher taxes mean govt and politicians have more money to spend, doesn't necessarily mean it will trickle down to the poor.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
Why do we need to see YOUR comments fly in from the background?
Let US decide what we think about this "debate," instead of you imposing your own spin on it.
Are you working for Fox news?
spunkets 6 months ago
Could you have left your fucking comments off the debate?
Thanks for the distraction, you propagandist asshole.
spunkets 6 months ago
@spunkets
Your video is shit. It was made by someone who doesn't know what he's doing.
Next time, come to me... For a reasonable fee I'll make you a good propaganda film.
thetrueprometheus 6 months ago
This isn't a debate between Klein and Friedman. This is a poorly made video by a man who doesn't know anything about documentary film making.
8 min 20 secs I don't see Naiomi Klein anywhere.
thetrueprometheus 6 months ago
Ok first off.... since the birth of the federal reserve we havent been capitalist. So thats where klien is wrong. Secondly i love socialsts. The past 70 yrs of the raping of our dollars net worth was a direct result of it...yet they think its the solution.
ORACLE063 6 months ago
Naomi Klein couldn't hold Milton Friedman's lunch box.
K20ej88 8 months ago 21
@K20ej88 I wouldn't let her hold Milton friedman's lunch box, people would starve.
pretoshohmoofc 7 months ago
@K20ej88 Milton friedman can't hold Milton friedman's lunchbox... Im sure the fumes from the shit its full of is toxic to the skin.
JRMCNEA 6 months ago
Comment removed
thetrueprometheus 6 months ago
Comment removed
K20ej88 8 months ago
what a jerk, didn't you see the transformation of Chile? I live in south america and chile and brasil are by far the best economies on the region. I don't approve tanks dpinochet dictatorship and allende's death but the economic rules changed chile thanks to friedman ideas.
mauriciolopeztam 8 months ago 3
She can't debate him toe to toe based on ideas, so she must attack his persona. She's just trying to profit off Friedman's coattails. Any idiot could do what Ms. Klein does; it takes true brilliance to do what Friedman did.
jbnwc 9 months ago 19
@jbnwc Friedman's true achievement, in my opinion, is his world record for creating more poor people than anyone in history. It's truly staggering. No one's ever gonna come even close to him. He was the greatest OF ALL TIME.
wuezili 6 months ago
@jbnwc It's very hard to debate a person throwing around illogical dribble. In a jist he is saying government is evil but ppl's greed is "less" evil therefore we should allow a person's greed. He completely omits that we all live on this planet and have a stake in it's resources. But very few are acting to control these resource for their own benefit. The reason we allow governments to control such things is because we have the power to control them. In history, we had to hunt down and kill ppl.
JRMCNEA 6 months ago
@jbnwc Milton Friedman debates the very worst of humanity as the rule. and uses it as a basis for economics. Today his school of economics is reaching its limit, and soon will destroy itself. If we continue to hold greed to a value of a virtue, we will not depart from the insidiousness of. The end game result of run away greed is the destruction of the majority(have nots) as well as the minority(haves). we are destroying resources for the benefit of a few. this will end soon.
JRMCNEA 6 months ago
@JRMCNEA dude what is wrong with you, people pursuing their own self interests (with their abilities) within the rule of law is what the world runs on, not greed. You can say the two are synonymous but then you would be an idiot.
eorobinson3 5 months ago
@eorobinson3 People always try to use nice terms like "self interests" to justify People's lack of restraint and inability to think of other as well as themselves. When you Make billions of dollars on the back of millions of people. And then do everything in your power to prevent others from doing for themselves you have gone beyond greed. Not everything that SHOULD be criminal is. Laws tend to be reactive not proactive. And most of the laws are to limit my ability to fend for myself-
JRMCNEA 5 months ago
@JRMCNEA Of course, since no one made money "off the backs" of anyone nor prevented you (or anyone else) from doing for themselves and the current financial crisis that put so many out of work was entirely of the government's making (specifically the Fed with more than a little help from Fannie and Freddie which created an artificial market for high-risk loans), I'm not sure how the facts help your case.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago in playlist Naomi Klein
@FletchforFreedom We like to think we can buy a plot of land and raise our own food. But if your corn crops are infiltrated by Monsanto GMO crops you are liable for being sued by them. If you don't cook your dairy products The FBI will come down on your farm like you are a drug lord in a movie. why? Because the "approved" Dairy you get at the store is filled with boiled down Blood and puss. They feed us toxins and tell us their good for us. And if you protest they will sue you for slander.
JRMCNEA 4 months ago
@JRMCNEA No one has ever been sued for raising their own food on their own property with their own property. Needless laws requiring pasteurization are not becasue of any real problem with dairy provided today. You are less exposed to toxins in your food than at any time in history. And the moral hazard created by immigration law enforcement (or lack thereof) is a state created problem. Not one of your examples holds up in support of your argument.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@JRMCNEA In fact, you completely misc haracterize the Monsanto issue which was determined in every case not to be any accidental "infiltration" but, instead, a deliberate use of Monsanto product without the company's consent (usually in violation of a pre-existing purchase agreement. It is no accident that Monsanto wins these cases and one farmer was even prosecuted criminally for his deliberate act.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I'm not talking about the cases where seed harvesting was done. I am in fact talking about the Monsanto suits where they tested plants in fields near their farms and found their DNA stain in the crops. Where these people had no contract with Monsanto for their seeds. And in fact where refusing to buy them. Monsanto Tried to blackmail farmers into buying their seeds by claiming they had obtained proof that the farmers had crops growing in their fields without license.
JRMCNEA 4 months ago
@JRMCNEA Except, of course, Monsanto denies suing anyone for inadvertant contamination (and has the paperword to back it up and defendants who have made that claim have been proven to be making false statements. In fact, every time the issue has come up in front of a jury, Monsanto has been awarded damages (something that doesn't happen if jurors believe the little guy is getting shafted). The claims made by those in a counter-suit, not adjudicated, are not the same thing as facts.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@JRMCNEA And before you bring up the Schmeiser case, it bears absolutely no resemblance to the situation you describe. In fact, while the initial presence of GMO canola contamination MAY have been inadvertent, the subsequent actions to preserve that specific strain solely for seed to further grow much more of that crop (amounting to 95% of Schmeier's sizeable fields) did constitute a deliberate act for which Monsanto had a case.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@JRMCNEA And before you bring uop the Schmeiser case, it bears absolutely no resemblace to what you have decribed. While the initial presence of GMO on Scheiser's filed MAY have been inadvertant, the subsequent deliberate saving of that strain to grow significantly more of it (95% of Schmeiser's fields) didconstitute a legitimate basis for a case as essentially everyone with a grasp of law agrees.
It was no persecution by any stretch of the imagination.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@JRMCNEA And before you dishonestly bring up the Schmeiser case, it bears no resemblance to the persecution fairy tale you've presented. While the initial presence of GMO crops MAY have been inadvertent, Schmeiser's deliberate act to preserve and grow that specific strain over 95% of his field constituted a deliberate act about which everyone with a grasp of law agrees gave Monsanto legitimate grounds for a case.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom If the water I use to water my garden inadvertently waters my neighbor's Garden I can't sue them t pay for the water. And because they put their garden close to the fence to take advantage of my reckless us of water does not give me claim to their garden's yield. In this Schmeiser case he didn't not bring in the GMO onto his field he cultivated it once it was there. That is not his fault. If I put my money in someone else's bank account i can't sue them if they spend it.
JRMCNEA 4 months ago
@JRMCNEA One must wonder whether that analogy was unintentionally dumb or deliberately dishonest. There is no titkle held to water. If your neighbor inadvertantly parks his car on your property, you do not get to keep it and, more to the point, you don't get to USE it either. And, in fact, if you do not return the car (or if you use money inadvertantly put in your bank account) you can and will be sued for its return.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Your analogy of a car parked on my property doesn't really work. because I can call and have it towed away. And my neighbor can't sue me for the cost of getting it out of tow. And I wouldn't be sued if I spend money wrongfully put into my account. They would try to collect it later but if you for example close out your account and cancel any funds coming into that account they can't sue you to get it back. Well they could but they wouldn't win.
JRMCNEA 4 months ago
@JRMCNEA In the first case, Monsanto could have been called to remove their property at their expense. In the latter case, you are absolutely wrong. Numerous times either a bank or the IRS has deposited money (or sent a check) erroneously in someone's account. When that money was spent, the individual was sued for return of the funds. I am familiar with several cases and in not one did the defendant ever win. The facts are entirely against you.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom f they find out you are hiring illegal Aliens to cut your grass you go to jail. But Companies with plants on the boarder of Mexico have trailer parks for their illegals and when they workers demand better treatment, the company calls ICE and have them deported so they don't have any recourse. Yes the Aliens are wrong but they are the bottom of the totem. There are millions more waiting in line to be abuse in this way. Btu the people on the top get off Scott free. We don't.
JRMCNEA 4 months ago
@eorobinson3 -My problem is as an individual im limited to what i can do for myself to protect the stability of a system a system where Greedy people make the rules. to protect their ability to encroach on our ability to take care of ourselves and they don't care about the few million that falls through the cracks. When it comes to the the top who could buy the bottom 90% with 40% of their wealth we see them as sacred. But millions they made that wealth off of is seen as lazy and unworthy.
JRMCNEA 5 months ago
@eorobinson3 and whats wrong with me is I know too many people who went to college got "good jobs". were paying back their loans. Until they lost their jobs and where unable to find work for years. And for them to find out after years of searching for work and being called deadbeats. They are being turned down for positions to this day because their lenders have no compassion for the situation they created. By giving people loans with time bombs in them. where the rates at the front tripled
JRMCNEA 5 months ago
@jbnwc
They aren't debating. They aren't in the same place. This has been cut from two totally unrelated videos.
How stupid are you people? Advocate1234 is toying with you.
thetrueprometheus 6 months ago
@jbnwc Regardless of who or what is effected by the ideology. You are an idiot. Using brilliance and Friedman in the same sentence is not only ignorant, but can be very dangerous. I'd be honored to speak face to face with a fool such as yourself. I know I'D have fun. BTW, when did Milty finally return to hell? And he was how old? And when was Naomi, who is rather young, supposed to debate him face to face? Logic can be your friend too. Bet you're "brilliant" in your trailer park, not out here...
wesleyhjr 4 months ago
@wesleyhjr You are right that Naomi Klein is "rather young" ;-)
baroh2413 4 months ago
The best part of this video is watching Milton Friedman take on three other people......
mixmastermeeks 9 months ago 4
IMF reports that the Chinese economy will surpass the American economy by 2016.
vkorchnoifan 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Fat socialists dont have credibility to defende their believes.
patolento 9 months ago
Comment removed
patolento 9 months ago
Strange.... this month, April 2011, we're finally facing the financial crises of the United States. So, if it is the financial crises that finally brings a change in the budget by Congress and the Executive, isn't Friedman correct? The Republicans should have been acting for the previous eight years under Bush but did not. Only when the opposition continues Bush's decline into financial burdens do the Republicans respond. Crises does bring change.
SkyhawkFlyer 10 months ago
@SkyhawkFlyer
A more accurate way to put it is "crises precipitate change". The US has yet to see a real crisis. The 2008 episode was as far as I can tell an aberration in the normal pattern of business due to poor policy on the part of the US govt. but it was only temporary and life has continued on as normal for most people while the deckhands are busily trying to clear the ship of water and prevent it from sinking. The real crisis comes when the Dollar becomes so debased that it won't make
WSWarthog 9 months ago
@SkyhawkFlyer
any sense for the Chinese to export to American markets on the scale that they do currently. There are already signs of this as the BRICS have all agreed to trade among one another in there own currencies revealing a lack of faith in the USD. Once the USA is sitting without the purchasing power to bring in cheap goods from abroad and with a bunch of bankrupt dysfunctional companies unfit for supplying its domestic needs, then you'll see the crisis hit.
WSWarthog 9 months ago
OH MY FUCKING GOD THIS BITCH
WHY DON'T YOU TELL EVERYONE WHAT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CORNERSTONE OF MARXISM IS EH??? HOW ABOUT CAPITALISM DESTROYING ITSELF DUE TO *GASP* CRISES OF OVERPRODUCTION. BFIP3EBFWFDGWEGERRE3FR3F3RJFNO
WSWarthog 10 months ago
I'm finding it difficult contemplating which is more emotionally depressing: watching these blatantly biased, incoherent videos or seeing the, "more to come" at the end, ensuring that you haven't fully exhausted your desire to release more of these monstrosities. Both of which make me want to go skydiving without a parachute. Just... Stop. Please.
flopperface2009 10 months ago
This is stupid as hell. Why mislead everyone into thinking that they are actually debating?
SMSUMarine 10 months ago
@SMSUMarine
Anyone who is so simple-minded as to believe that they're actually debating after watching this video can't be help. Such persons are prone to choking to death on thin air.
WSWarthog 10 months ago
I was about to Vote negative on this video, but Friedman explains himself and I totally disagree that he should be blamed for what happened in Chile only because of the way he thinks.
I also can not give you a positive vote because you really don't explain the relation that Klein makes involving directly Friedman in Chile. To me both sides have their own arguments independent from each other
You try to make an explanation by breaking the video in parts and inputing your own opinion--Not Smart
enerubara 10 months ago
@enerubara Friedman defends himself in one of these videos by advocate1234. He talks about his interaction with the Chilean Government & citizens. He also points out in an article that he had given speeches in Communist China & Yugoslavia but no one ever made a big deal out of it.
goodatbasebal 10 months ago
Geez, these videos are awful.
carldrosa 11 months ago
Free Enterprise is not 'economics', nor is it 'capitalism'. It is never undertaken by amorphous blobs known as Nations or Governments...it is undertaken between individual men. It is the acceptance of a trade of a mutually agreed upon value.
What 'economics' and 'govt' do is merely recharacterize the energy of a mans thought and production into a different unit. In undertaking that shell game...'energy' is 'lost' to the benefit of a select few.
The tools of Divine Right are refined.
abbesieyes 11 months ago
Naomi and Milton, two sides of a Roman disinfo coin.
What is not mentioned is that economics is not at all a true science, but pseudo science. Economics, regardless of the school, is the limited hangout by which production is recharacterized and stolen from the common man.
Milton is quite right that it doesn't matter which economics one uses, for it is only a tool to one end. And it is only one of the many wedges Rome uses against her targets.
abbesieyes 11 months ago
@abbesieyes
"Economics, regardless of the school, is the limited hangout by which production is recharacterized and stolen from the common man."
How do you propose to run a state or any sort of advanced society without a scientific basis for analyzing economic activity?
WSWarthog 10 months ago
@WSWarthog I'm sorry...who is running society? No one. It is one of the primary trades on ignorance. The dominance of cycles on man has been known for millenia. Rome does love to establish pseudo sciences (like the pseudo science of 'risk') and then build entire industries around them.
abbesieyes 10 months ago
@abbesieyes
And what makes you think the concept of risk is unscientific?
WSWarthog 10 months ago
@WSWarthog Reality. Look to the vast number of times supposedly immense probabilities of risk are violated. Its a trade on ignorance. The concept of 'averages' as valid basis is quite flawed. Establishing valid benchmarks is specifically avoided, because the data would show the system up for what it is.
As to 'management' via economists and mountebanks, one has only to look at family farming, one of the most basic trades. The thieves take the life of the farmer by degrees, then his land.
abbesieyes 10 months ago
@abbesieyes
"The concept of 'averages' as valid basis is quite flawed"
What do you propose as an alternative for statisticians to use?
"As to 'management' via economists and mountebanks, one has only to look at family farming, one of the most basic trades."
You do realize that Friedman is against government intervention?
WSWarthog 10 months ago
@WSWarthog Friedman isn't 'against' anything (other than the Republic), he's a slave of Rome. Part of their Companio. He served Reagan, a jesuit-of-the-short robe. No one of any arrete does so. Naomi Klein, also Companio. Two slaves of Rome undertaking false dialogue for the sheep. Puppet theater on googles conditioningtube.
I propose no use of 'statisticians'; "lies, damn lies, and statistics'. None of them know how to establish a valid baseline either.
abbesieyes 10 months ago
total bastardization of what Naomi is saying Naomi is not championing centralized hardline soviet controlled economics. She is not a collectivist. When she says "we can make a more just society," she is referring to a society where people aren't reduced to the role where only their purchasing power counts. I love how the right only sees things in a pluralistic, us against them view. Can't you wake up to see we aren't fighting the cold war anymore. Christ!
robsgotit 11 months ago
@robsgotit what's wrong with a society based upon purchasing power? what other measure i there? what is a more just society? where has that happened? purchasing power is purely the ability to choose within means. what else is there? some greater virtue beyond pure economic ability?
onojmai 11 months ago
@robsgotit
yeah, sure, only the right sees things as us against them. rubbish.
njcuvelier1 10 months ago
Dreadfully biased propaganda... nothing wrong with an argument but this is designed to show only one side in a good light.. Avoid !!!!
MegaGrumbleduke 11 months ago
friedman says that free market principles can be adopted by totalitarian regimes such as 1968 chile but that does not make the principles totalitarian or mean the free market system is best utilized in a totalitarian system. and he is right. but then free market true believers who claim their system is a force for moral good (as do virtually all republican politicians) should admit the free market on its own can boast no such claim & so its manifestations depend on the political context.
canteluna 1 year ago
@canteluna yes, totalitarian regimes can use free market principles to their benefit, but only to a degree. chinese capitalism is not much different than american capitalism. in no case has a totalitarian regime ever allowed free markets. if they did, they wouldn't be considered totalitarian.
you're right about the political context, without a doubt. in order to get the free market to work in the USA, for example, the libertarians need a majority. tea baggers are feaux free market capitalists.
ashxlon 1 year ago
Shes like Sarah Palins evil doppleganger from hell.
Porojukaha 1 year ago
I love how all these people are all criticizing Friedman now that hes dead. They had to wait because they didnt have the balls to say a word against him while he was alive, because they knew they would get DESTROYED by him in a debate.
Porojukaha 1 year ago
naomi klein, your mediocre existence makes me laugh... talk about community college graduate
MclovinIrishRnB 1 year ago
Does this mean the 0bama Administration is wrong? Wasn't it Rham Emanual who said, "Never let a crisis go to waste?"
ReddNeckerson 1 year ago
prolific writer!!
timmonsandco 1 year ago
Here is a woman that believes that she can run the world because she has never had to run anything!
swixican 1 year ago
@swixican Did you pay royalties to Sowell for using his quote? lol. When did the Reaganites oppose using our money to prop up corporations? Ya, see it's ok if our money goes up, but it better not go down. Somehow it's better for it to "trickle down" rather than just giving it to people. Sad.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@canteluna
@ashxlon
What a debate! I read through this first page here and, feeling the pull to respond, went back the full 8 pages to read the entire discussion. I'm so glad that i did. What an example of fundamental disagreement from two highly reasonable individuals!
ashxlon: I can agree with a number of points you've made, such as ambiguous language having no place in governing documents and non-aggression. It ends there, however. I feel the need to elaborate, but canteluna already has
CuiBonoV 1 year ago
WoW! Is she for-real?
zepDzen 1 year ago
Wow, what a crazy bitch!
CelticKraut 1 year ago
Holy balls on crack, this bitch is crazy. I feel like i'm losing IQ points listening to her.
WanderingSeer 1 year ago 2
@WanderingSeer Never let a crisis go to waste. LOL
kdogg132 1 year ago
Both Libertarians and Anarchists are right that our government seeks a level of totalitarianism that undermines the constitution that exists to protect individual freedom at risk by the unchecked power of the state--or any power elite. Republicans and Democrats, both of whom covet power for its own sake, keep Americans confused and distracted with their shell game. The problem with the Friedman style Libertarians is in their mis-understanding of private and public domains.
canteluna 1 year ago
…the new world trade system was explained to me. It is a system with rules designed by corporations, run by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. Its rules exclude almost any feedback from any other sector of society.... It's a recipe for unleashing "success to the successful" loops, until they generate enormous accumulations of power and huge centralized planning systems that will destroy themselves -Donella Meadows
happyhalberstam 1 year ago
Real free markets are the bane of fascism. Real free markets require a pervasive freedom of information, protection of individual and private property rights, protection of agreements and contracts, and this allergy to corporations by the viewers of this video is ridiculous.
EnnesX 1 year ago
@EnnesX It is not the market that creates freedom, it is the social and government system aligned with free markets. 'Real free markets' are a fantasy, and a poisonous idea. Real and just society is what we should be striving for.
happyhalberstam 1 year ago
I hope that Milton Friedman dies an extremely potent version of his concept of economic freedom i.e. starvation in a regulation free state that has a leader who is bought and paid for by an imperial economic power. Rot in free market fascism douche Friedman.
happyhalberstam 1 year ago
@happyhalberstam how does one equate friedman's ideas on free markets with fascism?
ashxlon 1 year ago
@ashxlon It has played out with numerous examples in our history, and others. It seems that the only way these principles can work is with extreme business and government collusion. Without, the people rise up- because they starve. So they have the iron fist.
happyhalberstam 1 year ago
@happyhalberstam fascism is not what a free market becomes. it is what happens when the free market isn't allowed to work. friedman was no defender of corporatism.
ashxlon 1 year ago
@ashxlon unregulated free markets are the spoils of the ideology of freidman. they are the necessity of fascism. they are the fact of our times. fascism is not required, but it seems to be inevitable given the circumstances. immoral, inhumane and unjust. feel it.
happyhalberstam 1 year ago
@happyhalberstam fascism requires regulated markets. gov't cannot help big business without regulation.
ashxlon 1 year ago
Never let a crisis go to waste Naomi. She probably thinks she's the smartest non-economist on the planet. What an idiot.
kdogg132 1 year ago 2
Of course Friedman opposes the draft! Why use the public army when you can outsource and save more money from private ones? Not to mention it stirs up public sentiment which could make them more human-like.
jakiner 1 year ago
No good law is ever based on morality, but, rather, efficiency, because to align any law with an ethic or a moral must necessarily state what is right and what is wrong, which would be tantamount to a state sponsored religion. The reason we have laws like do not steal, and do not murder is not because our founding fathers were christians (that is bullshit), but because it would not be efficient for a society to live without these rules.
caulds989 1 year ago
@caulds989 "No good law is ever based on morality, but, rather, efficiency" WOW! I thought we dispensed with this fallacy in Philosophy 101! That ethics have a utilitarian component is obvious. However, if you don't believe a certain level of morality is intrinsic (just as language is) then what keeps you out of prison? If you act based only on efficacy and without regard to innate morality then you lack empathy and are likely a sociopath. Or maybe you just need a more rounded education.
canteluna 1 year ago
@canteluna altruistic behavior is all about efficacy. moral laws have never kept anyone from going to prison. in fact, they only serve to fill the cells. on what basis do you define morals for all? such things are self-governing (just as language is). caulds989 is correct. the only good laws are the most efficient ones. how can you be so condescending? your tone is no reflection upon your target, it only reflects upon you.
ashxlon 1 year ago
@ashxlon it is not up to me to define morals for all but only to say all have morals. You say, "moral laws have never kept anyone from going to prison." Really? Never? How about some evidence for that. You guys need to back up your assertions with evidence. Give examples of jails filled with people there for their moral convictions. I assume you don't mean people like Thoreau, Nelson Mandela or the civil rights advocates who helped change the civil rights laws here?
canteluna 1 year ago
@canteluna 1. moral laws are themselves social definitions of morality. their authors impose those morals onto society. 2. I cannot provide evidence for a negative. 3. I can provide evidence that moral laws fill the cells needlessly. Laws prohibiting drugs and prostitution are moral laws. Two examples of many. I'm not talking about political prisoners.
Yes, everyone has morals. Those morals are relative to the individual, not the state.
ashxlon 1 year ago
@ashxlon That laws regarding drugs + prostitution are “moral laws” is conjecture. A case on efficacy grounds can also be made.
Prop 19 in California that would have legalized marijuana just failed. Why? Given it’s decriminalized already for small possession, my guess is people objected less on grounds of morality than efficacy.
canteluna 1 year ago
@ashxlon my argument with you guys is more a matter of degree than an attempt to categorically deny that your statements have any validity whatsoever. That "the BEST laws..." etc., is simply an opinion and not fact. That "moral laws have NEVER..." etc., is hyperbole. My argument is that legislating on the grounds of efficacy alone is problematic and leads to laws like the "Patriot Act" which, in my opinion, is not only unconstitutional but, more importantly, an assault on human dignity.
canteluna 1 year ago
@ashxlon The ADA is an example of a law based more in morality than efficacy. Maintaining this law costs the tax payers a lot of money. Is that efficacious? Many would argue that because it isn’t efficacious, it should go. I disagree. This is a case where morality overrides efficacy.
Also, medical insurers have not been required by law to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. This policy may be efficacious but is it right?
canteluna 1 year ago
@canteluna neither morality nor efficacy are good reasons for passing laws. 1. i am not opposed to getting rid of the ADA. 2. insurance companies are assessors of risk. you cannot assess risk without considering pre-existing conditions. 3. what is or isn't right isn't up to a society to impose on individuals.
i never consider the efficacy of a law. laws do not stop action, they only attempt to remove the incentive for taking action (this is not applicable to all laws, of course).
ashxlon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ashxlon You begin by defending the assertion that "No good law is ever based on morality, but, rather, efficiency" and then say "neither morality nor efficacy are good reasons for passing laws." Then what is?
And, you said you can't prove a negative, then claim that laws do not stop action? You can't possibly know what actions never occurred due to the disincentive of laws. All you can say is that laws do not stop all actions.
canteluna 1 year ago
Comment removed
ashxlon 1 year ago
@canteluna . to the question, 'then what is?': efficiency, in a word. the answer is definitely more complex than a word, however. 2. no, laws do not stop all actions (i really don't like how that sentence is worded, but i'll go along). i cannot gather data to support my claim. i needn't.
ashxlon 1 year ago