I have to wonder what the rest of the picture is - Freidman only showed the side of Hong-Kong that supports his thesis. No social system is that simple. I'm all for free-markets, but exploitation does happen - consider the robber barrons of our own history.
@psusac Didn't Robber Barons use political means to gain or maintain economic advantage over other businesses and competition? So such a thing would actually be moving away from the concept of free-markets. Although, you may be right that certain unfair things might have happened to some people but I think Friedman was just generalizing the example of free-markets in Hong Kong for the layman.
@Seiku I agree. The problem is there is no such thing as a free market, and there never has been. All governments find it in their interest to manipulate the market, if only by printing currency. In addition, all companies find it in their interest to manipulate the market to stack the deck in their favor - thus stifling innovation. Many of the largest economies in the world are corporations. Do you really think they do not attempt to govern the markets? Freidman was an academic.
@psusac:L But corporations can only "govern the markets" if the goverenment either allows them to or gets paid off to. That's called "cronyism". That's government's fault and corruption, not corporate "power".
(continued) which land tax would, if I remember correctly in thinking they have one, allow the State to allocate who has permits for premises and would induce against the cultivation and maintenance of land as a producer good if it cannot be sold or rented a la the Georgist allegedly anti-exploitation land tax, based on the idea that the rentier of land produces nothing-which should lead us to query the premise of paying the State to reside in its geographical extent of monopolist jurisdiction.
Didn't Hong Kong have a Georgist land-tax? I would imagine that was imposed by quasi-Socialists in the pocket of special-interests seizing the illegitimate abrogation of property rights by the State, to gain their de facto ownership of the land protected by a form of extortionate rent in the land tax, cartelised by the tax regulating i.e. keeping regular the prices paid basically illegalising competition (much like, ironically, a Friedmanite system of some externality-enjoyment compensation)
Comment removed
hamburgerfrenchchips 5 days ago
The only mistake the privatization of Hong Kong has made was the random circle in the highway at 1:07
RebelConserve 1 week ago
We Hong Kong people used to make Milton Friedman proud. I doubt we still do now.
laurencepak 1 month ago
@laurencepak Why do you say that?
PolKsio 3 weeks ago
British Hong Kong.
keynesac 1 month ago
I have to wonder what the rest of the picture is - Freidman only showed the side of Hong-Kong that supports his thesis. No social system is that simple. I'm all for free-markets, but exploitation does happen - consider the robber barrons of our own history.
psusac 7 months ago
@psusac Didn't Robber Barons use political means to gain or maintain economic advantage over other businesses and competition? So such a thing would actually be moving away from the concept of free-markets. Although, you may be right that certain unfair things might have happened to some people but I think Friedman was just generalizing the example of free-markets in Hong Kong for the layman.
Seiku 6 months ago
@Seiku I agree. The problem is there is no such thing as a free market, and there never has been. All governments find it in their interest to manipulate the market, if only by printing currency. In addition, all companies find it in their interest to manipulate the market to stack the deck in their favor - thus stifling innovation. Many of the largest economies in the world are corporations. Do you really think they do not attempt to govern the markets? Freidman was an academic.
psusac 6 months ago 2
@psusac:L But corporations can only "govern the markets" if the goverenment either allows them to or gets paid off to. That's called "cronyism". That's government's fault and corruption, not corporate "power".
eimb1999 2 months ago
(continued) which land tax would, if I remember correctly in thinking they have one, allow the State to allocate who has permits for premises and would induce against the cultivation and maintenance of land as a producer good if it cannot be sold or rented a la the Georgist allegedly anti-exploitation land tax, based on the idea that the rentier of land produces nothing-which should lead us to query the premise of paying the State to reside in its geographical extent of monopolist jurisdiction.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Didn't Hong Kong have a Georgist land-tax? I would imagine that was imposed by quasi-Socialists in the pocket of special-interests seizing the illegitimate abrogation of property rights by the State, to gain their de facto ownership of the land protected by a form of extortionate rent in the land tax, cartelised by the tax regulating i.e. keeping regular the prices paid basically illegalising competition (much like, ironically, a Friedmanite system of some externality-enjoyment compensation)
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago