His argument for capitalism is rather weak. He conflates imagination and innovation with entrepreneurship. Also, Einstein is a poor example to use, his unique ideas were the fruit of his years in state education, his secular work at the time was as a patent clerk LULZ! He was also very pro-socialism. Socialism at it's core is not about bureaucracy, it's about communities looking after themselves. His idea that humans are innately greedy is a woefully defeatist excuse for his imbecilic worldview.
@TheChongOz Forced to be equal without individuality and without a sense of identity or freedom... What kind of world do you want? Did you know Socialism & Communism & The Nazi Party are all left-wing? But of course, before Capitalism we were o.k.--that is ok without economic freedom or economic justice or the principles behind The Constitution to do what you suit best for you & the right to live in America while being Un-American.
"The capitalist class owns the factories, the banks, and transportation-the means of production and distribution. Workers sell their ability to work in order to acquire the necessities of life. . This surplus is called "profit" and consists of unpaid labor that the capitalists appropriate and use to achieve ever-greater profits. These profits are turned into capital which capitalists use to further exploit the producers of all wealth-the working class."
socialism is not communism Friedman seems to be linking the two together which is totally wrong dont listen to this crap
If the world were to get rid of the mentality of mass consumption and industrialization and replace that with the ideology of equality for everyone We would be living in a better place... where would these big corporations go if people stopped doing what they wanted.. thats bs when he says societies cannot grow under another system WHat where people doing before Capitalism!!
@XxxxExclusivexxxX While bankers completely manipulate the distribution of money and some people don't even work hard because they inherit that money.Capitalism is solely about making a profit by any means and nothing else.
@xxStrikerrr So because you have a hand full of bankers that exploit flawed laws means capitalism does not function well? That's apples and oranges. If bankers are doing something wrong, then the lawmakers should fix the rules so that they can't do something unjust. That is basic and has nothing to do with whether capitalism is good or bad. You only pointed out a venomous snake in a forest. That doesn't mean the forest should not exist.
@buddacafe Lawmakers are bribed to do things such as deregulating and privatizing.The only thing that matters in capitalism is the striving for profit by any means necessary. People with a lower economic status are nothing more than mindless consumers and those on the higher end will do things such use harmful chemicals in products for low cost. They will use low quality and harmful ingredients while dumbing down and misinforming consumers so they will become ill and turn toward the..
@xxStrikerrr Telling me about Lawmakers breaking the law in a capitalist system is the same as bank robbers breaking laws in a free society. That does not mean capitalism does not work. Your describing a snake in the forest. When the government is as big as the corporations, they form a bond that's out of control.
@buddacafe Political bribery is one of the inevitable symptoms of capitalism.Especially a symptom where capitalism is in place when the world is a a lower state of consciousness where the "reptilian" survival instinctive brain is dominant and nothing else matters,but achieving capital by any means necessary.The snake of the human mind indeed. As if corporations being more powerful then government will someone make profit not a primal aspect of living. It doesn't matter which one is..
@buddacafe bigger,but which one is being "persuaded" which money.Look what one of the most powerful family lineages in the world has to say : Mayer Amschel Rothschild - "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
@buddacafe And if you want to get into esoteric aspects of this controlled world then look at the giant phallic symbols in D.C,Vatican, and London which represent the military-industrial complex,religious control,banking system and not to mention they are independent city states. The phallic represents the male part of the mind which is the will,severity without mercy,(Hitler's regime:Triumph of the Will). Capitalism is all about this.
@tomj782 Better to learn how and why things happen rather than passively accept it as untouchable truth and let the your mind succumb to it.Better to spend time on the internet rather than indulge yourself in docile,blind consumerism.
@buddacafe pharmaceutical companies for so called "medicine" which creates other illness that will require more drugs and that means more money for the corporations.Capitalism promotes greed and a result would be the imbalance of wealth.You might say capitalism rewards hard workers ,but in actuality those who work two jobs are usual the lower or middle class while wealthy overweight (who look as if they never worked hard in their lives) spend millions of dollars advertising some ..
@buddacafe product that was possibly made by someone in a sweatshop working almost all say in health declining conditions that isn't even earning a fraction of what that supposedly "hard working " individual who does nothing more sit in a office all day.Planned obsolesce also comes with capitalism.Don't forget how much some can profit from war let alone a "war of terror" where there is no real enemy.Milton also supported trickle down economics which is basically being pissed on.
One more thing. It's a disservice to us all if we act like only the free market, and not government sponsored initiatives don't lead to a better well being for everybody. Anybody else find it ironic that while they are bashing government on the internet, they're completely unaware that if it wasn't for government funding and research, we wouldn't even have an internet to debate an issue on?
" ... just tell me where in the world you'd find these angels ..." -- Friedman
EXACTLY.
And that exposes the core mysticism of socialism. It's the notion that political hustlers -- those who get their paychecks from the taxpayer -- are somehow unencumbered by greed, envy, spite or any other of the failings of us mere mortals. Socialists get it perfectly backwards, even those who hide such politics behind the L-word.
@TylerNull Sure, but the analogy associating capitalism with intense self interest can also be applied in associating socialism with compassion and empathy. We all experience both emotions. Just because we all share a common trait doesn't mean that we should set up a system that encourages and rewards such behavior, especially if the system is set up as if humans lack any concept of helping other people when they are in need.
Friedman's observations aren't "analogy". He points to the historical record to evidence which system is truly "helping other people", and which isn't. The immutable nature of man holds regardless of political bent.
The only people socialists help are themselves, and they do so with other people's money. That's neither compassion nor empathy.
@TylerNull Well, America must have slipped Friedman's mind when he was discussing "capitalism and largely free trade" helping people escape poverty. America under Alexander Hamilton and after the Civil War implemented protectionist policies that helped America grow into an industrial power house. I'm not saying that free trade doesn't have it's place. But the simple logistics of how it is set up causes the wealthy to greatly benefit from it at the expense of the poor.
You abandoned your first set of notions as soon as they were addressed. Your latest attempt to malign capitalism includes some of the broadest of odd claims made odder still by the fact they're so far removed from your conclusion.
It's a conclusion that happens to be a well worn phrase used in socialist proselytism. More than a mere coincidence too, it's devoid of reason, & denies Friedman's observation & ignores my previous reply thereof, as well.
@TylerNull Actually I didn't. You were simply taking Friedman's word that throughout history capitalism and free trade helped people escape their plight of poverty. I showed specific instances where free trade did not help major industrial powerhouses of today. Most industrial countries grew because they were protectionist, not pure free trade. Take a look at Haiti and ask them if free trade has helped them. If anyone is making broad claims far removed from reality, it's you.
"not pure free trade" -- you're arguing against a claim that wasn't made. Even if valid, yours would represent only one aspect of an economy. And there's ALWAYS a discrepancy between ANY ideal and its realizations. So what?
After misrepresenting his observations, you then insert a false inversion of his valid logic.
I.e., if "A" implies "B", then "B" does NOT imply "A". Friedman's point is only the former, but yours relies on posing his as an inversion of the latter.
@TylerNull Fine drop the pure. I'll lay my views out crystal clear so you won't nit-pick and miss my main points. My point is protectionist policies and not free trade help countries. A country escapes poverty by establishing manufacturing and industry sectors that employs its own people, not by importing cheap products into a country that only benefits the wealthy because most of the population don't have good jobs.
"protectionist policies and not free trade help countries"
... as demonstrated by the fact that all the dominant nations of their era, e.g., Portugal, Holland, Spain, England, USA, were all their era's largest international traders?
Again, your "point" isn't merely wrong, it only tangentially approaches Freidman's much broader point, which is that MARKET BASED economies, not CENTRALLY PLANNED economies, are where and how the masses have escaped poverty.
@TylerNull Also, believing that everybody achieves prosperity by having everybody look out for themselves (i.e. mainly through making money) is ridiculous. The housing bubble is a perfect example. The type of greed that Friedman advocates doesn't produce efficient markets. It produces distorted markets. Even Greenspan himself stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief".
Regardless of your ex-bureaucrat quote, the current Fannie Mayhem we're all mired in is a "perfect example" of Fannie Fascism. Thank FDR and every Democrat since.
It is the inevitable result of political hustlers "helping people"; nationalizing the mortgage industry, mandating suicidal lending practices, and convincing the economically illiterate the resultant SKYROCKETING of house prices made them "more affordable".
@TylerNull Greenspan himself placed more blame on wall street than Fannie and Freddie. Again that can be easily researched (NY Times has an article on it). Referring to your point about "dominant nations of their era" that benefited so much from free trade, they benefited from protectionist policies that allowed them to build up an industry, and then they convinced poorer countries to accept free trade. The result was that the richer countries became richer at the expense of the poorer country.
@FrankCastlez Fair enough. The insane corruption in the government certainly doesn't help them. But take Bill Clinton himself admitting that free trade for Haiti has made them worse off (specifically the rice farmers and Haiti's inability to produce food in a timely manner when the earthquake hit). You can look it up online. Why would a country need to import a simple commodity like RICE which can be easily produced in their own country? Because ideology blinded people to pragmatism.
@crocop60 But in 1995, when the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund pressured Haiti to cut import tariffs on rice from 50 percent to 3 percent, cheap subsidized rice from the US began to flood into the country. Urban consumers benefited for a while from the low-cost imports, but they caused national rice production to plummet. Today, Haiti is now importing 80 percent of the rice it consumes—just as world prices have doubled.
I dont think this is pragmatic but greed on banks part
@TylerNull I agree Political ambition is definitely not nobler than economic ambition. In fact any ambition for power and control(pol, eco or otherwise) is based on greed(which you've already mentioned is human nature). Therefore it becomes even more important to not allow any individual or institute to gain too much power and control over the means of production. The aphorism "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" explains this perfectly. Equality is a prerequisite for freedom.
The founding principle of the USA is equality in the application of RULES.
Whereas the founding principle of socialism is equality in OUTCOMES.
Indeed, that perversion of that American ideal is the spawn of corrupting laws. E.g., federal laws which authorize and sponsor race-based discrimination & (un)protected classes. Socialists ferociously defended such "Affirmative Action" as much as Democrats did their former race-based laws.
@TNull equality in OUTCOMES" By outcome if u mean d amt of wealth ur allwd to possess, yes it wud b lmtd. So?The idea behind bldng a society is not hw many billionaires it can produce, it is to provide for everybody. The OUTCOME that u should consider is human creativity, which is the only reason for all the technological progress. U need Earth's resources and a creative mind to create, its got nothing to do with money. Imo more ppl will be creative in a collectivist (im not a socialist) sys.
modern capitalism is speculative capitalism, it used to be creative capitalism. now we have privatisation of profits and socialisation of losses. robber-capitalism will eat up itself sometime.
One of the differences between Liberalism-Capitalism and Socialism is with Capitalism people can make as much money as their Education, Skills, Intelligence and Production and the Market will bare. With Socialism people can only make as much money as the Government will allow. Capitalism is about Free Markets and Competition. Socialism is about Communitarianism and Monopoly not allowing people get too farther out then the rest of Population even if their Skills and Production are better.
@FRSFreeStatePlus I completely disagree. Firstly, the Government is not the only authoritarian institute. For a long time it was the church remember. And currently our economic institutions fill that role. Do you really think somebody living on daily wages is free to become whoever he wants? He is only thinking about survival. He cant possibly compete with a college grad. The idea is to give everybody an opportunity for growth not a privileged few.............
....................Secondly, I agree when you say a Socialist Government limits growth. Therefore the idea is to have a collectivist society without any authoritarian institute (Government or any other). Also, I agree that materialistic growth would be limited to an extent however I believe 'being the best you can be' should have little to do with materialistic growth, more to do with intellectual growth (exploring your creativity and becoming the best you can be intellectually).........
.........And intellectual growth will definitely not be limited because here there is no conflict of interest. PS: Just think about how many Einstein's we might have lost because they didnt get any opportunity. The real wealth is human resource, which is the only thing responsible for all the progress (and not the Capitalist System).
I don't live in the Third World and I'm not an expert on it, But I guess like any poor kid in the First World, through Public Education and these countries can't afford it. Then that gets to Foreign Aide targeted at Public Education. Until they get on their feet.
@FRSFreeStatePlus Foreign aide-u mean debt. Under capitalism somebody always wins and somebody always loses. Ppl think capitalism works coz the general std. of living has improved in the west, which ofcourse is true. However u have to look at the reasons. Firstly during the glorious days of imperialism they made a lot of money of their colonies. (contd.).
(contd.) Secondly, before globalization there was still a lot of poverty in the west, but post globalization the world has become the market. The poor in west have become a little better off at the expense of the 3rd world. The slums have reduced in the west and increased in the 3rd world. This happens in subtle ways so is not obvious to most ppl. And the Capitalists can now boast abt the success of their sys by giving the eg. of west. (contd.)
(contd.) Under capitalism somebody wins but somebody always loses. Win-win situation is a big myth. The only way Capitalism can work for this entire planet is if we find another planet to exploit.
@MrMadPsyntist In socialist countries they are exceeding losing their position on a daily basis.. If the world was entirely socialist? We would not have the enormous advances in science, medicine and technology we have today.. We may not even have the car.. Take the I phone for instance, In yester year there was regulations (socialism monopolies) that kept anyone from competing with Bell, had not capitalism and deregulation happened? We would have never have had cell phones.
@SuperGuitarman69 Why do you believe that in socialist countries we would not have the enormous advances in science? Hadn't ESSR gone to moon? What I mean is that people always try and will try to make new discoveries and we don't need the motivation of big profits in order to do a research. If we use the machines and modern technology for our needs, we would have a lot of free time to do things that we like without capitalist's pressure!
@paulkap12 What is the motivation then? Is it more noble to pursue something merely for your name in neon lights than to pursue it for profit? Let me try to help you here.. People need to earn a living right? Well what motivation does one have, if there isn't anything at the end of the rainbow.. If making an incredible discovery doesn't prove to be any advantage to you and your family then what motivation is there.. Neon lights? Hardly..
@SuperGuitarman69 This is simply wrong. The U.S. government has subsidized or invented a ton of technologies that we take for granted today. The pentagon developed the computer, internet, grant money comes from the government for breakthroughs in health care technology. After these inventions are realized, corporations privatize them and sell them off to make a profit. So in essence, taxpayers subsidize a lot of research and development that corporations do.
@crocop60 No, Boeing was developing computer technology in commercial aircraft, that first went into military craft, then NASA outsourced to develope computer technology.. This is also true of a nifty little invention known as the automobile.. Einstein made breakthroughs in science without grant money.. Cancer treatments, cures for many diseases were made by pharmaceutical companies outside of government.. Government is currently wasting tax dollars on "green"projects it too will be on private
@MrMadPsyntist In socialist countries they are exceeding losing their position on a daily basis.. If the world was entirely socialist? We would not have the enormous advances in science, medicine and technology we have today.. We may not even have the car.. Take the I phone for instance, In yester year there was regulations (socialism monopolies) that kept anyone from competing with Bell, had not capitalism and deregulation happened? We would have never have had cell phones.
@MrMadPsyntist Also Russia never went to the moon.. The drive for Russia was to out do the United States.. In the rush to explore space as well as the nuclear arms race.. There was no profit motive for them. The United States benefited greatly from outsourcing to private industry, technology to get them to the moon.. So the US had an unfair advantage.. They had companies that were making profits for the mad rush to the moon.. Hence, why we beat them to the moon and in the arms race.
@FRSFreeStatePlus I can guarentee you won't find anything better. I don't see a problem with medicare. People act like its some terrible thing when everyone benefits from it.
@FRSFreeStatePlus now tell me why a basketball stars make more than a doctor working his life time saving lives?
If friedman had such cynical views of humans, where are these angels that are supposed to donate their money to the poor?
Capitalism has no ethical and moral core! It degenerates people to liars, hard, cold, unnatural men. It only makes people care about dollar signs and nothing else.
I completely agree with Friedman and disagree with Donahue (based upon his views expressed elsewhere), but I give this to Donahue: He asks a question, even challenges Friedman, and then lets Friedman answer without interruption, obfuscation, or the cut off button. I'd love to see him back on the air if he were allowed to give equal time to to ideas he disagrees with.
A succinct summary of everything that's right with capitalism.
rah1420usa 2 days ago
this guy, friedman should better be called hangman. Actually, he is responsable of more deaths as Hitler.
radurambo 1 week ago
His argument for capitalism is rather weak. He conflates imagination and innovation with entrepreneurship. Also, Einstein is a poor example to use, his unique ideas were the fruit of his years in state education, his secular work at the time was as a patent clerk LULZ! He was also very pro-socialism. Socialism at it's core is not about bureaucracy, it's about communities looking after themselves. His idea that humans are innately greedy is a woefully defeatist excuse for his imbecilic worldview.
MinotawrTV 1 month ago
In Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism/Socialism, it's other way around.
FlawlessCock 1 month ago
@TheChongOz Forced to be equal without individuality and without a sense of identity or freedom... What kind of world do you want? Did you know Socialism & Communism & The Nazi Party are all left-wing? But of course, before Capitalism we were o.k.--that is ok without economic freedom or economic justice or the principles behind The Constitution to do what you suit best for you & the right to live in America while being Un-American.
andresan3277 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheChongOz 1 month ago
"The capitalist class owns the factories, the banks, and transportation-the means of production and distribution. Workers sell their ability to work in order to acquire the necessities of life. . This surplus is called "profit" and consists of unpaid labor that the capitalists appropriate and use to achieve ever-greater profits. These profits are turned into capital which capitalists use to further exploit the producers of all wealth-the working class."
1019079 1 month ago
socialism is not communism Friedman seems to be linking the two together which is totally wrong dont listen to this crap
If the world were to get rid of the mentality of mass consumption and industrialization and replace that with the ideology of equality for everyone We would be living in a better place... where would these big corporations go if people stopped doing what they wanted.. thats bs when he says societies cannot grow under another system WHat where people doing before Capitalism!!
TheChongOz 3 months ago
@TheChongOz There is no direct difference between them, you might call socialism the precursor of communism. Both bring poverty.
DrStrangebomb1993 1 month ago
whats great about capitalism is that if you have a strong drive and work hard towards your goal, you will be rewarded. good 'ol american hard work
XxxxExclusivexxxX 3 months ago
@XxxxExclusivexxxX While bankers completely manipulate the distribution of money and some people don't even work hard because they inherit that money.Capitalism is solely about making a profit by any means and nothing else.
xxStrikerrr 1 month ago
@xxStrikerrr Replace the word Bankers with Unions and your spot on.
buddacafe 4 weeks ago
@buddacafe Replacing it will further expose the corruption of capitalism at that is by using money as a means to slander and promote lies.
xxStrikerrr 3 weeks ago
@xxStrikerrr So because you have a hand full of bankers that exploit flawed laws means capitalism does not function well? That's apples and oranges. If bankers are doing something wrong, then the lawmakers should fix the rules so that they can't do something unjust. That is basic and has nothing to do with whether capitalism is good or bad. You only pointed out a venomous snake in a forest. That doesn't mean the forest should not exist.
buddacafe 4 weeks ago
@buddacafe Lawmakers are bribed to do things such as deregulating and privatizing.The only thing that matters in capitalism is the striving for profit by any means necessary. People with a lower economic status are nothing more than mindless consumers and those on the higher end will do things such use harmful chemicals in products for low cost. They will use low quality and harmful ingredients while dumbing down and misinforming consumers so they will become ill and turn toward the..
xxStrikerrr 3 weeks ago
@xxStrikerrr Telling me about Lawmakers breaking the law in a capitalist system is the same as bank robbers breaking laws in a free society. That does not mean capitalism does not work. Your describing a snake in the forest. When the government is as big as the corporations, they form a bond that's out of control.
buddacafe 3 weeks ago
@buddacafe Political bribery is one of the inevitable symptoms of capitalism.Especially a symptom where capitalism is in place when the world is a a lower state of consciousness where the "reptilian" survival instinctive brain is dominant and nothing else matters,but achieving capital by any means necessary.The snake of the human mind indeed. As if corporations being more powerful then government will someone make profit not a primal aspect of living. It doesn't matter which one is..
xxStrikerrr 3 weeks ago
@buddacafe bigger,but which one is being "persuaded" which money.Look what one of the most powerful family lineages in the world has to say : Mayer Amschel Rothschild - "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
xxStrikerrr 3 weeks ago
@buddacafe And if you want to get into esoteric aspects of this controlled world then look at the giant phallic symbols in D.C,Vatican, and London which represent the military-industrial complex,religious control,banking system and not to mention they are independent city states. The phallic represents the male part of the mind which is the will,severity without mercy,(Hitler's regime:Triumph of the Will). Capitalism is all about this.
xxStrikerrr 3 weeks ago
@xxStrikerrr
You need to spend less time on the internet mate.
tomj782 3 days ago
@tomj782 Better to learn how and why things happen rather than passively accept it as untouchable truth and let the your mind succumb to it.Better to spend time on the internet rather than indulge yourself in docile,blind consumerism.
xxStrikerrr 3 days ago
@buddacafe pharmaceutical companies for so called "medicine" which creates other illness that will require more drugs and that means more money for the corporations.Capitalism promotes greed and a result would be the imbalance of wealth.You might say capitalism rewards hard workers ,but in actuality those who work two jobs are usual the lower or middle class while wealthy overweight (who look as if they never worked hard in their lives) spend millions of dollars advertising some ..
xxStrikerrr 3 weeks ago
@buddacafe product that was possibly made by someone in a sweatshop working almost all say in health declining conditions that isn't even earning a fraction of what that supposedly "hard working " individual who does nothing more sit in a office all day.Planned obsolesce also comes with capitalism.Don't forget how much some can profit from war let alone a "war of terror" where there is no real enemy.Milton also supported trickle down economics which is basically being pissed on.
xxStrikerrr 3 weeks ago
One more thing. It's a disservice to us all if we act like only the free market, and not government sponsored initiatives don't lead to a better well being for everybody. Anybody else find it ironic that while they are bashing government on the internet, they're completely unaware that if it wasn't for government funding and research, we wouldn't even have an internet to debate an issue on?
crocop60 6 months ago
#LOL
" ... just tell me where in the world you'd find these angels ..." -- Friedman
EXACTLY.
And that exposes the core mysticism of socialism. It's the notion that political hustlers -- those who get their paychecks from the taxpayer -- are somehow unencumbered by greed, envy, spite or any other of the failings of us mere mortals. Socialists get it perfectly backwards, even those who hide such politics behind the L-word.
TylerNull 6 months ago 17
@TylerNull Sure, but the analogy associating capitalism with intense self interest can also be applied in associating socialism with compassion and empathy. We all experience both emotions. Just because we all share a common trait doesn't mean that we should set up a system that encourages and rewards such behavior, especially if the system is set up as if humans lack any concept of helping other people when they are in need.
crocop60 6 months ago
Comment removed
TylerNull 6 months ago
@crocop60
It's about behavior, not emotions.
Friedman's observations aren't "analogy". He points to the historical record to evidence which system is truly "helping other people", and which isn't. The immutable nature of man holds regardless of political bent.
The only people socialists help are themselves, and they do so with other people's money. That's neither compassion nor empathy.
TylerNull 6 months ago
@TylerNull Well, America must have slipped Friedman's mind when he was discussing "capitalism and largely free trade" helping people escape poverty. America under Alexander Hamilton and after the Civil War implemented protectionist policies that helped America grow into an industrial power house. I'm not saying that free trade doesn't have it's place. But the simple logistics of how it is set up causes the wealthy to greatly benefit from it at the expense of the poor.
crocop60 6 months ago
@crocop60
"... at the expense of the poor."
You abandoned your first set of notions as soon as they were addressed. Your latest attempt to malign capitalism includes some of the broadest of odd claims made odder still by the fact they're so far removed from your conclusion.
It's a conclusion that happens to be a well worn phrase used in socialist proselytism. More than a mere coincidence too, it's devoid of reason, & denies Friedman's observation & ignores my previous reply thereof, as well.
TylerNull 6 months ago
@TylerNull Actually I didn't. You were simply taking Friedman's word that throughout history capitalism and free trade helped people escape their plight of poverty. I showed specific instances where free trade did not help major industrial powerhouses of today. Most industrial countries grew because they were protectionist, not pure free trade. Take a look at Haiti and ask them if free trade has helped them. If anyone is making broad claims far removed from reality, it's you.
crocop60 5 months ago
@crocop60
"not pure free trade" -- you're arguing against a claim that wasn't made. Even if valid, yours would represent only one aspect of an economy. And there's ALWAYS a discrepancy between ANY ideal and its realizations. So what?
After misrepresenting his observations, you then insert a false inversion of his valid logic.
I.e., if "A" implies "B", then "B" does NOT imply "A". Friedman's point is only the former, but yours relies on posing his as an inversion of the latter.
TylerNull 5 months ago
@TylerNull Fine drop the pure. I'll lay my views out crystal clear so you won't nit-pick and miss my main points. My point is protectionist policies and not free trade help countries. A country escapes poverty by establishing manufacturing and industry sectors that employs its own people, not by importing cheap products into a country that only benefits the wealthy because most of the population don't have good jobs.
crocop60 5 months ago
@crocop60
"protectionist policies and not free trade help countries"
... as demonstrated by the fact that all the dominant nations of their era, e.g., Portugal, Holland, Spain, England, USA, were all their era's largest international traders?
Again, your "point" isn't merely wrong, it only tangentially approaches Freidman's much broader point, which is that MARKET BASED economies, not CENTRALLY PLANNED economies, are where and how the masses have escaped poverty.
TylerNull 5 months ago
@TylerNull Also, believing that everybody achieves prosperity by having everybody look out for themselves (i.e. mainly through making money) is ridiculous. The housing bubble is a perfect example. The type of greed that Friedman advocates doesn't produce efficient markets. It produces distorted markets. Even Greenspan himself stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief".
crocop60 5 months ago
@crocop60
It's about OBSERVING, not "believing".
Regardless of your ex-bureaucrat quote, the current Fannie Mayhem we're all mired in is a "perfect example" of Fannie Fascism. Thank FDR and every Democrat since.
It is the inevitable result of political hustlers "helping people"; nationalizing the mortgage industry, mandating suicidal lending practices, and convincing the economically illiterate the resultant SKYROCKETING of house prices made them "more affordable".
TylerNull 5 months ago
@TylerNull Greenspan himself placed more blame on wall street than Fannie and Freddie. Again that can be easily researched (NY Times has an article on it). Referring to your point about "dominant nations of their era" that benefited so much from free trade, they benefited from protectionist policies that allowed them to build up an industry, and then they convinced poorer countries to accept free trade. The result was that the richer countries became richer at the expense of the poorer country.
crocop60 5 months ago
@crocop60 "Take a look at Haiti and ask them if free trade"
And your assertion is that Haiti is where its at because of free trade?!!!
common, are you really this obtuse or are you pretending to be. which is it?!!
FrankCastlez 5 months ago
@FrankCastlez Fair enough. The insane corruption in the government certainly doesn't help them. But take Bill Clinton himself admitting that free trade for Haiti has made them worse off (specifically the rice farmers and Haiti's inability to produce food in a timely manner when the earthquake hit). You can look it up online. Why would a country need to import a simple commodity like RICE which can be easily produced in their own country? Because ideology blinded people to pragmatism.
crocop60 5 months ago
@crocop60 But in 1995, when the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund pressured Haiti to cut import tariffs on rice from 50 percent to 3 percent, cheap subsidized rice from the US began to flood into the country. Urban consumers benefited for a while from the low-cost imports, but they caused national rice production to plummet. Today, Haiti is now importing 80 percent of the rice it consumes—just as world prices have doubled.
I dont think this is pragmatic but greed on banks part
FrankCastlez 5 months ago
@TylerNull I agree Political ambition is definitely not nobler than economic ambition. In fact any ambition for power and control(pol, eco or otherwise) is based on greed(which you've already mentioned is human nature). Therefore it becomes even more important to not allow any individual or institute to gain too much power and control over the means of production. The aphorism "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" explains this perfectly. Equality is a prerequisite for freedom.
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
@MrMadPsyntist
Be careful.
Equality in . . . WHAT?
The founding principle of the USA is equality in the application of RULES.
Whereas the founding principle of socialism is equality in OUTCOMES.
Indeed, that perversion of that American ideal is the spawn of corrupting laws. E.g., federal laws which authorize and sponsor race-based discrimination & (un)protected classes. Socialists ferociously defended such "Affirmative Action" as much as Democrats did their former race-based laws.
TylerNull 5 months ago
@TNull equality in OUTCOMES" By outcome if u mean d amt of wealth ur allwd to possess, yes it wud b lmtd. So?The idea behind bldng a society is not hw many billionaires it can produce, it is to provide for everybody. The OUTCOME that u should consider is human creativity, which is the only reason for all the technological progress. U need Earth's resources and a creative mind to create, its got nothing to do with money. Imo more ppl will be creative in a collectivist (im not a socialist) sys.
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
modern capitalism is speculative capitalism, it used to be creative capitalism. now we have privatisation of profits and socialisation of losses. robber-capitalism will eat up itself sometime.
djscheisse 7 months ago
One of the differences between Liberalism-Capitalism and Socialism is with Capitalism people can make as much money as their Education, Skills, Intelligence and Production and the Market will bare. With Socialism people can only make as much money as the Government will allow. Capitalism is about Free Markets and Competition. Socialism is about Communitarianism and Monopoly not allowing people get too farther out then the rest of Population even if their Skills and Production are better.
FRSFreeStatePlus 1 year ago 26
@FRSFreeStatePlus
Great comparison!
CommonSenseCap 1 year ago 6
@CommonSenseCap
Thank you!
FRSFreeStatePlus 1 year ago
@FRSFreeStatePlus I completely disagree. Firstly, the Government is not the only authoritarian institute. For a long time it was the church remember. And currently our economic institutions fill that role. Do you really think somebody living on daily wages is free to become whoever he wants? He is only thinking about survival. He cant possibly compete with a college grad. The idea is to give everybody an opportunity for growth not a privileged few.............
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
....................Secondly, I agree when you say a Socialist Government limits growth. Therefore the idea is to have a collectivist society without any authoritarian institute (Government or any other). Also, I agree that materialistic growth would be limited to an extent however I believe 'being the best you can be' should have little to do with materialistic growth, more to do with intellectual growth (exploring your creativity and becoming the best you can be intellectually).........
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
.........And intellectual growth will definitely not be limited because here there is no conflict of interest. PS: Just think about how many Einstein's we might have lost because they didnt get any opportunity. The real wealth is human resource, which is the only thing responsible for all the progress (and not the Capitalist System).
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
@MrMadPsyntist
Thats why education is so important in any country, so the most people possible have a quality opportunity to earn a good living.
FRSFreeStatePlus 5 months ago
@FRSFreeStatePlus And somebody living on daily wages in the 3rd wotld is going to afford a decent education how???
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
@MrMadPsyntist
I don't live in the Third World and I'm not an expert on it, But I guess like any poor kid in the First World, through Public Education and these countries can't afford it. Then that gets to Foreign Aide targeted at Public Education. Until they get on their feet.
FRSFreeStatePlus 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRSFreeStatePlus Foreign aide-u mean debt. Under capitalism somebody always wins and somebody always loses. Ppl think capitalism works coz the general std. of living has improved in the west, which ofcourse is true. However u have to look at the reasons. Firstly during the glorious days of imperialism they made a lot of money of their colonies. (contd.).
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
(contd.) Secondly, before globalization there was still a lot of poverty in the west, but post globalization the world has become the market. The poor in west have become a little better off at the expense of the 3rd world. The slums have reduced in the west and increased in the 3rd world. This happens in subtle ways so is not obvious to most ppl. And the Capitalists can now boast abt the success of their sys by giving the eg. of west. (contd.)
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
(contd.) Under capitalism somebody wins but somebody always loses. Win-win situation is a big myth. The only way Capitalism can work for this entire planet is if we find another planet to exploit.
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
@MrMadPsyntist it is not a zero sum game you know.
kardentyrell 5 months ago
@kardentyrell unfortunately it is.
MrMadPsyntist 5 months ago
@MrMadPsyntist In socialist countries they are exceeding losing their position on a daily basis.. If the world was entirely socialist? We would not have the enormous advances in science, medicine and technology we have today.. We may not even have the car.. Take the I phone for instance, In yester year there was regulations (socialism monopolies) that kept anyone from competing with Bell, had not capitalism and deregulation happened? We would have never have had cell phones.
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Why do you believe that in socialist countries we would not have the enormous advances in science? Hadn't ESSR gone to moon? What I mean is that people always try and will try to make new discoveries and we don't need the motivation of big profits in order to do a research. If we use the machines and modern technology for our needs, we would have a lot of free time to do things that we like without capitalist's pressure!
paulkap12 5 months ago
@paulkap12 What is the motivation then? Is it more noble to pursue something merely for your name in neon lights than to pursue it for profit? Let me try to help you here.. People need to earn a living right? Well what motivation does one have, if there isn't anything at the end of the rainbow.. If making an incredible discovery doesn't prove to be any advantage to you and your family then what motivation is there.. Neon lights? Hardly..
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 This is simply wrong. The U.S. government has subsidized or invented a ton of technologies that we take for granted today. The pentagon developed the computer, internet, grant money comes from the government for breakthroughs in health care technology. After these inventions are realized, corporations privatize them and sell them off to make a profit. So in essence, taxpayers subsidize a lot of research and development that corporations do.
crocop60 4 months ago
@crocop60 No, Boeing was developing computer technology in commercial aircraft, that first went into military craft, then NASA outsourced to develope computer technology.. This is also true of a nifty little invention known as the automobile.. Einstein made breakthroughs in science without grant money.. Cancer treatments, cures for many diseases were made by pharmaceutical companies outside of government.. Government is currently wasting tax dollars on "green"projects it too will be on private
SuperGuitarman69 4 months ago
@MrMadPsyntist In socialist countries they are exceeding losing their position on a daily basis.. If the world was entirely socialist? We would not have the enormous advances in science, medicine and technology we have today.. We may not even have the car.. Take the I phone for instance, In yester year there was regulations (socialism monopolies) that kept anyone from competing with Bell, had not capitalism and deregulation happened? We would have never have had cell phones.
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
@MrMadPsyntist Also Russia never went to the moon.. The drive for Russia was to out do the United States.. In the rush to explore space as well as the nuclear arms race.. There was no profit motive for them. The United States benefited greatly from outsourcing to private industry, technology to get them to the moon.. So the US had an unfair advantage.. They had companies that were making profits for the mad rush to the moon.. Hence, why we beat them to the moon and in the arms race.
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
@FRSFreeStatePlus I'm going to memorize your words. Well done.
buddacafe 2 months ago
@FRSFreeStatePlus So I suppose you won't be using medicare?
1019079 2 months ago
@1019079
I don't know I have about 30 years to make that decision. Hopefully I'll be able to decide for myself how my Healthcare is covered.
FRSFreeStatePlus 2 months ago
@FRSFreeStatePlus I can guarentee you won't find anything better. I don't see a problem with medicare. People act like its some terrible thing when everyone benefits from it.
1019079 1 month ago
@1019079
All I'm saying is I want to make that decision for myself and I'm guessing so would a lot o other people. Instead of being forced to take something.
FRSFreeStatePlus 1 month ago
@FRSFreeStatePlus now tell me why a basketball stars make more than a doctor working his life time saving lives?
If friedman had such cynical views of humans, where are these angels that are supposed to donate their money to the poor?
Capitalism has no ethical and moral core! It degenerates people to liars, hard, cold, unnatural men. It only makes people care about dollar signs and nothing else.
neonaction 3 weeks ago
Capitalism is great, but it needs to be regulated.
While Milton is correct, I don't really like how his strategy of "Well, everything runs off greed, so let's choose the best greed model".
This actually punishes those of us who don't run off greed. Still he's a very smart guy.
beastlt12 1 year ago
Capitalism or Communism...no difference...for in the final analysis, we're all beholden to private (special) interests & they both eat their young!
Kuetonius 1 year ago
I completely agree with Friedman and disagree with Donahue (based upon his views expressed elsewhere), but I give this to Donahue: He asks a question, even challenges Friedman, and then lets Friedman answer without interruption, obfuscation, or the cut off button. I'd love to see him back on the air if he were allowed to give equal time to to ideas he disagrees with.
skeptics2003 1 year ago