Milton Friedman Versus A Socialist

To Watch the Entire Free to Choose series:
http://commonsensecapitalism.blogspot...
Website: http://commonsensecapitalism.blogspot...
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Common-...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CommonSenseCap

• Category

  News & Politics

[noweber]

Go ahead and try to name me a single coercive non-government granted monopoly in the United States. The limits to competition come from regulation and lack of capital. This idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poor is irrational. We've seen the effects over the past couple hundred years and everyone gets richer. Trade is not zero-sum.

Governments need to protect property rights in order for trade to be of a volunteer nature. Without that, no economic system can thrive.

[noweber]

There's not an ounce of truth in that. I'm baffled at what could mislead a person so.

Point 1, check data on real wages. 2, Look at the U.S. GDP and tell me the value of goods and services produced here has declined. 3, look at the income of the very bottom 10% in the US. About $10,650. Still 2x China's per capita GDP, and about 7x that of India and Vietnam. Take a look at the data first before you believe the lies of those who would benefit from your voting them into economic control.

[monjiaitaly]

we don't have free markets in the usa, so what your saying just isn't true.

[monjiaitaly]

I was just thinking today how it would be to live in a truly free society, where you can make, sell, manufacture something without a license, a permit or anything like that. To own your own property without the force of govt. for property tax, to hand down your money, property and anything else you wanted to your kids without govt. taking a piece of it. What govt. does is by force take what is not theirs to take, and that is pure evil.

[rastaman24211]

However, an argument could be made that individual real wages have remained stagnant, and many do. But many economists disagree with that argument. The picture changes when one uses different price indexes. Also, fringe benefits, which have increased are not factored in. And many individuals have recently joined the workforce, including women and immigrants, who are statistical outliers bring down the mean real wage, which is all that is measured. Basically, the claim isn`t without contention.

[rastaman24211]

Millions of people have become structurally unemployed due to trade liberalization, but millions of jobs have also been created due to it. The net effect has been a job growth not decline.

[Steve Minton]

why would we really need government at all. if you are truly a capitalist then dont you think the free market provides for everything. if monopolies are always bad then arent they also bad in the security industry ?

[HisokaThorongil]

Why are my comments being flagged for negative votes? I'm not being rude or using bad language. This shall be my last comment, then, as clearly the people who watch this video can't take my bursting their bubble or engaging in honest argument.

My point remains that from 1830-1970, wages rose dramatically each decade and then stagnated. All economists would agree with this. Secondly, loss of employment for millions of people is something to be praised?! I really am done here!

[noweber]

I would expect the percent of income increases at a faster rate when the real base income is lower. Earning $1.10 rather than $1 is a 10% increase, but it's still not very much money. A 4% increase when the average real wage is $40k is $1600 more real dollars. Do you not understand the things you say?

Back to manufacturing, employment in manufacturing has declined while output has increased. That's to be celebrated. Much like employment in agriculture has declined, yet crop yield rises.

[HisokaThorongil]

The Bureau's numbers don't go back before 1979, so there is nothing to compare them to. The fluctuation back and forth is to be expected as well: there were several smaller economic downturns during the years displayed. To make a proper comparison, start from around 1830 and you will notice wages start to stagnate in the 1970s, coinciding with manufacturing leaving the US (among other things). The tiny, sporadic growth overall from since then is not enough to disprove my point. Try again.

[noweber]

Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, search 'Real Wage', and it will be the 3rd link down. 1979 - 03, real wage from the year before decreased 7 times and only twice by more than a percent. Every other year it increased by up to 4% of the previous year. Real compensation/hr in nonfarm sectors increased by 32.2 total percent from 1979 to 2003 in the U.S.

The bottom percent's real wage grows slower, but it grows.

Wrt manufacturing, Chad Syverson presented a paper at UMN perhaps 2 months ago.