Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein

Welfare moms are trapped in poverty by the system of corporate, dehumanizing you seem to defend. I will bet you defend Dr Kevorkian also. More likley you are his twin.
The fact is, Corporations, rob, mame, pillage, pollute, inslave, steal, bribe, and then walk away and say, OK we made our profits, now you folks clean up the mess.

Is that your calling, to defend the Robber Barons of the Global Age. Whats in it for you, nothin except you get to be the lapp dog for corporate CEOs.

That's how the game is played. Two thousand years ago it was described simply: "Caesar demands tribute!". Part of the problem comes from looking at CEOs or business in general as a monolithic entity rather than a whole slew of (less powerful) interests and sometimes those interests use government to attack OTHER businesses - such as each and every time anti-trust laws have been pressed.

It is FAR easier to control corporate interests as a people than it is to control govt interests.

No, welfare moms are largely trapped in a system of politicians' creation and, no, it isn't in the interests of politicians to "screw the rest of us", per se. It is in the interests of politicians to get and stay elected and to accrue more power to themselves so, yes, companies typically have more influence than welfare moms, but less than organized labor, or the trial lawyers or the AARP. There are all sorts of organized interests who can be counted on to get votes for those in power.

@FletchforFreedom

So (A) welfare moms have as much influence ofer the speaker of the house as Haliburton? And...

(B) Isn't it in the interest of politicians of both parties to team up with corporate CEOs to screw the rest of us?

Two problems with the assumptions in your questions: First, unless govt has the power to play favorites among constituencies (a side-effect primarily of the welfare state), there's no avenue for exercising influence. Second, govt consists of human beings acting in their won interests. Thus, ALL govt action is in govt's interests - the bailouts are a perfect example (stockholders/managers out, govt ownership ostensibly to "save" jobs while still more jobs are lost in the economy).

@FletchforFreedom
But don't corporations get to use their wealth to influence govermnents? Working people have very little influence in either party when compared to corporate power don't we?

Because corporations gain their power in the marketplace and are subject to the demands of consumers. Only govt has the power to coerce (and to the extent that corporations use govt power - in the same way that, say, organized labor does - that is a flaw of govt, specifically its ability to play favorites).

Defense is a function of govt as are police powers. And an argument for roads MIGHT be made, but airports, transfer payments, postal services, and most other interventions, not at all.

@FletchforFreedom
No offense intended on the "right" thing... but why do you think Corporate centralization is nonsense?

As an economist, do you think defense spending is an interference in the free market? Highways? Airports? You know, all of that... do you think it should all be privatized? (Honest question, not picking a fight...)

I am not a member of "the right". I am an economist. "Centralization" and "collectivisation" are descriptions of specific policy types that Klein endorses. While I did not mention Mao, it is inescapably true that governmental control and govt provided services were part of his program.

Since "corporate centralization" is nonsense and monoply is all but invariably a result of govt intervention and not an expression of the free market, there is no problem adopting a free market in reality.

@FletchforFreedom
"Centralization" and "Collectivization" are scare words the right uses (I don't mean you, just in general) about anything it doesn't like. Klein argues for government regulation and gov. provided services... definitely not Maoist ideas.

Besides... is Corporate centralization and corporate monopoly control over everything really that wonderful?