Milton Friedman Debunks Liberal Economic Philosposhy

Must watch. The more things "change" the more they stay the same... Milton's views are as applicable today as it was decades ago when he was interviewed.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Obamanomics
• liberal economics
• pelosi economics
• conservative
• milton friedman
• taxes
• bailout
• big government
• liberty
• freedom

[dave19941000]

@JAROSLAVAGINA (part 2) But I have to ask, how did the US government intervene into the market to provide easy credit before the 2008 crisis?

[dave19941000]

@JAROSLAVAGINA (Part 1) Not all governmetn intervention is good, however no government intervention is a worst. Look at my country, we have some of the highest levels of financial regulations in the world put in place because of the Great Depression, and in 2008 we where one of the few 1st world nations to not sucome to a financial crisis. We did not see banks fail (like the US) or need to bail banks out to prevent a new depression (again, the US needed to do so).

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

@dave19941000 government intervention into a market providing easy credit, incentives for mass malinvestment via over leveraging, and, as a direct result, an over-heated market did not result in a credit crunch, the evaporation of private equity, and the eventual crash of the economy?

tell me something... from your perspective, how many economic crashes have been created by government intervention and how many have been the result of other forces? does that not make you question your judgement

[dave19941000]

@JAROSLAVAGINA An unregulated financial sector that caused a crisis that made unemployment rise to a peak of nearlt 10% before it slowly started to fall because of direct government intervention is not the markets fault?

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

@dave19941000 i'll give you a hint, it wasn't the "market's" fault that there are 4 unemployed per open job. so to answer your original question: yes.

[dave19941000]

@skidancin Cherry-picking like when Friedmanites twist statistics to make it look like their policies have made the US and UK better when they both say a large, sudden increase in poverty or the disapeaence of their industial base? Or when they make it appear as if their policies made the Latin American Junta have better economies then they really did? Or when they called millions of people in Russia selling their possetions to feed themselve “A great example of Capitalism at work”?

[skidancin]

@dave19941000 That's just silliness! You need facts to make those claims, but too many other facts will get in your way even if you cherry-pick, which is all you can do.

[skidancin]

@dave19941000 I don't think that response negates what I've said at all. What's more, the premise that trade between 1st and 3rd world nations keeps the 3rd world "where they are" isn't accepted by me. Your other premises aren't accepted as true either, and shouldn't be when a host of evidence lines up against them. Anyone can look into it, and those who seriously examine both sides seldom escape the fact that freedom and free markets march in lockstep for the benefit of all.

[dave19941000]

@skidancin (Part 2) I could go all day listing reasons why Friedman is wrong, however it will not change the fact that most university educated economist reject his theories or the fact that the US and UK embrasing it has seen poverty double and their industrial bases shipped to China.

[dave19941000]

@skidancin you say freedom but what you mean is free market, remember that the two are not onw and the same. Free trade between 1st world nations is good, free trade between 1st world and 3ed world nation keeps the 3ed world nation where they are. Deragulation of the finintial industry causes instability (1929, 2008), low corporat taxes puts the burget of society on the workers, eliminating minimum wage causes slave wages, government investment ing educationis critical for a nation.