This man lives in reality, unlike politicians today

Equality would also assume that we want exactly the same things in life, desire the same needs, have the same goals. And would also assume that the targets of our desires have equal properties. Equality is actually a less concrete concept than Liberty, and thus the description or definition of equality can be molded in whatever way a person pleases to interpret it.

The most important aspect of political philosophy perfectly articulated in 1 minute.

Milton Friedman is my Hero. As someone else commented on a different video, I wish he could be our president!

Love these clips. Post more!

Well said... Thanks for sharing. This kind of wisdom could have saved us a lot of trouble over the last 18 years, if we hadnt already forgotten it.

"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville, 1848

Well said! A pleasure to find someone else with a grasp of basic economics.

Someone to admire!

Milton Freidman was one of the greatest thinkers of our lifetime.

The closest thing to "work is holy" that applies is that productive activity, not consumption, is the source of economic growth. One cannot grow an economy by giving away money to those who would spend it. Productive activity, including allocation of resources and financial investment yield economic growth, create job opportunities (all of them) and build the prosperity that improves the lot of everyone in the economy (which is why the US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world).

It has been said that if one is liquid, they are financially free. Liquid means having enough cash to survive for 3 months without any income. Very few people in the bottom 60% of the economy are liquid. If what Friedman says is true, that we must have freedom before equality, then the bottom 60% still need better wages and/or govt social safety nets to have liquidity.

You're so right about Al Franken!! Too funny. He looked just as displeased as Franken would, too. I truly wish there was a voice like Uncle Milty's today. Ron Paul, maybe?

"Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine. In the barbers' shops were Anarchist notices (the barbers were mostly Anarchists) solemnly exclaiming that barbers were no longer slaves. In the streets were coloured posters appealing to prostitutes to stop being prostitutes." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia Ⓐ

This is by far in my opinion the best 1 minute speech that fully explains the fundamental error in communism.

Who's the one idiot that dislikes this?!

@mba2ceo Are you from the USA?

Absolutly agree.

BTW, I'm not sure where your allegory comes from but I can say definitively that it was not Adam Smith (Marx had commentary on Hegel's apple tree analogy - but that was a different story).

what does that saying about a and b mean?

How would you propose to fund these "govt social safety nets"?

You're right that if one is going to cite history as evidence, one has to let enough history take its course. But countries have been experimenting with communism and socialism for about 100 years. The results were always disasterous and each failed experiment gives us lessons learned. But the overall lesson, in my opinion, is that these ideas appeal to our notions of justice but fail utterly to deliver it because they are incompatible with human nature and the realities of statehood.

@TheEthanwashere Chile became one of the most economically successful countries in South America. That they had a dictator called pinochet that limited human liberty (and equality) does not mean the idea of liberty in personal life and economics sense is flawed.

@mba2ceo I agree 100% with you and I don't agree with many very much.

Why do computers an technology not create liberty? They are bringing more transparency to government and giving the common man a larger voice. Its also informing people on what liberty is. E.G. this video on KZread.

@TheNateAmazing Even without the use of force, isn't there still a severe lack of upward mobility in which those possessing the most wealth dominate all markets? At some point is it no longer the responsibility of the powerful, made so from prior committed injustices, to engage in programs or activities that compensate for that injustice? (just a talking point... please engage)

Did you know that Molton Friedman help invert the Payroll withholding tax. Sure Did.

there are no examples at a national scale, but there are plenty of succesful cases. in latin america, the recovered factories and the zapatistas; historically, catalonia during the spanish civil war, just to name a few. "can you imagine a decentralized economy in today's world in which we are heavily reliant on international trade? " that's a different matter altogether. sure, it's like saying that in a dictatorship it's hard to apply democracy.

So what does he have to say about chile? He called it a miracle...

And in the REAL world, because of the lack of restrictions, MORE and HIGHER PAYING jobs are INsourced to the US than are outsourced while the jobs created in those other countries (including China) raise their standard of living while consumers get lower prices (and, thus greater prosperity) in this country. It is a HUGE win-win that benefits everyone so, yes Milton would be proud. Or were you just not paying attention?

I'd prefer to hear them speak, so that they can be seen by all, and be proven wrong.

Actually, I know a great deal about economic history including in China and Korea. As neither the chaebols nor Chinese steel were anything even close to the divers of those countries' economic growth, it hardly helps your case. And, OF COURSE, they didn't "willingly" destroy their food supply. It doesn't change the FACT that the destruction of the food supply was solely and directly the result of the not-so-Great Leap Forward.

In actuality, every exchand is for something of greater value (in the case of inheritance, the desire to take care of one's family is "purchased" by the property owner (no less so than buying an insurance policy). There is no "justification" for interfering. And companies sell at a loss literally all the time (typically with the expectation of making more on some other good). That this practice has some analagous relationship to inheritance is absurd on its face.

@nakedBison69 Look up the economic freedom index and compare the countries at the very top with the very bottom. There is a large correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. Just because a government can point a gun at your head and force you to work does not mean you will do worth while or even useful work that helps society.

see the guy to the lower left of the screen at 1:05, he doesnt look happy at what is being said at all.

"People are corrupt by nature. Certain people will use their liberties to undermine other peoples liberties. hence you have inequality" You have free will only in so far as you do not circumvent or abridge other's rights. This is why you need a government: it must be created to protect individuals from initiating the use of force in between and among themselves. It performs this function because and only because it has a monopoly on the legal use of force.

I have no problem believing the government is corrupt. As such we ought to limit it's power severely. Giving it the power to "regulate" the economy just gives it more power to help the corporations. America must enact a strict "separation of economy and state" to protect the economy from government corruption just as the "separation of church and state" protects the church.

@alfredo11 His ideas have not been put in to practice though. Tell me, when and where have his ideas been put in to practice. How could his ideas fail if they haven't been put into practice?

What constitutes "unfair"? If someone obtains private property through work (the way the overwhelming majority obtain it), what justification does anyone have for telling him what he can do with that justly obtained property. If he wishes to spend it on himself (which in the end is economically least beneficial), give it to charity or bequeath it to his children (often in the form of economically beneficial investments) how is interfereing with that in any way "fair"?

I have no problem with that, just that people are looking out for D.

It would be a neat trick if America could get every country in the world to keep sending them boatloads of goods without ever having to send anything back in return but it's unlikely most countries would agree to that. America must eventually pays its debt by sending those countries other goods in exchange, things America can make better than anyone else.

If something can be produced more cheaply elsewhere, you should try to find something else to produce. A government subsidy or import tariff is asking the government to force everyone else to support you whether they want to or not.

@TheTrueLiberal thanks. i wonder where this saying came from

To understand just how useless the 42% figure is, it excludes the primary store of wealth for the 99% - home ownership. The value of one's home is completely excluded from the calculation. Putting that just that one particular (unjustified) exclusion back in drops the figure to roughly a third - not an insignificant difference. Another thing ignored is the significant income mobility in the US. Nearly a third of those in the poorest income quintile will eventually reach the highest.

Thailand would make shoes for America if they can make them more efficiently than Americans. Cheaper shoes benefit the American consumer. Societies exist for the benefit of the individuals of which they are comprised. Therefore, if free markets are in the best interests of most individuals within a society they ought to be adopted. The goal of any business is profit but in a free market they must serve the customer in order to succeed; which benefits many.

I think Ron Paul is sound on ideas, but like you said, he sometimes ain't on the same level of conveying them....but maybe it's simply that a lotta people that interview him simply write off those ideas right at the start. Think of how Peter Schiff's interview went on the Mr. Ed show, lol. There's a vid of it on KZread.

i would concede the general principle that liberty is a higher priority than equality but go deeper and suggest that liberty cannot be achieved without equality. the analysis of power of people on the right has a major blindspot. it baffles me that they refuse to accept that economic concentration *by whatever means* is a factor in power disparities. *that* is the central problem with inequality.

"The fact that there are no examples at a national scale tells you something: Its completely unrealistict." i don't see how it follows. how many years of history needed to pass in order for enlightenment values to take place politically? i don't negate the role of a central government, but that, in turn, doesn't negate questioning just how central it ought to be.

@wikiporno If the stakes are high enough, the government may use eminent domain, which IS in the constitution

If you are tired of having your ass handed to you and wish to take your ball and go home, that's entirely up to you. Your desire to avoid further embarrassment is entirely understandable.

@alfredo11 You're wrong, I'm afraid. In in the 1970s out of control government spending resulted in inflation and economic decline on levels we are not seeing now. The instituion that supposedly were helping the poor made their lives a lot worse; all in the drive for equality. Friedman didn't say liberity result in equality; only we would be closer to it. Hong Kong may be poor now and have been poor in the 1970s, but Communist China was a hell of a lot poorer in the 1970s than Hong Kong was.

Walter Williams had a quip on that, he basically said, that the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the welfare trap did to blacks in 30 years what Jim Crow couldn't do in over 100 - break up the black family and push the community progress backward.

@alfredo11 Reagan expanded government. Hong Kong, the poor'd standard of living has increased dramatically.

@galaxy-star-me

11 ай бұрын

It's because of "1997" , where the communist took over HK !

Yes, the founders understood that all men are CREATED equal with regard to their rights but that the equality ENDED there. They never suggested equality of income or outcome or property ownership (which they wisely and wholeheartedly endorsed). No "righty" objects to the equality of human rights (or that it came first) but since there has never been a right to be provided with ANYTHING it hardly helps your case.

@SocialistCatgirl hallelujah sister, I miaow to that

@diurdi To call it a miracle seems to value neither.

@mba2ceo Tony Benn On my channel makes a good point.

The fact that there are no examples at a national scale tells you something: Its completely unrealistict. The challenges of governing a nation dwarf those of governing a commune, town, or even a big city. History proves a strong central govt is indispensable. That does not mean dictatorship, but it does mean speaking with one voice vis-a-vis other nations and solving problems that are more national than local (eg, defense, rules of interstate and international commerce).

@wikiporno Your employer can not force you to give them money. Your landlord can not force you to give him money. You can simply reject their services and find somewhere else to live. Neither of the two can take from you your life, liberty, or property legally. Only the government can do that. Getting fired and going to prison are two different things. You are still free after getting fired. Plus, a company you work for is private property. They didn't have to hire you in the first place

Friedman just kept on taking Rockefeller money.

@norcofreerider604 Hong Kong, where I live, is the freest economy in the world! However, a million still lives under poverty, income inequality the worse among the developed countries; liberty does not imply equality. Reagan and Thatcher both introduced Milton Friedman's ideals, divestments, deregulation, privatization into politics and economics in the US and the UK respectively. Friedman's ideals, Libertarianism, has been tried in Pre-Keynesian economics, as we know, failed miserably.

Exactly. It's flat out impossible for any country to import without exporting unless other countries send them goods out of charity. America will either export or it won't import. Don't you get it? Other countries sending us the fruits of their labors is a good thing. It's when we export, sending them the fruits of our labor, that we pay the bill. As far as your "corporate conspiracy" goes do you really think it's in the best interests of a business to destroy the market it sells to?

@wikiporno Ownership of ones property through voluntary exchange and free trade. How did you buy your computer? You produced, and was given goods in exchange for your labor, which is a service. What about a house? same thing. Property? You purchase it from a previous owner. Just because you can't go back to the 16th century and see how the land was acquired does not make everyone entitled to everyone elses stuff

"You need a system where greed can do the LEAST harm, Capitalism is that kind of a system"

@gorkemgulan

4 жыл бұрын

AroundSun hahahahaha

That means practically nothing if you don't unpack the loaded words "equality" and "liberty."

@wikiporno Well you either believe in individual rights and responsibilities or you don't. If you don't, then you must believe in collective rights and responsibilities. There are really no other choices. Should we be free or not?

America exports the following: $1.283 trillion f.o.b. (2008) industrial supplies, 29.8% production machinery, 29.5% non-auto consumer goods, 12.4% motor vehicles and parts, 9.3% food, feed and beverages, 8.3% aircraft and parts, 6.6% other, 4.1%

@alfredo11 Congratulations troll, lol. 9/10

The issue isn't "deserve" which takes unbeliveable hubris to weigh in on - the issue is liberty. If the individual has the liberty to dispose of his (justly acquired) property as he sees fit, then there is no basis for interference. Further restrictions upon that are economically harmful, encouraging the dissolution of investments and a reallocation of assets from production to consumption. Your reasoning would eliminate gift-giving (and CHARITY) entirely. Echnage for nothing? cont

Today they say equality before liberty. :D

In theory it does not necessarily take the form of government centrality. But as a practical matter, it does. Can you name any country in history that successfully adopted a decentralized collectiveist system? I cannot. And even if one could find something close among agrarian subsistance economies, can you imagine a decentralized economy in today's world in which we are heavily reliant on international trade? Only the most naive person could take that seriously.

Communists claimed their system eliminated expolitation of the working man and was proved to be based on a nonsensical theory of value. An observation can be absurd when it is so contrary to reality that one must wonder about the observational abilities of the one who makes it. You may choose to observe that the ocean is not wet (entirely comparable to your "observations" about capitalism, socialism and hypocrisy) and it is perfectly accurate to describe such an observation as "absurd".

haha, you're right..

@wikiporno So you think people should not be fired when there performance lacks, or when they sit around and do nothing? When they don't produce, or when they come in late every day? or take everyday off? They should still be compensated and not lose their job?? This is called a bureaucracy and where this happens is within the government where there is little oversight since the revenue does not have to be earned. This is why public schools fail. No incentive for quality education.

@norcofreerider604 And what makes you think that you know what you're talking about? I think I'm not the one who is blindly believing, as opposed to critically thinking about his propositions. Anyways, there are now strong reasons to believe that the well-intentioned propositions of Friedman do not work. In theory, in his books and papers, his ideas are sound; in practice, however, it has failed to realize its goals.

@wikiporno I don't vote what you can do with your money, don't vote for what I can do with mine. You have the right to your life, liberty, and your property granted you do not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. You may not use force or coercion to assault, murder, kidnap, rob, vandalize or fraud people. That is as free as you can get. We are not a democracy, this is not mob rule. The constitution gives minorities rights as well, EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS. Not the maj.

@alphecca2539 I didn't mention anything about the US or US politics one way or the other.... perhaps you need to re-read my comments before responding. Silly person.

@wikiporno Growth is essential for eliminating poverty. In 1776 90 something percent of the people were on farms and had to work 12-16 hours per day just to feed their families. Today less than 5% of the American people are on farms and one person can feed himself, his family, tons of other families, and still have money to export abroad. As MF says, that is the miracle of america. This was because people were free. It was not a government that centrally planned and orchestrated this.

It isn't a question of "lowering our standards". Our standards are not set be regulations that demonstrably do more harm to workers, consumers, the economy, the environment, etc. (pretty much every one you've mentioned). China's living standards are so dreadful BECAUSE of their governmental intervention. What's notable is how much living standards have improved with the small, but real embrace of more capitalism. China is not libertarian; just less socialistic than it was.

Alas, no, Milton was a strong critic of China because, while labor regulations in the US have actually HARMED workers and tort law was vastly more effective at preserving the environment than environmental regulations, China still has a primarily command economy heavily socialized with few individual rights and far more economic intervention than here. China is notable only because, after their regulations destroyed the economy AND environment, the change in direction has helped BOTH.

Well what's the alternative? hmm... Just because everything is voluntary doesn't mean every decision you make will be a joyful one... Now, if you believe in human beings, and the nature of us (unless you hate yourself of course, or feel guilty) you should also believe that we are very compassionate beings, and charity would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher without massively imposed taxation by the people with guns to your head (the government)...

I didn't answer your question because it wasn't relevant and neither the chaebol NOR the zaibatsu were responsible for any "miracle". Quite the opposite. In Japan, the post-war boom and low relative government spending fueled their boom until the zaibatsu and MITI drove their economy into the ground resulting in decades of depression and a national debt larger than their whole economy. And since FDR was demonstrably an economic disaster how does that help your case?

@wikiporno Economic growth is what makes everyone wealthier as a whole. You were born with ten times the shit for half the price that your grandparents were probably born with or have ever seen. The difference is they weren't complaining. They had freedom, and most important is OPPORTUNITY. Not a guarantee.

@seppsters Proof: Old money vs the commons in every part of the world undermines their own rule when they forget about equality as 10K yrs of human civilization. btw, its just youtube man, we are exercising free speech. Wt part of liberty allows you to call people stupid? Is it the part that automatically makes you assume you are right & intelligent and I am wrong & stupid? once we all realize we are equal in having and expressing an opinion w/o calling each other names then my point is proven

@wikiporno The only value an object has is the demand for it by someone else. If nobody wants it, then there is no demand, and nobody will supply it. Money is paper that was originally backed by gold, which was the currency standard and the only one allowed by the constitution. Since we went off the gold standard and let the federal reserve print money out of thin air, the dollar has lost its value unsurprisingly. That is a failure of government.

America makes plenty of things for export. They have too. If they didn't they'd have no way to pay for imports. Those displaced workers will find new jobs manufacturing American exports.

@mba2ceo I think history has shown your statement to be false time and time again. It is no question as to whether or not socialism is a bad idea, but what baffles me is how many people can see it tried time and time again with the same result and still yet try to support it or make excuses for why it has once again failed.

@DrWPierceTV6 So true. I'm tired of explaining to people that you can only redistribute income, not wealth. The only way to effectively redistribute wealth is by killing incentive. If you want equality go to China... oh wait nevermind, they have a greater gap in equality...well pay no attention to the (real) facts.

@wikiporno Land used to be neutral, now every piece of land is owned by someone. This isn't the age of exploration anymore. I don't know what your definition of fail is, but capitalism isn't a system. It is the absence of systems and the absence of central planning control. It is the absence of a command economy where the production is in the hands of a few. Every single person in the country would have to have a representative of their own in government for it to be efficient.

socialism does not necesarily take the form of government centrality. in fact, most socialist literature -particularly that of it's original theoretical conception- sketches it out in the form of direct horizontal control of the means of production. the common denominator is collective ownership, not centralism.

@alphecca2539 As a matter of fact I'm not English and I don't live in the UK. Making disparaging remarks about people with whom you disagree and the ignorance displayed in your comments says more about you than me. Yes, I fully anticipate you'll retort with some sweeping generalisation... yawn....

@alphecca2539 but it has you panic monger...

Yes, ad hominems and profanity are about all someone with your extremely limited intellectual capacity can manage. No one takes Tugwell at all seriously. The FACT is that FDR PROLONGED the Depression by several years, that the economy was actually improving BEFORE FDR's policies threw it under the bus again. And the WPA and CCC put people to work at below minimum wage levels put in place by Hoover (voluntarily) and FDR (legislatively) that made unemployment skyrocket in the first place.

Actually, freedom has never required equality, while, as Friedman posits, equality without liberty is the shared misery that socialism provides.

he makes me want to study economic, but i am not smart enough, boo

Whether Orwell remained a socialist in the latter part of his life remains something of a signifcant source of debate (he showed FAR mor maturity than when he wrote "Homage to Catalonia" and was subsequently disillusioned by socialist movements. The notion that capitalism "centralizes" anything simply demonstrates a profound ignorance of the topic. Prescisely the opposite is the case. And, again, the nature of the systems is who makes the economic decisions - they are mutually exclusive.

Equality is tyranny! Jefferson's "created equal" phrase applies only to fertilization. After fertilization the result is a unique Individual living in a relativistic universe where equality is only an abstract concept. Education in: virtue, Individual Rights of "Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," free market, and free republic is vital to any Civil Society. Many ideologies tried equality and failed, such as Marxism, etc.

It has very little to do with money and very to do with making things work... In the US our government has put up so many restrictions and regulation for business its just easier to set up show elsewhere. We've been a capitalist country for 400 years. Out-sourcing is a 30 year problem. Capitalism is not the problem, government is.

@thedevilsadvocate3710

5 жыл бұрын

Correct. Government unchecked = problem. Also, too little government oversight/enforcement = problem. There must be a balance.

I'm gonna stop this discussion b/c you completely ignore my arguments, I have no time to keep repeating myself!

When America buys imports it sends dollars into the world economy. Those dollars must eventually be used to buy American goods because that is their only value. Over time, imports must equal exports. It's a basic economic law. I don't wonder about the 70%. Most people are not well-versed in economics. But the popularity of your opinion is not important. At one time most people thought the earth was flat. Finally, free trade has been tried in at least one place with enormous success. Hong Kong