Milton Friedman on his Ideal Society
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- www.SwiftEconom... Milton Friedman is interviewed on Icelandic State television in a discussion with professors from the University of Stockholm and University of Iceland. Individual liberty, setting narrow limits on the government as the constitutional founders envisioned and the family unit being the key element of society are the themes.
The Government is meant to be the referee Not the commissioner.
@1misanthropist The government is best which governs everything! That is also called DEMOCRACY! The GOVERNMENT is the PEOPLE remember. Why would you want to take the PEOPLE out of anything? Don't you believe in democracy?
@1misanthropist Or not at all.
The government which governs the least is no government.
Velha Guarda Tricolor spoken like a true fool
@@LosCristeros317 Now that is some intelligent criticism!
@@VelhaGuardaTricolor Because the government is not the manifestation of the public will as Rousseau so eloquently put it. The government is a group of people, mostly bureaucrats who have never been elected with their own self-interests and whose actions represent those who are not necessarily trying to solve problems but to keep their job. For example, in the Department of Labor which manages the minimum wage, the 1/3 or so of the department involved in such administration is very much in the business to not critique or provide statistical evidence that may lead to the minimum wage being looked negatively at. Thomas Sowell himself realized this when he interned for the Department of Labor and came to the conclusion that it was clear no one was in the business of pushing for good governance as much as they were making sure their job and salary stayed intact. So while your view of our system is noble, it is not accurate to anything but an ideal. Also, we live in a republic, not a democracy, that is not necessarily my primary point but that needed to be corrected.
The best 222 seconds of politics I’ve ever heard.
My ideal society: Free markets, less government interference and regulations, stronger families and each family should have the opportunity build their own business' or trust (and they shouldn't be taxed to death!!)
David Goat: The problem is that we have legions of college zombies who are being bred to oppose that way of thinking !!
@@chippledon1 Yeah, but let me tell you this: in america you can be happy, because you as a normal person are not paying for somebody's education. I'm from Europe. Here, I have to freaking pay for university even if I'm not attending. That means I basically sponsor all these leftist professors.
@@Kuba-hs4ns We sponsor them as well, it's just not as obvious. Many colleges are directly and indirectly subsidized by the federal government and this actually is one of the primary reasons tuition is so high, but it also means Americans are bearing a portion of the cost of college for everyone else.
@@Kuba-hs4ns your way of thinking lacks compassion
I highly recommend reading Henry Hazlitt's "The Failure of the 'New Economics'" for an understanding of the Keynesian flaws and for a better understanding of the Fed, "What Has the Fed Done to Our Money?", "America's Great Depression", and, for its impact in the current financial crisis, Thomas Woods' "Meltdown".
I wish he could've been president, or even started his own nation. I bet his nation would thrive, and others would follow
then you have not understood a word he says or the free market at all. those super greedy that steal as you call them are only able to do so through the government and the regulations they pass through it to reduce their competition. The free market system abolishes these means. In a free market people run their own businesses however they see fit and deal with each according to agreed upon rules they themselves set.
Dover Bird the guy is a nobel prize winning economist bud
Tom Hadler I think we ought to go to the stars. Colonize planets and formulate our own libertarian constitution.
David Seymour
Both is possible.
Scott: the first question you asked is the good one. But once there is a monopoly, the government should intervene. If there are big monopolies, it is ONLY because these companies lobby to make themselves richer...
Milton Friedman just described the original America of our forefathers as laid down by the Constitution and without half of the current amendments...
@MrRagnarocks How was Milton Friedman "responsible" for putting Pinochet into power? His only contact with Pinochet was during a state visit when Friedman influenced Pinochet to follow the economic policies that ultimately made Chile the continent's greatest success story, producing a middle class that ultimately overthrew Pinochet -- as Friedman (and Hayek) predicted would happen. Economic freedom leads inexorably to political freedom. Thanks Miltie!
I blame the judiciary for allowing the government to operate outside of the constitution. it is their role to constrain government and fight back against unconstitutional authority. I also find it interesting that nations who are successful and were mostly built on free market capitalism, etc. are the first nations to try to implement socialism when they become successful.
0:15 Individual is the key element. Maximum freedom to pursue one's own objective as long as they don't interfere with the objective of others.
Easy said than done. Let the kids to maximize their activities so long not to interfere other kids. See what i end up if no strong and big enough authority around. Not to mention when kids turn adult yet behave the same ways as kids.
Chile has embraced Friedman's ideas and is now the most prosperous nation in that region.
We can still learn from his great speeches. A vocal champion of liberty. Socialism continues to fail the world over and yet we never learn.
Family and Community are the key element we often tend to ignore.
Milton Friedman is the best ubermensch. :)
*Übermensch ;)
Whoa, a little bit of Neitzsche
Sounds libertarian to me
He would have described himself as such, yes. He was a right-libertarian, or "classical liberal" if you prefer.
So the removal of so to speak all state power is fascism now ?
NewGamesful Fascism is by its definition the complete, corporate ownership of the state, so yes.
NUTCASE71733 An abolishment of all government is fascist to you?
"Fascism is by its definition the complete, corporate ownership of the state". You are misrepresenting Friedman. What you are describing is corporate socialism aka crony capitalism. This is the opposite of what Milton Friedman advocates. Free enterprise system is where corporations/companies go at each other (competition), and we get better products and services. OTOH, if government is too big (meaning it has trillions of tax revenue), then corporations become just another special interest group, and they hire politicians (racketeers) to divvy up our tax money. They will also pay politicians to write regulations that favor them, essentially preventing small companies from raising up and competing. This is why Uber has to circumvent so many regulations to compete with taxi cartel. Uber is great thing that happened to society (just ask the drivers and customers of Uber). Socialism can be married to corporations very easily, as Hitler (through his National Socialist aka workers party) and Mussolini did -- and you want a system where corporations are partially married to politicians, like we have today. The problem is that government is too rich (through tax collection) and powerful (through regulations). The solution to socialism is not more socialism.
@dibaterman
Actually an isolationist is a policy where the nation does not enter any sort of commitment with another nation. Which includes military alliances and economical trade, sharing of ideas etc. A non-interventionist policy (which is what RP advocates) is the policy that a country should do everything (trades, exchange ideas etc.) except setting up entangling alliances and enter war for said those alliances, with the exception of defense.
I should also mention that this comes about with the increased attention the Fed has been getting since the 2008 recession, the audit / abolish the Fed movements (which may end up being all for naught as if it were abolished, it'd be the most single, significant piece of economic news of the past 50-100 years), and the accompanying pleas of returning to the gold standard even if it means raising the price of gold 3-4 times to match the deficit so long as we can get and stay on it in the future.
The one gaping hole in Friedman's position is the competitive free market's tendency to create wealth inequality that, in turn, impedes the freedom of individuals. Does anyone know his take on this criticism?
Wealth inequality has existed since eons of time. What if I tell you in any creative production a small proportion of entities have all the resources there is? We can start from our local Earth outwards to the masses of the stars and you'll see the same thing. Same goes with poets, writers, actors, entrepreneurs, scientist. etc etc.
The "Ideal Society" is where there's "Maximize Freedom and Responsibility for the Individual". Where people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit as long as their not hurting anyone else with their Freedom.
That Government's role is to protect the Personal Freedom for the Individual and Empower people who aren't Self Sufficient to become Self Sufficient. Through Education, Job Training and Job Placement. But not indefinite Subsidization which creates a "Culture of Dependency".
@zepDzen It's because people believe they are generally better than other people. Their distrust isn't of themselves - it's of others.
@pdynamics1 I was also just asking what's the difference? The money doesn't materialize it's value until you spend it anyway.
@xxddyz
Sorry RP and Milton Friedman are of not just different species but of different kingdoms as well.
While RP may be of the Austrian school he is also an isolationist and minimalist group which Milton as a Capitalist must be against. Actually he's said as much.
I find him difficult to pin down. I wish someone asked him if an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. I might not agree with everything, or anything for that matter, but he's still a very fascinating guy.
@jeffiek (cont)
To clarify. You have not stated why corporation's political expenditures are wrong. You have simply complained that they are better at it than you.
GDP growth based on monetary expansion is illusory (and vanishes once the subsequent inflationary pressures adjust). It transfers wealth from those whose prices rise first to those whose prices rise last. Government spending likewise does not fuel growth because it comes at the expense of more efficient private expenditure and can only be considered in comparison to the (greater) growth foregone in order to achieve it.
(cont.)
It looks like UA-cam ate half my comments temporarily that I sent to frank; he read them in time, but that's rather strange nevertheless. I'm sure they'll reappear when 10 or so more comments fill the page.
But, as always, Fletch does a comparable if not superior job of explaining / debunking these matters.
Now, that we're in the same thread since a while, I was meaning to ask you your thoughts on money supply policy as it pertains to growth of an economy. I haven't done the hard
@unfad1ng you are not getting my point- in many families, people focus on the acculmation of wealth than they do about their own family members. Businessmen are more likely to get devorced and a big irony is that devorce rates rose under Thatcher in Britian
To restrict the unchecked influence of special interest groups, we need to facilitate public action that leads to constitutional provisions narrowing... the government?
Huh? I don't comprehend the logic. It seems that the growing power of these (private) factions is the lack of constitutional provisions limiting this abuse. Can someone spin this for me?
@all028 The only way it's different is if people with higher incomes get taxed a higher percent. And the other differences I listed.
@all028 What about gold/silver bullion vs. stocks? Also how are stocks/commodity of a wheat much different than buying bushels and storing in your garage? Also, interest is income and should be taxed, if income is taxed.
If you buy offshore you will be taxed another way, tariffs.
I mean my ideal of my own country IS a bit diffrent, but it definetly needs such a constrainet and it needs to be put them on by it's people.
@InfiniteGXT Also, why do you think historically power has led to corruption? Where would you like that power? In companies were people are free to work or not work, buy or not buy...or in governments? Governments who do things like regulate...and create barriers to entry into markets, making it more expensive and complicated for small business to start up, thereby protecting the larger companies. Which gives people less choices--a result of government, not business.
@pdynamics1 If you tax the income you won't have to worry about under the table transactions. That's the difference between sales tax and income tax.
@frnksng Isn't trade with currency basically bartering, but with an added step. What's the difference between selling my goat for $, then buying chicken eggs with $; compared to trading goat for chicken eggs.
If Gov can tax currency transaction then they should be able to tax bartering. It's the same thing.
@MrGuvnah Corporations wanted a market, but not a Free Market! They wanted the power to fix the terms and conditions of employment on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and to fix the cost of materials and the price of finished products in the same way. Therefore, the natural tendency of the corporate system was toward COMBINATION and CONCENTRATION. Corporations combined vertically to control each step of the production process. Corporations combined horizontally to control every area of the country.
@all028 Yes I'm saying what the difference in taxing income vs. spending. Because if you save the money you, or your benefactors, will eventually spend it. The only way to escape this is through evading the tax through illegal means, black market, under the counter, etc.
So why even make this a possibility? Just tax the income.
The question is, tax at all?
But then I pointed out how some have wealth that was never originally taxed, so this presents some problems with taxing income.
It really doesn't matter which commodity the currency is linked to; gold was chosen because it is rare, easily carried, easily divided and not usually destroyed in its ordinary use in the marketplace. The abandonment of the gold standard (in stages from FDR to Nixon) allowed theft from savers in order for the government to engage in its own interests (that the Fed is privately owned isn't relevant, that it has a government-granted monopoly is the problem).
(cont.)
@all028 Do you think it would be regressive in the sense that it would make people not spend as much, and the economy would suffer?
But investments and savings are beneficial for the economy? But the problem is, interest will be accrued, but buying stocks is the same as buying commodities, so should it be taxed instantly the same way? Because the interest can be compounded more so if it isn't taxed, compared to the guy who's investing in physical gold/silver/wheat/etc.
It seems to me that nobody among the rightists, including mr. Friedman thinks of the solution of the problem that the competition about the limited resources causes. The competition and development is the essence of the whole universe which is right orientated.
The water, oil, land, money and so on do not last forever. I don´t think that there is a piece of land in Europe without an owner, everything has been taken and is private. We have no right to interfere and say the Brazilians what to do with their forests. It’s theirs. The form of society mr. Friedman talks about (which is basically right one) can not cope with that. Six planets as the earth should not be sufficient for us. In the end we should fight for the resources, which we already do, or perish. If we start with solidarity, agreements and freedom limitations than we stand on the left.
The same with the leftist where I myself belong. We have no solution of the “quality of the people” problem. “I do my best and work while my neighbour is lazy and pretend that he is sick”. Sabotage, infiltration, passive resistance of the opposition people. I remember all those things from Yugoslavia. No government, police or military can stop them.
For the left society it’s needed high civilised people which we are not. Mr. Friedman said once “where can we find those angels” probably not believing that they exist at all. However, kibbutz project is successful, Japanese people showed a great loyalty to their society, ….
Are we doomed or is there hope for us?
The point Milton makes is that the free-market allows for solutions to be generated.
Oil is cleaner than coal. And gas is cleaner than Oil. This is the progression we are on and some day we will have 100% clean abundant energy.
But politics cannot achieve this it will but will not be able to. Milton's point is that the free-market by the use of trade allows this to happen.
@@bighands69 Free market also means you cannot interfere with corporations or industries that want to use coal. And there are plenty. So if we follow the free market we'll never see the days of "100% clean" energy because we'll all have choked to death before that happens.
@Laszlo22201 He glosses over the problems in the 18th century; slavery, no universal sufferage,and no direct election of Senators. The changes came almost immediately; Washington quelliing Shay's Rebellion, Marbury v.Madison, Alexander Hamilton as Sec'y of Treasury issuing a report which would impact on economic policies for a generation. Even the framers made changes that Freidman would have objected to.
You unquestionably extended it beyond Friedman's stated position. Unquestionably he argued for the maximization of individual liberty (clearly at odds with Pinochet's actions which expressly condemned), but there was never a time when he did not make it clear the difference between economic liberty and other types of freedom even though he, as I, advocated for both. You are simply trying to support a point already shown to be irrational by deliberately twisting the terms under discussion.
@polvotierno In Feudalism those on the bottom don't have the same opportunity to rise up the latter. In his society the system is created in a way that rewards personal worth and the ability to develop your human capitol to meet the standard of living you personally would like to accomplish.
I think the natural reality incentivizes societies to encourage more freedom as it benefits all involved in the long run. The matter has always been getting the society to realize this. Under a Libertarian system, individuals may vote away such freedoms as they effectively have been doing more and more lately to the detriment of themselves. So the failing isn't the system, the failing is humans off and on acting irrationally.
Yeah, I know about those guys from the Mises Institute. I was planning on reading Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson pretty soon. My majors in college were Applied Math and Physics, but I took a lot of economics classes simply because I have a keen interest in it obv (almost made it my second degree to complement the math one in place of physics) to satisfy all the social science requirements. I could've just like chain taken 100 sociology mumbo jumbo classes. But, the thing that disappointed
I know Friedman is speaking about the US, but I'm surprised at his claim that polls consistently show the majority in favor of less public spending. In the UK for example the vast majority of people support the existence of the NHS. Perhaps the wording of the poll was something on the lines of 'Do you think Government spends too much?'. People love to criticize governments and would say yes but then answer 'Do you think government does enough to help the poor/disabled/sick' and they'd say no.
Great Channel here ... Thanks for this ... Sadly most people today couldn't listen or think this long .. Never the less I'll be sending around !!
Keynes, in an earlier work, argued that savings wasn't investment. At the beginning of The General Theory he apologized for the error and then based his entire general theory on that fallacy, arguing that only saving invested directly in capital goods was investment. The whole multiplier concept is based on this nonsense.
It took you how many hours to come up with that retort?
reading on the matter yet as I've been super busy with college, but my gut instinct tells me that adjusting the money supply proportion to growth of population and GDP growth is a red herring because a) prior to the advent of centrally planned economies, we got along just fine b) it doesn't seem natural to the underlying reality to have this arbitrary, slow entity monitoring the economy c) deflation overall doesn't seem to at first hurt anyone when the means of production are also deflated
@frnksng what about bartering to avoid currency transactions?
I generally like Friedman. But I’m failing to understand why Heath Insurance in the US is so expensive.Maybe I’m wrong, but I heard it costs hundreds of dollars per month, which seems very expensive.
If I’m right, isn’t that a case of free market failure? Perhaps not all industries should be privatized?
@flubberdubber UA-cam milton friedman monopolies, milton friedman socialized medicine, milton friedman education... and thanks for playing
@roaris1 Do you really think if there is less demand for, say, an Aircraft Carrier that people will not put the money elsewhere? Even if they saved every penny then all that would mean would is that there would be more money to lend to people for starting new businesses or buying homes.
Private schools out perform public schools because they are better funded. So this means that public schools should be abandoned? What education should those students receive?
And which countries are you talking about?
What? But doesn't government intervention preclude free trade?
I am too much of a statist towards the right, leaning towards progressive programs and important regulations in the capitalist market for pragmatic reasons, for me to agree with Milton Friedman on his "utopia." However, what he said is basically the truth. 95% to 99% spot on.
@235RB We have arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements-agriculture, medicine, environment, etc- depends on science & technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
-Carl Sagan
@normalkuriboh I have not read such positions from Friedman. If you source the positions you are attributing to him I will be happy to take a look at them and reply. I am also not clear on your position. You seem to be a fan of China and Singapore, calling them "healthy and productive"? In the meantime, I do think China's political structure is under immense pressure from the growing middle class. They struggle to censor dissent, and are rapidly changing. As Friedman predicted.
@Tksports122 He said national defense not war.
@235RB One more thing, I don't know of an example in nature that behaves on an infinite slope. Most observations in nature even at the molecular level behave on SIGMOIDAL curves. When resources such as rare earths start to dwindle then they growth in that part of the economy that uses rare earths will level out. The rare earths can be recycled if a better use if found for them, which requires energy.
@pdynamics1 There is already online bartering, companies do it all the time amongst themselves, probably to avoid taxes.
Singapur?
Hiya,Tell me what questions RBE cant answer and I will see if I can answer them or create some insight or even meaningfull discussion. There are now a million people worldwide discussing and envisioning a more efficient system than we have now which is participatory, all inclusive and not patchwork and although a 'model' is not in action at the moment some of the conceptual answers are head and shoulders above other systems that Freidman, Keynes et al espouce. Please research more. Namaste
@CosmicFork: Corporatism requires involvement from the government to protect and augment the corporation. True Conservatism and Liberarianism rejects any cooperation between the government and the corporation. Jon Huntsman, who is a true conservative, believes that companies should be forced out of business if they fail in the marketplace. Therefore the free enterprise system requires a business model provide value to the marketplace while accepting risk.
less-regulated market. The countries that have freer systems correlate with increased standard of living and lower cost of living. The countries that do the opposite have the opposite results. The evidence pro-gov't individuals provide is evidence really against gov't control as these individuals are thoroughly diagnosing the real problem in-depth.
I have a question, was Milton Friedman for voluntary taxes or as a minimul neccessery evil; forced but small taxes to provide for the things he just mentioned in government.
When I research stuff about classical liberals-libertarians( whats the difference?) They often say that compulsory taxation is theft but they usualy say that government still has some role like police, military and justice department but they never make it clear do they believe those things would be pay by voluntary taxes or compulsory (minimum evil).
Do you believe (serious question I dont know how to answer) society would be functional and better without any compulsory taxation?
He was in favour of flat like a 10 % overall tax rate.
@CosmicFork by MrGuvnah: "Please specify HOW ...." (emphasis added)
by Cosmick force: "Corporations wanted ...."
You didn't answer the question.
@roaris1 A nation cannot continually spend money it does not have. But if cutting spending creates recessions, then why is the economy in such bad shape when there has been more money spent than ever before? In fact the situation has become very clear; governments in much of the world MUST CUT. The big three, Germany, France and the UK have all announced austerity measures. It comes down to this; who spends money better, the owners of that money or politicians?
Friedman is Yoda. Or maybe Obi wan Kenobi. His ideas are our only hope. Period.
The individual opposite Milton in the checked jersey, his opponent in this debate, went on to become Icelands prime minister and led that nation to unmitigated economic ruin through his socialist policies.
what he is in fact saying is that people should exercise their political democratic power to absolutely limit how much of this very same power they will have in the future. They ought to do this, moreover, because such power is inherently corruptible.
@dancthegr Individualism doesn't mean isolation, aloofness or escaping to a desert island. As an individual you think for yourself, make your own desions, persue your own intrest, and so on... that dosnt mean because your an idividual you don't recognizes the same right in others.
No but I can explain it. Absent government and its penchant for playing favorites and catering to special interest group, the only power that private entities ever have are those voluntarily given them (usually in the form of money in exchange for the provision of products and services people want or labor in exchange for a market level compensation that allows them to improve their lot in life.
Public (government) action has never checked anyone's influence over anyone.
Brilliantly said
@RCK502 I agree, but you must understand that the system you are speaking of is "corporatism" or "Fascism" not "capitalism". Just as umbilicaltapeworm said, "get rid of this inherently coercive entity and the consumer will be king again.". I couldn't agree more. Just understand the difference. All too often I see people blame capitalism for what has been done to it by more socialist interests. Just read Atlas Shrugged :) This will put it into perspective. I really do suggest reading it.
@all028 I am disputing that there is no difference, it's just an illusion.
If it's equal in tax they'd get from a sales tax anyway then what's the diff now or later?
If you take the money and put it in savings account, isn't that sort of a transaction? The banker is buying/borrowing your money with interest. Interest should be taxed. It's a service, a sale.
Would a government run fire department be a component of Milton Friedman ideal society?
You misinterpreted the meaning of "made" in this/my context. I mean that you can produce money, ergo get a profit of your work. Not only get money from rich relatives or other lucky sources of income.
@pdynamics1 hmm I guess if you tax spending instead it gives people the ability to shop around for the lowest taxes.
But isn't interstate commerce untaxed by states?
The ideal society would belong to the purple quadrant of the Political Compass :-)
@pdynamics1 They are flourishing because they're about as close as you can come without being a true free market. Their economy only began to grow when they began to implement more free market ideas. furthermore they would be nowhere near as well off as they are (not gross though, most chinese people live in desperate poverty) if it were not for America's marketplace, and the money they've gotten from it.
@Someideasandstuff all centralized systems work this way. free market or command.
I wonder what Milton Friedman would think about the following book? Titled: “Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights.”
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
aren't*
People who have a problem with the concept of Free Trade do so for one of two reasons. They just flat out don't like their current wealth level and would rather increase their wealth through political means rather than private means.
Or they genuinely believe that, when the market is free to do what it likes, "corrupt" businessman will manipulate the system to profit immensely at the expense of the rest of society.
Now, let's examine closer that second reason's legitimacy.
@pdynamics1 Can they shop around for Federal tax? no
If it isn't a flat income tax then I see where the difference is.
If it's flat I don't see diff between working more and getting taxed more, compared to spending more and getting taxed more.
@all028
If I buy a back scratcher and am charged a sales tax, then the person who hires another person to scratch his back should get charged sales tax as well.
Service = commodity
Yes, and you have a right to defend yourself with the state behind your back if that's the case.
what are you talking about, what did he say that was so crazy?
Friedman was brilliant.
@dancthegr
Well i agree that is not good but the conomy grew. So theres not any easy sollution to everything
In Free Trade, it's impossible to get a result undesirable to the two parties of a deal. If people prefer fried chicken to the added years of existence from, say, 75 to 90, that's their decision. If people prefer decreased cost of healthcare at the risk of mortality, that's their decision. Ofc, the latter is a much more complicated matter, a byproduct of vast ingredients that goes into resources allocated for birth and gov't regulation of those resources. But, my first statement remains true.
@dancthegr
yes but a family is a collective unit that cares for each other.
None cares about homeless people in another country in the same way they care about their family, a family is a group of individuals who care for each other almost as much as they care for themselves and therefore you can cal each family and individual.
A society on the other hand is built up by lots of people who dont care about everyone in the society and thaths a collective which doesnt work.
@Laszlo22201
Milton Friedman never consulted Augusto Pinochet
work in Paper
what about Hong Kong
go google it you see how his theory can work !
@all028 I agree but to be honest, the money you earn will eventually be spent. Unless you save it forever in a bank, and even then you're making interest on it, which you will, spend; otherwise the money is basically worthless.
So then, let's take is as a given you will spend the money. So what difference does it make if they tax you when you spend it or earn it? The only way you can avoid the tax is if you spend the money in the black market, or untaxed schemes, and thus cheating the system.
Friedman did not support Pinochet's tyranny,but did what he always did which was to show the government of every country how to achieve freedom. The fact that Pinochet failed to follow Friedman's advice isn't his fault...Oh and freedom is hardly narrow minded.
@235RB Yes I hear you, we are using faster than return rate, but economics CHANGE all time & physical restraints will LIMIT growth no matter what, hence growth will follow a sigmoidal curve. Growth need not come at permanent destruction of environment either. I watched the vids & they misinform people. Did you watch the vid I posted? This machine was demonstrated for 6 months before being muscled out. Technical challenges exist but there are no show stoppers & that goes for fusion tech as well.
Please explain to me how RP does not believe in a strong national defense. How does nation building contribute to national defense. How does bombing civilians which in turn cause them to hate us, improve our national defense. How does bankrupting our country through the current wars and the sustaining of existing bases improve national defense. Please give me your two cents.
@mjbowerman Ha. Tell that to China and Singapore. Friedman himself said that Beijing was the free market at work, and it is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. The sort of economic system China and Singapore have are the most healthy and productive forms of capitalism, yet the most politically repressive. The ball is in your court.
@watertonrivers right on dude!
I always find it odd that some people can't wrap their heads around the logic of libertarianism...maximum freedom, limited government...is it a mistrust of themselves? Or the unwillingness to do the work needed to prosper and help their neighbor if needed?
Many of the countries in Western Europe (incuding heavily socialized Sweden and the Netherlands) have school choice.