How Milton Friedman Broke The American Economy | The Class Room Ft.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- Ronald Reagan learned his disastrous "trickle down" economics from a man named Milton Friedman. We're still suffering the consequences today. @FDSignifire breaks down the most notorious right-wing economist and how he broke our economy.
-----
More Perfect Union is a new nonprofit media org with a mission to empower working people. Learn more here: perfectunion.us/
Follow us on Twitter: / moreperfectus
Instagram: / perfectunion
Facebook: / moreperfunion
Nothing says supporting freedom and democracy like advising military dictators in Latin America.
Nobody else in the world got to enjoy free helicopter rides.
Chileans had it good!
It's pronounced Pinoshit!!
Milton Friedman was the devil incarnate ,he went to Chili knowing he could not enact his policies in the US , many people were killed because of him, Pinochet tied many alive to cut up railroad tracks put in helicopters some alive and dumped in the ocean. The survivors got the tracks I heard they made a memorial out of them.
@@VictorMartinez-zf6dt he did so Pinochet was his apostle
@@VictorMartinez-zf6dt nooooooo stop speaking the truth about my favourite hero milton friedman 😭😭😭
*Children playing in public parks, families happily consuming goods and having parties, workers whistling as they go to their union-represented job that they enjoy and get paid well for.* Milton Friedman: "Disgusting. Get rid of it all."
"The unwashed masses must be unwashed."
I know right ? Hopefully there's a special place in hell for his ass.
Wow, what a horrible monster you’ve created in your mind.
Did he want to create a dystopia because he was delusional enough to think his allies could hoard everything with there still being enough left over for the masses?
Pretty much
A perfect storm is brewing in the United States.
Inflation, bank collapse, severe drought in the agricultural belt, recession, food shortages, diesel fuel and heating oil shortages, sales drop, available automobile shortages and prices, the price of living place. It's all coming together and it could lead to a real disaster towards the end of this year (or sooner). With inflation currently at about 6%, my primary concern is how to maximize my savings/retirement fund of about $300k which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains.
The uncertainties accompanying this present market is more reasons I have my daily investment decisions guided by a portfolio-coach seeing that their entire skill set is based on going long and short at the same time, they employ a profit-driven strategy based on individual risk tolerance...
My advisor is *‘’SOFIA ERAILDA SEMA’’.* She’s highly qualified and experienced in the financial market. She has extensive knowledge of portfolio diversity and is considered an expert in the field. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market
And a Democratic party that is 60 years behind the times in dealing with the GOP today.
Look at this BS advertisement masquerading as an organic YT comment thread! 🤣
@@anderseckstrand7033 - The irony is it got 1k likes LOL
If you knew Milton Friedman main proposals like negative income tax, end of minimum wage and sound monetary policy, than you would agree those reforms would eliminate poverty
first thing i thought of when saw this video was MF negative income tax.
They’ve never listened to Milton Friedman. If they did you’d know he wanted the fda and dea abolished.
Like he wanted all drugs legalized. Here an African American is hating on Milton Friedman when it’s Milton Friedman that literally advocated for millions of blacks to be freed from prison with all drugs being legal.
He’ll Milton Friedman did more for the black cause then the blm did. Sadly the blm said defund the police when they should have been quoting Milton Friedman and arguing to legalize all drugs.
Facts
Wrong!!! Milton Friedman advocated for free-enterprise =capitalism. What is being applied in America is the economic ideology of John Maynard Keynes =socialism.
Poverty is part of the human condition been around longer than the world's oldest profession. I looked up Milton Freidman and his negative income tax that people who are above some line pay taxes and then the people under this line get money from the government and spend it as they see fit. Sounds like a fight waiting to happen because to paraphrase Sen. Grassley Americans don't want people spending money on liquor, women and movies. Friedman explained the percentages of people working for minimum wages are based on the economy from 1960s and 1970s when teenagers were mostly affected by minimum wage. He said like 20% of head of households were minimum wage, that is no longer true. This just sounds his similar "trickle down" theory and I have been waiting 40 years for that. No thanks, its pie in the sky.
As a former Californian no thanks to Reagan and his vile policies. I remember the time he closed so many mental health hospitals and it was like a homelessness crisis was born overnight. California still hasn't got out of that hole and it's been over fifty years. 😞
Also, made colleges charge tuition. Before him, UCs and Cal-States were close to free. Regan cut that.
Homelessness was indeed created by reagan/Friedman, but it was all across the nation. When he was elected Governor, CA had what was acknowledged as the best education system in the world and he destroyed it. I had the misfortune of going to school in CA when Prop 13 went into effect. Economists at the time warned us what would happen and the people of CA ignored them.
Oh yeah, and he used nuclear weapons! Oh wait, did he? No, you can tell all the things Reagan didn’t do because UA-camrs say he did, but don’t connect him to it.
The thing is, there was widespread abuse in American mental health institutions and many advocates hoped that community based care would improve outcomes for patients.
But of course doing that would require funding community based care and well we all know how the Gipper felt about funding health...
@@Owesomasaurus No there wasn't, any more than there were "welfare queens" living large and driving new Cadillacs from the fortunes they made by having 6 kids and milking the welfare state.
They lied to us.
But you know what is true?
It's easier to fool people than it is to convince people that they've been fooled.
Here we are, over half a century after the fact, with access to all the evidence, and the lies are still being repeated by people who "remember".
if milton friedman was alive to see what he wrought he'd love it, he'd be extremely proud, because he was a massive piece of sh!it
His eugenics experiment is going exactly as planned.
If you can't adapt to the made-up system, then you perish, along with your genetics. His goals accomplished. 🎉
Yup. The establishment of an overclass was always the goal.
Most of our ancestors came to America to flee stratified societies. The goal of every conservative and libertarian is to make America into a stratified society.
Imagine being such as asshole that you're glad your own mother was mercilessly exploited, to have the best years of her life stolen by some rich parasite.
@@tofu_golem Don't forget nuance; many of the British groups that settled the future America fled the stratified society of Britain to make their own stratified societies that the Crown was intolerant of; the Puritans are the most prominent example-they only tolerated those that shared their beliefs, and Rhode Island was founded by people expelled from the Massachusetts colony for their religious dissent.
You're being excessively kind to Uncle Milty.
Milton Friedman was not a right winger, he was a libertarian. He argued for a limited government, freedom for people to decide their lot in life and advocated the need for a free market (which creates competition). He argued that the government are just people just like you and I equally working for their own interests. Therefore are not equipped to decide what is best for the people.
And as for the race issue on income, he was one of the first to observe the negative impact the minimum wage had on the employment of young people, especially low skilled workers who were usually black youth. He said “the minimum wage was probably one of the most racist laws ever passed.”
He also argued against welfare, and how it incentivized women to depend on the government for assistance thus eliminating the need for a father in the house, particularly poor black households experienced the major brunt of the negative effects of welfare, thus breaking the family.
I’m happy this program introduced some of you to Milton Friedman for the first time, but I think we’ll all learn a lot from Friedman himself and his ideas.
And when you’re done and would like to learn a lot more about race and black issues in America, the great Dr. Thomas Sowell gives a lot of context to the political climate in the country.
I think what gets missed is that the rich are people just like you also, who are fundamentally interested in enriching themselves.
so this Reagan era myth that they would invest in the future turns out to be a lie, because giving the capitalist free money with no accountability is like giving a d*pehead fetnanyl.
the rich are addicted to money and will do anything to see their number go bigger. just like you and me. And since they arent government agents, then they are not held accountable by the public.
this is why we need UBI or some other way of getting American money back in the hands of the American people.
but yeah, Friedman and Sowell are definitely right-wingers.
@@maxonmendel5757 Milton Friedman calls himself a libertarian and Thomas Sowell is a conservative. Both would lean to the right of political discourse. Does being a right winger mean they’re bad people?
@@desmondnyaho3061 not necessarily, but it does describe a bias that they have that needs to be accounted for. Sowell isn't correct about everything because of his conservative bias
And not forget dr. Walter E. Williams.
The size and scope of the US federal government (and many state and municipal governments) has grown to be bigger than ever before, which is antithetical to the economic policies Milton Friedman advocated for.
The funny thing is that Friedman's ideas aren't new. The UK in the 19th century used them all the time, at home and abroad, and it led to two of the worst famines of the 19th century: the Bengal Famine of the 1870s, and the Potato Famine of the 1840s. Both times the famine was exacerbated by the decision for administrators to prioritize profits gained by selling grain to wealthier markets, rather than feeding the people who would immediately starve if they didn't receive food. These theories are already known, and their brutality and cruelty is only matched by their apathy for the consequences of their actions.
And astonishingly we adopt the same ideas again to tragedy of the Irish famine being played on the global stage. Shows how brainwashed we all into ignoring the past.
Did the video not just say that the government ought to have to no control over economics - and their involvement leads to catastrophe?
Because the Potato Famine is a prime example of an intervention by a British-appointed governor, no? Not a business.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall it was more akin to an Imperial (and therefore governmental) led issue.
@@TheAmbush101 I wouldn't think another country's imperial decisions that unilaterally supersede the sovereign decisions of another country's distribution of its own food would count at all as an example Keynesian economics. It's not like Ireland's government starved itself.
@@KASC92 I’d agree. My point of contention is that it isn’t all that indicative of market economics. Rather, command economies taking advantage of market forces for their benefit.
The Soviet Union frequently engaged in external market transactions - with limited or complete abandonment of an afflicted populace undergoing scarcity or traded resources - using the same principles. Yet, they wouldn’t be construed as a market economy nor using anything worthy of invoking those names.
@@TheAmbush101 It is though, it literally is landlords who have control over their own capital who decided that the more profitable use of their resources is to sell it in the home market, rather than give it to the starving poor who have nothing to give the money to survive off of.
Or in Bengal, in the 18th century, that was when it was under the control of the British East India Company. Do you really want to tell me that the most famous private corporation, the most successful in Great Britain's history, made any decisions at the behest of the government? They found that selling the food that Bengali people had stored to prevent starvation was more productive in the short term if it was sold on the open market. They were right, and millions paid the price with their lives.
So glad to see FD on here. I've learned a lot from his stuff - he's a great example of UA-cam in its most valuable journalistic state. As is this channel, of course.
💯 Agree. I’ve learned so much about myself just watching him and Foreign, plus I’ve been exposed to a lot of other great creators through him as well.
It's my first time seeing FD. Do you know what his full name is? I like him!
@@rridderbusch518 I do not - I've just watched several of his videos.
@@rridderbusch518 youtube.com/@FDSignifire
Agreed. I learned a lot from UA-cam in general. A lot of great channels on here. I would say Second Thought is my favorite.
It's rare to hear people talk about Friedman. Hayek also did us dirty. Friedman wanted a return to the 19th century.
wait, wait, wait: at age14, Friedman's mom was able to get a *_job,_* not at *_education,_* and this is supposed to be a good thing??
what a sick psycho
No advanced economy has ever achieved low poverty rates without high levels of government social spending.
But it is a lot easier to achieve low poverty rates with an economy that produces a flatter *pre-tax* income distribution like we had in the postwar era. We have more social spending today than back then, with poorer results in terms of equality.
@@mikealexander1935 America also had a 90 % corporate tax rate.
What happened to that?
@@stevonwhite8933 Capitalism happened baybee 😩
@@mikealexander1935
Um. How does the social spending, then VS. now, break down on a per capita basis?
...I mean, you WOULD expect us to flatly spend more. We added about a third of our population since the 60's?
Too, wages have been stagnant or falling.
Further, the service sector practically _requires_ its' front line workers to live in penury...Remember, that's one out of five jobs now, and *The government is often subsidizing them.*
(Think about it. If an employee can't afford to live on what they earn, and the government has to care for that employee instead, that's a backdoor subsidy to the company. Ok?)
Anyway...
You have to evaluate how much we're spending per person, and how much of it actually goes to poor people?
States get block grants now, and they find interesting ways to NOT help poor people with it.
...I haven't got time to dig into it. I gotta shower, then drive to work.
Have a nice day.
@@mikealexander1935 That 'pre-tax' income distribution was very much a result of the tax rates back then. Businesses saw no benefit it having income above a certain level so they just spread it among their employees or re-invested it into the business.
It is incredible to me how much we go through this cycle:
Pull each other down, like crabs in a bucket.
Wait for corpses.
Climb them.
Pull each other down again, only slightly higher.
Ad infinitum while the fisherman looks on, adding higher walls to the bucket.
That was poetic, and profound. I hope you don’t mind if I steal this for future conversation.
@@evansmothermon1547 happy it was profound enough for you 😅 it's publicly posted, feel free to use it
Paul Krugman, "Inflation is transitory." I take Milton Friedman more seriously than transitory inflation economists.
Milton Friedman gave intellectual (I use that word very loosely with this individual) credibility to a money and power grab by the wealthiest individuals and corporations. He was either thick or duplicitous as wealth inequality has since become obscene and the threat to capitalism and democracy of his ideas was obvious even to myself in my early 20s during the Reagan and Thatcher governments.
Friedman didn't care for the consequences, just as long as he got to keep his mountain of moolah from the misery his economic illiteracy forced upon the world.
he also made important contributions to macroeconomics research. I don't agree with friedman, but before you just assume that the opposite side must be dumb, you should probably look at how he contributed to his own field. The very fact that he had a Phd and you probably do not does not automatically mean he is correct but you should do your research much more carefully before putting something on the internet. The governments you were talking about existed after or during a time of rampant stagflation where no pre-existing economic models had explained this, where his supposedly did.
@@ret2pop the end of your last sentence says it perfectly: ‘supposedly did’. Nothing you say changes my original comment that his thinking has resulted in massive wealth inequalities leading to worsening power imbalances between the majority and the wealthiest sections of society and corporations. We are seeing the effects of that today and it will end badly for democracy and society. It did not take a genius to foresee the outcome of his economic model and I’m certain he knew it as well.
@@nk-gp1ml there's no reason why deregulation must imply wealth inequality; the whole point of economics is to actually demonstrate that empirically instead of just thinking about it, which is definitely not for the general public to do. Furthermore, another question is about one's values. I'm sure he would have said that even if it caused wealth inequality, it doesn't matter, as long as everyone is better off (the rising tides raise all boats effect). Also, at the time, it really did seem like his economic model was the only one that worked, due to neokeynesian theory breaking down during stagflation.
There are videos where you can actually listen to him talk, as well as a wikipedia page for him. He's very much well spoken and some of his contributions to economics still are a part of neoclassical theory today. In the modern day we have different problems and so economists have adapted to solving these new challenges.
Wage labor is renting yourself via "self ownership". Employment is literally renting another human being as if they're property. The employer-employee relationship is a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract, like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital". This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods. This is the neoliberal lens that capitalism fuse humans through, they are simply chattel property to be rented and moved about wherever profitable. This is why, at the very least, capitalism needs unions and safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value people for their human value. Importantly we must also think about our sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class to value. We must figure out a way to change this economic system if we wish to value each other.
You just wanted to type alot
I'm actually trying to share something rather novel with you. I'm dyslexic, if I could have made it shorter, I would have. It's hard to condense over a decade of studying political philosophy, sociology, economy, and finance into a small piece of text.
This is where I'm at as well, I am baffled how people don't wake up to the grim and hopeless future we are letting take precedence.
Yea. Right now im trying to explain to my employer how a tile saw cannot cut trees down. They seem to think they rented a cut anything saw.
@@JOVAHK11Nhopeless? Speak for yourself white boi. Capitalists sell us the rope that will be used to hang them.
Another aspect of Reagan’s term as California’s governor was to close mental institutions, suddenly the Republicans had produced homelessness in our towns and cities.
Thanks to the SPLC who demanded it
If only most homeless people in LA where from CA, then it would matter.
That's just liberal lies. San Fran spends 85k a year per homeless person to liberal non profits to solve the homeless problem. NYC gave all the money to deblasios wife's non profit
@@brettmcclain9289 most homeless people in California dwell roughly in the areas they lived in prior to becoming homeless. Many were born in the cities where they are now homeless.
Well... to be fair a lot of mental instituions were hellish places that hired people who get kicks out of being cruel and having power over vulnerable people. That was part of the reason for the backlash against them. Bad PR. But it certainly wasn't better to just dump everyone on the streets.
Milton Friedman also broke the American Education system. All of the states that have introduced vouchers, and greatly expanded them recently, come from Friedman's school choice philosophy. Over 90% of kids in Indiana go to public schools, but the voucher system received roughly 70% of the new education monies in the last budget. Public schools funds will not even negate the effects of inflation.
This was the intended effect of the voucher system - you’ve provided no evidence that this destroyed the education system. Are kids better off or worse off after the policy? Saying that money went from public schools to private schools is meaningless because that was the whole point of the program: that is, money should be directed from schools that underperform (public schools) to those that parents think will provide a better service to their kids. If anything, that funds have flowed out of public schools in Indiana is evidence of how dissatisfied parents have been with the public schools.
@@henry1138
But public schools will in turn continue to underperform due to lack of resources; resources that private schools don't particularly need. If anything, it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy of those who just wanted to see public school fail.
@@lunayen Your comment assumes that it’s a lack of resources that caused public schools to underperform in the first place. Expenditures are not correlated with school quality. Take the case of St. Louis, where inner city schools enjoy some of the highest per capita spending in the state, but they consistently perform poorly and only recently were accredited by the state. Friedman’s perspective was that school quality cannot be explained by high expenditures, but rather by some measure of accountability by the school to its “consumers.” Though it might be hard to stomach the word “consumers” when referring to students and parents, the intuition still holds: a public school administration that does not have to be accountable to parents and has a monopoly over a certain district does not have the same incentives to satisfy these consumers. Maybe the solution isn’t privatization, but my original point was that OP’s comment misses the entire motivation behind voucher programs.
When it comes to inflation Friedman also reminded us that it comes only from DC. Stop printing and you stop inflation. It’s that simple
Love all the awesome guests you've been having. I've heard Milton Friedman's name, but didn't know much about him. Appreciate this.
You still don't if you believe this crap.
I would much rather recommend you listen to a few of his lectures or if you want something a bit more relaxed than a one hour lecture there were a few videos of Milton Friendman on Donahue and they are quite good. I know it's probably hard to have people rag on this creator that you probably watch and are intersted in but the man has zero understanding of what he is talking about in this video. That was clear from the first 5 seconds when he said that Obama or Bush had any possible connection to the notion of libertarianism or economic freedom.
@@bicualexandru246 Exactly. Also it seems that this guy's economic and/or historic comprehension is pretty slim.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
I've read Galbraith's books. He was wrong about a lot of other things too. "Research consistently finds that the Americans who give most frequently, give the highest shares of their income, or donate specifically to causes to alleviate human poverty and suffering are those who are right-leaning and religious. Despite these gaps in behaviors, liberals have a broader sphere of moral concern and tend to feel higher levels of empathy (even if those sentiments don’t lead them to incur actual costs and risks on others’ behalf in the same manner as conservatives). Liberals tend to be troubled not just by the state of their own nation and community, but by the plight of animals and nature, of people and events in other countries, by hypothetical and projected future trends as well as historical injustices-most of which the typical person has little-to-no meaningful control or influence over. This can be a source of significant depression or anxiety (or “moral distress” to borrow a term from health care).
Although liberals tend to be less emotionally stable than conservatives, they are also far more likely to prize emotionality and to dwell on their emotions and the emotions of others. They tend to react much more severely to unfortunate events-from public tragedies to political defeats to global catastrophes and beyond. Not only are their initial responses significantly more dramatic, but liberals are also adversely affected for longer periods of time.
5 Conclusion: The well-being gap between liberals and conservatives is one of the most robust patterns in social science research. It is not a product of things that happened over the last decade or so; it goes back as far as the available data reach. The differences manifest across age, gender, race, religion, and other dimensions. They are not merely present in the United States, but in most other studied countries as well. Consequently, satisfying explanations of the gaps in reported well-being between liberals and conservatives would have to generalize beyond the present moment, beyond isolated cultural or geographic contexts, and beyond specific demographic groups. This essay has explored some of the most likely and well-explored drivers of the observed patterns:
There are likely some genetic and biological factors that simultaneously predispose people towards both mental illness/ wellness and liberalism/ conservatism, respectively.
Net of these predispositions, conservatism probably helps adherents make sense of, and respond constructively to, adverse states of affairs. These effects are independent of, but enhanced by, religiosity and patriotism (which tend to be ideological fellow-travelers with conservatism).
Some strains of liberal ideology, on the other hand, likely exacerbate (and even incentivize) anxiety, depression, and other forms of unhealthy thinking. The increased power and prevalence of these ideological frameworks post-2011 may have contributed to the dramatic and asymmetrical rise in mental distress among liberals over the past decade.
People who are unwell may be especially attracted to liberal politics over conservatism for a variety of reasons, and this may exacerbate observed ideological gaps net of other factors"
This article is an American Affairs online exclusive, published March 21, 2023.
The fact that it is conservative policies that help poor and lower income people is backed up by the IRS data.
"Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent.
By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.)
That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more.
What’s more, IRS data shows earners in higher income brackets contributed a bigger slice of the total income tax revenue pie following the passage of the tax reform law than they had in the previous year.
In fact, every income bracket with filers earning $200,000 or more increased its tax burden in 2018 compared to 2017, and every income bracket with a top limit lower than $200,000 paid a smaller proportion of the total personal tax revenue collected.
That means that Republicans’ tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive - the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years.
The IRS data further shows that the tax reform law - which included a variety of business tax cuts, including a large reduction in the corporate income tax rate - spurred economic mobility.
Every income bracket with a top level lower than $25,000 experienced a reduction in its number of filers, and every income bracket above $25,000 increased in size, with the biggest gains occurring in the brackets with a floor of at least $100,000.
The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity."
@@practicaliching2311 Lmao, you guys are delusional
Your love for the poor resulted in some of the most dystopic hellscapes, particularly during twentieth century. Where do collectivists get their faux sense of moral superiority when their ideas are objectively less effective and efficient?
how easy it is to be selfless with someone else's money huh? according to keynessians theft is ok as long as its for "the greater good", you sure have a robin hood complex
As for historical figures that might be worth talking about, Edmund Burke and his peers basically wrote the book on conservatism in an effort to postulate how capitalism could be used to preserve the hierarchical systems of royalty and the noble class against the rising push for democracy, which included removing the notion of labor value from the economic lexicon so they could pin the value of goods to their sale price rather than how hard they were to produce or any intrinsic worth they might have. Given the arguments made by people like NFT bros for why their monkey pictures are valuable, Mr. Burke's ideas might be surprisingly relevant to today's economic problems.
Complete and utter bullshit
It's not that complicated..the more of something, the less value it has..whether diamonds, sand, food, or money..more low skilled people..more cheap labor..more money printed..less dollar value..simple, ..it's big gov. That prints more money - devaluing the currency..all while not suffering the results themselves..government supplies no value based goods/while simultaneously being the largest employer by far..there are 80,000 domestic employees in the C.I.A., that one..of hundreds of Gov. Departments, 86,000, were just added to the I.R.S.
( Friedman was for a very small government.. they add no value while burdening the people)..
What of the 30 books Friedman wrote have you read?
Democracy and the push for capitalism is ultimately a system where the merchants and the clergy take over and become the new aristocracy while the aristocracy and the people are made irrelevant ie look at how Democracy replaced Constitutional Monarchies in most places.
@@mikebaum5976 Please. Your claims about government do not fit observed reality
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 ok... explain.., in what way.
So, what economic strategy/system works better? I want to research and learn.
It depends on country and culture. Americans tend to forget that and sometimes even long for strong unions that are especially difficult to manage in a federal government.
USA is economically the most prosperous country there is. However the middle class has thinned out, but that doesn't mean people don't have more opportunities than in most of the world. They have less security and that makes people unhappy.
EU generally has way more security, but those policies stagnate economy in long run and make competition harder.
US mostly needs way more transparency and better digital infrastructure. With that smaller government and broader middle class can be re-established. Administrative issues always materialize as needlessly large administrative sector after all which in turn hinders middle class. There is no quick miracle fix so it needs to be long term bipartisan effort. Less corruption = more trust = security and happiness.
The federal system makes an universal fix really difficult, so for now the best option for common people in US is to vote with their feet and make states compete with each other in work and living standards.
If you think the government is going to save you. Boy, you are in big trouble.
So true 😊
So you are saying that we can't govern ourselves? A government of the people by the people and for the people? We could. except a lot wealthy, powerful people corrupt it and then say look government doesn't work. They even get ordinary people saying this. Playing into their own hand. Capitalism will always corrupt democracy.
The big problem with this classroom is that most americans have no idea how "progressive" tax brackets work. The wealthy were never taxed at those high rates on all of their income. When we talk about those tax rates it is only on the money over the prior bracket. Everyone making at least fifty thousand pays the same tax on that first fifty thousand, but money over that could cross into another bracket that was at a higher rate so only that excess money was taxed at the higher rate and added to the tax on the first fifty thousand. That continued up the ladder until you got to your total income. This encouraged those wealthy folks to reinvest into their companies and the nation. Why give 90% of it to the government when you could just buy new machinery to make your company more efficient next year? By encouraging them to keep their income lower this way it made things better for everyone. Only stupid people would pay that tax and stupid people rarely have that kind of money. It was the stick that went with the carrot of loopholes. Now they have all the loopholes without the stick and they love it. And our nation suffers.
I would love to see one on Alan Greenspan and his next logical step on this road. Also how Greenspan worshiped Ayn Rand such that we ended up with members of congress making her required reading for staffers. Ayn Rand did more damage to this nation that anyone else I can think of.
Agreed. Rand was a disaster and still is, heritage foundation, foundation for economic education, and other think tanks still peddle her works and are often financed by big oil cus they know her philosophy is one that lets them not only get away with their crimes but be rewarded for them. Truly sick stats of affairs
do you know why most of us don't understand taxes...because no one can explain it, in any sensical way, to the average person. It is all double talk and academic B.S!
Excellent explanation of the thought process behind those high tax policies. The rich obviously wont want to pay that high rate, so they reinvest!!!
@@joshuatall8134never quite understoond why basic economics isn't taught in high school
@@ciello___8307 It is the truth. Almost no one paid those rates to the government. Why do you think so many built libraries and donated to charities? The goodness of their heart? Or a tax right off? Charities are struggling today because of these lower tax rates at the top.
In my freshman year of college in the early 1960s, my Economics 101 professor had us read a typical Keynesian book on Economics and "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman. We had to write a term paper based on the two divergent theories. I was amazed at how many of my classmates were taken in by "Capitalism and Freedom". But then again, I was one of the financially poorest students at the school and if I hadn't received a scholarship, I wouldn't have been able to attend.
That explains a lot! I've always wondered when the Boomers became so selfish.
The cold war was intentionally framed as Capitalism vs Communism instead of Democracy vs Dictatorship for this exact reason.
To make the citizens of the US support the industrial elites over themselves. While also letting the government fall to corruption.
If all the propaganda was Democracy vs Dictatorship, then we all would have been more focused on citizen involvement in politics and more willing to accept a broader mixed economy style with more social programs, nationalized industry, and regulations on industry.
@@5353Jumper The USSR and its allies never claimed to have achieved communism, they were still in the transitional phase between capitalism and communism known as socialism in Marxist theory.
@@SCHMALLZZZ and they got closest during Gorbachev's term but really the Russian Oligarchy never really tried anything but Capitalism. They only used socialism/communism as an excuse to seize property and wealth from the citizens and give it to the oligarchy.
Which is why the whole cold war Capitalism vs Communism rhetoric is total BS. Propaganda used by the elite of both sides to steal wealth and power from the citizens.
The real war was supposed to the Democracy vs Dictatorship, and though the pro democracy side did have some initial success the last 3 decades have seen the Dictatorship side winning. We may lose the cold war soon of we cannot get our citizens to see through the BS.
@@SCHMALLZZZ Which never would have been realized. All Animals are equal except some are more equal.
During the point in which I thought I was going to get a degree in Accounting and become a CPA, I took Econ 1A. A lot of the topics we covered were new to me as I had dropped out of high school as soon as I got my license (I was a second year freshman despite consistently getting 1st place in any writing competition I entered/scored very high on PSATs that I took in order to qualify for a summer program at UC Irvine when I was 15, and just absolutely hated high school). I remember being infuriated when my instructor tried to convince us that sweatshops were good for the economies they operated within. At the time I lived in an Anarchist commune in the industrial part of town and smelled like garbage. This video reminded me of that, don’t really have anything impactful to say. If you read this far, have a great day.
Ya, My Econ teacher LOVED Walmart; I said they were destroying small businesses. We were in a rural area that really needed a reliable store, and Walmart provided jobs ... his response was "Isn't it great?". I cringed. I knew the many small businesses that went bust because of Walmart, and the lack of variety in things I could buy as a result. It just made me fume.
@@rychei5393 I got kicked out of most of my ecom classes for openly debating the neoliberal scumbag professors. They always started the term saying how they expected full blown discourse and it’s ok to disagree even with him. They had had huge egos and loved wowing the 18-22 yrs old & shaping their minds. Basically “owning” the kids. I was 26 & couldn’t be shaped & already had one successful business I turned into a workers co-op when I left the biz. They hated that they were getting owned and had no rebuttals for me & I basically embarrassed them in front of the class. So they just kick me out. It was so much fun
Instead of being infuriated, (or agreeing with your professor and promoting sweatshops), why not visit a third world country and ask the people employed there what they think about sweat shops? Things are not black and white.
@@jedlicka1227 Well I saw the damage IN MY OWN COUNTRY, so I really didn't need to go see people in sweat shops (that also happens in THIS country, btw.) The mono culture of stores has quite literally limited selection options, brought to us by monopolistic mega businesses like Walmart.
This video was fantastic. FD Signifier is one of the best channels on youtube! Awesome seeing the collab.
i guess you loss the game
It was never NOT broken. No economy ever hasn't been broken. Friedman just floored the gas to collapse.
i guess you loss the game
@@juanshaftpatel7488 Did you have a point?
@@DoremiFasolatido1979 yes..youre mad cuz you lost
enjoy poverty@@DoremiFasolatido1979
@@juanshaftpatel7488 I'm not sure what it is I lost, but, alrighty. Whatever it is you're talking about. Sure.
A quiet monster few people knew about, yet destroyed the American dream.
What if his influence was reversed?
Not quiet at all, my friend.
the american dream was never real
@@boslyporshy6553the thing is, it won't, the rich won't let. It
@@mateusmachadomartinsjunior4309 I thought that was because of the Lewis Powell memo, the shareholder capture of the economic system, and the constant need to break profit records in order to keep investors interested in a company.
Have you ever looked at Reagan's economic metrics to have a say on Milton or Reagan? Milton and Sowell are probably two of the best economists we have seen. Of course, there is also Friedrich August von Hayek.
YOU are striking at the roots of today's chaos.This is very powerful and your focus is highly commendable.Keep the faith and the good work sir.
I wish government cared about its people
Caring is neither here nor there. A government should be dutiful to its people. After all, one can care and still do nothing.
No government ever cared about people only itself
That won't happen as long as those who vote are selfish and don't care about the less fortunate.
Never gonna happen. That's why I want to introduce you to David graeber
For real, people really think the economic policies of Obama are different from Reagan.
New boss same as the old boss. But you have to remember who the lawmakers were at the time. Laws were being fillibustered do you remember that? The president does run the administration and the three letter agencies but laws need to be written and passed. Remember what those proposed laws were? Oh yeah...health care for everybody. Who stalled it? Oh yeah the career republicans that are still there today. Remember any of that at all?
@@OceanusHelios Obama increased military spending over his tenure-Reagan would have done the same. Obama bailed out the banks and the not the people during the recession-Reagan would have done the same. Obama settled for subsidies with a private health care system-Reagan would have done the same. Obama cut food stamps benefit, do you really need to be reminded about Reagan’s position/actual actions on this issue?
They are the same, take the current President’s words as proof because he said it himself “Nothing will fundamentally change”.
@@Tlacaelel1124 When the Republicans embraced theocracy and racism with their southern strategy the plutocrats that left as a result ended up Democrats. After the Republican party gutted the traditional democracts for a few decades these plutocrats ended up in charge. Now both parties are run by plutocrats who primarily differ on social/cultural issues.
@@Tlacaelel1124Milton Friedman advocated for not bailing out the banks
@@peacefulpotato1836 That’s why Reagan listened to Bankers and Wall Street-not some economic intellectual that actually had principles. Flawed in my opinion but he could defend it.
Mad respect, FD! Keep up the good work!
Does Ben Shambino not know burgers are part of the GDP?
Can we talk about the Chicago School more generally, its present actions, and the influence they still have over politics today?
How about the fact that is was founded by John D. Rockefeller, which is a major fact that gets glossed over.
This! These people have destroyed ecomonies in whole Latin America plus the US and we are all celebrating that university like its the mecca of progress for the poor.
@@sceinceguy And the major reason that those diabolical ideas get pushed and pushed well.
funny how the right uses the frankford school as their boogeyman and yet the chicago school exists and has done vastly more harm
Brothaman you need to comedyize your points and become a stand up comedian. Yes it would be high brow and many would miss the points, but a black man more than ANYONE else could reach the masses with financial humor.
So Milton Friedman inspired the dystopian and late-stage capitalist world of Cyberpunk 2077.
Is there still a middle class? Seems all we have is working class or working poor, and we can't find the common ground that we need to.
Of course there's a middle class. It's normally defined either as people who earn a specified wage (for instance the Pew research facility defines it as those earning between 43k and 130k a year). This accounts for roughly 50% of adults in the US
I'm liking these FD/More Perfect Collabs.
Thank you. What a great video. Love the Crocs.
Never trust someone who is ALWAYS smiling.
You mean Ronald Reagan?
There is a second part that shows how excessive government spending creates inflation and in turn it makes your money worthless. Businesses were not paying 90 percent. Alot of fdr high taxes were offset but Business lobbyists made sure that got a tax break.
Most people don't research past the talking points. No one paid 90%, there were plenty of tax loopholes, but again no one wants to learn the actual history when it would go against their narrative.
Most of those alleged high taxes were incremental and top bracket. Hardly anyone ever seems to notice this.
What a wonderful presentation. For instance, an economics major friend of mine decided NOT to study economices at the University of Chicago, but to the University of London. She turned out just fine.
I think it would be better to describe tax rates with a little more nuance - it seems all too common that people don't understand marginal tax rates, and how much money people are actually earning (and keeping) before their *additional* income is taxed at the top rate.
Too many people are worried "if I reach the next tax bracket I will take home less money", or that the top tax bracket will affect them when they're only making a median income.
I like this presenter! Very genuine and just upbeat/funny despite talking about a very serious and sad situation. Keep it up!
He has his own UA-cam channel, and it is amazing! High recommend! F. D. Signifier
Yeah, I love this guy too. He’s an excellent reporter
He doesn’t back up anything he says. If you like him, it’s because you already agreed with him. He’s worse than Shapiro who mostly backs up his arguments, but isn’t really changing anyone’s mind
@@nunyabidness3075 Shapiro is just a fast talker that has loaded points and data that serves a narrative.
Its a quick gotcha answer from him from guests that cannot provide stats themselves off the top of their head.
Everyone has their biases though. But this presenter has charisma and historical knowledge from another political spectrum. Only way one can grow and question their thoughts is by listening to both sides and coming to your own conclusion.
@@shabadoob That’s not the only way to grow. The better way is to listen to people who offer complete arguments. In fact, someone who did that quite well, was Milton Friedman. Go listen to him. You may not agree with him, but you’ll see why he was so persuasive. He offers full arguments.
5:11 turn on Closed Captioning and 0.75x playback with the Volume Down if it's difficult to follow along as posted. Hope this helps some of us...
First time viewer. Dug this to no end. 12 mins of solid education. Thank you.
"Don't show I'm wearing crocs. Or do, maybe it makes me relatable i dunno" was big uncle energy 😂
I asked him not to mock the very shoes on my feet. 😢😂
I call Milton Friedman Wrong. Proven wrong by examples we have today.
I call Milton Friedman Evil... Sometimes I even go as far as to say, he's a _Real Jerk!_
I call Milton Friedman a SOB..
Milton Friedman, more like milking unfree men.
Please enlighten us as to how he's wrong exactly.
@@VictorMartinez-zf6dt I have a better idea...since you are questioning, why don't you tell us why you think he is right.
My favorite Friedman quote because it sounds so stupid: “I believe the FDA as it’s been operating has done vastly more harm than good.”
Oh, you have no idea how many Americans the FDA has killed
Just finished taking notes on this video! Super easy to understand, love it! :)
Great video 🔥
Please do William F Buckley, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, or Larry Summers next!
Adding them all to my list of "The Worst People in the Modern World", thanks!
Don't forget Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh!
Exposing the bankrupt ideas behind Friedmanism is one of the topics of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine
Amazing book, that one!
@@krejados1 The post-Katrina stuff read like a conspiracy thriller. Then you remember that it's real.....Fffffuuuck!
Fantastic book. Her chapter breaking down Friedman and the Chicago Boys is probably the best summary and analysis of them. Required reading for anyone interested in the subject.
@@mitchpattimusic I'd be interested to know if this is required reading in any economics class
@@Busto I went to undergrad and grad for school for Political Science and never saw it, or anything like it, assigned in that field, and I took a lot of courses related to political economy. However, I did have to read a very annoying amount of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and several libertarian cranks at both levels of education.
Really helpful explanation of how we got here. Thanks, FD & MPU.
Thank you for the economic history lesson. I avoided such classes when I was in college.
Friedmanism actually guarantees the "freedom" to starve.
No thats marx
@@worldofdoom995Actions vs ideas. The former goes to Friedman.
Friedman advocated for a negative income tax (a form of basic income for people below a certain upper tax bracket). Friedman's policies would have PREVENTED people from starving. We live in the 21st century, look shit up BEFORE you pull nonsense out of your ass!
Capitalism has lead to a significant drop in hunger worldwide. Maybe the dumbest comment of all.
@@jeffgifkins7684 sure. Friedmanism didn't tho since hunger rate started rising again recently.
I'm gonna remember this names so when I go to hell I can start crossing them off my hit list.
He kept talking about his poor working class parents and yet pushed ideas that would harm people like that, implying he was either delusional, demented, or for some reason really resented all of the other poor people. "I got out via my own hard work! (Because I am special.) Only hard workers deserve non-poverty! (If everyone gets it then I am not special.)" Actually I have no idea what he was really thinking, and it not really important but it is ironic.
I noticed that too. Either he was gloating or uniquely clueless. ??
He was sincere, chile has better standart of living that almost all countrys in latinomerica. There are arguments against a pro, monetarism stop calling diferent position demencial
@@matiaslobosrojas7285 no
@@priyapepsiyes
He was a student of economics and anyone who studies it in detail always comes to the same conclusions he did. The policies he advocates raises the OVERALL standard of living. The policies he’s against helps raise the standard of living of a small group of individuals at the expense of a larger group of individuals. Protectionism, unions, minimum wages, rent controls all help a smaller group of people at the expense of a much larger group of people, reducing the OVERALL standard of living and so keep countries perpetually poor, as you see in South America and Africa where socialism and heavy regulation are rampant. In countries like Chile, Botswana, and South Korea which follow opposite policies, you can see that free trade, less unions, and no price controls ( min wages, rent controls) OVERALL produce a higher standard of living as these policies help the masses on a large scale at the expense of much smaller groups of people.
You always find a way make sense of these things. Thanks 😊
I really hope Friedman, Reagan, Atwater, Falwell, Welch and Powell are "enjoying" Hell. Save a hot seat for Kissinger.
We can only hope.
Why would they? Did they abort 2 million babies every year?
I don’t know what to attribute it to but it’s really incredible that this country has only visibly gotten worse over the last 40 years due to a steady retreat of taxes, public investment and rising inequity and there are a ton of people who say the government is still too big and taxes too high. Like, you can win elections by telling people you’ll slash taxes and entitlements even as society falls apart around them. Truly mind boggling.
I'd venture a guess: poor educational standards and lack of critical thinking skills, also not taught in schools.
You don't know what to attribute it to? Are you kidding? It is the usual suspects that run this as their platform.
The amount of money collected by the government, in relation to GDP, has not changed in 100 years.
@@brettmcclain9289 From CEIC Data, I find, "The US [tax revenue as a portion of GDP] data reached an all-time high of 19.5 % in 2000 and a record low of 13.7 % in 2009."
That's a nearly 30% drop in 9 years.
But it's also beside the point about public investment and inequity - taxes collected have increasingly been spent in ways that benefit the already-rich, decreasingly been spent on infrastructure and public goods and services. Taxes collected have increasingly been taken from those with lower incomes, and we all know who got the tax cuts.
But, to return to my first point: You're wrong.
@@drwalker9093I just have to say that the top 1% paid 723 billion in taxes and the bottom 90 paid 450 billion. The top 50% of tax payers paid 97.7% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 50 paid 2.3%. Not saying I disagree with you overall but I am saying the data doesn't necessarily support that.
Keynesian here, Keynes was pretty damn based for an Economist. I think he’s tied with Nash.
Very well done. I hope you have a presence on other social media platforms so this kind of information is more widely available, especially to our youth who are eligible to vote but may not yet have engaged.
Someone inform Ben Shitpero that exploiting cheap labor, tax evading, receiving tax breaks & subsidies is not "saving" money
Somebody inform him that he should get a ticket to Russia and be more honest.
oh unfortunately, pretty much all conservatives think that actually is saving money
The fact that you misspelled his name even outside of the “shit” part is killing me 😂
On the face of it the last 50 years all politicians have pushed for globalization. Obama himself pushed for employing cheap Chinese rather than being like Trump who fought to increase tariffs or bring jobs back to the U.S. Trump did things bad but he actually tried something different.
But most economists will say ya offshoring and employing millions of Chinese workers was deflationary. It let the bush and Obama etc print money and Chinese bought the debt and it was deflationary employing cheap Chinese. It destroyed rural America but it made cheaper tvs etc.
FD Signifire always does great work. Thanks for this very informative video.
He did a video on Milton Friedman but didn't even know if he was alive??? Good research buddy.
@@jamesmiller2129 guessing you don’t know figurative language. If you watched his other videos, he consistently jokingly disregards these people to counteract the perverted idolization often done when others talk about such figures like Milton Friedman
@@QuestionsIAskMyself your reply does not address my issue at all (lack of research before criticism)
Also thank you for all that your doing!
When I saw Friedman’s name it made me pause.
This is getting to the point!
I was going to turn the video off, then the crocs showed up. Now I'm invested.
Thank you. More people need to talk about the damage that Milton Friedman did to the US and British economy. We never recovered from this irresponsible ideology.
He also helped damage Chile with his Chilean students running the country after the 1973 coup.
His proposals to abolish medical licences would have been disastrous if his lot had their way there would be no government intervention preventable deaths and injuries would rise from negligence of parties and guess what it will be harder to take cases to court. No doubt he would have thought legal aid obscene.
Those economies were well in decline before Friedman became known.
Chile is the richest country in South America
Communism never works for the working class, capitalism is what gives normal people a better chance. Freedom is not perfect but is the best way, communism will destroy your life. Defend your constitution and freedom.
"Just keepen it a buck" and absolutely true - we have had the same president since 1982.
Love these informative videos. More @FDSignifire please!
Did... did Friendman never do the math on the idea that increased wages make costs of products spiral out of control?
Because that calculation isn't hard, it is simply a recursive application of this formula:
Product cost increase % = wage increase % * % of product cost made up of wages.
So as long as the % of product cost that is determined by wages is less than 100% then iterating that calculation cannot possibly increase indefinitely. So spiralling out of control only happens if the product has no materials, taxes don't exist, and the company has no other form of overhead. And even then it only happens if the company isn't making a profit.
One of my cherished moments in academia was referring to Milton as a crackpot in one of my papers.
hell yeah. though honestly, it's a bit insulting to the crackpots
You did us a service too. 😅
You must not be an Economist then. Friedman might have been wrong about many things, and the implementation of some of his ideas clearly didn't work, but he was extremely intelligent and made significant contributions to the field.
Love this one from FD and More Perfect Union. As an economics student, I thought there might have been one or two confusions.
I'm very much a Keynesian, but being a Keynesian can allow for a natural unemployment rate. If you like people being able to switch jobs and think that sometimes it takes a few weeks between quitting and getting hired again, then you agree that there is a good basis for a small proportion of unemployed people. I think we want to keep the rate of people who can't find employment as low as possible.
Interestingly, unemployment rate is all about people who are STILL LOOKING for jobs as well. People left behind by the system who no longer apply for jobs no longer show up in the unemployment rate. This seems to be a major blind spot of contemporary political discussions of economics and maybe a better punching bag than a natural unemployment rate existing: the people who cannot find employment or who are underemployed.
Here's hoping that this crisis can cause some positive changes, just like was said. Thanks for getting the word out to both UA-camrs involved!
In the past full employment policies were designed to achieve just the outcome you describe - as low an unemployment rate as possible. I'm not aware of a country that pursued full employment in a Keynesian sense that reached zero unemployment.
The difference is that contemporary governments use unemployment rates to depress wages. I think its important to structure policy to encourage work for all those who want and are able to work; accepting a natural unemployment rate tho leads to complacency and wage suppression.
@@Owesomasaurus Cool thoughts, I see that.
youre gonna lose the game@@jessehughes8274
so glad you're getting more platforms to speak on!
Would definitely love to know more details about the influence of FA Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics on the US.
So happy to see this King here 👏
Actually, Ben, that’s EXACTLY what it does.
Thank you so much for covering this important historical detail!
I recently had a conversation with a friends grandma who is 94. She said she was paid 30k for clerical work in 1946. I showed her an inflation calculator and how in todays dollars that’s 375k. She asked how people survive today. Still searching for an answer.
Is that you in your dp ?
Back then money literally was gold. Well then the dollar became gold backed so saving dollars literally was like saving gold! Remember gold and gold back dollars are totally different than a fiat dollar.
Your Gandma was not paid 30K for clerical work in 1946. She probably wasn't even paid $3K for clerical work in 1946. Engineers with a degree didn't break $30K till the late 70s or early 80s.
@@tonya3308 you’re correct, she and her husband had a business for which she did clerical work and that was the revenue from their business and all other assets combined.
I'm loving these fd narrated episodes. I'm pretty sure his last episode inspired the behind the bastards episode on welche
Him and Second Thought are awesome!
Love that you gave Bernie the last word.
I remember those days. And all the arguments for and against. We were warned against his ideas, but the rich won. And the manufacturing, and middle class, lost. The sooner we ditch his failed ideas the better.
great work as always 💜
It always goes back to Regan. He is the commutation of all the pro business policies before and the pivot point in history. There's the positive times before Regan and the bad economic times, now, after Regan. Most of the videos on this channel mention Regan at some point in the video. You should cover him how gathered all these people's bad ideas and changed the US leading to now.
3:10. The “Oil Embargo” is a massive myth used to excuse the failures of the free market to protect itself from hysteria. Per Mehran Kamrava, there was NO real embargo of oil, simply the threat of it repeated over and over . Oil production never slowed, OPEC never stopped selling to the west, and prices rose simply due to hysteria and greed keeping them from falling. It is THE great failure of capitalism, where the mere threat of a supply shock that never came managed to cause a very real price spike and supply shock as hysteria led to a run on gas stations.
For a simpler modern example, we can look at toilet paper. There never was a toilet paper shortage. There was only the perceived THREAT of one. Yet because of this hysteria, people rushed to get toilet paper and store shelves couldn’t be restocked fast enough (when there was literally more toilet paper in the back). Suddenly you have people overcharging it, and now it’s $10-12+ for a 4-pack of decent toilet paper rolls.
I remember my neighbor put up a poster back then in college. "Survive in Reagan's America, Eat the Rich"
FD is such a good host
It seems that economists are treated as high priests, and the economy is God. If true, that is horrifying. It allows the powerful to grant their horrendous acts as "the market's will," i.e., "God's will." All these decisions, human decisions, are granted as divine and shouldn't be questioned.
They are ideologs lol
Worship of wealth and punishment of poverty
@@elizabethdavis1696 And we know what needs to be done with religious fanatics,
People🙏❤🌹 please, unionize! Only unity makes us💪 strong! 😊
'Imagine letting the free market decide if you live or die." Imagine letting a bureaucrat who you have never met make that decision, rather than you making it. That is the alternative.
Trickle down economics is such a childish take on economic policy lmfao. I remember my dad preaching to me about it as a kid, but it never works in practice.
Trickle down economic is a socialist dogwhistle
Cause it wasn't a real theory in the first place. Reagan made it up.
Trickle down economics doesn't exist, it's a made up term by leftist who just hated Regan and misquoted what he actually meant.
i guess you loss the game
Amazing video! The one big question I was left with was how else we might explain the crisis of "stagflation" which Friedman and the Chicago School thinkers latched onto.
Mainstream economics erroneously views inflation and unemployment as being in opposition. Stagflation is the term they invented when they couldn't explain why there were both. Monetarists like to ignore external economic factors like oil embargoes and blame everything on the money supply. Instead of changing their theories to accommodate the real world, they just make up exceptions. The Chicago school teaches dogma, not science.
I think his point was that Friedman and the Chicago School correctly predicted stagflation, but used it to promote their neoliberal economic policy.
in my economics class, we discussed the different "shocks" which influence inflation, and in the case of stagflation, it was a confluence of automation displacing workers in the 70's, coupled with massive increases in input costs, namely oil prices, due to OPEC influencing supply. Stagflation wasn't a natural part of the business cycle, but was influenced by cartel coordination which impacted the market. That's my take on it.
@@joeymac4302why would automation have caused it? Should be the opposite. More production should boost economic growth and less jobs should lower prices
@@DrinkWater713 automation boosted productivity, which lowered prices, and also reduced total need for jobs. Short version is that it doesn't matter that products become slightly cheaper to produce if you don't have the wages to afford the product. The problem is that you are looking at it from a human perspective where productivity increases are a net benefit, rather than a business perspective, whereby automation makes workers input less valuable, meaning they lose wage leverage. automation was great for consumers, who had to pay less. It was also great from business owners, who had to hire less people and sold more products. But it was terrible for the average worker, given that it greatly undermined their value. Which would not be a problem if viewed from a non-capitalist perspective. Increased production should be a good thing, but in practice, humans are too crummy for it to actually work out, lol.
Great talk- you packed a lot of truth into this mini-history and it was interesting and well done. Thank you!
i guess you loss the game
The second person I'm visiting once a time machine is invented: Milton Friedman.
Who’s first?
They’ve never listened to Milton Friedman. If they did you’d know he wanted the fda and dea abolished.
Like he wanted all drugs legalized. Here an African American is hating on Milton Friedman when it’s Milton Friedman that literally advocated for millions of blacks to be freed from prison with all drugs being legal.
He’ll Milton Friedman did more for the black cause then the blm did. Sadly the blm said defund the police when they should have been quoting Milton Friedman and arguing to legalize all drugs.
Why?
Glad you followed up Jack Welch with this one.
Deregulation makes all of us less safe. Trickle down economics makes most of us poorer while greatly enriching a few. Benefits have fallen, wages have stagnated, costs have skyrocketed, and wealth inequality is worse than at any other time in human history. Success to Milton Friedman and his cabal is giving more to the haves and less to the have nots.
Trickle down economic dont exist
You clearly haven’t looked into Milton Friedman’s work. I suggest you look deeper into his ideas.
@@kusayhameid1987 I suggest you look deeper into the barrel of a .45
anytime some boomer or conservative hog talks about deregulation, i like to ask, "would you like lead paint or asbestos with that?"
@@nothere4089 conservatives dont believe in complete deregulation dummy. we just believe in less reg than you do
Milton Friedman had the guts to compare "Brown vs. The Board of Education" to thd damn Nazi's and legitimately believed such !
This is the man who messed up Thomas sowell's brain
Most hated political pundit in history? Henry Kissenger, easily. Not sure how that man is still alive.