• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Don't you miss Milton Friedman?!

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here we are, a flashback to 1979 when Friedman was interviewed by Phil Donahue.

I challenge any critic to actually watch the full program before responding with their critical analysis.

Samsmart: you might especially like what he says towards the end of part one in regards to consumer safety and auto safety. We never finished that debate.

 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,315
Reaction score
14,358
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When you all are finished with that one, here's his appearance on Donahue in 1980:

 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
i'll come back to these.... i feel a bit peckish... potatoes and eggs and ham for lunch... cheap, filling and best of all.... already in the crib.

geo
 

phattonez

Traditionalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,552
Reaction score
4,221
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Monetarism is just as bad as fiscal interventionism, and his idea about a negative income tax is horrible. At least he was good in the fight against the Marxists, and that philosophy should be all but dead.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Monetarism is just as bad as fiscal interventionism, and his idea about a negative income tax is horrible. At least he was good in the fight against the Marxists, and that philosophy should be all but dead.
You seem to be a little bit more economically inclined than I am, but I'm trying my best. He argued for a negative income tax on top of his existing flat tax proposal and the elimination of all government entitlement programs. It's not like it was just the negative income tax. As for monetarism, why is it such a horrid idea?

We can't all be perfect nor can we all be purists. Milton Friedman popularized libertarian economic thinking far greater than the bozo Stossel or David Nolan. I thought he had MANY great ideas, but you seem very stuck on the one aspect of monetarism. What about the rest of his proposals?
 

phattonez

Traditionalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,552
Reaction score
4,221
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
He had plenty of good proposals, like deregulation and vouchers. Monetarism is destructive and will keep us on the path of business cycles (monetary inflation obscures price signals, no matter the amount of it), and the negative income tax is just as bad as welfare.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He had plenty of good proposals, like deregulation and vouchers. Monetarism is destructive and will keep us on the path of business cycles (monetary inflation obscures price signals, no matter the amount of it), and the negative income tax is just as bad as welfare.
Well, you know my thoughts on the gold standard, if that is your implied alternative.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Here we are, a flashback to 1979 when Friedman was interviewed by Phil Donahue.

I challenge any critic to actually watch the full program before responding with their critical analysis.

Samsmart: you might especially like what he says towards the end of part one in regards to consumer safety and auto safety. We never finished that debate.

lmao Friedman was an idiot to argue that emissions regulation and air bags were the cause of Chrysler failing. North American car manufacturers have been producing the highest gas guzzling automobiles in the world for years. LMAO this argument that government regulation is ruining industry is completely stupid. Just ridiculous. lol.. you libertarians are really in denial of reality. Capitalism is the answer for everything.. utopia awaits we only have to finally swallow the whole free markets enchilada, sucker born everyday.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,730
Reaction score
74,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
lmao Friedman was an idiot to argue that emissions regulation and air bags were the cause of Chrysler failing. North American car manufacturers have been producing the highest gas guzzling automobiles in the world for years. LMAO this argument that government regulation is ruining industry is completely stupid. Just ridiculous. lol.. you libertarians are really in denial of reality. Capitalism is the answer for everything.. utopia awaits we only have to finally swallow the whole free markets enchilada, sucker born everyday.
lets see we have nobel prize winning economist who is regarded as one of the greatest ever on one side and we have you on the other

now tell me whose opinion is going to carry more weight with me given your anti capitalist bias is obvious?

capitalism isn't the answer for slackers, shirkers, the untalented and the uneducated. for those of us who are talented it works pretty well
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
lets see we have nobel prize winning economist who is regarded as one of the greatest ever on one side and we have you on the other

now tell me whose opinion is going to carry more weight with me given your anti capitalist bias is obvious?

capitalism isn't the answer for slackers, shirkers, the untalented and the uneducated. for those of us who are talented it works pretty well
lmao.. or inherited wealth from mommy and daddy.. or know someone who inherited wealth from mommy and daddy .. or got lucky with investments.. it isn't just talent that puts money in peoples pockets, particularly not in todays job market brought to you courtesy of deregulated banking industry. Your fooling yourself if you think all wealthy people are self made..
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,730
Reaction score
74,631
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
lmao.. or inherited wealth from mommy and daddy.. or know someone who inherited wealth from mommy and daddy .. or got lucky with investments.. it isn't just talent that puts money in peoples pockets, particularly not in todays job market brought to you courtesy of deregulated banking industry. Your fooling yourself if you think all wealthy people are self made..
yeah the failures in a capitalist system always want to attribute anyone who wins to some sort of blind luck

its like the guys who lose in a sport claiming the other guy was cheating or the loser was hurt

what did that famous tennis player say "I never beat a well man in my entire career"
 

SingleCellOrganism

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
531
Reaction score
105
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What alternative would let a person like me (self-made) own a home, two cars and all the other stuff that goes along with it?

I've inherited nothing, other than having parents who encouraged me to go to college.

No other system controls the human desire for power and dominance more than capitalism.

That said, it is far from perfect, but no human operated system ever will be perfect; so until a system comes along that is better "hating" capitalism is foolish and will only lead us into despotism.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You seem to be a little bit more economically inclined than I am, but I'm trying my best. He argued for a negative income tax on top of his existing flat tax proposal and the elimination of all government entitlement programs. It's not like it was just the negative income tax. As for monetarism, why is it such a horrid idea?

We can't all be perfect nor can we all be purists. Milton Friedman popularized libertarian economic thinking far greater than the bozo Stossel or David Nolan. I thought he had MANY great ideas, but you seem very stuck on the one aspect of monetarism. What about the rest of his proposals?
Monetarism was a hypothesis formed by Mr. Friedman that if we just increase the money supply at a constant and steady rate it would lead to steady economic growth. This hypothesis was shown to be wrong in the early 80's because the velocity of money was not stable enough for this simple idea to remain true.

However, it was influential in showing how the money supply can have large effects on the economy and has greatly influenced many economists ideas about monetary policy.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You do realize that even lazy people can get by in the capitalist system right?
His point I assume is that those who don't succeed want to blame the system instead of themselves. Capitalism allows for all the success or failure one can muster in life, the beauty of it is you can move in your financial life whether it's easy or not.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, you know my thoughts on the gold standard, if that is your implied alternative.
The gold standard may be a little limited in and of itself for modern economic models but if an actual non-perishable commodity and fiat hybrid were to be created with a heavier weight on hard assets being stressed it should be sufficient to control inflation, the idea is to limit the government's ability to print more money than it can sustain. Make less money worth more instead of the other way around.

Monetarism was a hypothesis formed by Mr. Friedman that if we just increase the money supply at a constant and steady rate it would lead to steady economic growth. This hypothesis was shown to be wrong in the early 80's because the velocity of money was not stable enough for this simple idea to remain true.

However, it was influential in showing how the money supply can have large effects on the economy and has greatly influenced many economists ideas about monetary policy.
In bold is exactly right IMO. Monetarism is a nice way of saying controlled inflation as monetary policy, Mr. Friedman was wrong in that regard, but overall he was a brilliant economist.
 

phattonez

Traditionalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,552
Reaction score
4,221
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
lmao Friedman was an idiot to argue that emissions regulation and air bags were the cause of Chrysler failing. North American car manufacturers have been producing the highest gas guzzling automobiles in the world for years. LMAO this argument that government regulation is ruining industry is completely stupid. Just ridiculous. lol.. you libertarians are really in denial of reality. Capitalism is the answer for everything.. utopia awaits we only have to finally swallow the whole free markets enchilada, sucker born everyday.
That's not what he said. He said that if safety was such a big concern for consumers that it would be stressed by consumers as much as fuel efficiency and price. Since it isn't, car companies don't make a big deal about it. Safety is only as good as consumer demand for it.
 

Technocratic

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
359
Reaction score
103
Location
Soviet Technate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are many problems with the gold standard. One of which being that it's stability is deceptive. Gold can fluctuate in value, and second, it can be manipulated almost as much as other currency backing systems. All you got to do is change the ratio of gold backing the dollars.

Then you need to consider the growth limitations in a strict gold backed economy. The economy is too large and needs too much money for a gold standard, unless you play the ratio game above to "solve" it.

Gold is overrated.
 

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not only do I miss Friedman (granted I was born in 1984) but I miss people who actually follow what he says instead of just parroting it. So far there is still only one man in the entire US Federal Government who actually follows Friedman's principals with the record to back it up not just mindless talk.
 

phattonez

Traditionalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,552
Reaction score
4,221
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There are many problems with the gold standard. One of which being that it's stability is deceptive. Gold can fluctuate in value, and second, it can be manipulated almost as much as other currency backing systems. All you got to do is change the ratio of gold backing the dollars.
If you can change the exchange ratio then you do not have a true gold standard. That would be no different than fiat currency. Furthermore, gold is very stable. What isn't stable is what you compare the value of gold to, such as the dollar and other currencies.

Then you need to consider the growth limitations in a strict gold backed economy. The economy is too large and needs too much money for a gold standard, unless you play the ratio game above to "solve" it.

Gold is overrated.
No one has proved that you need an expanding money suppy for an economy to grow.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I actually don't know. What don't you like about the gold standard?
As I said before, it served as the backbone of the old mercentile, imperialist system. If gold measures the wealth of a nation, then the only way to expand a nation's wealth beyond its limited resources is to take from those who don't have it. We can trade all we want and offer a fantastic idea to global consumers who will pay us their gold for our ideas. But in the end, isn't the location of the gold source the key to determining which nation becomes the natural kingpin?

If you can change the exchange ratio then you do not have a true gold standard. That would be no different than fiat currency. Furthermore, gold is very stable. What isn't stable is what you compare the value of gold to, such as the dollar and other currencies.
What about a silver standard or a platinum standard or a diamond standard?

No one has proved that you need an expanding money suppy for an economy to grow.
Then what happens when one nation's economy grows exponentially while the supply of gold remains stagnant? Does that automatically mean a greater inequality of wealth?
 
Top Bottom