Where did Milton Friedman or anyone at the Chicago School of Economics support big government of any sort? That ridiculous statement is something only a socialist could like.
Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies because government plays a smaller role. ... The conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."
Unless of course we forget that:
The first years of the regime were marked by human rights violations. On October 1973, at least 72 people were murdered by the Caravan of Death.[48] According to the Rettig Report and Valech Commission, at least 2,115 were killed,[49] and at least 27,265 [50] were tortured (including 88 children younger than 12 years old).[50] A new Constitution was approved by a controversial plebiscite on 11 September 1980, and General Pinochet became president of the republic for an 8-year term.
Apples, and no. The ****ing IRS "appropriated" the property after my Grandmother died.
Income tax evasion?
You said this:
Watch the video. Greed is constant. It is that desire to improve oneself, and one's family. It is what drives consumption in any market.
It is no more "wrong" than is eating, sleeping, farting, etc. You may not like farts, but they are not "wrong".
No no, you really are ignorant of history. You just displayed it in spades. Citing Milton Freedman, endorser of Pinochet as proof that a "free market" is what we need. Here is your small government idol:
Unless of course we forget that:
Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first years of the regime were marked by human rights violations. On October 1973, at least 72 people were murdered by the Caravan of Death.[48] According to the Rettig Report and Valech Commission, at least 2,115 were killed,[49] and at least 27,265 [50] were tortured (including 88 children younger than 12 years old).[50] A new Constitution was approved by a controversial plebiscite on 11 September 1980, and General Pinochet became president of the republic for an 8-year term.
Friedman defended his activity in Chile on the grounds that, in his opinion, the adoption of free market policies not only improved the economic situation of Chile but also contributed to the amelioration of Pinochet's rule and to the eventual transition to a democratic government during 1990. That idea is included in Capitalism and Freedom, in which he declared that economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He stressed that the lectures he gave in Chile were the same lectures he later gave in China and other socialist states.[61] During the 2000 PBS documentary The Commanding Heights (based on the book), Friedman continued to argue that criticism over his role in Chile missed his main contention that freer markets resulted in freer people, and that Chile's unfree economy had caused the military government. Friedman suggested that the economic liberalization he advocated caused the end of military rule and a free Chile.
And you use this as proof that Friedman somehow was not smart about economics, and then to attack me ad-hominem ? This most pathetic argument ?
Friedman was not endorsing Pinochet. He was saying that they were better off than communist countries. He was saying they also needed to get rid of Pinochet's junta.
How many were killed by Stalin ? Mao ? Pol Pot ? Count by 10,000 at a time
Agree or disagree, this is also from Wiki about Friedman:
When it comes to history, and economics, you are most ignorant.
Bull****. First off since you only want to talk about that one sentence then I assume you agree with the rest of it.
Now to your point.
When as a group consumers largely give all of their money person A then person A is going to have a lot more money than the rest of the people. here in America we have a system like this. The majority of people in this country spend their money on products and services offered to us by the super rich. We are giving them all of our money then we turn and complain that they have the money that we gave them. Then we get angry that they are not employing us.
No business can succeed without a customer base. A company cannot continue to manufacturer a product that people are not buying. People in America demand a higher wage and more benefits than many other countries. People in America have certain expectations of companies that add to their operating costs. manufacturing products costs are higher in America. With higher wages and higher manufacturing costs, the price of a product is going to go up.
When a price of an American made product is $1.00 and the Chinese equivalent is $0.08 and no one will pay the American pricing we lose jobs. This is not because Obama failed, it is because we failed. Americans have two choices. Start working under Chinese slave labor condition or start buying goods made in America.
The things I listed above are the problem in our country. They are why we are having the economic problems that we are having today. When as a consumer base we reward actions that are detrimental to our economy for our own greedy reasons it is a wrong. Farts dont cause hardships to hundreds of millions of Americans. Dont compare the two. They are not the same. The free market is a system where the consumer has the power. The government is not going to change that. They can pass all the legislation they want but if the consumer base starts investing in itself rather than dumping all their money into the pockets then the wealth disparity in this country will change. Americans start keeping their money here, and in their communities and they will thrive. We keep giving all of our money to foriegn companies, and faceless corporations then they will thrive. The choice is the consumers.
And you use this as proof that Friedman somehow was not smart about economics,
Friedman was not endorsing Pinochet.
He was saying that they were better off than communist countries.
He was saying they also needed to get rid of Pinochet's junta.
How many were killed by Stalin ? Mao ? Pol Pot ? Count by 10,000 at a time
Agree or disagree, this is also from Wiki about Friedman:
When it comes to history, and economics, you are most ignorant.
He declared that economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for political freedom.
Well, the immeidate answer is, you wouldn't have the right. Most metropolitian cities have a pedestrian has the right of way in almost all instances including this one.
But feel free to try. If it's something you want to go to prison for, knock yourself out.
My contention is that you are complaining about human nature.
About things that you cannot change except by using government to change behavior by force.
Capitalism, for all its flaws, is the best economic system out there because it harnesses what motivates people in the marketplace.
No, I use this as proof that Milton Freedman wasn't a supporter of "small government" or for that matter "free markets". Maybe if you had a clue as to what you were discussing instead of looking up YouTube videos, you'd have realized that.
Of course he wasn't, which is why he said the country was freer than communist countries, which it wasn't. Actually the Chilean dictatorship was brutal.
Which they weren't.
WHERE?
So now we're marking "free societies" by how many get killed? You're more dishonest or ignorant than I thought.
There WAS NO POLITICAL FREEDOM IN CHILE during Pinochet's regime. Are you even serious?
So now its "ignorant and dishonest ...... :roll:
Clearly you are over-matched in debate.
I am not complaining about human nature. Self preservation is human nature. and actively destroying our economy, our environment, our childrens futures ect. is not self preservation. If this were a problem because of human nature self preservation would trump greed ......
Yeah - that's it! He's hoisting out his engine and swapping in a new one.
Wait what?
"Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies because government plays a smaller role. ... The conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."
Look, you blamed consumers acting as consumers. You also seem to imply that this same human nature, which we have always had, is only now destroying everything.
You are wearing blinders, or being deliberately obtuse, or choosing ignorance in this discussion. Our economic problems are not rooted in the exercise of free choice.
Our economic problems are rooted in a lack of competitiveness in too many markets,
How exactly do you compete with our current standards of employment with China?
That's all true. Did you find otherwise?
You work harder and you work smarter. There is no other way.
Americans enjoyed a high standard of living compared with other countries because of the devastation of WWII on many countries and then the hell of Communism.
But since the effects of WWII have disappeared and former communist countries have become more free, Americans are naturally going to face more competition. All the whining and moaning about the Chinese, or what have you, is not going to change a thing. You either work harder and smarter or you're not in the race.
People in Chile were freer than in communist societies?
If you believe government kidnappings, murders, rapes, execution of political dissidents, banning of political parties and corporatist economic policies are the mark of societies "freer" than communist societies, you're either a moron or completely ignorant of Chile from the 70s to the late 80s.
Of course. That should be common knowledge.
Chile was freer than any communist country.
Which communist country do you believe was more free than Chile?
Not true. Working harder means nothing it the only concern of consumers is the price. The only way the American economy and current standard of living is going to improve or even stay the same is by the American people investing in themselves.
No, no, the point is not that communist countries were freer, but that Chile was as "free" as any other economic, military and political dictatorship regardless of political ideology.
I'll give you a tip: Dictatorships aren't known for 'freedom'.
There is no way this could be construed as constructive to any conversation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?