I love to have seen noam and friedman have a debate. It would have been amazing.
@sheltercrow
13 жыл бұрын
"In his book 'The Machinery of Freedom' (1973), Friedman sketched a form of anarcho-capitalism where all goods and services including law itself can be produced by the free market" Since a real free market doesn't exist - never has, never will - I suppose you could call it the 'Machinery of the Money Class'
@sean_haz
Жыл бұрын
You shouldn't use "Friedman" by itself in a video with Milton Friedman in the title, given that you're referring to David D Friedman, Milton's son, who is also an economist.
@TheEthanwashere
12 жыл бұрын
Any link to the full lecture?
@kennethmarshall306
4 жыл бұрын
“No major depressions or disruptions”. That was about to change in the year after this
@Studentofgosset
8 жыл бұрын
I enjoy reading these comments, so much anger towards Chomsky that he must be telling the truth!
@vaibhav2k13
7 жыл бұрын
Studentofgosset There is so much anger towards religious preachers so are they telling the truth? This kind of dumbass logic is the reason why liberals are a laughing stock.
@wmosco
6 жыл бұрын
Chomsky is smart, no doubt. he's rambling here though.
@hayteren
4 жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/toyVv4GohKV6l6g
@chesshooligan1282
4 жыл бұрын
All this anger towards Hitler, almost 100 later, must mean he was telling the truth.
@jogendron6320
2 жыл бұрын
People hate Hitler for what he did not what he said.
@bjbhunih
9 ай бұрын
"What's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created." -Noam Chomsky 8/27/2009
@realistblue-_-136
4 ай бұрын
Oil shipments got cucked politically corruption
@heyhey89674
12 жыл бұрын
@DREwestcoast What? I dont get it. =) Is it something in the vid?
@captainamericaxxx3874
6 жыл бұрын
If any of you ever read (read God forbid),any of Chomsky's books you would find what his definition of his term "Neo Liberalism" means. It refers mostly to U.S. economic policies with regards to U.S. corporations. Basically it allows for corporations and big business to do whatever and were ever they want with out any government interference. Thus a liberal policy for them but not their employees, and victims. Economic costs for business are socialized as much as possible and passed on to the American taxpayers. That is costs such as infrastructure, or healthcare for low wage workers.Consumers have only one freedom of choice and that is allegedly in the Free market with purchasing power. To be honest it's been awhile since I've read any of Noams books so that came from the top of head. I apologize if I'd forgotten anything.
@TimPQF
13 жыл бұрын
I LOVE THIS MAN FOR WHAT HE STANDS FOR!
@22kataking
3 жыл бұрын
what does he stand for really?
@Davo198
2 жыл бұрын
@@22kataking read his work
@Davo198
2 жыл бұрын
@@22kataking or actually watch the video lol
@sean_haz
Жыл бұрын
@@Davo198 I've come across a lot of his work and I don't really know what he stands for. He mainly talks about the villainies of the US rather than expressing his own views. He also regularly mentions the working class, maybe that is what he stands for?
@bicksins9574
3 жыл бұрын
But trickle down economics worked everytime it was tried. The Reagan years saw a 30% growth of the economy, one of the highest GDP's inflation rates lowered from 13.5% to 3.8%, unemployment decreased by more than half, from 10.5% to 5% and the number of jobs increased by 20%. the stock market performed very well under him, and the median income increased by $4,000 for the average family. So many liberals claim that Reaganomics created more income inequality, when the simple truth is that it created less income inequality. Reaganomics worked extremely well. It utilized supply-side economics. Bill Clinton also utilized supply-side economics, creating another prosperous economy.
@rolyars
Ай бұрын
Real wages significantly declined. You forgot women joined the workforce, which explains a lot.
@DavidByrne85
11 жыл бұрын
Thanks. I'm learning all the time.
@donluchitti
11 жыл бұрын
interesting. On which issues?
@citizenanyone4075
8 жыл бұрын
Mr. Chomsky's assertions that the economy has stagnated are easily refutable. Adjusted for inflation, per capita income has risen consistently over the past 50 years, coupled with advances is technology made possible by businesses in the free market, standards of living have also risen across all economic classes. Claims of stagnating incomes are typically made based on household income which is not a good indicator of overall wealth since the trend over time has been of fewer people living in one household (because they can now afford to live on their own)- actually a sign of increased wealth.
@joshualemaster4885
8 жыл бұрын
+CitizenAnyone "technology made possible by businesses in the free market", lol, right, why do we even fund places like MIT and other technology and medical schools. Not like they publicly produce exceptional technology. All your advanced technologies you think have been made my companies have really just been formed into consumer material goods by these companies. The technology existed already.
@MrMeeish
8 жыл бұрын
+CitizenAnyone Noam Chomsky never said the economy has stagnated, he only said most workers' wages have stagnated, which they have. They were actually rising until the late 70s. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ This is coupled with a huge increase in the top 1%'s share of wealth, and wealth in general. money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/ It's pretty apparent we've been doing some wrong for the last 30 years.
@Maxarcc
3 жыл бұрын
Wages have been stagnant compared to that growth and social mobility has decreased. Furthermore: it's almost like economic growth is exponential? wow, who would have thought! Can't wait to pay off all the climate debts that are annexed by the generations before me along with my student loan. We live in a multigenerational ponzi scheme since Raegan and we all know it.
@austinbyrd4164
2 жыл бұрын
Wages aren't representative of quality of life.
@martincortes9819
2 жыл бұрын
This guy is crazy
@DREwestcoast
12 жыл бұрын
''There's a big difference between giving advice, and having it taken'' -Milton Friedman
@anarchistory
13 жыл бұрын
Please post the DATE of the lecture...thanks. The video was edited.
@gulbirk
12 жыл бұрын
@Zhiloreznik Care to debunk some of the arguments?
@seanheffle5637
7 жыл бұрын
Capitalism is akin to Communism in that proponents of both use the "it has never been used the way it should". Saying that Friedman didn't support crony capitalism but real capitalism is entirely missing the point. Both "real capitalism" and real "communism" are both equally unattainable. Communism always turns to brutal dictatorships and in the case of capitalism, it always ends up as crony capitalism. Because of human nature. Like "real" Christianity they are all wonderful ideas in thought but only that. When implemented into the real world they can never exist the way their creators intended because again, they are subject to human nature.
@ibuprofen303
7 жыл бұрын
The difference being that crony capitalism didn't end up with the likes of Stalin, or Mau, or Pol Pot. It ended up with people sleeping rough in cardboard boxes and going to food banks.Which, grim as it seems, is far preferable.
@Knaeben
5 жыл бұрын
Good comment. That's why Adam Smith and other sane people have said there need to be checks to constantly watch out for people short circuiting free enterprise and taking unfair advantage. It is a never ending battle, but one that should be fought because human nature itself is never ending. Capitalism is imperfect, but it's the best we got.
@Jim-cs9yp
4 жыл бұрын
Yes, when humans apply ideas to reality, they will often fail. I’d like to live in a world where communists can have their own communes and people can go live there if they’d like. No time soon will we abandon our ideas of private or collective ownership. We need to figure out how to live together in peace, and I think the best bet is to limit the government. There needs to be a mechanism added to the constitution that allows the government to enforce the terms of contracts, but prevents the government from determining the terms of contracts. In other words, the government is there to provide a police force and military. And before you go off into the notion that we shouldn’t even have a state, that we all should live in a global community... as long as we live in a world full of Pinochets, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, Somozas, Pots, etc., then we will need borders to protect us. However, that is all the government does. It uses the military to prevent an overt invasion, and it uses the national police to detect clandestine operations. The local police, then, are there to uphold the terms of the contracts. I think that if we live in that form of society, where the constitution prevents the government from determining the terms of the contracts made by consenting individuals, then communists, capitalists, postmodernists, structuralists, atheists, and religious folk can live side-by-side. I don’t get the feeling that either Friedman or Chomsky ever wanted to impose their views on anyone. If those two were to form a government together, it would be something similar to what I just said, I believe.
@austinbyrd4164
2 жыл бұрын
Earlier america, sweden, and hong kong were capitalist, for the most part. It worked great. There isn't any for socialism.
@domenicocusumano
9 жыл бұрын
hes really not talking about the philosophy of Friedman, and or considering any of his ideas and actually challenging them. Only some of Freidmans actual philosophy on econonics have been implemented. We actually became more reliant on government and social tendancies,
@domcusumano5901
9 жыл бұрын
Dude look up friedman. Wages are based on the market. If your gettibg paid low wages its because the value of the work your doing is not worth what you want to be paid. If you want to get paid more then you have to work hard and go into a position which is WORTH more. Simply increasi wages for lower paying jobs will have an afverse affect on the economy. Lower paying jobs are only a stepping stone for gettig rhe higher paying job . Nobody should look at the lower paying job as their primary goal
@domenicocusumano
9 жыл бұрын
Roger Dantes My grandfather was able to survive on a dollar a day, now adjusted for inflation thats not even close to a lower paying job today. You can very much SURVIVE on minimum wage. What low paying jobs are you talking about, be specific. The problem is that the market cannot adjust for these things. If nobody can pay for rent then the price of rent would decrease to a value you can afford. Because of regulations and all the other laws that force prices on the people of course they would get to a point where they can't afford things. But thats another argument all together. Lets have a discussion. Give me this lower paying job that you CANNOT survive on?
@domenicocusumano
9 жыл бұрын
Roger Dantes because of your insults it seems you like you can't have a real conversation about the issue. Can you have a little bit of control please? Your yelling isn't getting to the bottom of this. Funny you still did not give an example of a job that is low paying. Yes we lived like bums and my family came here with 0 dollars in their pocket and built a life for themslef. A family of 5 came with nothing and each person has a house worth over 750,000 dollars. Something that could never be done in another "Socialistic Country" But thats not the point Im trying to make here, were going beyond the issue. Name for me a job you believe to be low paying? Then we can analyze how you can survive off of that. If you want you can do research on Friedman also talked about public housing and how that effort actually made housing for the poor even worse. The living conditions became less stable and more harmful to the individuals.
@domenicocusumano
9 жыл бұрын
Roger Dantes afraid to answer the question? Of course you can't buy a house on minimum wage, but housing prices are the direct result of socialistic reform. What Im trying to show you is that even if you start at the bottom, not only can you survive but you can grow. Ill answer your question for you. If you work at mcdonalds working minimum wage you can survive. And I goddam guarantee you that if you work harder than anyone else in there you will move up, and up, and up. You may not want to stay there but you will have the skills necessary to go to a restaurant where you can make more money, then decide hey maybe this isn't right for me and have even newer skills. There are always better jobs to go to. Any low paying job will give you the skills necessary to advance to a greater position. This sort of argument only works for people who say "I JUST WANT TO BE PAYED MORE" for working in a position of which doesn't pay more. The problem is that people stay content for doing that job and don't want to work hard to move into a position that gives them more money. The fact that you don't even want to continue the argument just goes to show that you have no idea what your fucken talking about
@domenicocusumano
9 жыл бұрын
Roger Dantes Since you can't have a real conversation about this I have no reason to continue talking about the subject because you have no inclination to learn the reality of certain situations. I can go into which socialistic before but you refuse to give me examples of what your talking about. So unless we go back to your original assumption which is, you can't Survive on making XXX money then have a nice day. I have no real reason to continue the convo with a wall
@anarchistory
13 жыл бұрын
Please post the DATE of the lecture...thanks.
@farquharce
8 жыл бұрын
He talks as if what has occurred, is the completed framework that Friedman purported, he implies: a) Reagan implemented every single idea friedman suggested (Not the case) b) Immediate causality of the reagan administration to economic activity c) Doesn't acknowledge how long it takes for these ideas to bear fruit
@istraight1
11 жыл бұрын
"Oh, really? I don't think you know anything honestly." This comments show ignorance especially if are ignorant austrian believer. Austrian economics is free market fundmentalism like the Christian Right.
@veramann
9 жыл бұрын
The correct name spelling is Ronald Reagan.
@tylertrent4375
8 жыл бұрын
+Roy Long But he was a douchebag President, so it's okay.
@riccardo9383
8 жыл бұрын
+Tyler Trent Douchebag? He was a war criminal monster, probably killed two hundred thousand people in Central America in the eighties.
@arishkhan-lz8yz
6 жыл бұрын
he said no depression ironically a year later the market collapsed only if the people in comment section knew that...
@Salvysahagun
12 жыл бұрын
@JJpmfc hope so. I don't watch him that much. But most of Friedmans critic didn't come until after his passing. Naomi Clien?
@chica476
11 жыл бұрын
What contributions has he made to Computer Science?! Love Chomsky.
@greyrour4498
7 жыл бұрын
how linguist can rate economist? none of what he said doesn't make sense at all!
@alexklick4836
7 жыл бұрын
you're absolutely right, none of it doesn't make sense, it all makes sense.. I don't know if you understand the English language.
@1967rwm
7 жыл бұрын
+Karma Capitalist - He's obviously conversant in more than one language - which automatically makes him smarter than many people. And people who aren't assholes can figure out what he meant pretty easily.
@Bulhakas
7 жыл бұрын
It's pretty easy to figure out that the content of his comment matches the form.
@RevFaris
13 жыл бұрын
@WVMADMAN1 Chomsky's friends is the Economist Michael Albert. I also give Chomsky more credit for having studied (and thought about) economics, then a baker having studied Computer technology, or a butcher cars(though this sometimes occurs of course). He is a broad minded intellectual who has studied politics, philosophy and Linguistics(the later two of which he is a Professor at MIT). That is why I would listen to him carefully-whilst also listening to Friedman.
@chica476
11 жыл бұрын
Do you suppose that could be in part by a changing economy? Or has History always shown us that "Free-Market" Economics is a bad idea? Your opinion would be greatly valued.
@radurambo
12 жыл бұрын
I love Chomsky. This guy is simply GREAT
@theCRMartin11
12 жыл бұрын
There are so many reasons Reaganomics did not work, mainly because it was not done as intended. Reagan originally planned to cut taxes and the budget. He failed to cut the budget because of the arms race "cold war" against Russia. If you look at Mr. Friedman's work in economics shows that if he were President he would support lower taxes for all, smaller government, more efficent government, the right to organize. The problem with Reaganomics is he half assed the free market.
@joeyjoejoe314
3 ай бұрын
yea who would have guessed wildly spending money on the military against an imagined foe would turn out so negatively?
@nocucksinkekistan7321
3 ай бұрын
@@joeyjoejoe314 Yeah, keeping you safe from communists, he should totally be hated on for that! New generation are ungrateful shits.
@AroundSun
13 жыл бұрын
@CapitalismOwnz "This idea that you can leave everything unregulated and that it fixes itself is fallacious at best and laughable at worst." - This notion that one man, whether Greenspan, Bernanke, or any other chairman of the FRB can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be is laughable. Only the market can determine that. Politicians aren't smart enough to command the economy. When prices rise beyond the maximum revenue percentage, demand falls.
@LordOrlock
11 жыл бұрын
Amen. Thank you for mentioning the IMF.
@MrDindjemek
7 жыл бұрын
All this proves Dr. Friedmans' points.
@levicarvalho4389
8 жыл бұрын
So, a linguist is trying to overthrow an economist???
@vadllens01
8 жыл бұрын
i guess you don't read much
@thejeimirestoration
8 жыл бұрын
That's an interesting point. I saw a video of Hayek's view of Keynes, where he says Keynes was a very knowledgeable man about a lot of subjects, but not really about economics, for which he is and was best known. Seems to me that those who support the right wing neoliberal school of economics are interested only or primarily in economic theory. Those who support the more moderate mixed economy tend to have far wider intellectual interests than just economics alone. For them economics must fit into a wider spectrum of human development. For the neoliberals, they have so much faith in their theories, that wider interests are not important. Indeed they think if their theory of economics is correct, by virtue of this alone, good effects must necessarily flow into other areas of human life.
@saulhernandez320
8 жыл бұрын
hmm interesting im just an 18 year old trying to figure out where i stand in the political spectrum and trying to keep an open mind jumping from different news sources to try to get informed on topics,ideology's and issues. all the way from the young turks to the alex jones channel,ive been studing ben shapiro interviews and milton friedman speeches now im looking at chomsky trying to figure out who makes the most sense,any advice in trying to inform myself or helping me find my political identity.
@thejeimirestoration
8 жыл бұрын
Just read and listen to as much as you can, if it interests you of course. Your identity will form naturally, and will probably fluctuate somewhat as well. Remember that we don't have to be stuck to ideologies, you can be a pragmatist also. Just because someone is right about one or two or even many things, it doesn't mean they are always right about everything.
@wks107tdv123
7 жыл бұрын
So some random person on youtube is claiming to know better than a professor. Anytime you see a person forced to live in a cardboard box they are victims of market forces.
@truthseeker3397
Жыл бұрын
Anyone know of a milton Friedman response video? I think Noam chomsky does bring up a great point if true about Reagan and protectionism.
@john42t
13 жыл бұрын
@davehutchinson67 Unless it's Cuba, right?
@jscottupton
7 жыл бұрын
Let's see...Friedman studied economics his whole adult life...was proven correct by events. Noam Chomsky is very good at...linguistics. So who should I believe when it comes to economics? No contest.
@magnus100100
7 жыл бұрын
Proven correct? Only the bourgouaise agree with Friedman nowadays. Have you red Thomas Piketty? There u can see whats wrong with Friedmans theory. How someone can agree with Friedman today is a mystery.
@sammypuro9392
7 жыл бұрын
Proven correct? What are you talking about??
@jscottupton
7 жыл бұрын
Thomas Piketty is blaming "capitalism" (free markets) for things that are actually the failings of "crony capitalism" (what some economists call "economic facism" or "state capitalism" or "socialism").
@hansspijker3585
7 жыл бұрын
Ah, an argumentum ad verecundiam to discredit Chomsky. Quite unconstructive for a real discussion about the things he actually has to say, if you ask me.
@kavraci
6 жыл бұрын
J Scott Upton Trusting commissaries of Power has no contest in trusting verifiable truisms? Don't get moved by stilish rhetoric but by substantive arguments.
@cristinabajet
9 жыл бұрын
I love Chomsky much more than Friedman... they both are very smart but Chomsky's arguments make more sense to me :)
@majorramsey3k
8 жыл бұрын
+cristina bajet Which arguments make more sense?
@22kataking
3 жыл бұрын
because feelings
@darknight651
12 жыл бұрын
@zoozootaken What are you talking about reagan is socialist?How can you say that?Do you know what socialism means?
@ubustang
11 жыл бұрын
To elaborate, the benefit to industry of protectionism is identical to subsidizing its exports; it simply prevents losses until they become competitive. Most large ventures lose money the first few years they operate; if credit and investment is available, firms can suffer from direct competition and will grow more efficiently due to the fact that they interface with the global market immediately, rather than years down the road. Protectionism is simply a distribution of private risk.
@NateHaselton
8 жыл бұрын
What a frikkin' snoozefest. This man is a linguist?
@Studentofgosset
8 жыл бұрын
+Nate Haselton Who would you define as a linguist?
@mes98yng22
7 жыл бұрын
Noam on economics cannot debate Thomas Sowell let alone Milton Friedman.
@matthew-dq8vk
6 жыл бұрын
Chomsky debates actual intellectuals, who has Friedman debated that's of note? Chomsky was always smarter than Friedman. And just lol @ Thomas Sowell.
@freesoftwareextremist8119
6 жыл бұрын
Friedman debated all sorts of intellectuals, what are you talking about?
@tommydhammer
11 жыл бұрын
I'm English too and it would have helped if Gordon Brown hadn't kept going on about "too big to fail" in Parliament. He might have well said "Do what you like and don't worry if you go bust because I'll bail you out with tax payers money." He almost double dared them to fail! If you take out the element of risk, is it surprising when banks make reckless choices? The entire problem was caused entirely by government creating the wrong incentives, just as Hayek warned.
@HammerOvThor
13 жыл бұрын
@theDeckisStacked Absolutely! Yes, I remember that quote. It's frightening to me when evil dictators make such clear points...
@DavidByrne85
11 жыл бұрын
Chomsky's very well qualified to see through the fraud discipline of mainstream economics & be sure he's examined the models used and the assumptions they rely on to select their inputs. People like Friedman work on political sophistry using equations, not science - that's always self evident to hard scientists like Chomsky. I say that as an economics graduate, btw.
@smokycfc
7 жыл бұрын
Noams a legend
@jscottupton
7 жыл бұрын
Noam is a legend...in his own mind.
@disc314
6 жыл бұрын
Maybe at the circus as a clown!
@alhazed
11 жыл бұрын
When you asked your question you didn't specify. Nor does it matter, failed ideas are failed ideas...he didn't go over there to make clay ashtrays, he managed their economy. That's quite relevant.
@becut95
7 ай бұрын
4:00 "there have been no major depressions". Hold my beer!
@deanhettig8904
8 жыл бұрын
Noam Chomsky is a smart man but he'll never be anywhere close to Milton Friedman.
@DaneCAndersen
8 жыл бұрын
What makes him a fraud?
@lumpy0100
8 жыл бұрын
Nonsense; Friedman's largely forgotten in Serious academic circles,? True, he obviously Remains "gOD-like" to 1%ERS,; "naturally?" Thanks, "Dean Hettig.":) FEEL THE BERN?:)
@lucwolthers921
7 жыл бұрын
I am confused, if Friedman is hack and Chomsky a saint, as what I see in the criticisms presented, upon what criteria are the credibility of the thinkers based? I implore those presenting arguments to actually refute the arguments presented by the speakers and not the speakers themselves... else the whole criticism seems juvenile.
@josephikrakowski5210
7 жыл бұрын
Such a great propagandist that left-leaning people like Larry Summers (www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/opinion/19summers.html) and leftists like Paul Krugman (www.nybooks.com/articles/2007/02/15/who-was-milton-friedman/) laud him as "the Great Liberator" and "a great economist and a great man".
@Oners82
6 жыл бұрын
Mr. Scholar Nice selective quoting there, but you know damn well that whilst Krugman no doubt had respect for him, he was a life long critic and thought that his theories were founded upon bogus principles. To quote him: "he [Friedman] slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work. It's extremely hard to find cases in which Friedman acknowledged the possibility that markets could go wrong, or that government intervention could serve a useful purpose." But whether or not you think he was a propagandist (he probably genuinely believed his own BS), there is no doubt that many of his ideas were refuted empirically.
@russiangirl1346
7 жыл бұрын
It is sad to see the man struggle to make a clear point.
@brucebasile5083
8 жыл бұрын
Noam always brings out the RWNJ`S who 1st of all can`t understand him ,so they start repeating Fox buisiness bs that only helps the top 1% !!!
@tylerceremello8554
7 жыл бұрын
did he ever make these statements in debate with freedman before he passed, I'm going to look now but would like rapid responce if available. I completely agreed with freedmans stance of free market and world trade, many times he has caught himself in the middle of government greed warning people to educate against gov. Intervention and the long term effects, he also agrees on many points that we are going towards a more corrupt regulated market, predicting usa current state of debt/poverity.
@Atreus21
14 жыл бұрын
Why is it the best arguments against Friedman only exist when he isn't present?
@harshkumar2473
Жыл бұрын
Friedman was a stupid optimist.... He gives you the idea of a fantasy realm.... Nothing like free market is there... And the people who first wrote about free market and capitalism... Stated this ideology against trade unions and guilds and advocated for the critical education of working class so that they can get out of the hell ... Because even they knew that being a working class person who works for 8-12hours in a mundane environment doing mundane work is soul sucking and inhumane
@arbmoneyful
12 жыл бұрын
Milton Friedman was a Nobel Laureate in economics and one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, so I still see no reason at all why I'm going to trust a linguist over an economist. I'm sure Chomsky is good at his own field but everything that he says makes no sense in the field of economics as apposed to Friedman
@Iteachu2beninja
11 жыл бұрын
If that's the case, the workers will, collectively, become a state. They'll pass laws, distribute income, form an army, and do whatever other functions the state carries out.
@obnoks
12 жыл бұрын
where's the rest of this talk?
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk
12 жыл бұрын
@orange11emilie yes he does. this is only 10 minutes from a full lecture
@spartyman4
12 жыл бұрын
Doesn't matter what awards he won. His "expertise" in economics was based on an ideology; one that passionately defended the interests of the super-rich at the expense of everyone else. No wonder the establishment loved him; he spent his entire career defending old money and attacking any proposal that would help working people.
@MsZeitgeist85
12 жыл бұрын
@skydome29 Part 2 No country allows there to be for profit health insurance for primary care except the USA. Because this is unworkable. Friedman argued that this system could work if only the AMA which is like a union for doctors would get out of the way and stop driving health care costs up. The only other country that used this kind of insurance was Switzerland. In 1994 they reformed their system because this model didn't work. There was no AMA in Switzerland to drive up costs.
@thirdshift47
13 жыл бұрын
@thirdshift47 Correction--(Our)economy...
@blackmichael75
10 жыл бұрын
That's what I mean. It's what they are able to command, through a number of factors, not how hard they work. The only criteria of hard work that makes sense is hours of work versus hours of leisure. On that axis, they don't come close to certain other people in society who are paid much less than them. They also fail to produce anything socially necessary or worthwhile, unlike others.
@MsZeitgeist85
12 жыл бұрын
@skydome29 He specifically said that Paul Volker was using Friedmans method of Monetarism and he stared in 79. It did more harm than good then a few years later they started printing again and they reverted back to Kensyanism in 82. I aknowledge that Friedman was a great economist and made signifigant contributions to the field. THere are just lots of things Friedman was wrong on. The biggest one was health care.
@bboschboi
12 жыл бұрын
@Zhiloreznik You can say that he should stick with linguistic research , but it will always make no sense. The ability to understand and communicate effectively is a major factor in any topic which is why people should listen to what he has to say.
@thirdshift47
13 жыл бұрын
@AroundSun "Market forces have proven to be more effective." Where?
@scourgeofsnackind
12 жыл бұрын
Milton Friedman's policies were implemented under Pinochet's Chile, and they were all failures. The privatization of nationalized businesses under Pinochet caused a depression, the financial deregulation caused a second depression, nearly a hundred thousand Chilean students are now protesting the privatized college system which was a Pinochet legacy, the privatized pension system is too expensive and rarely hands out benefits to anyone who pays into it, etc, etc.
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk
12 жыл бұрын
can someone tell me what the "last literal colony in Africa" is? he said "western Sahara", so it can't be South Africa
@shining3210
12 жыл бұрын
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk cont: who was the palestinian leader priot to arafat? what was palestines borders? Its currency? When was palestine founded and by whom? What manuscripts did the "palestinians" left? What was the palestinians first religion? What was the name of the capital city of palestine and major cities? Can you name me archologial sites of "palestinian" people? Can answer any of these questions?
@alhazed
11 жыл бұрын
His ideas were implemented, he essentially took over Chile as a social economic experiment.
@istraight1
11 жыл бұрын
"Note that capitalism has an emphasis on PRIVATE ownership. It has nothing to do with political control. It's an economic system." It is political as private ownership does have political decisions. There is a reason why their is need to regulate capitalism as they can not be trusted at all.
@kkwillsaveus
12 жыл бұрын
Spending rose on military spending which was due to the cold war. Domestically Reagan followed Friedman, low taxes, less Govt intervention, allowing for a rising income gap, inflation the priority ahead of unemployment, accepting a natural rate of unemployment ect.
@heyhey89674
13 жыл бұрын
This guy made my day =)
@mogem
12 жыл бұрын
@Zhiloreznik I can just feel it in my heart---you are very smart. There is no sense of me trying to explain a thing to you. Most people just let the silly facts get in their way. I see you do not have that problem
@toseeornot2see
11 жыл бұрын
well, to be quite frank. It's Keynesnian policies for the CEOs and the rich folks. The stimulus didn't go as far as Keynesians like Krugman wanted. They only went far enough to make CEOs get paid large bonuses and receive tax cuts. Also, large tax cuts over the decades and deregulation of the financial sector are all free market policies.
@thirdshift47
13 жыл бұрын
@AroundSun BTW,I knew you would have a response to the citation ofcourse. In your infinite wisdom on all matters you always do.
@ubustang
11 жыл бұрын
Stiglitz has valid points that ARE NOT in disagreement only with simplified and distorted strawmen. Markets are the best method for organization when long term objectives are vague and diffused, but must exist within responsible frameworks of incentives and obey the rule of law. This is acknowledged by Stiglitz AND Friedman AND even Hayek. What is opposed is hubristic notion that monopolistic systems are more effective than free socio-economic interaction.
@TheAlibabatree
12 жыл бұрын
I don't think its ever a good idea to completely trust someone elses ideas. My source of knowledge comes from life experience, and the study of history.
@AroundSun
13 жыл бұрын
@CapitalismOwnz Overall inflation is actually being artificially under-reported by the numbers because housing and wages are not inflating right. The Fed has lost all credibility on wall street, and most of the American public with the absolute refusal to recognize the effects on asset prices that printing has created.
@AroundSun
13 жыл бұрын
@thirdshift47 Without using google, why are comodities shooting through the roof? Why are oil prices skyrocketing? Why is gold hitting record highs every single day? Why is the dollar crashing every single day?
@Reallyape
13 жыл бұрын
@WVMADMAN1 Why would you think a qualification is needed to know about something?
@415Dub
12 жыл бұрын
Reagan and Friedman held very different views.
@braueryo
11 жыл бұрын
They might do that in order to decide what to produce. The worker control of it would be participatory democracy. They usually don't consider direct democracy to be considered a state, though I completely understand why you might say that. I am not an anarchist myself. As for laws, they differ on how they would be decided and it is an issue that I myself am not clear on. Anyways, most anarchists, before an-caps came along, have been socialists, therefor, if anything, it the term is redundant.
@scourgeofsnackind
11 жыл бұрын
"collapse their competitive advantage," i'm talking about systematic use of slave labor propagated by foreign investors like Nike, Gap, Adidas, and countless others, as for Korea, Ha-Joon Chang understands how Korea developed and it was because of ruthless restriction of capital flows and a state-directed development policy as well as several other forms of protectionism and even nationalization. Development does not occur just because u open ur economy up to be bought by foreign investors.
@braueryo
11 жыл бұрын
Historically, all anarchists have been socialists, untill "anarcho"-capitalism (which still holds hierarchy so it's harder for it to be considered anarchist), came along.
@AroundSun
13 жыл бұрын
Government is NOT a corrective. More often than not, it is the source (as in this case) of our economic difficulties. No bailouts, eliminate regulations, certainly no nationalizations, no priming of the pump with easy money, just allow firms to be weeded out that made imprudent decisions, allow capital to be reallocated, and permit prices to adjust to the new market realities.
@iamdabossofnepal
11 жыл бұрын
the Austrian model would not have followed the Chicago/Friedman type economics. This is because Friedman believes in controlling the money supply, which, in many ways is still Keynesian economics. And 'Keynesianism' is different from the economics of the man himself.
@blackmichael75
10 жыл бұрын
What I'm trying to make you see is that rates of remuneration are not just. Money is best thought of a stream with inputs and outputs. When you accumulate it, it gets stagnant. The fact that there is a profit imperative skews all the results concerning who is able to command more, or less. Given that reality, and the reality that nobody makes money entirely by his own efforts, there should be a progressive taxation system if we're to have a profit system at all, to ameliorate its worst effects.
@tonybennett4159
11 жыл бұрын
Gordon Brown did indeed hitch a ride on the whirlwind. however, let's look back. In the 70s Thatcher and Reagan decided to allow areas of industry go to the wall if they were outbid by any competitors (often from overseas). They decided that the future would be more in the service sector of the economy, this fuelled by activity in Wall St and The City. A bit of too many eggs in one basket? To this end they began to acquiese to demands and recommendations made by the banking sector. (cont)
@wolfxda94
11 жыл бұрын
Which idea failed or do you not read my other comment?
@maxownsworld
12 жыл бұрын
@ptbwf human beings can prove things with speeches?
@istraight1
11 жыл бұрын
"Also, Friedman rewrote our perception of history with his insight on how deflation caused the great depression." I would disagree that deflation just was the after shock of what happen when Great Depression not what caused it.
@DavidByrne85
12 жыл бұрын
What Friedman 'advocated' as the claimed outcome of his political economy and it's actual effects are distinct subjects. The former is ultimately irrelevant.
@istraight1
11 жыл бұрын
"You are in a sad way cracking the ground on which your argument stands." I agree like the person who wrote such ignorance "Well, if there was a capitalist system, then banks would NOT have gotten too big. Competition and ownership, not cronyism and monopolists. The last two are anti-capitalist." as capitalism is naturally monopolist & crony as the point of capitalism follow the same way of playing the game monopoly so your statement is null & void. What you are is a free market fundamentalist.
@austinbyrd4164
2 жыл бұрын
Just saying something doesn't make it true. It's not inherently monopolistic. With higher bargaining power comes people wanting a piece of that power.
@mojorhythm
13 жыл бұрын
In answer to your question: mixed economies seem to have the most consistent success over the long run. Mixed economies with a strong, efficient public sector, and a flourishing private sector with moderate but consistent growth. Neither market anarchies like Somalia nor command economies like Russia really have a track record to be proud of.
@thirdshift47
13 жыл бұрын
@Around Dude,the same thing happened back in '82 when inflation was at record highs from late's 70s stagflation,when Paul Volker(the 1 Fed Chair that your boy Paul actually respected)raised interest rates,creating extended unemployment to break the price/wage spiral. It actually resulted in the great '82 recession.But then he gradually lowered rates once inflation was under control,which eventually resulted in the high growth & the gradual waning in unemployment. That's a FACT!! Goodnight.
@ubustang
11 жыл бұрын
To summarize by rebuttal, all of these states developed in spite of these policies. Africa (the best example) has not developed because of several factors that stem investment and thus development, including constant conflict, terrifically low workforce education, zero infrastructure for transport or industry, lack of stable political systems, and geographical logistics. Using your model, west germany, hong kong, and estonia are all improbable miracles, rather than predictable developments.
@frepi
12 жыл бұрын
So is Joe Stiglitz (Nobel prize of economics 2001) and he is a staunch opponent of the Friedman free market philosophy
@zoozootaken
12 жыл бұрын
@darknight651 Which president created FEMA? Which president pulled a Stalin tactic by preaching small gov but actually grew it and our military? Which president through the UN signed an agreement to unify the way we educated our children in America with the way they do in Russia? I know every definition and form of socialism possible. Which one would you like to hear about in detail?
@jeistarGames
13 жыл бұрын
I'm assuming the a majority of the dislikes comes from people who saw "Chomsky" and automatically disliked it, hence the higher percentages of likes in the later parts of the video. I know he is more boring and harder to understand than Friedman, but still, try to listen.
@tonybennett4159
11 жыл бұрын
I'm not aware that Keynsian economics encourage derivatives so complex that the products so created are over the heads of even those who buy and sell them, (and the ratings agencies who awarded them AAA status). I wasn't aware that credit default swaps were a Keynsian idea. I wasn't aware that casino banking could be laid at his door, nor that he encouraged predatory lending practices to those who had no possibility of making the repayments. A chase after short term huge profits was to blame
@acmna
13 жыл бұрын
@iggerdanus Thats wrong, Friedman always argued using historical evidence of a capitalist vs. any other type of system and he showed that the lower class always had a higher standard of living under capitalism than any other system. Noam always argued the theoretical argument and he once said that, "what we fear is not that the North Vietnamese will fail, but rather that the socialist model might succeed in the way, China and the soviet union succeeded."
Пікірлер: 2 М.