BF2S Forums Milton Friedman on "Greed"

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Get sound and watch this. It is probably the most single comprehensive argument regarding socialism, capitalism, "greed", govt. intervention, economics, free choice etc. that is to be seen. Not even the liberal talk show host Phill Donahue can argue against what this man says. He is completely shut down. To Donahue's credit however, he knows when to stay down.

You mean that an entertainer was shut down by a professional economist on the topic of economics? Say it ain't so. That's like me trying to argue with you about the intricacies of maintaining an aircraft.

Point taken, but you would think a talk show host, even a liberal one,  would be smart enough to form some facsimile of a debate if you were going to have someone on your show you intended to debate. Face it, he was shut down, on every issue, economically as well as that of socialism vs. captialism

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

As I said, if you want to know more about the man google him, or better yet watch the video that was linked. What more could you want than the words from the man himself?

You obviously agree with him, hence you should be able to write a few lines to accompany the link in the OP.

The lack of such content can only mean you haven't got a clue what he talks about ... and just for the record, you know Milton Friedman considered himself to be classically liberal and libertarian?

He also died in 2006 and that means he didn't get to see the fruits of freefalling unregulated capitalism ... I would be very interested in hearing what comments he would have made today ...

LOL, so your argument is that you can not disagree with him, that I must not know what I he is saying. How pathetic. If you know he dies in 2006 then you must know what his postion is on economic and social issues regarding govt.

What would he say today? Hmmm he would probably cite govt. intervention in the housing market for the failure and govt. intervention for the inability of the free market to recover our economy.

He certainly would be against any govt. bailouts of any companies.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Point taken, but you would think a talk show host, even a liberal one,  would be smart enough to form some facsimile of a debate if you were going to have someone on your show you intended to debate. Face it, he was shut down, on every issue, economically as well as that of socialism vs. captialism

That's his damn job man. He argues economics for a living. He's written a dozen books on the subject. Donahue has the shallow understanding of anyone whose knowledge comes from whatever is said at a cocktail party.

lol the ndon't invite him on your show to argue against him, When you can't. Match him up with one of Obama's economists, do you think the outcome would be any different?

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

You obviously agree with him, hence you should be able to write a few lines to accompany the link in the OP.

The lack of such content can only mean you haven't got a clue what he talks about ... and just for the record, you know Milton Friedman considered himself to be classically liberal and libertarian?

He also died in 2006 and that means he didn't get to see the fruits of freefalling unregulated capitalism ... I would be very interested in hearing what comments he would have made today ...

LOL, so your argument is that you can not disagree with him, that I must not know what I he is saying. How pathetic. If you know he dies in 2006 then you must know what his postion is on economic and social issues regarding govt.

What would he say today? Hmmm he would probably cite govt. intervention in the housing market for the failure and govt. intervention for the inability of the free market to recover our economy.

He certainly would be against any govt. bailouts of any companies.

Never said I disagreed or agreed with his POV ...

And everyone is against bailouts lowing in case you haven't noticed ... the bailouts was the lesser of two evils ... and the housing market was just one of the many reasons it all crashed ... a unregulated market was another ... a free market without regulations as Friedman championed so vigorously is actually part of the failure of capitalism ... regulate as little as possible but a few regulations is actually needed ...

What is pathetic is that you blow this guys dick so totally and are unable to tell me why you love him so much ... pathetic of epic proportions ...

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

No, great strides in medicine, sanitation, etc, all from the private sector, has given us a higher, healthier quality of life. In short we are living longer, and are having more kids.

No, I'm talking about food and energy needs, not quality of life.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

lol the ndon't invite him on your show to argue against him, When you can't. Match him up with one of Obama's economists, do you think the outcome would be any different?

Which is why tv has gotten so dumbed down. People like O'Reilly don't bring anyone onto their show that they can't verbally browbeat into submission. Nothing is learned.

Match him up ( Friedman) with one of Obama's economists, do you think the outcome would be any different?

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Which is why tv has gotten so dumbed down. People like O'Reilly don't bring anyone onto their show that they can't verbally browbeat into submission. Nothing is learned.

Match him up ( Friedman) with one of Obama's economists, do you think the outcome would be any different?

Considering that he was one of the top three minds in economics in the 20th century, there isn't anyone from either party that could match up with him...

Don't try to claim he was a 'right winger' either because like me, his social views were a lot more libertarian in nature than would be acceptable in the Republican party. He was the man that coined the phrase "The freer the market, the freer the people".

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Considering that he was one of the top three minds in economics in the 20th century, there isn't anyone from either party that could match up with him...

Don't try to claim he was a 'right winger' either because like me, his social views were a lot more libertarian in nature than would be acceptable in the Republican party. He was the man that coined the phrase "The freer the market, the freer the people".

Nevercalled him a "right winger", I also lean toward libertarian, and he has said nothing that I disgree with.

The thing is, regardless as to where he sits as an economist, the only question is, is he right?

Yes, of course he's right. I never said he wasn't, just that your gloating over him beating Donahue in a debate is like congratulating your kid for beating up a kid in a wheelchair. It would be like me trying to debate the existence of black holes with Stephen Hawking.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nevercalled him a "right winger", I also lean toward libertarian, and he has said nothing that I disgree with.

The thing is, regardless as to where he sits as an economist, the only question is, is he right?

Yes, of course he's right. I never said he wasn't, just that your gloating over him beating Donahue in a debate is like congratulating your kid for beating up a kid in a wheelchair. It would be like me trying to debate the existence of black holes with Stephen Hawking.

Although, ironically, the guy in the wheelchair would be beating you up in that case... 

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The closest Milton Friedman have been to applied economics government style is Reaganomics, worked perfectly well in theory and applied many of the same principles ... Reaganomics was a success if you discard the importance of a balanced budget, the deficit under Reagan increased from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990.

Milton Friedman was Reagans economic adviser.

In short ... you ride the wave but somewhere the wave ends and the hard work of getting back to where the waves start is a bitch in comparison ...

So lowing ... Milton Friedman was a brilliant economic in theory but not so much in reality ...

That's my conclusion.

Who says the wave has to end? Economy is nothing more than a cyclic transfer of money, there should be no end to it.

His theory that govt. intervention and bureaucracy is the enemy of a thriving society or economy has not been put to the test, since it has never materialized.

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The closest Milton Friedman have been to applied economics government style is Reaganomics, worked perfectly well in theory and applied many of the same principles ... Reaganomics was a success if you discard the importance of a balanced budget, the deficit under Reagan increased from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990.

Milton Friedman was Reagans economic adviser.

In short ... you ride the wave but somewhere the wave ends and the hard work of getting back to where the waves start is a bitch in comparison ...

So lowing ... Milton Friedman was a brilliant economic in theory but not so much in reality ...

That's my conclusion.

Who says the wave has to end? Economy is nothing more than a cyclic transfer of money, there should be no end to it.

His theory that govt. intervention and bureaucracy is the enemy of a thriving society or economy has not been put to the test, since it has never materialized.

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

THis thread went 85 views before anyone piped up.

Maybe a severe lack of content was the reason?

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The closest Milton Friedman have been to applied economics government style is Reaganomics, worked perfectly well in theory and applied many of the same principles ... Reaganomics was a success if you discard the importance of a balanced budget, the deficit under Reagan increased from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990.

Milton Friedman was Reagans economic adviser.

In short ... you ride the wave but somewhere the wave ends and the hard work of getting back to where the waves start is a bitch in comparison ...

So lowing ... Milton Friedman was a brilliant economic in theory but not so much in reality ...

That's my conclusion.

Who says the wave has to end? Economy is nothing more than a cyclic transfer of money, there should be no end to it.

His theory that govt. intervention and bureaucracy is the enemy of a thriving society or economy has not been put to the test, since it has never materialized.

I'm not exactly a fan of Friedman, but I'll admit that the failings of Reagan probably had more to do with politics than with Friedman.

I would assume that Friedman would not have advocated the level of defense spending that Reagan engaged in.  Where both Friedman and Reagan were wrong, however, is the relinquishing of regulations -- especially on the financial sector.  The irresponsible behavior of the mortgage market that led to the economic crash in late 2008 began during Reagan's era.  Things only got worse in terms of recklessness thereafter.

The problem is that the private sector is currently too focused on short term growth to logically assess long term growth and sustainability.