Milton Friedman on "Greed"

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 13

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Milton Friedman on "Greed"

2010-08-12 04:53:37

#101

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6657|USA

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Sorry, he's still wrong. He said there weren't government bureaus involved in technological advances. NASA scientists are employees of a government bureau, and it wasn't just contractors that designed rockets and such. Your argument is like saying that all soldiers are contractors -- which obviously, they aren't.
Might wanna look up who builds and R and D's aircraft and systems, who designed and built major components of the rocket systems, who build the LEM etc....All private contractors. Pick any govt. widget and you will find it was R and D'ed in the private sector, regardless if it were funded by the govt. or not. THe govt. designs and builds nothing.
Note Drunkface's response. He basically just summed up your logic with regard to government but instead applied it to the private sector.

To say that government funding and government management don't have any relevance when working with private inventors is like saying that companies shouldn't get credit for the work their employees do.

I didn't respond to his post because it was not worth responding to. Mainly because it is desperate and weak. A company is OF COURSE a group of people combining efforts in order to turn a profit. OF COURSE a company is made up of people dreaming up different ideas and products to sell. How does this translate to the govt. inventing and building anything? It does not. A company sells products, a customer buys products......The govt. is a customer.

You do note that it is a BOEING B-52 and not a US govt. B-52..........right?

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-12 05:16:21)

2010-08-12 05:48:28

#102

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6816|Nårvei

lowing wrote:
You gave me the when I said an economy is a flow of money through a society. As if I was so wrong it was laughable. Now explain how it is not a flow of money through an economy. As far as your, "it is so much more than that", no it isn't. The only thing that makes it more complicated are the various avenues money travels.

I gave you a because you constantly simplify issues that aren't simple ... if it's economy, Muslims etc etc etc ...

lowing wrote:
Sorry I disagree...The world did not explode when Eastern Airlines collapsed, or Pan AM, or Trans World. The world would not explode if GM collapsed. And it should have.

But when various financial institutions collapsed we got a global economic collapse we are still trying to recover from ... partially because we had to little or the wrong kind of regulation ...

To little or badly supervised regulation cause the BP oil-spill, but who cares ... let the oil-companies roam free at their own will why don't we?

lowing wrote:
You can not give me one example where govt. regulation was good. regarding the economy...Several years ago the govt controlled the phone company. Since govt. got out of the business the industry has exploded with inventiveness that has revolutionized all of our lives. A far cry from good ole' ma bell.

The phone-companies are a perfect example of how to privatize a former government service ... in most countries that has worked as intended, another example that have not worked so well is privatising electricity and water, most examples I've seen the price has gone up for the consumer because the product falls in the category "must have" ...

Oil is a good example of how government regulation is of global importance and again the BP oil-spill is a perfect example.

Back to the financial crisis, in Norway we have good regulations concerning this market ... hence why we had just a small hickup in comparison to most other countries ...

The examples are many, both for and against regulations ...

And finally ...

lowing wrote:
Varegg you are so full of shit.

I'm not actually, I know what I'm talking about and I understand what I'm talking about ... you have proven you don't on both accounts ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-08-12 07:01:54

#103

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6657|USA

Varegg wrote:
lowing wrote:
You gave me the when I said an economy is a flow of money through a society. As if I was so wrong it was laughable. Now explain how it is not a flow of money through an economy. As far as your, "it is so much more than that", no it isn't. The only thing that makes it more complicated are the various avenues money travels.
I gave you a because you constantly simplify issues that aren't simple ... if it's economy, Muslims etc etc etc ...

lowing wrote:
Sorry I disagree...The world did not explode when Eastern Airlines collapsed, or Pan AM, or Trans World. The world would not explode if GM collapsed. And it should have.
But when various financial institutions collapsed we got a global economic collapse we are still trying to recover from ... partially because we had to little or the wrong kind of regulation ...

To little or badly supervised regulation cause the BP oil-spill, but who cares ... let the oil-companies roam free at their own will why don't we?

lowing wrote:
You can not give me one example where govt. regulation was good. regarding the economy...Several years ago the govt controlled the phone company. Since govt. got out of the business the industry has exploded with inventiveness that has revolutionized all of our lives. A far cry from good ole' ma bell.
The phone-companies are a perfect example of how to privatize a former government service ... in most countries that has worked as intended, another example that have not worked so well is privatising electricity and water, most examples I've seen the price has gone up for the consumer because the product falls in the category "must have" ...

Oil is a good example of how government regulation is of global importance and again the BP oil-spill is a perfect example.

Back to the financial crisis, in Norway we have good regulations concerning this market ... hence why we had just a small hickup in comparison to most other countries ...

The examples are many, both for and against regulations ...

And finally ...

lowing wrote:
Varegg you are so full of shit.
I'm not actually, I know what I'm talking about and I understand what I'm talking about ... you have proven you don't on both accounts ...

You laughed when I said the economy is the flow of money through a society then claimed I don't know what I am talking about...Fine, If not that, then what the fuck is it?

Lets see, the one and only major oil spill in the gulf since oil has been pumped out of it, and all of a sudden govt. regulation is the solution.
Yet you fail to mention it was govt. regulation that started the economic crisis in the first place. Sorry, Varegg, you love your big govt. control. it is your solution for all of your problems. I do not feel that way.

You had small hicup because Norway is insignificant... Norway could fall into a sink hole today, and the world economy would not even notice. So don't break your arm patting yourself on your back.

2010-08-12 07:03:13

#104

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6411|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
You had small hicup because Norway is insignificant... Norway could fall into a sink hole today, and the world economy would not even notice. So don't break your arm patting yourself on your back.

How does the size of Norway have any relevance to the merits of regulation and fiscal responsibility?

2010-08-12 07:05:05

#105

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6477

lowing wrote:
You had small hicup because Norway is insignificant... Norway could fall into a sink hole today, and the world economy would not even notice. So don't break your arm patting yourself on your back.

america could do the same and china/india/asia would pick their teeth with your bones

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-12 07:08:44

#106

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6411|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
lowing wrote:
You had small hicup because Norway is insignificant... Norway could fall into a sink hole today, and the world economy would not even notice. So don't break your arm patting yourself on your back.
america could do the same and china/india/asia would pick their teeth with your bones

In the long run, the world could survive without us. In the short run, if we truly fell economically, the whole world would suffer from it. As long as most of the world depends on our consumption, our choices have a ripple effect throughout the world.

Considering our recent debt management problems, this doesn't bode well for the world. Granted, there are some nations that have taken steps to lessen their dependence on our consumption. Pretty much every major economy should have a Plan B, so to speak.

2010-08-12 07:09:58

#107

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6657|USA

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
You had small hicup because Norway is insignificant... Norway could fall into a sink hole today, and the world economy would not even notice. So don't break your arm patting yourself on your back.
How does the size of Norway have any relevance to the merits of regulation and fiscal responsibility?

Did I mention size? Norway contributes little to the world economy and is affected little. But they sure know how to reap the benefits from everyone elses risks don't they? If I am wrong, please tell me how if Norway disappeared today how it would affect anything.

2010-08-12 07:11:11

#108

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6657|USA

Uzique wrote:
lowing wrote:
You had small hicup because Norway is insignificant... Norway could fall into a sink hole today, and the world economy would not even notice. So don't break your arm patting yourself on your back.
america could do the same and china/india/asia would pick their teeth with your bones

Really? then how is the world economy faltering at the feet of the US housing market collapse. I am quite certain any housing crisis in Norway, probably wouldn't make the news let alone affect any of us.

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-12 07:13:40)

2010-08-12 07:17:16

#109

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6477

the dollar/federal reserve standard will lose dominance in the next 100 years

china's state-capitalist ventures into africa and the development of asia-major will see to it

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-12 07:20:16

#110

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6411|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
You had small hicup because Norway is insignificant... Norway could fall into a sink hole today, and the world economy would not even notice. So don't break your arm patting yourself on your back.
How does the size of Norway have any relevance to the merits of regulation and fiscal responsibility?
Did I mention size? Norway contributes little to the world economy and is affected little. But they sure know how to reap the benefits from everyone elses risks don't they? If I am wrong, please tell me how if Norway disappeared today how it would affect anything.

Norway's significance in the world economy is mostly with regard to oil and gas exports. I'm not suggesting Norway's existence is vital to the global economy, but Varegg was talking about how his economy has flourished with regulation in place. I think the point of his argument is that regulation isn't a bad thing if it is done right. Norway is clearly doing it right.

2010-08-12 07:27:15

#111

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6657|USA

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

How does the size of Norway have any relevance to the merits of regulation and fiscal responsibility?
Did I mention size? Norway contributes little to the world economy and is affected little. But they sure know how to reap the benefits from everyone elses risks don't they? If I am wrong, please tell me how if Norway disappeared today how it would affect anything.
Norway's significance in the world economy is mostly with regard to oil and gas exports. I'm not suggesting Norway's existence is vital to the global economy, but Varegg was talking about how his economy has flourished with regulation in place. I think the point of his argument is that regulation isn't a bad thing if it is done right. Norway is clearly doing it right.

Translation------Norway sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.

2010-08-12 07:28:42

#112

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6722

Uzique wrote:
the dollar/federal reserve standard will lose dominance in the next 100 years

china's state-capitalist ventures into africa and the development of asia-major will see to it

They'll have to deal with their own infrastructure flaws first... God damn the construction and safety standards in China are HORRID.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-08-12 07:30:55

#113

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6816|Nårvei

Norway's significance in global economy is a very minor one lowing, you are correct ... never made a point of how significant we are did I?

Turq and Uzi got the point I was trying to make, you didn't ...

I'm done here debating against your ignorance ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-08-12 07:31:58

#114

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6477

Cybargs wrote:
Uzique wrote:
the dollar/federal reserve standard will lose dominance in the next 100 years

china's state-capitalist ventures into africa and the development of asia-major will see to it
They'll have to deal with their own infrastructure flaws first... God damn the construction and safety standards in China are HORRID.

standards in newly-industrialized victorian england were shit too

it's not a specifically chinese problem

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-12 07:33:45

#115

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6722

Uzique wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Uzique wrote:
the dollar/federal reserve standard will lose dominance in the next 100 years

china's state-capitalist ventures into africa and the development of asia-major will see to it
They'll have to deal with their own infrastructure flaws first... God damn the construction and safety standards in China are HORRID.
standards in newly-industrialized victorian england were shit too

it's not a specifically chinese problem

Even for chinese standards. Beijing smog will be a bitch to deal with.

2010-08-12 07:42:39

#116

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6657|USA

Varegg wrote:
Norway's significance in global economy is a very minor one lowing, you are correct ... never made a point of how significant we are did I?

Turq and Uzi got the point I was trying to make, you didn't ...

I'm done here debating against your ignorance ...

I got what you were saying but by comparing an economic powerhouse like the US to Norway, and how "we should do it". You really are comparing apples to oranges now aren't you?

And if you admit Norway has dick to do with the world economy it really isn't much of a horn you blow by saying how great your regulation works and offer your little affected economy as proof now is it?.

LMAO!! Still can't get enough of your superiority complex. never gets old.

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-12 07:43:49)

2010-08-12 07:44:15

#117

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6722

lowing wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Norway's significance in global economy is a very minor one lowing, you are correct ... never made a point of how significant we are did I?

Turq and Uzi got the point I was trying to make, you didn't ...

I'm done here debating against your ignorance ...
I got what you were saying but by comparing an economic powerhouse like the US to Norway, and how "we should do it". You really are comparing apples to oranges now aren't you?

And if you admit Norway has dick to do with the world economy it really isn't much of a horn you blow by saying how great your regulation works and offer your little affected economy as proof now is it?.

LMAO!! Still can't get enough of your superiority complex. never gets old.

Norway does have a shitload of oil so yeah I think they're pretty important. Salmon too.

2010-08-12 07:49:24

#118

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6477

Cybargs wrote:
Uzique wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

They'll have to deal with their own infrastructure flaws first... God damn the construction and safety standards in China are HORRID.
standards in newly-industrialized victorian england were shit too

it's not a specifically chinese problem
Even for chinese standards. Beijing smog will be a bitch to deal with.

you do know what the river thames was like after the industrial revolution, right?

parliament couldn't even sit because the pollution and waste were so bad

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-12 07:49:58

#119

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6657|USA

Cybargs wrote:
lowing wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Norway's significance in global economy is a very minor one lowing, you are correct ... never made a point of how significant we are did I?

Turq and Uzi got the point I was trying to make, you didn't ...

I'm done here debating against your ignorance ...
I got what you were saying but by comparing an economic powerhouse like the US to Norway, and how "we should do it". You really are comparing apples to oranges now aren't you?

And if you admit Norway has dick to do with the world economy it really isn't much of a horn you blow by saying how great your regulation works and offer your little affected economy as proof now is it?.

LMAO!! Still can't get enough of your superiority complex. never gets old.
Norway does have a shitload of oil so yeah I think they're pretty important. Salmon too.

According to this Norway pails in comparison to most other nations hell, even the US is not a major player and Norway is behind us. So no, they are not all that important. But obviously they like to think they are. ask varegg
http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/b … serves.jpg

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-12 07:50:55)

2010-08-12 07:54:09

#120

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6722

Uzique wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Uzique wrote:
standards in newly-industrialized victorian england were shit too

it's not a specifically chinese problem
Even for chinese standards. Beijing smog will be a bitch to deal with.
you do know what the river thames was like after the industrial revolution, right?

parliament couldn't even sit because the pollution and waste were so bad

That's why it will be a bitch for China to deal with... They're having the exact same problems of Europe during the industrial era. They still have a lot and lot to catch up on, even with modern tech.

Edit: they're making it better now lulz

http://www.dailytech.com/China+to+Kill+ … e19325.htm

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-08-12 07:58:22)

2010-08-12 07:58:07

#121

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6477

what sort of stupid logic is that?

england coped with the bad-parts of industrial development, and also managed to run a global-empire, with technology circa 1900.

china has 21st century technology solutions to deal with its industrial problems. cleaner energy, cleaner transport, cleaner living.

i think you're forgetting how long it took for western, sanitized countries to get to where they are... and severely underestimate china.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-12 07:59:18

#122

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6722

Uzique wrote:
what sort of stupid logic is that?

england coped with the bad-parts of industrial development, and also managed to run a global-empire, with technology circa 1900.

china has 21st century technology solutions to deal with its industrial problems. cleaner energy, cleaner transport, cleaner living.

i think you're forgetting how long it took for western, sanitized countries to get to where they are... and severely underestimate china.

England didn't have a population of one billion people to deal with.

2010-08-12 08:00:29

#123

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6477

that's a resource, though, as well as a 'burden'.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-08-12 08:02:48

#124

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6722

Uzique wrote:
that's a resource, though, as well as a 'burden'.

China has to import bitches to offset the male-female ratio. Chinese people love their sons.

2010-08-12 08:08:12

#125

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6477

all of that is so insignificant in the scope of the next 250-500 years. who cares if china has to import women?

sounds like you've got some petty bitch against china.

it'll have growing pains but it's gonna grow to be a big bad grown-up, whether you like it or not.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 13

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Milton Friedman on "Greed"

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Milton Friedman on "Greed"

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer