[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
(Friedman never did support Pinochet’s regume,
[/quote]
Pinochet’s regume? Wow, I didn’t know that he didn’t support Pinochet’s regume…you’ve got me there. Regume - is that a type of pasta?
[quote]jason1122 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
(Friedman never did support Pinochet’s regume,
Pinochet’s regume? Wow, I didn’t know that he didn’t support Pinochet’s regume…you’ve got me there. Regume - is that a type of pasta?[/quote]
Don’t you have an evening class at the community college to go to? Maybe, Math 001? Because your facts don’t add up.
Here, I’ll simplify this for you: You have 10 seconds to decide where to spend the rest of your life, in Venezuela or the good old USA. I know you chose USA which makes me sad — Venezuela is better for kooks like you. They seem to be over-quota.
[quote]jason1122 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
Wow, somebody gave praise to Friedman? 40% of the fricken population (retarded half) would agree with him and 60% wouldn’t.
Where’s the proof? Look at the economies in South and Central America that most closely followed his principals - they don’t call them 3rd world nations for nothing. Look at Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela pre-Chavez, Chili during Pinochet’s rule. All so called “free-economies.” All of them shit.
[/quote]
After reading this, I smell sulfer…El Diablo is here!
Move to fucking Venezuela, bugwit!
[quote]jason1122 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
(Friedman never did support Pinochet’s regume,
Pinochet’s regume? Wow, I didn’t know that he didn’t support Pinochet’s regume…you’ve got me there. Regume - is that a type of pasta?[/quote]
Wow, you’ve caught a typo. Bravo – the single best contribution you’ve made to this thread thus far. Take a bow.
[quote]
LBRTRN wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
orion wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
The point is I’m right and your wrong and I proved it over and over again. You can tell someone the world is round but if they still believe the world is flat there’s nothing you can do to help them understand. You’re mad now because after all this you know that I’m right!!!
Hahahahhaha![/quote]
Just out of curiousity, are you deleting all the text yourself, and then posting the non sequiters and avoiding all the points directed your way, or are the mods helping you out to save space and keep everyone from trying to figure out the connecting thread between your comments and the points you were quoting?
jason123 you have astonished me by your misunderstanding of what Milton Friedman stood for, you repeatedly called hime a “neo-conservative,” and then proceeded to justify centrally planned economies through faulty examples.
Milton Friedman was a liberal in the truest sense of the word, he believed in freedom, he believed that when free individuals voluntarily cooperated with each other under a free market it benefited society has a whole. He was one of the most influental people in the past century that advocated human freedom, not some abstract utopian ideal enforced through government coercion, as you would probably like.
[quote]jason1122 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
orion wrote:
The point is I’m right and your wrong and I proved it over and over again.
[/quote]
You take the cake, man. Of all the people I’ve argued politics with, very few have been as unabashedly arrogant in their position as you. I can only imagine that the circles you normally frequent are so populated with individuals similarly disposed that you just aren’t used to people disagreeing with you. How does the cliche go, “An intelligent man know how little he really knows?”–it’s something to that effect, anyways. Well, you’ve succeeded in proving how unintelligent you truly are–congrats!
[quote]
You can tell someone the world is round but if they still believe the world is flat there’s nothing you can do to help them understand. You’re mad now because after all this you know that I’m right!!!
Hahahahhaha![/quote]
You know, you’re right. I have been outmatched by your obviously superior intellect, and now, I’m just lashing out in order to save face. That’s why I’ve ended nearly every sentence with “dumb fuck,” “moron,” or “idiot.”
Wait a minute…
What’s with all the extremes?
If you look at the way the market is managed as a continuum, Friedman is clearly a fan of a more hands off approach. The communist approach is the other extreme where everything is state owned.
A Keynesian approach would be more of a middle ground where the government takes a more active role in the marketplace, through tariffs, incentives such as subsidies and tax breaks.
Friedman thought that Keyne’s approach was too controlling and that the market should self regulate
I would suggest that:
-
China did in fact reject a Laissez-faire Friedman approach and instead went with a more Keynesian approach when opening up their markets.
-
Developing countries that have used a more planned, managed market approach where the government is more hands on (i.e. more Keynesian rather than Friedman.)
On the other hand a well developed economic powerhouse like the U.S. may be better off using a freer market approach since it is well established.
Having said that I think state tariffs and the large amounts spending of the current government (for example in defense) means that the effect of the U.S. government of the economy is quite high.
[quote]tubbiebtch wrote:
What’s with all the extremes?
If you look at the way the market is managed as a continuum, Friedman is clearly a fan of a more hands off approach. The communist approach is the other extreme where everything is state owned.
A Keynesian approach would be more of a middle ground where the government takes a more active role in the marketplace, through tariffs, incentives such as subsidies and tax breaks.
Friedman thought that Keyne’s approach was too controlling and that the market should self regulate
I would suggest that:
-
China did in fact reject a Laissez-faire Friedman approach and instead went with a more Keynesian approach when opening up their markets.
-
Developing countries that have used a more planned, managed market approach where the government is more hands on (i.e. more Keynesian rather than Friedman.)
On the other hand a well developed economic powerhouse like the U.S. may be better off using a freer market approach since it is well established.
Having said that I think state tariffs and the large amounts spending of the current government (for example in defense) means that the effect of the U.S. government of the economy is quite high.[/quote]
Thanks for the reasonable post. I see your point but I just want to make a couple points of my own:
- Friedman’s real beef with the Keynesians has more to do with their approach to controlling economic cycles.
2)I think we need to make a distinction between Friedman’s economic theory and his general philosophical position. He looked to Hong Kong as an example of what is possible in a free market. He wasn’t advocating that China go all or nothing–he believed, and I think he was right, that for China to prosper economically, they must liberalize their economy, moving more towards a free market. When I say China hasn’t completely rejected Friedman’s philosophy, I don’t mean they have a Laissez-faire economy.
Simply put, Friedman was much more practical than people give him credit for. Any move towards a market economy is a step in the right direction, and that’s what he advocated for underdeveloped countries–step out of the way enough that private ownership and entrepreneurship can take hold.
[quote]jason1122 wrote:
orion wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
I hope Milton Friedman gets dug up by a couple of homosexual necrophiliacs (neoconservatives of course) and gets pounded in the ass. What a moron. His neocapitalist ideas have bombed in every nation thats adopted them - Brazil, Chili, Philippines, etc… And the nations that have completely rejected them are economic powerhouses - China, South Korea, India, etc…
And you’ve kept good company…especially with Augusta Pinochet - a mass fucking murderer!
Yes thats what describes this man and his legacy best:
A moron…
An argument put forward so eloquently by an intellectual powerhouse as yourself Sir, how could I not agree…
Hey I’m sorry. Given that your picture is a little pink bag I’m assuming you’re a homosexual. Honestly, I have nothing against gays and I didn’t mean anything by my ‘homosexual’ comment above. [/quote]
OF COURSE YOU DIDN’T! It’s impossible for liberals to be offensive, right? I mean, your hearts are in the right place and you love everyone - who thinks just like you do! You are class all the way, pal.
Jason1122: How can anyone take you seriously, you don’t even know what the term “neo-conservative” means. Friedman did not consider himself a “neo-conservative” He was a classical liberal. What we in the U.S. would call an economic libertarian. Noam Chomsky is a pathetic pathetic man. who knows why he writes what he writes but if ever there was a phony bullshitter it is him.
OH YEAH BABY! This is just too sweet for not to get involved in!
[quote]jason1122 wrote:
China’s economic success (where I fucking live by the way) has nothing to do with neo-conservative economic policies you dumbass! They’ve completely rejected them you idiot! Just because there economic success wasn’t because of ‘communism’ doesn’t mean it’s because they’ve adopted neo-conservative principals you moron! Take a fucking remedial economics class!
[/quote]
You Mao Zedong loving pinko! Go retake your Agitprop class! Obviously you failed it the last time because you were fantasizing about sucking Engels’s cock while Marx takes you from behind and gives you a hardy Trotskyist reach-around at the same time!
(Apologies for all the non-trolls out there. I couldn’t help it…)
Yeeeah… Brazil’s economy sure did bomb. I mean, their economy is only the ninth strongest in the world. And their industry is only the most advanced in latin America. Fucking losers!
True, China doesn’t have an open economy. China’s economic success relies on providing cheap labor and production to foreign companies. That tit will run dry once production and shipping costs get close to domestic production costs. After that China will either collapse under the weight of government interference or adopt a truly open economy. The fact that China’s economy is booming is no victory for state controlled economies, simply because it achieved this through open market methods and started from the bottom. This boom happens in every economy that is properly opened to foreign investment.
So they get an A for not playing nice? Protectionism leads to a trade surplus which benefits that country but fucks everyone else. What happens in a world where every government tries to get a trade surplus? The markets shut down and we travel back in time by about 400 years. The only way to achieve a balance is by getting rid of government interference.
[quote]Now that Chavez has taken power and has put the company back under state control the profits are directly helping Venezuelans.
And if you look at Venezuelans economy it’s actually starting to recover.[/quote]
And this has nothing to do with the price of oil? Any country that has considerable oil reserves is booming at the moment. They could have a stone age culture and have their shamans run their economy and they would STILL be making money. Of course they’ll run into trouble once the markets switch to another source of energy.
What they think Friedman represented doesn’t mean a goddamn thing. Friedman offered answers at least. Have you heard Chomsky do anything but bitch? I’ll admit that he is good at pointing out the flaws, but I have yet to hear definite solutions from him.
I actually like Chomsky and agree with a lot of what he says. But a lot of what he says is just idealism. It doesn’t help pointing out the flaws of the world if you don’t have a better solution.
- POC