What does Sup Forums think of Milton Friedman?

What does Sup Forums think of Milton Friedman?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences
youtu.be/5xVtRa2Rt5A
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Actually deserved his nobel prize.

A decent, well-meaning man that strove to make the case for the inherent morality of capitalism at a time when government intervention had become the standard operating procedure.

He made clear and concise arguments that I think even to this day continue to snap people out of the socialist fog.

I learned a new quip... the fog of government intervention.

(((Friedman)))

Recently watched his Inflation video on YouTube. Great guy!

Anarcho-capitalism and the cruel free market.

genius

Thomas Sowell is better.

I haven't dived into his works but I recognize his intellect.

He was an extremely overrated economist who didn't understand political economy.

Great guy. Too bad conservatism has nobody these days except edge lords.

I hate all economists, but people endlessly dickride him, so I hate him even more

he helped based helicopter ride purveyor pinochet so he has my approval

#notalljews

Pinochet had to abandon Friedman's shitty ideas in order to save the country though.

trumpwrong.gif

He looks like Mr. Potato Head

Major Twat who sucked off Big Banks and Financiers and conservatives and where politicians used his theories as a condom to fuck the working class.

Trickle-Down economics is the owner-rich shitting on the rest.

Trust a burger to put morality and capitalism in the same sentence unironically

Capitalism IS moral, gabacho. But only because it can only be practiced by a society that puts a value on strong property and individual rights. Ultimately, it is the virtue of the people that makes capitalism work.

Ah yes the old "Robber must be set Free" logic:

>"If you don't let me be free to steal and rape your shared public resources for my private gain you are not setting me, as an Ayn Rand rug munching individual, free.

>My freedom as an individual ensures that I may use force and trumps your freedom to have anything in the shared public interest."

See Friedman sounds good to a certain sociopath who can't get any;
When they privatize air and charge you per breath under OMNICORP,
you'll still praise his insane theories. Cos Muh Freedom GRRRR.

>gabacho
cool word, im stealing it

Great man, also love the way he talks - a true definition of old time swag.

NHS and other western Socilised healthcare.

Yet US spends more as GDP % and yet still no universal coverage!

Enjoy being selfish pricks whilst paying the highest drug prices and insurance premiums.
Good look fighting the HMO if they don't want to payout.

It's "Freedom."

Well if you have money; everyone else has to serve you like a GOD>

So I'm guessing what China does isn't true capitalism according to you ?
Where have I heard this argument before..

The argument is freer markets correlate with higher standards of living.

The US healthcare system is an over-regulated mess and even then people still come here from all over the world because of its quality of product

You European socialist fucks need to stop making a virtue out of theft and envy because you're not fooling anyone.

>mutually beneficial exchanges are stealing and rape
>government pointing a gun at you isn't
Every time.

>government property gets damaged
>it's capitalism's fault

t. ahmed arriving in the UK for 2 months demanding gibs

truth
proof of edgelord status

Nothing to do with morality indeed, glad we can agree on that

Spared from the ovens tier.

But then, what would you gabachos know about morality? You replaced Christianity with state-worship as the national religion so I can see why you think righteousness flows from the government. That's gonna end poorly for you eventually, though.

At no point have I mentioned the state or even referred to the government you cocksucking ape
If you make a retarded claim and are unable to actually back it up with solid arguments I'd suggest you start a tumblr, it's pretty popular over there

Stealing Ahmed's resources, installing murderous government to allow "Free-Market" to rape his country and just for kicks, dividing all the locals.

Then complaining when Ahmed comes to claim whats his.

What claim have I made that needs substantiating? Isn't the record of history clear on the issue of whether capitalism works or not? It's only after a country gets fat and indolent off the efforts of its trailblazing entrepreneurs that the redistributionists start asking for socialist policies that condemns future generations to even further mediocrity.

principled genius

I disputed you claim capitalism is an "inherently moral" thing, which is demonstrably false
And you backed down cause you're a little bitch

>hate all economists

How do you expect to have a funtioning society then, friendo?

Capitalism is fine in regulated doses;
Unregulated Milton Friedman Capitalism is indeed Rape of the state.

Take a natural resource like cooking gas; The Government - as in you and me - could own the infrastructure.

But wait, using Friedman theory we should privatise the entire operation thereby allowing a select group of private individuals to "Exchange" money to buy "our" Gas and then sell that same Gas back to us.

>Genius KEK


Put simply retards:

Natural Monopolies like Railways, Roads, Utilities etc should not be left to the
"Unregulated Friedman style Free-Market" as these necessities will have you giving blowjob to Private capital to breathe things like Air.

>Can vote out Government and change
>Can't vote out Shareholders who own your natural monopolies.

ut yeah "Freedom DURHH"

this dumb cunt thinks highly coercive policy is "moral", lmaffo, cute.

If you consider respecting the property of others as a moral act, then capitalism is merely the sum name for that principle carried out systemically by a defined plurality. Now go fuck yourself.

kike + zyclon b = ?

Morality = Private ownership and nothing fucking else
Get the fuck out of here you underaged faggot

It is not moral, but it is still good.

Did I say that morality is wholly defined as that? Stop strawmanning you illiterate frog.

Morality of Friedman Capitalism:

Something in this belief system is only worth anything if it can be monetized and exchanged for capital; Only the unregulated capital can set all of us free as it will find an equilibrium according to the value and merit (Allegedly):

>Ignore monopolies
>Ignore corruption to pass laws to entrench a plutocracy and have Crony Capitalism.
>Ignore democracy cos, well MY Capital BUYS your LAWS. cool I like this systems.
>Inherited unearned capital beats talented poor person. Very fair no?

They know the price of everything; The Value of nothing.

Simple minds some of you. Just follow the money to see who you can't criticize.

I mean did you all enjoy Friedman's theories bankrupting you with
>Socializing your Banking Sector Bets and >Allowing the Bankers to make you pay for those bets whilst they cashed in any subsequent profit.

Turkeys the lot of you; You're literally being economically raped by Big Free-Market Finance and hardly anyone goes to jail for it.

But yeah "Muh Freedom Massa"

And now you all gonna get completely crony free-markets on steroids with the Fox in charge of the hen-coup. Get ready for a big crash.

This is retarded. Who builds the infrastructure? The politicians themselves? Or the companies that get a government contract? All you're doing is paying them in addition to the bureaucracy that springs up to regulate it.

In the end, you get a more expensive product and a false sense of "owning" a resource that otherwise would be unattainable without private infrastructure capable of reaching it.

Until you see how many people in so many ways, whom it shafts.

But you are good so it's ok.

Your assumption is, like all lefties, that there is a system that works perfectly where nobody gets left out in the gutter. You need to give that notion up, because it has no basis in reality.

If your only argument that capitalism is inherently moral is that it upholds property rights, then you're reducing morality to that indeed
I barely have any room for strawmanning when you argue as well as a middle-school nigger

It IS moral because it reflects a society that principally values voluntary interaction over coercive force. If you don't think so, go live in fucking North Korea.

Nah mate, check post WW2 UK - We build it! That's what happened!
:

> Be Britain in 1945
> Be Decimated;
> Build Schools, Hospitals, Railways and Infrastructure by borrowing through the Government
>Help business through having these large scale investments done PUBLICLY.

This was then sold off to Private "Capitalists" in
>1980's
for no other reason than a bunch of greedy bastards wanted to make money off infrastructure we financed through Government borrowing and built ourselves.
Businesses were of course allowed -

Just don't touch what we think we should own through our elected governments together like natural monopolies such as Gas, Water, Electricity, Railways etc.

This is the point you miss:

>I can choose through capital which private shop I by clothes from.
>I can't really choose a different source of Electric can I?
Or a different Road?
Or a different Railway?

Miltons insane theory says everything is for sale; Even yo Mama Maggie Thatcher who sold off everything; It wasn't hers to sell-off.

Where do you think Companies get money from?
They borrow from banks
Who may borrow from Central Banks.

And when those Banks go bust they expect us as the government to Bail them out.

Heads they win, tails we still pay them and lose.

>You say we to accept Friedman Capital controls the world across borders; You can't control it through any government whilst it fucks you and me.

>Oh Capitalism, you like it RAW.

We say:

>Consider giving Capitalism rules, an STI test and make it use a Condom.

>nobel prize

There is no real nobel prize for economy. Only cucks believe in it.

you've never read a line of friedman

Oh, I get it now, was your daddy a coal miner or something?

Also, what you're describing is statist interventions. Not capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences

Are you a fucking CIA nigger?

Hilarious that leftists hate Thatcher for cutting subsidies for the coal industry. Now they hate the coal industry and want it destroyed because of muh enviroment.

This approach was parodied excellently in The Simspons.

What you have said gets to the heart of the matter:

>Why should I be coerced by anyone to do anything. Free-market Friedman Capitalism gives Muh freedom.

But what happens to this Ayn Rand inspired thinking without any accountability other than capital exchange being willed by 2 private parties??

Well you get the annual: "Do what you feel festival"
youtu.be/5xVtRa2Rt5A

Watch the sketch, the whole facade collapses.

We say:

Capitalism is good in parts - Use the best bits
Socialism has good parts - use the best bits
Both under a Democracy.

Milton said what you said: Capital should be free and the holders of Capital should be free to do whatever they want; Even if it's their desire to enslave you.

You can't vote them out as they make you Gag on their capital cock for warmth from their private Gas, or pay a mortgage to use their healthcare or pay to use their roads all at Anal-fisting prices.

if a government did that, they'd be voted out at the local level in a year!

It's bullshit, Nobel never created a prize for Economics, that prize is given by the Swedish National Bank "in honour" of Nobel.

Fucking Christ is that the aftermath of burger education ? Retarded opinions and vague semantics to back it up ?
Neither China nor Chile fit your description, and that's being generous with your definition, which refers to a system that arose at a time where the western powers were going around the globe and killing people to use their ressources to boost their economy. Pretty much sounds like coercive force

It's really weird how things in the real world can be multi-faceted, isn't it?

No, it's your hypocrisy that is hilarious.
If Trump says he wants to revive the American coal industry you faggots will ask for his head on a plate.

No, I listened to him.

His evil gaze as he gleefully explained his neo-liberal interpretation of capitalism chilled my very core.

Ayn Rand was a big fan;
As was Alan Greenspan.
Who relaxed the Banking Capital control regulations and unleashed a big fat Capital credit bubble that popped and left you all paying for it through your Taxes.

How many Capitalists were jailed?

if you had read friedman you'd know he doesn't ignore any of those issues, he explicitly says capitalists are often the biggest enemies of capitalism and continuously sponsor socialist and social-democratic parties that you vote for to implement measures that prevent competition.

Actually, the mines had to shut eventually as it was dangerous, dirty work.

She didn't care what happened to those workers - Germany invested in her workers in the 80's - Maggie didn't, other than being a pool of unemployed labour that her rich mates used to "Control" wages to "Ensure" bigger shareholder profits.

She was dirty;
She said to the miners she would close them if they didn't produce more coal.
>They did produce more
She then used the coal stockpiles to ride out the strikes and used the Police to bash strikers.
The Police did a no-strike deal for lots of extra power and money. (They recently hate how they've had to face "Austerity," and can't strike - They also killed and covered up many murders inc. a large Paedophile Ring of MP's and Hillsborough)

But yeah, you don't have any answer to her selling off housing without replacing those houses, or Gas, or Electricity -

We now give subsidies to these utility companies shareholder profits as they sell us back the natural utilities we own!
British Gas don't actually make some "Special" Gas!

We subsidize private Railway companies; many of these companies that we subsidize use their monopoly to give us rubbish highest priced services and also helps fund better
>state-run cheaper, better railways in many European countries.

Aye, I know, have listened and understand he mentions those issues but my points relate to his ultimate solutions:

Which were tried through Monetarism in the 1980's: He loved Thatcher's reforms as he loved Regan's.

As an academic I never said he didn't see those problems; He just didn't offer a good solution did he really?

I mean there has to be a better way surely that holds big Corporates to account other than neo-liberalism?

Yes, wealth should be redistributed so that all can be equally poor.