Its fucking weird. You can go back and watch Friedman argue with protectionist on youtube for hours. Every thing he promised never came to fruition and the protectionist were right.
It doesn't matter though even after he is proved wrong he is still idolized.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
web.archive.org
donaldjtrump.com
ontheissues.org
skrewdriver.net
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
twitter.com
You don't understand nuance
chi è questo demone del seme?
They didn't really follow Friedman's ideas. REAL CAPITALISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED.
A theory might be perfect and still have nothing with reality to do. Marxists keep saying theirs is perfect for example. Even though any child can see taht it's countrairy to human nature.
Brits don't understand capitalism because they're okay with living in council houses while not achieving anything, watching football, getting pissed, and when pressed on why they never achieved anything in their pathetic lives, always cry
>muh thatcher
>(((Friedman)))
Anyway, it's obvious that protectionism and free trade both have a proper context. Or maybe I should look into Friedman more.
>Friedman
There was no way that someone from his era, could determine that China and third world countries would become a manufacturing powerhouse in the little time that it did.
Economics is built on assumptions, the reality is, the American government did all it could to crush American industry through taxation, regulation and the like - in the end, this gave the third world an advantage not seen in history.
The commies couldn't keep up with capitalists, so when communism fell, American capitalists lost their monopoly on more or less - everything.
p u f f y
Everything that is happening now between China and the U.S. happened in the 19th century with
China and Britain. There are no "new" problems in economics, and you don't see any "new" outcomes
Friedman and the rest of these economists intentionally buried the Historical School of
Economics that had Friedrich List as its forefather because its (correct) conclusion that protectionism is the best policy for the nation-state is d
best policy for a nation state is detrimental to
the interests of any class of international merchants, of which the Jews are the foremost example.
>chi è questo demone del seme?
Non lo so, complimenti per le doppie.
How's pure capitalism under Obama, Amerifat?
That's Northerners. Don't talk like you know anything about my country and I'll avoid talking like I know anything about yours.
en.wikipedia.org
>Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth.
Seems pretty legit.
We have protectionism out the ass now in Russia and all it did was fill the shop shelves with literal garbage unfit for human consumption while the prices still go up due to inflation
Hasn't it been like that since the USSR fell?
web.archive.org
donaldjtrump.com
ontheissues.org
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
The right way to do capitalism.
lanie morgan
No it was great up from 2002 until 2005-7, and then from 2010 to 2012.
It's almost like a certain saviour of the white race was a clueless retard that can't do anything that's not outlined in a KGB guidebook and all of this was due to skyricketing oil prices.
really makes you think
That's why I only take Hayek seriously
>really makes you think
damn. . .
Protectionism works in the sense that the larger your internal market, the less benefits there are from free trade. Which is kinda the idea behind the EU internal market.
It would be better to look at the mercantilist / laissez-faire debate. The mercantilists have a lot of interesting things to say.
What the hell are you on about? Most of the things he said were absolutely right.
Chile put the Chicago train of thought into practice and are now the best south-american country.
Give me a fucking example of "proved wrong".
>don't talk about me or my country ever again
Britbongs in shambles
high test
protectionism works because vertical integration is the proper/most successful way to do things
The EU internal market is protectionism used completely wrong, though. I don't know much about it because learning about the Eurozone is confusing but I've gotten the impression that Europe has been using its internal market to circulate goods that simply can't compete with cheaper, better goods from other countries. As says,
>The commies couldn't keep up with capitalists, so when communism fell, American capitalists lost their monopoly on more or less - everything.
An industrial revolution happened in China in the 80's, we aren't dealing with a new mercantilism, we're dealing with new capitalists.
It depends, if you can handle everything then it is best, if you can't make each step of the supply-chain work, it aint.
Everything the EU does is horribly implemented, it is the only thing saving the EU countries.
>no examples
ok