Was he right about everything?

was he right about everything?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WTLwANVtnkA
fortune.com/2016/06/03/imf-neoliberalism-failing/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
tsowell.com/images/Hoover Proof.pdf
reason.com/blog/2011/07/20/being-libertarian-may-cause-au
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-23/bofa-leads-charge-into-bonds-as-banks-build-2-trillion-hoard
isteve.blogspot.com/2007/04/libertarianism-is-applied-autism.html
ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>yes goyim yes libertarianism is the only correct way now go back to working 16 hours for three dollars an hour I earned my billions goy

Was he right about anything?

he supported socialism for the wealthy, of course he was right.

Yes. Public schools being awful and needing vouchers, how Socialism never really works, and how greed can be good.

Don't agree with him on entirely free trade though. I'm fine with competition in a nation, but competing with Chinese slaves half a globe away is a bit hard.

he argued in favor of negative income tax though. meaning you don't have to work at all unless corporations make it worth your while.

yes I adore this man.

NIT is 10x better than all the shitty govt programs and income cliffs we have now though

>NIT is 10x better than all the shitty govt programs and income cliffs we have now though

Why, exactly?

Neoliberalism and globalism is the second biggest jewish scam on earth only behind communism.

The amount of products and services available depends on the amount of work that is being done.

If you force companies to pay more or give government handouts there will not magically be more products, shit will just cost more.

>Atheist
>Atheist
>Agnostic
>Atheist
But I guess you think it's their Jewish DNA, not their culture, which makes them evil, right?

Well monetarist policies destroyed the industrial basis of America. Monetarism is great if you believe in the delusion that inflating the value of financial assets makes everyone richer even while debt servicing obligations also rise and the access price to housing and other property keeps increasing.

The real redpill is Friedrich List's The National System of Political Economy

>Jewish DNA

Mostly Jewish culture

But yes there objectively is Jewish DNA

>The real redpill is Friedrich List's The National System of Political Economy

This

He was the most based economist of all time and was responsible for the rise of Germany and America over the British Empire.

Because the way our Welfare is set up today says you get x in benefits if you earn between y and z, so there are a few cliffs, pic related, where you can be earning more cash at work, but have less net income.

However, the NIT prevents this by allowing people to climb up out of poverty at a gradual rate

>The amount of products and services available depends on the amount of work that is being done.
>If you force companies to pay more or give government handouts there will not magically be more products, shit will just cost more.
Wealth distribution definitely has an effect on the work being down... increasing demand increases output.

The wealthy utilize their wealth by investing in bonds or stocks and expect interest payments on their investments, the poor purchase commodities and services without any expected interest payments. Companies would prefer more demand over having to borrow more money to just operate. More taxes on rent seeking activity actually means lower real prices not higher.

>increasing demand increases output

thank you

anyone who doesn't understand this is retarded.

>praising a clever jew who says a few memes
Off the the gas chambers you go

That's it?

To make more money in $ than you do in benefits, you'd need to go from a 9 dollar wage to a 30 dollar wage. It's almost impossible to do so.

reminder that Hitler was just a very successful Keynesian.

Welfare traps people today dipshit, NIT allows them to climb out if they can.

Also Not an Argument.

He was just trying to justify his inborn greed and selfishness.

>demand of gold goes up
>output literally can't change

Nice try Keynes

>Massively increased regulation, end of gold standard, increased taxes, huge protectionism, and over 100 government programs
>Monetarism
>Less than 1000 regulations in 1960
>Keynesianism

This is what liberals actually believe.

I'm not being argumentative or combative. I just don't see how that would create a different situation than the current welfare state.

Under NIT, if someone doesn't work at all and still receives benefits, aren't you still essentially paying them not to work?

>output literally can't change

what did he mean by this?

>Public schools being awful and needing vouchers

No public schools with vouchers in the UK

Not everything. Monetarism failed.

>neo-liberalism
There's that buzzword again

Yes. How people can still deny Capitalism works after nearly 300 years of it working and socialism failing over a 100 times in a 100 different countries resulting the death of 100 million people baffles me.

>Monertariasm
>reducing regulations

>everything that triggers me is a buzzword

Alright, so let's say you earn under 20k a year and the negative tax rate will be 50%.

If you earned 0 dollars that year, you get 10k back from the govt. That's because you're 20k under the limit, and you get half of that back.

If you earned 5k that year, you earned 15k under the limit, so you get 7.5k back. Thus you've earned 12.5k at the end of the day.

You earn 10k that year, you get 5k back. YOu earn 15k that year in total.

The way it works now, is tht if you work too many hours or get too much income you can be out of a bracket to earn a certain amount of cash. Pic related

It is a buzzword because it's an insult treated as a self-evident argument with no solid definition

youtube.com/watch?v=WTLwANVtnkA

Yes.

I get how it would work with those numbers in mind. My problem is still that this would be mishandled by the government and they'd make the cap 40k a year and a NIT of 75% or higher. I feel this method is probably better, since our current system is such absolute shit. But I don't see why what happened with current welfare won't happen with NIT.

wut, there's still gold in the ground to be mined

Monetarists don't support the gold standard... they're whole goal is using the Federal Reserve to intentionally create unemployement to prevent inflation and protect their financial assets from devaluing

Neo-liberalism isn't a buzzword. There's a big difference between someone like Friedman and classical liberals like Adam Smith who understood capitalism in terms of the labor theory of value which resolves the value of products and capital goods into labor costs not subjective marginal utility.

>Monetarism
Just lol

>insult treated as a self-evident argument

The failure of the world economy under neoliberalism is a testament what a terrible ideology it is.

fortune.com/2016/06/03/imf-neoliberalism-failing/

well he was right about that, but he also said that education doesn't necessarily work in the free market.

At least over here, there are sharp drop-offs in terms of bennies once you work a certain number of hours. Say you're getting JSA and money towards your rent you walk away with about £600/month. Working 15 hours you still keep most of these benefits. Work 16hours + a week and you lose them all pretty fast. So people are under-employed and rinsing the system cause they'd actually have less money if the worked full time.

This entire premise of this article is a strawman along with the "hur dur neoliberal". We don't actually live under a free market, it's a mixed system, yet the failures of this system are attributed to free market policies that aren't even in place. This article actually considers "free trade deals" to be "neoliberal," when it couldn't be further from the truth. Even Ron Paul dislikes the "free trade deals" we have because they're not free trade.

Yelling "neoliberal xdd" is akin to conservatives calling democrats communists, or democrats yelling "trickle down economics". It's a misrepresentation of the policies being brought forth at an attempt to shut the opposition up, and denies any rational discussion over the actual policies.

>We don't actually live under a free market, it's a mixed system

But we've done all the things Friedman wanted we outsourced all our jobs to China, brought in millions of Mexicans, deregulated wall street, and cut public infrastructure spending.

You can't just go "hurr not muh free market" when that's what Reagan, Friedman, etc were all advocating for. Hell I still see libertarians defending this shit all the time.

literally who

>But we've done all the things Friedman wanted we outsourced all our jobs to China, brought in millions of Mexicans, deregulated wall street, and cut public infrastructure spending.
I think you've proven it well enough that the markets aren't getting any freer with

>democrats communists

most are at least socially speaking, not economically

>democrats yelling "trickle down economics"

>"trickle down economics"

It's just a term for supply side economics which aptly explains it. We will bailout wall street and give subsidies and free shit to them and hope the wealth just "falls down" to the working class. It doesn't work and never did.

No.

NIT is a dumb idea and it's basically welfare with another name.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

>From 1968 to 1979, the largest negative income tax social experiments in the US were undertaken. The first experiment was the New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment, proposed by MIT Economics graduate student Heather Ross in 1967 in a proposal to the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity.[9] The four experiments were in:[10]

>The New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment: Trenton, Passaic, Paterson, and Jersey City, New Jersey with Scranton, Pennsylvania added to increase the number of white families, 1968–1972 (1357 families)[11]
>The Rural Income Maintenance Experiment: Rural areas in Iowa and North Carolina, 1969–1973 (809 families)
>Gary, Indiana, 1971–1974 (1800 families)
>Seattle (SIME) and Denver (DIME), 1971–1982 (4800 families)

>In general they found that workers would decrease labor supply (employment) by two to four weeks per year because of the guarantee of income equal to the poverty threshold.[12]

Monetarism called for deregulating wall street not actually productive businesses.

Austrianism the only school of thought more derpy than Monetarism

History of deregulation of wall street

cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

fun fact: neoliberalism began with Carter and the Democrats but Republicans will still defend it because "muh Raygunz"

>was he right about everything?
No. Fuck that filthy kike and fuck his backwards ass Chicago school

Also

>Reagan
>Free market
>Increased taxes numerous times, even when he was a governor
>Was a war monger
>War on drugs
>Increased the size of government multiple times

If you think 1980s America represents laissez-faire policy then you're a fucking retard.

The theory is that you can stimulate the market by redistribution, but in the long run it will lower the incentive to earn it when there is a chance you can just be disowned.

>The wealthy utilize their wealth by investing in bonds or stocks and expect interest payments on their investments, the poor purchase commodities and services without any expected interest payments.
In a free money market the interest rates would drop if too many try to earn from interests, which would increase the incentive to invest it.

>In general they found that workers would decrease labor supply (employment) by two to four weeks per year because of the guarantee of income equal to the poverty threshold.
is that really a big deal?

I was talking about the chart you posted. I'm not even a fan of monetarism though. Monetarism made it the government's job to control the money supply, and surprise it didn't work.

>Jimmy Carter
>Neoliberal
I must have some grave misunderstanding on this term because Carter was by no means a libertarian what the fuck.

ASE work tho.

This. NIT doesn't work like all means-tested welfare programs. I do believe that Friedman was just advocating that as an alternative to the current system, and not the endgame policy though.

Reagen decreased spending on things like public goods and services which is perfectly in line with neoliberal policy.

Carter began the process of being open borders, outsourcing, and deregulating wall street while cutting public services.

He certainly was "neoliberal"

>government's job to control the money supply,

The government controlling the money supply is far better than having money be controlled by access to shiny rocks.

>It's just a term for supply side economics which aptly explains it. We will bailout wall street and give subsidies and free shit to them and hope the wealth just "falls down" to the working class.
But libertarians believed we shouldn't have bailed out the banks.

"Trickle down economics" is as much of a buzzword as neoliberal

tsowell.com/images/Hoover Proof.pdf

>But libertarians believed we shouldn't have bailed out the banks.

but neoliberals certainly do as would Friedman.

>Sowell

kek

>He certainly was "neoliberal"
This is why we can't have a conversation as long as you use this retarded term, because the policies you're talking about are mostly ones I don't even agree with. It's just a fucking strawman user. Attack the policies I'm actually advocating for and not ones that don't represent my viewpoints. You think wallstreet is the only thing that needs deregulation? You think needless outsourcing is what I want? None of this is true. You wouldn't need outsourcing in the first place if government didn't create larger barriers to enter industries in with regulations.

>wallstreet is the only thing that needs deregulation

Deregulating wall street tantamount to deregulating murder.

What I mean is different classes utilize their funds differently. The wealthy today are usually wealthy because they use money to make more money by lending at interest. If the wealthy have a bigger percentage of societies total wealth you're also going to have more debt and borrowing going on since this is how they generate their incomes.

A massive build up of private, public, corporate, etc, etc... debt is what monetarism has to generate in the end which will eventually drive all non-financial sectors of the economy into ruin and destroy the real productive industrial side of the economy. All this rentier overhead is not actually part of the mode of production, but rather the mode of finance, wealth and economic power.

It's nice to talk about a "free money market" but in reality the economic power that be are going to use their resources to reinforce their positions by any means.

>The wealthy today are usually wealthy because they use money to make more money by lending at interest.

Exactly. And when the oligarchs have all the money demand in the real economy collapses.

It's feudalism 2.0

Wealth redistribution doesn't increase demand though. You're just moving the demand from one industry to another, aggregate demand doesn't change at all.

If you like this guy you need to lurk moar, goy.

moving it from oligarchs to consumers increases demand

you think George Soros and other billionaires are out there buying the same goods and services as the working class?

Libertarians are autistic because they think everyone is somehow "identical" and has the same level of demand for the same goods and services. As if a billionaire is buying the same stuff as a working class family.

A lot of "wealth" is actually held in reserves or is hoarded in some form or just moves circularly inflating the market value of assets. Looking at the form of wealth is what matters. If "redistribution" ends up decreasing general overhead expenses and makes operating a business cheaper you can generate demand like magic but you will probably step on some feet in the process.

>moving it from oligarchs to consumers increases demand
It increases demand for goods that the people receiving the redistribution would consume, but aggregate demand (the golden cow of Keynesians) does not change. Those "oligarchs" would've spent the money elsewhere in the economy whether it be on luxuries or increasing capital.

...

>but aggregate demand (the golden cow of Keynesians) does not change.

Yes it does because the oligarchs don't spend or invest the money.

Aggregate Demand increases when the working class has more money because they drive the economy. At most the oligarchs buy a few luxury goods.

> posting shit you see in /his/ to Sup Forums and vice versa

I really wish you guys wouldn't do this.

>all libertarians' moral compasses are aligned

there are aspies and assholes among all groups. that picture of cherry picked, left-leaning articles is not representative of libertarians.

>cherry picked

reason.com/blog/2011/07/20/being-libertarian-may-cause-au

Not all spending is equal in a financialized economy. The strategy of the wealthy is to inflate the value of their assets, be it real-estate or stocks, and create debt obligations to create more passive income streams for themselves so they can get more for doing noting. The type of investing that goes on today doesn't actually increase the real supply of fixed-capital that employees waged-labour because this could deflate the value of their financial assets.

>Yes it does because the oligarchs don't spend or invest the money.
So the evil "oligarchs" don't need food, water, shelter, or clothes? But let's say you're right though. Wouldn't the fact that these fat cats just sit on their money and never spend it mean that my money is more valuable? Oh wait, the government's inflationary policy devalues my money so that never happens.

>So the evil "oligarchs" don't need food, water, shelter, or clothes?

They obviously don't buy the same goods and definitely don't buy the same amount of goods

> Wouldn't the fact that these fat cats just sit on their money and never spend it mean that my money is more valuable

Yes it's a deflationary spiral

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-23/bofa-leads-charge-into-bonds-as-banks-build-2-trillion-hoard

It's what's happening right now, the government gave trillions of dollars to wall street and the banks are now sitting on it.

This is the neoliberal "solution" to wall street crashing the economy with sub prime mortgages given to illegal immigrants

>we buy the same goods as you do goy trust us

again, this shows nothing wrong with libertarianism. the author just reposted one of those links to that psych study and used it to justify his belief that libertarians are smarter than their neoconservative and neoliberal counterparts.

I don't see what's wrong with looking at politics objectively when you advocate for economic and personal liberty. these seem more like ad hominem attacks than actual attacks.

>They obviously don't buy the same goods and definitely don't buy the same amount of goods
Exactly, they buy more expensive shit. Aggregate demand (which is essentially total spending power) stays the same.

>Yes it's a deflationary spiral
It was a rhetorical question and the answer is no. I hope you don't actually believe we're suffering any sort of deflation. The government's inflationary policy makes it so my money is devalued, even though as you pointed out, these people who hoard money would normally be making my money more valuable by reducing supply.

>Posting a pic of QE
>bailing out the banks
>libertarian solution
>implying I even support QE or the bank bailout
>implying the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis wasn't entirely the fault of the government pushing affordable housing policies with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the Federal Reserve

Quit strawmanning you inept retard.

>NIT

I actually think a NIT or BI like it would be is a possible solution to curbing the welfare system. It would be like slowly weening a junky off certain drugs. We need a solution to dismantle that whole apparatus and that might be it.

>these seem more like ad hominem attacks than actual attacks.
All he's been doing this entire thread is strawmanning.

>they buy more expensive shit.

So a few luxury manufactures make money while everyone else stagnates

brilliant libertarian "logic"

>The government's inflationary policy

Current government policy is promoting stagnation monetary policy with a 1-2% inflation rate and no spending resulting in almost no demand at all in the economy.

Again all the money went to the banks and they are sitting on it doing nothing the exact opposite of what supply siders and people who fellate billionaires (you) predicted.
>strawmanning

Neoliberal policy is bailing out the banks. How do you keep forgetting that?

It shows they don't care about society as a whole due to some emotional dysfunction i.e. autism

isteve.blogspot.com/2007/04/libertarianism-is-applied-autism.html

no, it just means they value rational thought over emotional kneejerks.

>rational thought over emotional kneejerks

But without the proper social and political context proper context "rational thought" leads to retarded libertarian ideas like open borders, outsourcing, and other nonsense.

Libertarians are too autistic to understand such context (don't import smelly low wage Mexicans or else your wages will go down and you'll be paying for their welfare forever) so they promote irrational idiocy.

Friedman is 'my intellect is fking superior' tier

Didn't implementation of his ideas save Chile and make it into the wealthiest country in South America?

He wasn't a white nationalist, so no.

Abolish the welfare state and open your border Jew. That's what he preached to us.

>So a few luxury manufactures make money while everyone else stagnates
But the rich do invest money. It's how they keep themselves rich. If they literally never spent their money they would be doing society a bigger favor because they wouldn't be devaluing the money supply even more by actually using it in the economy.

>Neoliberal policy is bailing out the banks. How do you keep forgetting that?
Then I guess I'm not a neoliberal.

Not all libertarians actually support open borders, mostly anarcho-capitalists which are a minority. I've never met a libertarian on Sup Forums who supported open borders.

>But the rich do invest money

No they mostly sit on it collecting interest, rent, etc

>If they literally never spent their money they would be doing society a bigger favor because they wouldn't be devaluing the money supply

No it just removes demand from the economy.

Want to see a deflationary economy? Look at the Great Depression.

>on Sup Forums

Well you could just look at your own Libertarian nominee for president

ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm

>My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

>No they mostly sit on it collecting interest, rent, etc
user if they're collecting rent then they must have some activity or service they are responsible for in the economy. Even if they just leave all their money in the bank it is still in circulation. It is still being invested into the economy.

Charging rent isn't a productive enterprise

Under your logic feudalism is a great system because the lords charge the serfs a fee for the right to use the land.

Only actually productive industrial endeavors count as investment that is manufacturing, services, etc.

It provides a supply of houses to meet the demand. Not everyone can afford to by them, so the demand is heavily directed at rental houses. There isn't a problem with this other than the fact that houses should be affordable to buy outright in this day and age. Sure, they would be poor quality shacks, but even a land area with a shack to buy is too expensive. The banks are yet again the problem, trying to force everyone into mortgage debt, and if they don't they are slaves to the real estate industry.

>Charging rent isn't a productive enterprise
Says who? They are providing a service that people are willing to pay for. Do you have a better system? Should everyone be given land, housing, water, and electricity free of charge?

Literally fucking who? Is this one of the Ayn Rand type of people who are utterly irrelevant irl but remain a meme on the internet?

>charging rent
>the same as constructing houses

protip: the landowner didn't necessarily build the house

today our system is build around cheap credit and mass immigration driving up housing prices in order to force everyone into debt via asset speculation.

classical economics