Is this man the final Economic Red pill?

Is this man the final Economic Red pill?

Other urls found in this thread:

learnliberty.org/blog/that-time-ludwig-von-mises-called-milton-friedman-a-socialist-really/
mises.org/library/business-cycles
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The final economic red pill is that there is no money only ressources and stuff you can do with it.

I personally like the free to choose series, and there's also a bunch of speeches he gave on universities. I'm not an economist so I wouldn't know how effective his ideas would be.

Sup Forums will only bash him because muj joos

>socialist
>redpill
Mises is as close as you'll get to a modern public figure being redpilled

How was he a socialist?
Honest question.

More like entry-level pink herb.

wow you're a moron

i think this might be literally the first time milton friedman has been called a socialist

Wow you're a moron

It's hyperbole, but he didn't have confidence in the free market such that he supported things like bailing out banks and minor government intervention in various places

learnliberty.org/blog/that-time-ludwig-von-mises-called-milton-friedman-a-socialist-really/

Mises had a low tolerance for platitude. He was probably autistic

If I remember correctly, he used to condemn 'too big to fail' government bailouts. Did he flipflop on that?

>Larry David

he's great at explaining basic economics. but some of his ideas were very dumb imo. reverse income tax... school vouchers??? stupid. mises institute has better ideas.

I might be mistaken but I don't think friedman buys into business cycle theory

And I don't think he was concerned with specific institutions to bail out, but rather not allowing the entire thing to fail

They're very close together, relatively speaking and for sure both would be categorized as libertarians (not the party) in the current political climate

Nope

>globalism
>free trade
It's good for the world as a whole but has negative effects on the average American worker. However it allows us the ability to shitpost Turks from a devices we can fit in our pockets, so it's a trade off. I'd rather live in a more isolated/national society, personally.

But muh interests

This
You can free the market in your own country but not in other countries.

I challenge you to find a SINGLE video of article where he says that the govt should bailout banks

No. He things heroine should be legalized.
Fucking degenerate Jew. It's just stupid goyim dieing in the streets goys, don't think about helping them, were all just individuals fully responsible for everything we do and there's no such thing as brainwashing and influencing people's minds with degenerate bullshit. after all they're just silly goys ;)

it's a Mises thing

No, Thomas Sowell is. Both of them are practically the same but Sowell emphasize that the values of a specific group is what really determines wealth creation for that group, free markets just incentives and rewards it. Friedman seems to believe that free markets will just force those values and behavior out of ppl because free markets will punish certain behaviors, however, regressive cultures never seem to conform to that notion.

Isn't he the actor that played the Soviet general in the old Bond movies?

>Banks
I just got done saying it probably wasn't banks

Have a quote instead, lad. And take a chill pill

>“... I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You’ve just got to let it cure itself. You can’t do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse. I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and the United States, they did harm.”
“Milton Friedman on ABCT,” June 24, 2011.

If you want a source you can copy and paste

K E Y N E S

If you start from the premise that the system is flawed because people are stupid and don't engage the process correctly, then pray tell, what system isn't flawed?

sowell is bases af, I'd add ben stein as well

>system is flawed
who said something was flawed?

Your criticism of free markets is premised upon people being unable to conform

>“Milton Friedman on ABCT,” June 24, 2011.
But he died in 2006?

>"...you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world..."

The best way to recruit socialist revolutionaries.

>Jewish capitalist
>final redpill

>2016
>Not seizing the means of production

It's almost like things can be published after the fact

mises.org/library/business-cycles
Unless you have a copy of "barrons" this is as good as you'll get

And seriously, he's disproved of the let the economy fail mentality for the entirety of his career as far as I'm aware

Except those were recruited with the bailout

They still to this day, assert the government saved the United states from a worse depression

What about Will Bittle, Is he red pilled?

He's a surface level contemporary pleb

Along with the rest of the alt right, his usefulness is limited to shitting on leftists

No, I wasn't criticizing free markets with that point. I was illustrating that Thomas Sowell ideas and views on the free market is more insightful than Friedman due to him factoring culture. Just because that may be true, that doesn't mean I'm saying that when a free market system is compared to all other economic systems it is bad, or has produce worse results.

consider suicide

Wrong jew, you're thinking of Murray Rothbard.

There is nothing socially conservative about so-called free market economic theory. It leads to the breakdown of the traditional family and societal structures and leads to degeneracy, the worship of money, and moral breakdown

Hans Hermann Hoppe

And when I said system I was referring to one proposed by friedman rather than Sowell

And yes, culture doesn't seem to factor in in any bodies calculations today.

My boi Mises thankfully saw the light toward the end of his life

LOL FUCK NO.

Hayek is you faggot.

>"From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini’s regime pursued a laissez-faire economic policy under the liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani. De Stefani reduced taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions and allowed businesses to compete with one another. But his opposition to protectionism and business subsidies alienated some industrial leaders, and De Stefani was eventually forced to resign.”

>I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism.

>"I have not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende.’"

>"There are many instances of authoritarian governments under which personal liberty was safer than under many democracies"

>"An authoritarian government may prove especially conducive to the long-run preservation of liberty: There are “many instances of authoritarian governments under which personal liberty was safer than under many democracies

Milton was a good because of his oratory and persuasion skills. His son David is red pilled af. I think Milton was wrong about the Great Depression. The outcome of all the intervention is everything Milton argued against. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Regardless, he is a legend.

Except if you were to chart both on a line graph those two would correlate

Social programs and welfare and a easy money and bailouts has made people respond with economic hedonism.

Your "intuitive understanding" you're trying to push is a meme from leftists and trumpfags (leftists)

Hayek is based

You're completely wrong. The so-called free market is the truly lefist creation, and inevitsbly leads to countries being robbed of their sovereignty and borders under the guise of international trade

yes.
he is a more closely a constitutionalists than anything else

>it's another ancap episode

The loss of nationalism has only come after free markets were abandoned

You can assert what you think would happen but you have no historical basis for it.

Protectionism has nothing to do with sovereignty and everything to do with special interests at home buying people off.

The only exception was FDR, who I genuinely belive thought it would be a good, temporary saviour of the United states. And everything he did was a disaster

>constitutionalist
He doesn't understand the constitution enough to be a constitutionalist

Maybe a constitution idealist

thats a fair point, i only said that bc he says alt right people like milo(not all but some) are not really anything more then reactionary and dont provide anything.
what you think about andrew klavan? I like his news show, I think he is more knowledgeable, and has more reach, I think both of them do way more good then say crowder or gavin

The world looks like it looks now and goes where it goes thanks to this guy, among others.

> no. the ultimate blue pill, if any pill at all.