BF2S Forums FREE to choose your MARKET

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Friedman's economic history and socioeconomic observations are very sound.  However, I agree with Turq in that many of his claims have not been realized.  It is very easy to criticize problems (seemingly inherent) within the government, but to advocate largely no action in place of negative action is destructive and not progressive (IMO).

I think you are misinterpreting his idea on restricting the role of government.

Friedman:"Of course, some of that is desirable. I'm not in favor of no government. You do need a government. But by doing so many things that the government has no business doing, it cannot do those things which it alone can do well. There's no other institution in my opinion that can provide us with protection of our life and liberty. However, the government performs that basic function poorly today, precisely because it is devoting too much of its efforts and spending too much of our income on things which are harmful. So I have no doubt that that's the major single problem we face.".

My interpretation of this is to end corporate welfare and go to war only when it is absolutely necessary.

Kmarion wrote:

And why does he say restrict the role.
Friedman:"There's a smokestack on the back of every government program. "

"Governments never learn. Only people learn."

"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

Corporations do learn...  They learn how to exploit the hell out of us.  Focusing on "freedom" is often a euphemism for letting business get away with murder.

Kmarion wrote:

and my favorite, "If you pay people not to work and tax them when they do, don't be surprised if you get unemployment."

I found it hard to watch Arnold with a straight face here but you guys are welcome to take a shot at him.

I agree that welfare should have detailed restrictions, but it is still a necessary program, regardless of what an economist who's never had to deal with poverty thinks.

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I like how the British system makes the loser pay not only his own fees but also the other party's.  That would keep jackasses like that judge from suing people for stupid reasons.

I thought that happened everywhere. I'm shocked no such system is in place in the US - it explains a lot.

It can happen, depends on how the judge rules. Fines can also be ordered to pay for court cost if you bring ridiculous law suits to court.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Friedman's economic history and socioeconomic observations are very sound.  However, I agree with Turq in that many of his claims have not been realized.  It is very easy to criticize problems (seemingly inherent) within the government, but to advocate largely no action in place of negative action is destructive and not progressive (IMO).

I think you are misinterpreting his idea on restricting the role of government.

Friedman:"Of course, some of that is desirable. I'm not in favor of no government. You do need a government. But by doing so many things that the government has no business doing, it cannot do those things which it alone can do well. There's no other institution in my opinion that can provide us with protection of our life and liberty. However, the government performs that basic function poorly today, precisely because it is devoting too much of its efforts and spending too much of our income on things which are harmful. So I have no doubt that that's the major single problem we face.".

My interpretation of this is to end corporate welfare and go to war only when it is absolutely necessary.

Kmarion wrote:

And why does he say restrict the role.
Friedman:"There's a smokestack on the back of every government program. "

"Governments never learn. Only people learn."

"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

Corporations do learn...  They learn how to exploit the hell out of us.  Focusing on "freedom" is often a euphemism for letting business get away with murder.

Kmarion wrote:

and my favorite, "If you pay people not to work and tax them when they do, don't be surprised if you get unemployment."

I found it hard to watch Arnold with a straight face here but you guys are welcome to take a shot at him.

I agree that welfare should have detailed restrictions, but it is still a necessary program, regardless of what an economist who's never had to deal with poverty thinks.

Again. Businesses do what they are supposed to do. It is their social responsibility to turn profits, grow, employ the population, generate income, and pay for all those wonderful welfare programs you support by providing us with the ability to pay taxes. IT IS THE POLITICIANS THAT ALLOW THE EXPLOITATION WITH UNFAIR LAWS. If corporations break the laws they should be punished, if they are not guess whose fault it is? You seem to have the roles screwed up.

Capitalism with accountability.

Considering Friedman lived through the great depression I'd say he dealt with Poverty.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I think you are misinterpreting his idea on restricting the role of government.

Friedman:"Of course, some of that is desirable. I'm not in favor of no government. You do need a government. But by doing so many things that the government has no business doing, it cannot do those things which it alone can do well. There's no other institution in my opinion that can provide us with protection of our life and liberty. However, the government performs that basic function poorly today, precisely because it is devoting too much of its efforts and spending too much of our income on things which are harmful. So I have no doubt that that's the major single problem we face.".

My interpretation of this is to end corporate welfare and go to war only when it is absolutely necessary.

Kmarion wrote:

And why does he say restrict the role.
Friedman:"There's a smokestack on the back of every government program. "

"Governments never learn. Only people learn."

"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

Corporations do learn...  They learn how to exploit the hell out of us.  Focusing on "freedom" is often a euphemism for letting business get away with murder.

Kmarion wrote:

and my favorite, "If you pay people not to work and tax them when they do, don't be surprised if you get unemployment."

I found it hard to watch Arnold with a straight face here but you guys are welcome to take a shot at him.

I agree that welfare should have detailed restrictions, but it is still a necessary program, regardless of what an economist who's never had to deal with poverty thinks.

Again. Businesses do what they are supposed to do. It is their social responsibility to turn profits, grow, employ the population, generate income, and pay for all those wonderful welfare programs you support by providing us with the ability to pay taxes. IT IS THE POLITICIANS THAT ALLOW THE EXPLOITATION WITH UNFAIR LAWS. If corporations break the laws they should be punished, if they are not guess whose fault it is? You seem to have the roles screwed up.

Capitalism with accountability.

Considering Friedman lived through the great depression I'd say he dealt with Poverty.

And why are the politicians corrupt in the first place?  Because corporations buy them.  They will continue to buy politicians as long as they can.  We need to reform campaign financing and lobbyism.  No one should be able to buy the support of the government.

As for Friedman, that is true.  He did live through the Great Depression.  I think he would know that life in America before welfare existed was very grim for the poor.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

My interpretation of this is to end corporate welfare and go to war only when it is absolutely necessary.


Corporations do learn...  They learn how to exploit the hell out of us.  Focusing on "freedom" is often a euphemism for letting business get away with murder.


I agree that welfare should have detailed restrictions, but it is still a necessary program, regardless of what an economist who's never had to deal with poverty thinks.

Again. Businesses do what they are supposed to do. It is their social responsibility to turn profits, grow, employ the population, generate income, and pay for all those wonderful welfare programs you support by providing us with the ability to pay taxes. IT IS THE POLITICIANS THAT ALLOW THE EXPLOITATION WITH UNFAIR LAWS. If corporations break the laws they should be punished, if they are not guess whose fault it is? You seem to have the roles screwed up.

Capitalism with accountability.

Considering Friedman lived through the great depression I'd say he dealt with Poverty.

And why are the politicians corrupt in the first place?  Because corporations buy them.  They will continue to buy politicians as long as they can.  We need to reform campaign financing and lobbyism.  No one should be able to buy the support of the government.

As for Friedman, that is true.  He did live through the Great Depression.  I think he would know that life in America before welfare existed was very grim for the poor.

Yes we do need to reform campaign financing and lobbying, however you don't blame the free market for that though. That's like blaming the car when a driver slams into a tree because he took his eyes off the road. If anything blame the voters who keep these chumps in power. We proved last mid term that if we are not happy with the current congress they can be replaced.

Friedman believed in helping the poor, just not via an incredibly large inefficient bureaucratic organization that required thousands of people to administrate it. He developed the negative income tax which is what laid the ground for earned income credit today. His idea was to get the help in the hands of the people that needed it in the most cost efficient manner (They get more). This was just one of the ideas that he developed in helping the needy. He believed in social safety nets, but since he was critical in pointing out the inefficiencies in some of them, people have been quick to jump to the conclusion the he was not compassionate or generous.

Kmarion wrote:

Yes we do need to reform campaign financing and lobbying, however you don't blame the free market for that though. That's like blaming the car when a driver slams into a tree because he took his eyes off the road. If anything blame the voters who keep these chumps in power. We proved last mid term that if we are not happy with the current congress they can be replaced..

True, but there is one last thing that applies here.  People who bother to do a little research use corporate media to find out what they can about politicians.  Most of them don't bother to cross reference things.  On the one hand, that is partly their fault for not being diligent, but on the other hand, the media distorts things.  A media organization that has paid off a politician to get certain laws passed isn't going to report unfavorably on that politician.  Essentially, if a politician accepts money from media organizations, it's far less likely for the people to even be able to find out the wrong he's doing.

So, in effect, the "market" has taken over most avenues of information as well.  This is why we're almost past the point of no return.  This is what the "market" has done to our society.

The corporatization of media is one of the most sinister developments that has occurred in our society, and it makes it very unlikely that, for even the few people who care enough to look for the truth, that they will be able to find it.

Kmarion wrote:

Friedman believed in helping the poor, just not via an incredibly large inefficient bureaucratic organization that required thousands of people to administrate it. He developed the negative income tax which is what laid the ground for earned income credit today. His idea was to get the help in the hands of the people that needed it in the most cost efficient manner (They get more). This was just one of the ideas that he developed in helping the needy. He believed in social safety nets, but since he was critical in pointing out the inefficiencies in some of them, people have been quick to jump to the conclusion the he was not compassionate or generous.

I'll give you that.  The earned income tax credit is a good policy.  We need to cap how many children it can apply to, but overall, it's a good principle.  In addition to this, we need to cut taxes for small business owners.