The irony of the cry for less government

Why not cut the BS if you disagree pick a substantive example and tell us why

 

Friedman did not use evidence, he used philosophical points of view. You do not seem to grasp the study of economics very well since you seem to believe that economists are empirical by definition. I have written elsewhere why I believe all economists are serial abusers of empirical data and like historians, they must either admit their bias or hide it. Their integrity levels are tested by how much they admit in public while expounding their opinions.

 

Why would with a People want to matter much given this they've been subjected to fake news and been educated in schools that teach fake historyyes a lot of people are on your side because they've been taught to vote for more welfare or more money in their pockets this is a treasonous subversion of democracy

 

Friedman noted that West Germany did better than east Germany and that the United States did better than the USSR. He also noticed that France has the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state. Now do you understand

 

Friedman did not use evidence? He wrote the monetary history of the United States

 

How much has the government shrunk since 1970 to have caused this huge change?

 

Look all around you, everywhere. Milton Friedman became the de facto economist for the world during the 1980s. Everything you see today is a direct result of adopting his economic advice over Keynes and even Adam Smith. Friedman was so successful that he changed economics departments globally. His advice guided the IMF and World Bank. The Fed was dominated by economists that accepted him as the successor to Keynes. We are still seeing that affect today. Even President Obama could not escape the world of Milton, his free market ideas and acceptance of hands free economic policy were a product of his age and education, that is why no one really went to jail for the 2008 crash. I have said many times that the most dangerous man of the last 50 years was Milton Friedman. The good news is that the world is waking up which is why you see global populism returning everywhere. I am sorry but I will not give you a book on why I came to these conclusions, to do so would mean that I have to recount my daily readings of politics and economics since I was a high school kid in the early 70s. As you can see from the posts of Econ4, replying in detail to requests like this in a mature and thorough manner is admirable but ultimately useless as a form of converting peoples minds. I commend him, he is one of the best posters on any board I frequent but he must be new to this stuff because I once did as he does and spent years trying online. It was futile but for one wonderful result, by doing what he does, he will reaffirm in his own mind why he believes what he believes. That is what happened to me during my decade of daily postings on Slate in the first decade of this century. Now I just reply without trying to convince, it is much easier and less frustrating.

 

Link it, or it's just your claim about what they've said.

 

The government employs the fewest people (relative to population) as it has since 1966.

 

But you know what's best for the people, right?

 

LOL, you walked right into that. Yep, like Woodley said, Freidman was HUGELY influential, and look where we are now.

 

Any of that can be observed by a 12-year-old child.

 

There are other measures than numbers of workers. The government's intrusion into our daily lives has exploded since then. Perhaps they are getting more "productive"?

Most everything the government does regarding taxes and businesses seems designed to increase the gap between the very rich and the rest of us.

 

Yes but a liberal will conclude that we should copy East Germany and Cuba before West Germany and Florida. A liberal will conclude that even though Chyna eliminated 40% of the poverty on earth with Republican capitalism we should use democratic liberal socialism

 

The gap between tall people and short people is about as significant as a gap between rich people and poor people. Maybe the government should have a policy that you cant invent great things like iPhones because that will create a gap between the money you earn and what poor people earn.

 

I hate to burst your bubble but Friedman was for capitalism and we don't have capitalism now we have Obamacare for example. Notice that when a liberal and conservative meet the conservative must run a kindergarten

 

Why would it matter whether im a lib or a con? If you wanna get all labely, I guess Im somewhere between Classical Liberal and Anarchist. Maybe a picture will help solidify my position (though its the circular logic depicted that I think best illustrates the point Im trying to make).

 

Yeah, you just kinda though that out unqualified, but I agree

I would even agree with this to some extent, however, I don't believe the government is the source of the problem. It's the electorate that, though no real fault of their own, incredibly ignorant to what the constraint on the creation of new money and the purposes of taxes.

For example, I'd advocate for individual deductions between $100k and $400k. I'd eliminate corporate taxes as a way to drive revenue, rather, I use corporate taxes as an incentive to operate in the best interest of workers and the environment, thus making it possible for corporations to avoid 100% of their taxes, just a few examples.

 

LOL, that made me think of a joke I heard the other day....


A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him:

"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat.

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are -- or where you are going. You've risen to where you are , due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

 

Not if we eliminated the greatest big government wealth transfer mechanism of all time, the fiat dollar and its control in the hands of a few unelected individuals.

The economic system under the FED is nothing close to free market capitalism and has no resemblance to limited government or personal libery. Only the free circulation of free market priced money satisfies this criteria. So your little assumption fails right out of the gait.

Thanks for playing

 

As if capitalism by it's nature promotes "freedom".

Let me ask you a question. What does "capitalism" have to say about this product?

 

Capitalism would simply say 'buyer beware.'

But we have the FDA, which will say w/e the seller wants it to if the seller has the means to install its loyalists within the federal bureaucracy like Monsanto does. So instead of buyers being prompted to do their own research in an atmosphere of fraud wariness, they just believe they're protected from such things by an establishment that will tell them whatever the monied interests want.

 

I agree that there are real threats within the system today. The problem is a corporate state that can use wealth to influence elections. Remove money from politics and free our representatives to represent our interests without fear of the repercussions of powerful elites.

Make elections taxpayer funded and reduce or eliminate private donorship.

As far as "buyer beware". It's a nice idea in practice, but expecting everyone to be knowledgeable about everything is unrealistic.

Look, you can make a better product or you can create a better ad campaign for an inferior product. Sounds to me like you're ok with people lying about their products because they see a shortcut to more money for less effort. If people want to buy them, more power to them. So hopelessly naive.

 

It not that Im ok with it, theres just nothing we can do to stop it. Of the two methods we have to reduce it: by authority or by boycott- the authoritative method will always attrack manipulation by the interests its directed against and will innevitably be used in reverse of its intended purpose.
Boycott is far less effective in the short term, but far more resilient to being reversed via infiltration and 'slow kill' in the long game. And the long game is where the monied manipulaters reign, so thats where we need to focus.

 

the corporate state is fueled by the monetary system that allows the gov to acquire whatever it needs, and puts the wealth extracting capability of a centrally controlled credit system into the hands of a few individuals, assuring that politicians loyal to the cartel will always be in power.