Milton Friedman
Posts
Total:
21
-->
@Greyparrot
i essence, yeah. Greed is (or at least, can often be,) Good seems absurd, but its not untrue 🙊
-->
@Buddamoose
The alternative theory is that greed is bad and that slavery equates to prosperity, because slavery is the only condition where you can exist without greed (putting your self-interest first)essence, yeah. Greed is (or at least, can often be,)
Excellent orator, read some of his stuff previously, but you don't get a sense of how good he is in the aforementioned regard from writing necessarily 🤔.
-->
@Buddamoose
Yaron Brook Is better at explaining it than Milton because he delves beyond the obvious economical aspects.
-->
@Greyparrot
Ive watched Yaron Brook quite a bit too. He is a bit better at moral argumentation than Friedman and relating objective aspects of economics to moral conclusions.
Friedman solely claimed Slavery and Colonization was, by the numbers, beneficial overall despite the harms both caused. Particularly in Colonization where colonies were more costly for Colonial nations than wealth gained. Friedman stopped at that, Brook would delve into the moral implications behind that 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
Well Milton was right in that the Industrial Revolution made slavery unfeasible through the replacement of slaves with machines. Because you needed trained people to run machines properly, you couldn't just whip someone and expect the machine to produce as many widgets as the child coming off the farm to make one more dollar a day than the zero dollars he was getting back home working on Ma and Pa's farm.
The Industrial Revolution also made guns cheap and prolific to the point that it cost too much to garrison large armies in the colonies that would resist them. In short, Capitalism eliminated those things, not some Victorian or Theocratic code.
-->
@Buddamoose
Problem is that Milton Friedman takes an entirely materialistic approach to things and assumes that the only other solution is totalitarian communism.
What difference does more plastic BS make, just because it raises the "GDP" or "standard of living?" People are going into debt slavery, Capitalism is capitalizing on the worst traits of people, the masses are being manipulated, power is being concentrated into corporate elites, worship of religion is being replaced with worship of the dollar, and so forth.
Libertarian Capitalists neglect every societal implication caused by late-stage Capitalism and instead focus on its historical growth or material wealth.
-->
@triangle.128k
What difference does more plastic BS make, just because it raises the "GDP" or "standard of living?" People are going into debt slavery, Capitalism is capitalizing on the worst traits of people, the masses are being manipulated, power is being concentrated into corporate elites, worship of religion is being replaced with worship of the dollar, and so forth.
That's a good thing. Natural selection will eliminate all theocratically inclined people from the gene pool; whether they worship money or a statue.
The rational atheists will inherit the Earth.
-->
@Greyparrot
Eugenics are stupid.
Religion is a part of stable society. Removing religion means removing morality, and allowing for more degenerate forms of secular morality to replace the fixed dogmas of religion.
Your idea of Capitalism will only make a society soul-less. Remove religion and you will be subject to previously unconcievable tyranny.
What you blame on Capitalism, is a fault of increasing technology, intelligence, and the ever increasing focus upon empiricism and rationalism. God started "dying" during the Renaissance, well before Wealth of Nations was even written.People are going into debt slavery, the masses are being manipulated, power is being concentrated into (corporatc) elites, worship of religion is being replaced with worship of the dollar, and so forth. Libertarian Capitalists neglect every societal implication caused by late-stage Capitalism and instead focus on its historical growth or material wealth.
Also this idea of late-stage capitalism, and the predicate it is based on of "capitalism creates wealth inequality", you are attributing to capitalism what is primarily the fault of technology, increasing scope of the size of groups(capital pools). From the inception of agriculture and the progress of technology that jump started this has been the cycle:
-Society is equal in wealth
-technology progresses and wealth inequality subsequently increases(as it rightfully should. The person who put into practice agriculture for example, deserves every bit of wealth they got from it.
-Calamity strikes, alot of people die, or those who hold disproportionate wealth are eliminated
-Society is once more equal and begins the cycle anew.[1]
The only two things that have empirically shown the capacity to reduce wealth inequality are calamity[2] and capitalism[3].
Starting in the late 19th century, income inequality began to decrease dramatically and reached historical lows in the late 1970s.
Late 19th century, as in post Wealth of Nations and the generally widespread implementation of Capitalist principles in economics. This even in spite of the long established trend of progress in technology = rise in inequality.
Beyond that,
A universal trend of increasing inequality would be in line with the notion that inequality is determined by global market forces and technological progress. The reality of different inequality trends within countries suggests that the institutional and political frameworks in different countries also play a role in shaping inequality of incomes. This means that rising inequality is most likely not inevitable.
Oh shit 🙊🙉🙈
[2]https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/
[3]https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality
Note, the trend of tech = inequality increase is supported by the entirety of complex society, starting with Agriculture.
The notion of "market forces" driving inequality is not, that was a notion posited by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. A notion predicated upon rational argumentation, but one that is at this current point, not supported by empirical data.
Its important to note also, that lowering of inequality =\= raise to the wealth of the poor. For example, in 1774 the colonies were more equal than they ever have been. But this was not because wealth was shifting to the lower income demographics, but because England was heavily taxing the colonies at the time to recover the expense of costly wars the colonies had gotten them into. Taxes which targeted the wealthy moreso, so as to recuperate the maximal amount.
Again, establishing that National(State) policy plays a heavy hand in income inequality.
The idea of late stage capitalism is absurd as well just for the fact that wealth in total is still increasing and shows little signs of slowing down. The pie just keeps getting bigger, and you still operate as if wealth is a zero sum game 😂😂.
Libertarian Capitalists neglect every societal implication caused by late-stage Capitalism and instead focus on its historical growth or material wealth
Why dont you just come right out and admit you dont give a shit about people living in shitty conditions, only that everyone live in equally shitty conditions. Spicy sense of morality you have there 🔥
-->
@Buddamoose
What is with this "spicy" all of a sudden?
Why don't you just come right out and admit you don't give a shit about people living in shitty conditions, only that everyone live in equally shitty conditions. Spicy sense of morality you have there 🔥
-->
@Greyparrot
I use the term to denote unusual or strange perspectives/opinions.
Not to be confused with "getting spicy" as in exchanging a less than respectful and friendly communication 🔥🔥
*unusual, strange, and facially, or upon examination of implications, irrational(to whatever degree) or immoral PoV 🤔