Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is "intrincsincly stable". You know why? Two very simple (and undeniable reasons):This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101
Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N.
He does make some clever comments regarding the laws of supply and demand, but the sole notion that capitalism is intrinsincly stable is laughable.
- In the true free market, awful companies go out of business. Great companies thrive.
- Unlike socialism, the true free market is redundancy. There is no single point of failure. There is no "too big to fail". A big bank goes out of business and nobody rescues it. All of their business shifts to other banks while opening up opportunity for new banks.
It is "intrincsincly stable". You know why? Two very simple (and undeniable reasons):This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101
Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N.
He does make some clever comments regarding the laws of supply and demand, but the sole notion that capitalism is intrinsincly stable is laughable.
- In the true free market, awful companies go out of business. Great companies thrive.
- Unlike socialism, the true free market is redundancy. There is no single point of failure. There is no "too big to fail". A big bank goes out of business and nobody rescues it. All of their business shifts to other banks while opening up opportunity for new banks.
Your points are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a person will take one loan at a bank to pay off another loan at another bank. That new bank has now earned your business and thus has a right to that money which they earned. Likewise, if banks want to roll up their loans and sell them off to another institution, that other institution earned that banks business.Uh.....everybody uses "other people's money to run their business". If you make a sale (whether it is a burger, a laptop, or a house), that was someone else's money. But you earned it and now it is yours. The same way with the banks. If you choose to bank with a company - they earned your business. Just like Apple did when you bought their iPhone. There is no difference.Um....."too big to fail" is the result of left-wing government intervention, genius. True free-market would result in those banks, companies, etc. failing.Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.
The problem with banks is that they have this tendency to use other's people's money to run their business.
There is no way around this in the current system: when they extend a loan it becomes a deposit in their own bank or in another bank.
Banks must be regulated. Period.
No, with banks its the other way around. When you deposit your money in the bank the bank adquires a liability : they owe you your money. When they extend a loan, they have an asset. But in modern banking that asset will likely be converted into the liability in another bank. By extending loans banks multiply the monetary base, such base contracts when loans are repaid, this leads to expansion and contraction cycles in the economy.... and Milton was absolutely clueless about this ( as most economists).
Furthermore, when you buy a burger, you get something in exchange of equivalent value when you perform the transaction. This is not the case with banks.
Everything you just named has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with government regulation. In the free market, changes in the level of debt (increasing or reducing) only affects the institution and/or individual changing their level of debt. It in no way affects other businesses or other people. That only occurs with socialism - when the few are forced to bail out the many who took wild risks because they knew there was no actual risk - they knew they would be bailed out.It is "intrincsincly stable". You know why? Two very simple (and undeniable reasons):This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101
Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N.
He does make some clever comments regarding the laws of supply and demand, but the sole notion that capitalism is intrinsincly stable is laughable.
- In the true free market, awful companies go out of business. Great companies thrive.
- Unlike socialism, the true free market is redundancy. There is no single point of failure. There is no "too big to fail". A big bank goes out of business and nobody rescues it. All of their business shifts to other banks while opening up opportunity for new banks.
It is unstable for many reasons:
- 1)changes in the level of private debt
- 2)asset bubbles
- 3)creative destruction
- 4)changes in household income to gdp ratio ( this is linked to 1)
Exactly! Because liberals believe everything occurs in a vacuum. They can't process that everything which occurs has a ripple effect. I once spoke with a devout liberal who was one of the rare liberals that was actually reasonable and willing to listen. We were discussing GM. I told him the truth - that my entire life I had never owned anything but a GM (I never planned it that way, it just worked out that way). I asked him if we had let GM go out of business if he thought I would start walking to work. Of course he said "no - you'd purchase a vehicle from another manufacturer because you'd have no other choice since GM was gone". I explained to him that ALL of GM's customers would be forced to make that same decision - which would lead to increased sales/demand from those other manufacturers. That would require all of them to hire more people to meet the demand. All of those people out of work from GM would then have better jobs with better run companies. They would be happier and the economy would be stronger.It is "intrincsincly stable". You know why? Two very simple (and undeniable reasons):This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101
Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N.
He does make some clever comments regarding the laws of supply and demand, but the sole notion that capitalism is intrinsincly stable is laughable.
- In the true free market, awful companies go out of business. Great companies thrive.
- Unlike socialism, the true free market is redundancy. There is no single point of failure. There is no "too big to fail". A big bank goes out of business and nobody rescues it. All of their business shifts to other banks while opening up opportunity for new banks.
That is something far beyond a Progressives ability to comprehend. They firmly believe that if an airline goes bankrupt, suddenly there is going be a huge shortage of seats flying to and from the airports previously served by the defunct airline.
Everything you just named has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with government regulation. In the free market, changes in the level of debt (increasing or reducing) only affects the institution and/or individual changing their level of debt. It in no way affects other businesses or other people. That only occurs with socialism - when the few are forced to bail out the many who took wild risks because they knew there was no actual risk - they knew they would be bailed out.It is "intrincsincly stable". You know why? Two very simple (and undeniable reasons):This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101
Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N.
He does make some clever comments regarding the laws of supply and demand, but the sole notion that capitalism is intrinsincly stable is laughable.
- In the true free market, awful companies go out of business. Great companies thrive.
- Unlike socialism, the true free market is redundancy. There is no single point of failure. There is no "too big to fail". A big bank goes out of business and nobody rescues it. All of their business shifts to other banks while opening up opportunity for new banks.
It is unstable for many reasons:
- 1)changes in the level of private debt
- 2)asset bubbles
- 3)creative destruction
- 4)changes in household income to gdp ratio ( this is linked to 1)
Likewise, in the free market, asset bubbles only affects the institution and/or individual with the asset in question. It in no way affects other businesses or other people. That only occurs with socialism - when the few are forced to bail out the many who took wild risks because they knew there was no actual risk - they knew they would be bailed out.
"Creative destruction" is just another in a long line of left-wing fallacies. Just because Apple manufactures a new iPhone doesn't mean you have to go buy one. And if you choose to, and that creates debt for you that you couldn't afford, only you pay the price in the true free market. Under liberalism - all of society pays the price for your bad decisions. And that's why it always ends in failure while true free markets continually generates prosperity.
And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost exclusively the result of government intervention. This is the equivalent of proclaiming that the AIDS virus is responsible for cancer deaths.
I explained to him that ALL of GM's customers would be forced to make that same decision - which would lead to increased sales/demand from those other manufacturers. That would require all of them to hire more people to meet the demand. All of those people out of work from GM would then have better jobs with better run companies. They would be happier and the economy would be stronger.
That's kind of like saying "add links to support your claim that the sun exists". If you need links to explain that government is the single biggest impact on GDP (unfortunately), then you probably shouldn't be having a discussion on economics.And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost exclusively the result of government intervention
Any links whatsoever to support your claim?
That's kind of like saying "add links to support your claim that the sun exists". If you need links to explain that government is the single biggest impact on GDP (unfortunately), then you probably shouldn't be having a discussion on economics.And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost exclusively the result of government intervention
Any links whatsoever to support your claim?
Taxes - taxes dictates pricing, product, location, labor, etc. Taxes are controlled by government (from federal, to state, to local).
Labor laws - labor laws dictates labor. Labor dictates your ability to do everything and anything. It affects your ability to produce, to meet customer demand, etc. Labor laws are controlled by government.
Regulations - regulations not only dictate what you can and can't do - but they can also be costly which impacts the ability to conduct business, impacts pricing, impacts the ability to hire additional labor (or retain existing labor when regulations are altered or new regulations are implemented), etc. Regulations are controlled by government.
International Trade Agreements - as obvious as the other one's listed - this dictates what industry can and can't do overseas. It has major impact on costs, demand, opportunities, etc. Trade Agreements are controlled by government.
Do you see a pattern here? Government and Control. Please don't make me explain the obvious to you again. It's both painful and boring.
And why have corporations moved manufacturing overseas? Because they enjoy the cost and headaches of moving their operations? Because they love the instability of third-world countries? No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable. Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the world), their labor laws, and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America. So they took their business somewhere else.The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?
And why have corporations moved manufacturing overseas? Because they enjoy the cost and headaches of moving their operations? Because they love the instability of third-world countries? No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable. Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the world), their labor laws, and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America. So they took their business somewhere else.The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that samWhe effect?
That's kind of like saying "add links to support your claim that the sun exists". If you need links to explain that government is the single biggest impact on GDP (unfortunately), then you probably shouldn't be having a discussion on economics.And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost exclusively the result of government intervention
Any links whatsoever to support your claim?
Taxes - taxes dictates pricing, product, location, labor, etc. Taxes are controlled by government (from federal, to state, to local).
Labor laws - labor laws dictates labor. Labor dictates your ability to do everything and anything. It affects your ability to produce, to meet customer demand, etc. Labor laws are controlled by government.
Regulations - regulations not only dictate what you can and can't do - but they can also be costly which impacts the ability to conduct business, impacts pricing, impacts the ability to hire additional labor (or retain existing labor when regulations are altered or new regulations are implemented), etc. Regulations are controlled by government.
International Trade Agreements - as obvious as the other one's listed - this dictates what industry can and can't do overseas. It has major impact on costs, demand, opportunities, etc. Trade Agreements are controlled by government.
Do you see a pattern here? Government and Control. Please don't make me explain the obvious to you again. It's both painful and boring.
And why have corporations moved manufacturing overseas? Because they enjoy the cost and headaches of moving their operations? Because they love the instability of third-world countries? No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable. Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the world), their labor laws, and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America. So they took their business somewhere else.The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?
Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).And why have corporations moved manufacturing overseas? Because they enjoy the cost and headaches of moving their operations? Because they love the instability of third-world countries? No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable. Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the world), their labor laws, and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America. So they took their business somewhere else.The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?
You make it sound as if the market is incapable of making those same changes. Mexico and the US have very similar tax rates and in fact their labor regulations are harder than those US ( you can't dismiss an employee without paying 3 months of compensation, you have to pay them 10% of earnings) and yet many factories have moved there? Why ? Labour is cheaper.
Ah, then you might say it was the government who enacted NAFTA. True, but that was de-regulation to have open trade, by doing that the government was actually enabling the market forces to have a more significant role than the government.
Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).And why have corporations moved manufacturing overseas? Because they enjoy the cost and headaches of moving their operations? Because they love the instability of third-world countries? No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable. Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the world), their labor laws, and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America. So they took their business somewhere else.The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?
You make it sound as if the market is incapable of making those same changes. Mexico and the US have very similar tax rates and in fact their labor regulations are harder than those US ( you can't dismiss an employee without paying 3 months of compensation, you have to pay them 10% of earnings) and yet many factories have moved there? Why ? Labour is cheaper.
Ah, then you might say it was the government who enacted NAFTA. True, but that was de-regulation to have open trade, by doing that the government was actually enabling the market forces to have a more significant role than the government.
Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).And why have corporations moved manufacturing overseas? Because they enjoy the cost and headaches of moving their operations? Because they love the instability of third-world countries? No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable. Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the world), their labor laws, and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America. So they took their business somewhere else.The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?
You make it sound as if the market is incapable of making those same changes. Mexico and the US have very similar tax rates and in fact their labor regulations are harder than those US ( you can't dismiss an employee without paying 3 months of compensation, you have to pay them 10% of earnings) and yet many factories have moved there? Why ? Labour is cheaper.
Ah, then you might say it was the government who enacted NAFTA. True, but that was de-regulation to have open trade, by doing that the government was actually enabling the market forces to have a more significant role than the government.
So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México?
That's nonesense.
The daily minimum wage in the US is about $60. In Mexico it's about $5.50 , but in PPP it is probably about $10.
Even considering savings in shipping and insurance the wages would have to go down to about $30 a day to be competitive.
Honestly , other than illegals , do you know anyone willing to work 8 hours for $30 a day?
And even in that case , that would probably do little to rise the share of labour vs GDP. Even if 50 million of such jobs were created at that miserable level that would only rise by 3% the share of labour vs gdp.
Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).And why have corporations moved manufacturing overseas? Because they enjoy the cost and headaches of moving their operations? Because they love the instability of third-world countries? No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable. Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the world), their labor laws, and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America. So they took their business somewhere else.The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?
You make it sound as if the market is incapable of making those same changes. Mexico and the US have very similar tax rates and in fact their labor regulations are harder than those US ( you can't dismiss an employee without paying 3 months of compensation, you have to pay them 10% of earnings) and yet many factories have moved there? Why ? Labour is cheaper.
Ah, then you might say it was the government who enacted NAFTA. True, but that was de-regulation to have open trade, by doing that the government was actually enabling the market forces to have a more significant role than the government.
So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México?
That's nonesense.
The daily minimum wage in the US is about $60. In Mexico it's about $5.50 , but in PPP it is probably about $10.
Even considering savings in shipping and insurance the wages would have to go down to about $30 a day to be competitive.
Honestly , other than illegals , do you know anyone willing to work 8 hours for $30 a day?
And even in that case , that would probably do little to rise the share of labour vs GDP. Even if 50 million of such jobs were created at that miserable level that would only rise by 3% the share of labour vs gdp.
When did we get the authority to change the minimum wage in an another, sovereign country? Who knew?
We should drop the minimum wage on a Federal Level. If individual states or municipalities want one, that's their business.
That is nonsense. So why would you say something so stupid? Because not only did I not say that - I didn't even imply anything remotely close to it.So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? That's nonesense.
That is nonsense. So why would you say something so stupid? Because not only did I not say that - I didn't even imply anything remotely close to it.So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? That's nonesense.
For starters - Mexico is a sovereign nation. We couldn't change their labor laws if we had 100% support in America. And, if both were eliminated, why would jobs come home when labor would still be just as cheap there? The cost to move everything back wouldn't make much sense.
This is business 101 and just plain common sense as well. When you go shopping for a new Ford - you're not going to pay $54,000 from one dealership when you can go to another dealership and purchase the exact same vehicle for $39,000. A consumer shops for the best deal. Businesses are consumers too. They shop for the best deal. America has given them the ultimate screw-job. They set the Ford price at $54,000 while other nations are offering it for $39,000. Only an idealist idiot wouldn't understand something so basic.
When Social Security was created and implemented by the Dumbocrats in (1938?) it was $0.25 per hour. Adjust for inflation, that comes out to $4.23 per hour today. Yet minimum wage is nearly twice that much and idiots are pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage (which will completley decimate the economy). If minimum wage had grown along with inflation as it should have - we wouldn't have lost millions of jobs to other nations.
Your frustration is palpable as the realization sets in that your precious ideology and little left-wing charts don't hold up to reality.That is nonsense. So why would you say something so stupid? Because not only did I not say that - I didn't even imply anything remotely close to it.So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? That's nonesense.
For starters - Mexico is a sovereign nation. We couldn't change their labor laws if we had 100% support in America. And, if both were eliminated, why would jobs come home when labor would still be just as cheap there? The cost to move everything back wouldn't make much sense.
This is business 101 and just plain common sense as well. When you go shopping for a new Ford - you're not going to pay $54,000 from one dealership when you can go to another dealership and purchase the exact same vehicle for $39,000. A consumer shops for the best deal. Businesses are consumers too. They shop for the best deal. America has given them the ultimate screw-job. They set the Ford price at $54,000 while other nations are offering it for $39,000. Only an idealist idiot wouldn't understand something so basic.
When Social Security was created and implemented by the Dumbocrats in (1938?) it was $0.25 per hour. Adjust for inflation, that comes out to $4.23 per hour today. Yet minimum wage is nearly twice that much and idiots are pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage (which will completley decimate the economy). If minimum wage had grown along with inflation as it should have - we wouldn't have lost millions of jobs to other nations.
Ok Patriot you said :
Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).
So back to YOUR point: we get rid of the MW and unions.
Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less ?
And how does that change the decreasing labour to gdp participation ? ( sory , but you can't really produce things if people don't have the purchasing power to buy them ).
You seem to be ignoring the charts I posted previously: increasing industrial production with a decreasing number of jobs. What does that mean ? What does the "genius" Milton have to say about that ?
All of them that are not liberals looking for handouts and a free ride.Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less?
