noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?"

CRA was one of 36 programs the liberal govt used to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford. The programs existed to subvert the free market so when it turned people really could not afford the homes as the free market said it is the height of ignorance not to blame the govt programs.

Blaming capitalism for the problems created by government interference in the market is classic leftwing strategy. They've been doing it ever since the Civil War.

Yeah, but this guy isn't just leftwing. He's a grade below leftwing. [/sarcasm]. Most leftwingers know enough to shut up when they have so clearly been proven wrong by absolutely everyone, with facts they can't even attempt to contest. This guy really does make Hilliary look smart.

yes, 36 programs to get poor people into homes the free market said they could not afford and when they could not afford them it had nothing to do with the 36 programs!

Its the same intelligence that led people to follow Hitler Stalin Mao Tojo and Castro.

 

[hipeter924]

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, and Milton Friedman was an economist. Obviously Milton Friedman knew a lot more about economics than Noam Chomsky.

That said, Milton Friedman was a morally and ethically questionable character, especially as a result of his correspondence with dictators - and his obsession with anti-democratic and authoritarian economic 'shock therapy'.

Noam Chomsky is an ex-marxist, left-wing libertarian linguist who annoys a lot of people on the right, but he can't be put in the same category as Milton Friedman, as Noam Chomsky has never been in a position of authority over other people or nations the way Milton Friedman and his disciples were.

Milton Friedman is already starting to be viewed as a reckless ideologue that put economic growth of the corporate world above that of the middle and lower classes (or of human life), resulting in a global recession and economic chaos. His brand of disaster capitalism is something to learn from, as much as the disaster capitalism of the early 20th century is something to learn from.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, and Milton Friedman was an economist. Obviously Milton Friedman knew a lot more about economics than Noam Chomsky.

That said, Milton Friedman was a morally and ethically questionable character, especially as a result of his correspondence with dictators - and his obsession with anti-democratic and authoritarian economic 'shock therapy'.

Noam Chomsky is an ex-marxist, left-wing libertarian linguist who annoys a lot of people on the right, but he can't be put in the same category as Milton Friedman, as Noam Chomsky has never been in a position of authority over other people or nations the way Milton Friedman and his disciples were.

Milton Friedman is already starting to be viewed as a reckless ideologue that put economic growth of the corporate world above that of the middle and lower classes (or of human life), resulting in a global recession and economic chaos. His brand of disaster capitalism is something to learn from, as much as the disaster capitalism of the early 20th century is something to learn from.

Friedman gave the entire world the same identical advice: switch to capitalism. Red China followed the advice and saved 60 million human beings from slowly starving to death under liberal policies. He is perhaps the greatest human being to have ever lived.

 

[hipeter924]

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, and Milton Friedman was an economist. Obviously Milton Friedman knew a lot more about economics than Noam Chomsky.

That said, Milton Friedman was a morally and ethically questionable character, especially as a result of his correspondence with dictators - and his obsession with anti-democratic and authoritarian economic 'shock therapy'.

Noam Chomsky is an ex-marxist, left-wing libertarian linguist who annoys a lot of people on the right, but he can't be put in the same category as Milton Friedman, as Noam Chomsky has never been in a position of authority over other people or nations the way Milton Friedman and his disciples were.

Milton Friedman is already starting to be viewed as a reckless ideologue that put economic growth of the corporate world above that of the middle and lower classes (or of human life), resulting in a global recession and economic chaos. His brand of disaster capitalism is something to learn from, as much as the disaster capitalism of the early 20th century is something to learn from.

Friedman gave the entire world the same identical advice: switch to capitalism. Red China followed the advice and saved 60 million human beings from slowly starving to death under liberal policies. He is perhaps the greatest human being to have ever lived.

Yes, to crush democracy movements protesting against said reforms, in the case of China through bloody repression in Tiananmen Square that would have made Mao proud. What Friedman and his reformers represented was capitalism imposed through violence, coercion, and denying the population freedom of choice to either agree or disagree - the reforms were arbitrary and done so quickly no one could debate or actively work against them.

Ultimately while it may have economically improved many countries, it was done at the expense of democracy with increased government corruption, massive wealth redistribution from the middle and lower class to the upper class, and finally high unemployment and poverty through attempts to shut down the welfare system and crush workers rights.

Capitalism imposed is no victory, it is admitting defeat by crushing individual freedom, and sooner or later it unravels because the reformers can't rely on popular support - as their reforms were imposed without debate and often outside the democratic process. Most of the countries that went through the reforms, either are trying to reverse them or at the very least aren't continuing them.

 

[Mr Natural]

Isn't Milton Friedman the quack who argues for the elimination of licensing requirement for MDs?

 

[hipeter924]

Isn't Milton Friedman the quack who argues for the elimination of licensing requirement for MDs?

Yep, and for a lot of other things. Most people wouldn't admit to following him these days, as he was as radical an economist as they come - apart from the soviet economists that believed in collectivization.

 

[Andylusion]

Isn't Milton Friedman the quack who argues for the elimination of licensing requirement for MDs?

Yep, and for a lot of other things. Most people wouldn't admit to following him these days, as he was as radical an economist as they come - apart from the soviet economists that believed in collectivization.

Of course we would. He's right. Licensing hasn't prevented a single bad doctor for killing a patient.
Just like licensing hasn't stopped a single auto fatality.

James E. Mann, here in Ohio, practiced medicine for 20 years, before he was caught. Didn't harm anyone. Didn't cause any deaths. They just found he didn't have a license.

By the way... do you people know what sparked the Arab Spring?

He didn't have a permit, or license to sell from his vegetable cart.

Mohamed Bouazizi was selling food from a wooden cart. Because he couldn't afford the license / permit to sell from a cart, the police confiscated his stuff and cart. With no other way to earn money, he set himself on fire, sparking the Arab Spring.

The entire Arab Spring was started as a protest of government regulation on business.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Isn't Milton Friedman the quack who argues for the elimination of licensing requirement for MDs?

yes on theory that if you have a cold you don't need a guy with 8 years past college to help you out! Do you understand now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The entire Arab Spring was started as a protest of government regulation on business.

Yep, all the soviet regulation in the world didn't stop the USSR from having 20% of our standard of living. A simple lesson but one that liberals lack the IQ to understand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Most people wouldn't admit to following him these days, as he was as radical an economist as they come - apart from the soviet economists that believed in collectivization.

dear, Red China just elected to follow him and it immediately eliminated 40% of world poverty.
Isn't thinking fun?

 

[Shanty]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

 

[Andylusion]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Welcome back stupid. We were waiting for your foolish idiocy to give us something to laugh at.

The article is wrong. I have already on this thread, refuted the claims this article makes, numerous times. If you are not willing to listen to reality then, then you are certainly far too intellectually damaged to grasp if I refute it again.

Interestingly, the article directly refutes claims YOU have made. You claimed the Fannie and Freddie were prevented by law from having mortgages with FICOs lower than 670. That's interesting given that the article *YOU LINKED TO*.... refers to Freddie Mac loans with FICO scores between 620 and 659.

So now, you are actually citing references that disprove YOUR OWN CLAIMS.

How dumb does a person have to be, to post an article that directly contradicts his own claims? Apparently Shitty dumb, is the level one needs to reach.

 

[Shanty]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Welcome back stupid. We were waiting for your foolish idiocy to give us something to laugh at.

The article is wrong. I have already on this thread, refuted the claims this article makes, numerous times. If you are not willing to listen to reality then, then you are certainly far too intellectually damaged to grasp if I refute it again.

Interestingly, the article directly refutes claims YOU have made. You claimed the Fannie and Freddie were prevented by law from having mortgages with FICOs lower than 670. That's interesting given that the article *YOU LINKED TO*.... refers to Freddie Mac loans with FICO scores between 620 and 659.

So now, you are actually citing references that disprove YOUR OWN CLAIMS.

How dumb does a person have to be, to post an article that directly contradicts his own claims? Apparently Shitty dumb, is the level one needs to reach.

Claiming you refuted the facts with fallacies isn't doing you or your ignorant ideologue pals any good.

Go back to the data, and it shows how subprime was the cause of the housing bubble, not GSEs or the CRA loans.

 

[Shanty]

In the end, conservadopes can't make the claim that the government caused the bust via GSEs stick.

 

[bripat9643]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Welcome back stupid. We were waiting for your foolish idiocy to give us something to laugh at.

The article is wrong. I have already on this thread, refuted the claims this article makes, numerous times. If you are not willing to listen to reality then, then you are certainly far too intellectually damaged to grasp if I refute it again.

Interestingly, the article directly refutes claims YOU have made. You claimed the Fannie and Freddie were prevented by law from having mortgages with FICOs lower than 670. That's interesting given that the article *YOU LINKED TO*.... refers to Freddie Mac loans with FICO scores between 620 and 659.

So now, you are actually citing references that disprove YOUR OWN CLAIMS.

How dumb does a person have to be, to post an article that directly contradicts his own claims? Apparently Shitty dumb, is the level one needs to reach.

Claiming you refuted the facts with fallacies isn't doing you or your ignorant ideologue pals any good.

Go back to the data, and it shows how subprime was the cause of the housing bubble, not GSEs or the CRA loans.

He refuted your claims with the sources you provided. Where's the fallacy? You're obviously too stupid to stop digging the whole you're in. It's hard to watch the humiliation you are enduring.

 

[bripat9643]

In the end, conservadopes can't make the claim that the government caused the bust via GSEs stick.

They can and they have, successfully.

 

[bripat9643]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Androw is kicking your ass all over the stadium. It's painful to watch the spectacle.

 

[bripat9643]

The entire Arab Spring was started as a protest of government regulation on business.

Yep, all the soviet regulation in the world didn't stop the USSR from having 20% of our standard of living. A simple lesson but one that liberals lack the IQ to understand.

And they also had Chernobyl and countless other environmental and industrial disasters.

 

[Shanty]

He

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Welcome back stupid. We were waiting for your foolish idiocy to give us something to laugh at.

The article is wrong. I have already on this thread, refuted the claims this article makes, numerous times. If you are not willing to listen to reality then, then you are certainly far too intellectually damaged to grasp if I refute it again.

Interestingly, the article directly refutes claims YOU have made. You claimed the Fannie and Freddie were prevented by law from having mortgages with FICOs lower than 670. That's interesting given that the article *YOU LINKED TO*.... refers to Freddie Mac loans with FICO scores between 620 and 659.

So now, you are actually citing references that disprove YOUR OWN CLAIMS.

How dumb does a person have to be, to post an article that directly contradicts his own claims? Apparently Shitty dumb, is the level one needs to reach.

Claiming you refuted the facts with fallacies isn't doing you or your ignorant ideologue pals any good.

Go back to the data, and it shows how subprime was the cause of the housing bubble, not GSEs or the CRA loans.

He refuted your claims with the sources you provided. Where's the fallacy? You're obviously too stupid to stop digging the whole you're in. It's hard to watch the humiliation you are enduring.

He didn't refute shit.

CRA still wasn't a cause of the housing bubble.

What Does the New Community Reinvestment Act CRA Paper Tell Us Next New Deal

But go ahead and make yourself look like a fool by ignoring evidence proving your belief system is flawed.

 

[Shanty]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Androw is kicking your ass all over the stadium. It's painful to watch the spectacle.

I guess if you are a right winger believing right wing fairy tales that the trolls of the right could actually bring valid evidence...

Androw is still fact challenged all over on this. The evidence shows he's telling a lie. It may not be his lie, and just some lies squirted into his mouth by some dude promising to trickle down on him. But it's still not reaching even the lowest levels of evidence.