noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[Youch]

i have no friends to discuss this with, so i wanted to find a forum to let my little mind say whatever i wanted.


noam chomsky and milton friedman are boring. chomsky is super boring and friedman is relatively boring. i hate discussing economics and i feel miserable that im required to do this, but at the same time, im somehow grateful because im learning a lot of necessary information.


what do you think about these two economists?

Chomsky is a liberal who advocates Statism. Such a point of view has failed everywhere and everytime it has ever been tried.

Friedman advocated free markets and individuality, and made his case in spades.

What's the issue???

Where are these free markets and individuality that friedman was involved in.

It is an ideal, a philosophy, based largely on natural rights and freedom, and inculcated in the founding documents of our social contract. That it has not been executed perfectly does not diminish Friedman's advocacy, nor does it elevate Chomsky's dangerous desire to the contrary.

 

[The Rabbi]

Chomsky is a liberal who advocates Statism. Such a point of view has failed everywhere and everytime it has ever been tried.

Friedman advocated free markets and individuality, and made his case in spades.

What's the issue???

The issue is that liberals are sort of stupid. So when presented with evidence they simply deny it. "Free markets dont work". "More regulation will solve problems." Crap like that. There is no arguing with people who deny reality.

So what you're saying is that if I completely deny reality people won't argue with me? I'm not sure that will work, but, what the hell, I'll give it a try!

It's true. Because people will understand that you're a brain dead moron who is incapable of rational thought. Who can argue with that?
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

i have no friends to discuss this with, so i wanted to find a forum to let my little mind say whatever i wanted.


noam chomsky and milton friedman are boring. chomsky is super boring and friedman is relatively boring. i hate discussing economics and i feel miserable that im required to do this, but at the same time, im somehow grateful because im learning a lot of necessary information.


what do you think about these two economists?

Chomsky is a liberal who advocates Statism. Such a point of view has failed everywhere and everytime it has ever been tried.

Friedman advocated free markets and individuality, and made his case in spades.

What's the issue???

Where are these free markets and individuality that friedman was involved in.

of course the USA has had more free markets and individuality than any other country and is the wealthiest country on earth. Did you think it was becuase of the Girl Scouts?

 

[Shanty]

Chomsky is a liberal who advocates Statism. Such a point of view has failed everywhere and everytime it has ever been tried.

Friedman advocated free markets and individuality, and made his case in spades.

What's the issue???

Where are these free markets and individuality that friedman was involved in.

of course the USA has had more free markets and individuality than any other country and is the wealthiest country on earth. Did you think it was becuase of the Girl Scouts?

Friedman wasn't the one who put natural resources in the US. And we didn't have a large middle class until unions, Keynesian economics and the New Deal allowed economic liberty to working people.

 

[Shanty]

So what you're saying is that if I completely deny reality people won't argue with me? I'm not sure that will work, but, what the hell, I'll give it a try!

only a liberal would be attracted to the idea of denying reality.

Logic has a well known liberal bias.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So what you're saying is that if I completely deny reality people won't argue with me? I'm not sure that will work, but, what the hell, I'll give it a try!

only a liberal would be attracted to the idea of denying reality.

Logic has a well known liberal bias.

of course you're a liar. Its easy to prove too. Name a significant liberal policy that is based in logic rather than pure ignorance.

 

[bripat9643]

Friedman wasn't the one who put natural resources in the US. And we didn't have a large middle class until unions, Keynesian economics and the New Deal allowed economic liberty to working people.

Really? Then who was buying all those Model 'T's, refrigerators and radios in the 1920s?

The main problem with liberal propaganda is that even liberals have come to believe it, even though it's utter horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Logic has a well known liberal bias.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You're a hoot!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Friedman wasn't the one who put natural resources in the US.

dear, Japan has no resources and is about biggest economy. Saudia Arabia has tons and is poor. Can you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the New Deal allowed economic liberty to working people.

actually the New Deal was the Great Depression! More proof that liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

 

[Shanty]

Friedman wasn't the one who put natural resources in the US. And we didn't have a large middle class until unions, Keynesian economics and the New Deal allowed economic liberty to working people.

Really? Then who was buying all those Model 'T's, refrigerators and radios in the 1920s?

The main problem with liberal propaganda is that even liberals have come to believe it, even though it's utter horseshit.

Labor made gains during the war production for WWI, which also made it's way into the nonunion sectors. That, coupled with the economic expansion after the war, and new technologies for home consumption, meant there was a shared prosperity.

Learn some US history. It's interesting.

 

[Shanty]

Logic has a well known liberal bias.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You're a hoot!

Don't fight it. Logic won't hurt you. Unless of course you're pushing some illogical right wing bullshit.

 

[Shanty]

Friedman wasn't the one who put natural resources in the US.

dear, Japan has no resources and is about biggest economy. Saudia Arabia has tons and is poor. Can you understand?

Princess,
Of course it's how resources are used, even if they are imported. Anyway, Milton Friedman was a great statistician and not so great economist. His views are treated as shit, even by the right wing lunatic establishment in Washington DC.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Friedman wasn't the one who put natural resources in the US.

dear, Japan has no resources and is about biggest economy. Saudia Arabia has tons and is poor. Can you understand?

Princess,
Of course it's how resources are used, even if they are imported..

but dear you didn't say that, you said we were successful because we had resources! reread your post!! We are successful because we have Republican capitalism, not because we have natural resources.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Anyway, Milton Friedman was a great statistician and not so great economist. His views are treated as shit, even by the right wing lunatic establishment in Washington DC.

dear, please name a substantive idea of Friedman's that is mistaken or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here. Thank you.

 

[Jroc]

Friedman wasn't the one who put natural resources in the US.

dear, Japan has no resources and is about biggest economy. Saudia Arabia has tons and is poor. Can you understand?

Princess,
Of course it's how resources are used, even if they are imported. Anyway, Milton Friedman was a great statistician and not so great economist. His views are treated as shit, even by the right wing lunatic establishment in Washington DC.

There is no such thing as a "right wing establishment" There is a Republican party establishment and most of them are part of the problem, along with the leftist crony capitalist like Obama and the rest of the Dems

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is no such thing as a "right wing establishment" There is a Republican party establishment and most of them are part of the problem, along with the leftist crony capitalist like Obama and the rest of the Dems

got it; so what are you, a communist? Care to share?

 

[Jroc]

There is no such thing as a "right wing establishment" There is a Republican party establishment and most of them are part of the problem, along with the leftist crony capitalist like Obama and the rest of the Dems

got it; so what are you, a communist? Care to share?

Constitutional conservative... You?

 

[Shanty]

the New Deal allowed economic liberty to working people.

actually the New Deal was the Great Depression! More proof that liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

Growing economies, and rejecting right wing failure isn't ignorance. It's the smartest thing people can do. But, you'd revel in your ignorance and see the US fail, because the blinders you have on won't allow you to look at the results of your ideological failure.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is no such thing as a "right wing establishment" There is a Republican party establishment and most of them are part of the problem, along with the leftist crony capitalist like Obama and the rest of the Dems

got it; so what are you, a communist? Care to share?

Constitutional conservative... You?

whats a Constitutional conservative if not a Republican?