noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[Shanty]

You should learn some US history, especially our economic history. You wouldn't be such an ignoramus if you did.

ignoramus?? your best example or admit you are little more than a liberal liar.

I already showed how Friedman was wrong. Look at how Chile's economy faltered after he got them to privatize many services, including their version of Social Security, and it failed.

 

[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.

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.

I do marvel at your invented history. What "gains" did labor make during the war? What did the "economic expansion after the war" have to do with the New Deal? These "new technologies" you refer to were conceived by brutal capitalist corporations, not the New Deal

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why is it that the more of the liberal agenda we adopt, the slower our economy grows?

 

[bripat9643]

. 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.

If you put the federal government in charge of the sahara desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

- Milton Friedman -

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You know how you can tell when a post is complete horseshit?

You're the author.

 

[bripat9643]

You should learn some US history, especially our economic history. You wouldn't be such an ignoramus if you did.

ignoramus?? your best example or admit you are little more than a liberal liar.

I already showed how Friedman was wrong. Look at how Chile's economy faltered after he got them to privatize many services, including their version of Social Security, and it failed.

Chile's economy "faltered" along with every other economy in the industrialized world. It had nothing to do with privatizing anything. Chile's economy is booing. It's the richest country in Latin America. Argentina, on the other hand, which has followed your policy prescriptions to the letter, is headed for an economic black hole.

 

[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

So long as the GOP is right wing and establishment, I'll call them right wing establishment.

GOP is not right wing. Some are some arent the Democrats are the purest, who have purged every so call moderate. They are radical leftist no moderates there anymore

 

[jasonnfree]

You should learn some US history, especially our economic history. You wouldn't be such an ignoramus if you did.

ignoramus?? your best example or admit you are little more than a liberal liar.

I already showed how Friedman was wrong. Look at how Chile's economy faltered after he got them to privatize many services, including their version of Social Security, and it failed.

Agreed. Also, freedom wasn't involved since an elected president had to be overthrown so the friedman miracle could be

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 overthrow of an elected president in Chile, and the installation of a dictator, had to happen for the Friedman plan to be tested. So much for freedom. Chomsky's only desire is to give more speeches and sell more books.

 

[bripat9643]

You should learn some US history, especially our economic history. You wouldn't be such an ignoramus if you did.

ignoramus?? your best example or admit you are little more than a liberal liar.

I already showed how Friedman was wrong. Look at how Chile's economy faltered after he got them to privatize many services, including their version of Social Security, and it failed.

Agreed. Also, freedom wasn't involved since an elected president had to be overthrown so the friedman miracle could be

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 overthrow of an elected president in Chile, and the installation of a dictator, had to happen for the Friedman plan to be tested. So much for freedom. Chomsky's only desire is to give more speeches and sell more books.

Democracy isn't freedom. Allende was rapidly converting Chile into a Soviet client state. Lot of freedom there, eh? Government has to be converted to complete totalitarianism before socialism can be imposed. Do you actually believe that people are going to give up their property rights voluntarily?

 

[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.

If you put the federal government in charge of the sahara desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

- Milton Friedman -

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread. -Thomas Jefferson

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You should learn some US history, especially our economic history. You wouldn't be such an ignoramus if you did.

ignoramus?? your best example or admit you are little more than a liberal liar.

I already showed how Friedman was wrong. Look at how Chile's economy faltered after he got them to privatize many services, including their version of Social Security, and it failed.

As for Chile, Pinochet appointed a succession of Chicago Boys to senior economic posts. By 1990, the year he ceded power, per capita GDP had risen by 40% (in 2005 dollars) even as Peru and Argentina stagnated. Pinochet's democratic successors—all of them nominally left-of-center—only deepened the liberalization drive. Result: Chileans have become South America's richest people. They have the continent's lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant-mortality rate, and the lowest number of people living below the poverty line.


In 1973, Chile had experienced hyperinflation that had hit 700 percent, at a time when the country, under high protectionist barriers, had no foreign reserves, and GDP was falling.[2] The economic reforms were originally drafted by Chilean economists known as the "Chicago Boys" because many of them had studied at the University of Chicago. The plan had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. The first reforms were implemented in three rounds - 1974-1983, 1985, and 1990 [2] The reforms were continued and strengthened after 1990.[3] Hernán Büchi, Minister of Finance under President Augusto Pinochet between 1985 and 1989, wrote a book detailing the implementation process of the economic reforms during his tenure. Successive governments have continued these policies. In 2002 Chile signed an association agreement with the European Union (comprising free trade, political and cultural agreements), in 2003, an extensive free trade agreement with the United States, and in 2004 with South Korea, expecting a boom in import and export of local produce and becoming a regional trade-hub. Continuing the coalition's free-trade strategy, in August 2006 President Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People's Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In 2010, Chile was the first nation in South America to win membership in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, an organization restricted to the world's richest and best-run countries.

 

[Stephanie]

Chomsky is an economist? I thought he was just a hypocritical communist.

He is a commie and boring too

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Chomsky is an economist? I thought he was just a hypocritical communist.

He is a commie and boring too

yes he takes being smug to new levels even for a libcommie!!

I just listened to him for an hour. He claims we're the real terrorists if we use our govts definition of terrorists. He's 100% positive he's the smartest guy in the universe. Typical treasonous libcommie stuff taken to a further extreme.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The New Deal spending was enough to lift the economy somewhat, but not enough to end the high joblessness until the US embarked on the largest stimulus spending program ever: WWII. The spending on stimulus did prove Keynes correct.

100% stupid and liberal of course!! The war ended and the spending ended and the liberal's Great Depression did not come back!!

Just like. Keynes said it would.

dear, why would the economy keep going after the spending stopped? If building weapons stimuated the economy why wouldn't the economy stop when you stopped building the weapons just like it did before you started building the weapons?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. In fact, he said to do what no conservative would ever do: pay the debt down.

dear Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments to make debt illegal and liberals have killed every one of them. Every govt shut down to make even minor cuts in spending has been killed by Democrats. Does that give you a clue about who is concerned about paying down the debt? Isn't learning fun?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Princess, he was wrong. Fiscal austerity, even with his ideas on monetary policy, left the US in a time of high unemployment that we didn't need to have last so long.

too 100% stupid. $500 billion deficts is not austerity dear!!!

Yes it is. .

so dear, are you saying we should have run $1 trillion or 2 trillion or $3 trillion budget deficits?
Can you explain how that would help rather than hurt an economy. Thanks

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you want failure, elect Republicans, Princess.

dear, can you name a Democrat policy that would help rather than hurt an economy?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

The Great Depression ended when the US spent money on military hardware. First for the Allies in Europe and Asia, then the US itself.
.

of course thats 100% idiotic and liberal. If true economists would know it and recessions would never happen because we'd build planes and dump them into the sea to prevent it!! Feel silly like a liberal should??

Economists know it. .

name conservative economists who say build planes and dump them into the sea to prevent or end recessions and depressions or admit to being a liberal liar!!

Who gives a fuck what some dumbass conservative economist would say?.

dear, you said, " economists know it". Want to figure out what you were really trying to say and get back to us?

 

[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.

Why is it that the more of the liberal agenda we adopt, the slower our economy grows?

Princess, he was wrong. Fiscal austerity, even with his ideas on monetary policy, left the US in a time of high unemployment that we didn't need to have last so long.

too 100% stupid. $500 billion deficts is not austerity dear!!!

Yes it is. .

so dear, are you saying we should have run $1 trillion or 2 trillion or $3 trillion budget deficits?
Can you explain how that would help rather than hurt an economy. Thanks

Princess, I'm saying the proof has been that stimulus works, as proven by the Great Depression, and in the last recession.
The Romney campaign says stimulus doesn 8217 t work. Here are the studies they left out. - The Washington Post
Had the stimulus been larger, medium and long term debt would have been smaller.

 

[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.

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

So long as the GOP is right wing and establishment, I'll call them right wing establishment.

GOP is not right wing. Some are some arent the Democrats are the purest, who have purged every so call moderate. They are radical leftist no moderates there anymore

The Democratic Party has moved pretty far to the right of their center-left position from just a few decades ago. They've generally followed the right over to the right. The GOP is becoming more extremist in their quest to go to the right