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 Friedman Part I: Economics 101
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.
Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?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
actually crashes:Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?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
Too many.
Any "stock market crash" experienced was exponentially less devastating than the permanent crashes that left-wing policy caused in the former U.S.S.R., Cuba, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam, etc.Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?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
Too many.
Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?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
Too many.
1) a far far better idea than letting a soviet bureaucracy own and run the banks..........Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
.
Worked so well they had to be saved right.....................Nice back door the Federal Reserve has there.............It's a members only club though..................1) a far far better idea than letting a soviet bureaucracy own and run the banks..........Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
.
2) self regulation worked fine, massive govt interference in the economy didn't
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.
Both sides were in on the bailout......but the bailout was bogus anyway with the Federal Reserve Back door open.........If you are saying those that failed should have been put under......their assets seized............for losing in the Casino of Wall Street then I agree............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.
Only a liberal could cite the failure of free-market capitalism but providing "evidence" ofWorked so well they had to be saved right.....................Nice back door the Federal Reserve has there.............It's a members only club though..................1) a far far better idea than letting a soviet bureaucracy own and run the banks..........Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
.
2) self regulation worked fine, massive govt interference in the economy didn't
I have some Real estate to sale you.........I've added perfume and wrapped it in a bow tie.......It's really nice..........do you want to buy it.
Yes....both sides were in on the bailout because both sides are now FULL left-wing policy supporters. Republican's are made up of Kennedy-era liberals and Democrats are made up of marxists/socialists/communists.Both sides were in on the bailout......but the bailout was bogus anyway with the Federal Reserve Back door open.........If you are saying those that failed should have been put under......their assets seized............for losing in the Casino of Wall Street then I agree............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.
I would have seized their assets and put them out for the shit they pulled............They gambled and failed and should suffer a failures fate on the markets.........................Only a liberal could cite the failure of free-market capitalism but providing "evidence" ofWorked so well they had to be saved right.....................Nice back door the Federal Reserve has there.............It's a members only club though..................1) a far far better idea than letting a soviet bureaucracy own and run the banks..........Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
.
2) self regulation worked fine, massive govt interference in the economy didn't
I have some Real estate to sale you.........I've added perfume and wrapped it in a bow tie.......It's really nice..........do you want to buy it.
Yes....both sides were in on the bailout because both sides are now FULL left-wing policy supporters. Republican's are made up of Kennedy-era liberals and Democrats are made up of marxists/socialists/communists.Both sides were in on the bailout......but the bailout was bogus anyway with the Federal Reserve Back door open.........If you are saying those that failed should have been put under......their assets seized............for losing in the Casino of Wall Street then I agree............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.
And YES....I'm absolutely saying that every bank, every auto manufacturer, etc. should have been left to fail and collapse. There is nothing dumber than propping up failure and that's exactly what the bailouts did.
But here is the problem - in all of your outrage and anger, you fail to reason why all of this happened. Every part of it was the result of left-wing government intervention policy.I would have seized their assets and put them out for the shit they pulled............They gambled and failed and should suffer a failures fate on the markets.........................Only a liberal could cite the failure of free-market capitalism but providing "evidence" ofWorked so well they had to be saved right.....................Nice back door the Federal Reserve has there.............It's a members only club though..................1) a far far better idea than letting a soviet bureaucracy own and run the banks..........Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
.
2) self regulation worked fine, massive govt interference in the economy didn't
I have some Real estate to sale you.........I've added perfume and wrapped it in a bow tie.......It's really nice..........do you want to buy it.
Yes....both sides were in on the bailout because both sides are now FULL left-wing policy supporters. Republican's are made up of Kennedy-era liberals and Democrats are made up of marxists/socialists/communists.Both sides were in on the bailout......but the bailout was bogus anyway with the Federal Reserve Back door open.........If you are saying those that failed should have been put under......their assets seized............for losing in the Casino of Wall Street then I agree............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.
And YES....I'm absolutely saying that every bank, every auto manufacturer, etc. should have been left to fail and collapse. There is nothing dumber than propping up failure and that's exactly what the bailouts did.
To the liberal comments..........I don't give a fuck what you want to call me................They put perfume on shit and nearly took our country down.............Hang them for all I care.
Clinton signed it, and it was pushed for by the Republican party.............. both sides did the deal........and that signing allowed self regulation which proved to be a disaster.................But here is the problem - in all of your outrage and anger, you fail to reason why all of this happened. Every part of it was the result of left-wing government intervention policy.I would have seized their assets and put them out for the shit they pulled............They gambled and failed and should suffer a failures fate on the markets.........................Only a liberal could cite the failure of free-market capitalism but providing "evidence" ofWorked so well they had to be saved right.....................Nice back door the Federal Reserve has there.............It's a members only club though..................1) a far far better idea than letting a soviet bureaucracy own and run the banks..........Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
.
2) self regulation worked fine, massive govt interference in the economy didn't
I have some Real estate to sale you.........I've added perfume and wrapped it in a bow tie.......It's really nice..........do you want to buy it.
Yes....both sides were in on the bailout because both sides are now FULL left-wing policy supporters. Republican's are made up of Kennedy-era liberals and Democrats are made up of marxists/socialists/communists.Both sides were in on the bailout......but the bailout was bogus anyway with the Federal Reserve Back door open.........If you are saying those that failed should have been put under......their assets seized............for losing in the Casino of Wall Street then I agree............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.
And YES....I'm absolutely saying that every bank, every auto manufacturer, etc. should have been left to fail and collapse. There is nothing dumber than propping up failure and that's exactly what the bailouts did.
To the liberal comments..........I don't give a fuck what you want to call me................They put perfume on shit and nearly took our country down.............Hang them for all I care.
It was Bill Clinton's illegal and asinine 1997 Community Re-Investment Act (which was originally done by Jimmy Carter) which incentivized banks to "gamble". When it's the bank's ass on the line for the loan, they refuse to take risk. But the Dumbocrats, in their infinite socialist stupidity believed that everyone should own a home, even if they couldn't afford it. So the Act incentivized banks to make risky loans and promised them that they weren't on the hook for the loans - the tax payer would be via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The banks, having no skin in the game, now started throwing money around wildly and irresponsibly.
It not only killed our economy, it also created the "housing bubble" as houses were bought and/or built for all of these people that couldn't afford it. Eventually many defaulted and the market became saturated with homes that banks were trying to get out from under with a fire sale. That caused all housing prices to plummet.
History has proven that liberal policy / government intervention has a failure rate of 100%.
The economic quote of the month - and probably the decade - is that Milton Friedman now admits: 'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).
So there we are. It takes some digesting, not least because we have it from the horse's mouth.