Our economy struggling with uncertainties, housing issues, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and pandemic aftermath, causing instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions need urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth.
Things are strange right now. The US dollar is becoming less valuable because of inflation, and other powerful nations waking up to trade in their own currencies. Good thing is, a lot of people still turn to the Dollar because of the safety is somehow assures. I'm worried about my retirement savings of about $420,000 losing value because of these factors and more. Where else can we keep our money?
It's a delicate season now, so you can do little or nothing on your own. Hence I’ll suggest you get yourself a financial expert that can provide you with valuable financial information and assistance
Milton Friedman was the devil incarnate ,he went to Chili knowing he could not enact his policies in the US , many people were killed because of him, Pinochet tied many alive to cut up railroad tracks put in helicopters some alive and dumped in the ocean. The survivors got the tracks I heard they made a memorial out of them.
*Children playing in public parks, families happily consuming goods and having parties, workers whistling as they go to their union-represented job that they enjoy and get paid well for.* Milton Friedman: "Disgusting. Get rid of it all."
Did he want to create a dystopia because he was delusional enough to think his allies could hoard everything with there still being enough left over for the masses?
A perfect storm is brewing in the United States. Inflation, bank collapse, severe drought in the agricultural belt, recession, food shortages, diesel fuel and heating oil shortages, sales drop, available automobile shortages and prices, the price of living place. It's all coming together and it could lead to a real disaster towards the end of this year (or sooner). With inflation currently at about 6%, my primary concern is how to maximize my savings/retirement fund of about $300k which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains.
The uncertainties accompanying this present market is more reasons I have my daily investment decisions guided by a portfolio-coach seeing that their entire skill set is based on going long and short at the same time, they employ a profit-driven strategy based on individual risk tolerance...
My advisor is *‘’SOFIA ERAILDA SEMA’’.* She’s highly qualified and experienced in the financial market. She has extensive knowledge of portfolio diversity and is considered an expert in the field. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market
It is incredible to me how much we go through this cycle: Pull each other down, like crabs in a bucket. Wait for corpses. Climb them. Pull each other down again, only slightly higher. Ad infinitum while the fisherman looks on, adding higher walls to the bucket.
@@EvilHamsterbot how you talk about publicly posted material sounds like no copyright is rightfully expected after posting. Very wrong. I mean go ahead allowing anyone take your shiet, however advocating intellectual property rights wouldn't apply to any publicly posted material..super sinister.
@@whataboutthis10 what in the hell are you saying? Could you try again, but coherently? Oh, it's a public comment bro not an idea to patent. It's even a constantly used metaphor. Chill out and go outside.
Another aspect of Reagan’s term as California’s governor was to close mental institutions, suddenly the Republicans had produced homelessness in our towns and cities.
That's just liberal lies. San Fran spends 85k a year per homeless person to liberal non profits to solve the homeless problem. NYC gave all the money to deblasios wife's non profit
@@brettmcclain9289 most homeless people in California dwell roughly in the areas they lived in prior to becoming homeless. Many were born in the cities where they are now homeless.
Well... to be fair a lot of mental instituions were hellish places that hired people who get kicks out of being cruel and having power over vulnerable people. That was part of the reason for the backlash against them. Bad PR. But it certainly wasn't better to just dump everyone on the streets.
I think people should listen to this, but they should also actually listen to Friedman's, "free to choose" and understand his position. When you get the full perspective it's quite logical. There are poor outcomes from the Keynesian model not even close to addressed here. This is a disingenuous interpretation or, at minimum, incomplete imo. He is for a negative income tax that addresses low earners while not disincentivizing work (like ubi), and he's okay with tax on companies where they produce externalities, like pollution. He's looking for freedom, and equality, not equity. Merit based. He is against big gov't because he wants more power to the individual, he wants businesses to compete equally in the market, remove power from the lobbyists that seek to gain competitive advantage, adjusting the rules or looking to enact regulation that reduces entry or competition into the market. Still wants regulation and protections, just wants it handled in the competitive, private market by the professionals, not politicians. Smaller gov't scope / reach means less tax requirement. It's more democratic if people keep more of their earnings and are able to spend in their own best interest instead of the gov't taking it and more and having them spend, "in your best interest " (they're spending in their interests not yours). We're told the wealthy don't pay their fair share; if this is the case, then the less wealthy should benefit with less tax to all. I'm glad I can rely on other private delivery services and not just the US post. Healthcare in commonwealth countries are single payer, through the gov't, paid by the people through higher taxes, but the services are still majority by private businesses. Means tested (ineligible if capable man / father applying) welfare destroyed the American black family and community. The projecting on white supremacy was cringe. I'm surprised Friedman supports bank or business bailouts. That seems anti-capitalist and I disagree with him there. Overall disagree with this presenter but he seems charismatic / likeable.
Good info, thank you. I hear you...on any point, especially contentious/subjective ones like politics/religion/health/etc...every truth seeker needs to carefully examine both sides of the argument to discern the best and most rational way forward. From what I've learned so far, I don't agree with Milton's bias towards the free markets. Primary criticism is free markets aren't designed to enhance societal well being...it's just the production and movement of goods. This allows for all manner of problems: increased inequality (perhaps the #1 societal destabilizer throughout history), monopolies, planned obsolescence, subjective rather than objective value of goods (e.g. a pound of food has an objective value in how many people it can feed, but free markets cause prices to vary wildly due to speculation and scarcity), indiscriminate & injudicious use of resources, wasteful competition (e.g. different cabling standards by Apple vs. Android), inflexibility to respond to crisis (e.g. during economic downturns people have less money for food, but when food production remains stable, food waste occurs when consumers cannot afford to buy at normal rates). There are ways to address these problems, but most involve some form of involvement by the government...but this runs counter to free markets ideals, hence the problem with a Friedman approach. On a side note, another thing that bothers me about the way we have constructed our society is what we call the "government". The government should be another way of saying "we the people", who have voted institutions in place to execute the will of the people. Sadly, this doesn't seem the case even in the US...Congress is dominated by lawyers (which is a poor reflection of the US population), which have health benefits and retirement packages that far exceed the average citizen. I think there would be less issue with saying we want the government to step in and resolve problems...if the government felt more like we the people.
One more thing...totally agree about his cringe comment that it "all comes back to white supremacy." If we the people are going to grow and get to that next level of our society, we must be united, and realize the problems we face are far more fundamental and universal than race. It bugs me when my black family incorrectly makes it a race issue...takes the focus off the real problems and increases discord.
@@wildbear2472 I appreciate the respectful reply. There is so much information out there and everyone has their own unique exposure to that information; differing opinions are expected and great for discussion and mutual growth. I think the free market allows an organic development of what society as a whole wants and needs (well being); every time someone spends they are voting / providing their feedback. To be a successful business you need to provide something of benefit to others so they'll give you their, "vote". In this way the motivation for personal gain has a positive side effect. Competition provides options, organically regulates price and promotes continual improvement. Capitalism has brought the largest number of people out of poverty and increases the baseline standard of living. Inequality isn't inherently wrong, if the baseline improves it shouldn't matter that some people can do really well. It's perception ... people are perfectly fine, until they realized their neighbor or coworker has more. Similarly, for example, if something costs $20, you feel a different way if your told it was previously $10 vs $30 even though it's the same price. Monopolies are bad for capitalism and intervention is advised from Adam Smith to Friedman. Sometimes improvement comes so quick obsolescence is unavoidable (phones, computer tech); where it's planned, people still want longevity and may be willing to pay (Toyota, appliances). When there's no competition, a "govt monopoly", there are no checks or balances on quality or price. No mechanisms for change or improvement. The gov't does have a role, ideally, gov't should take care of public goods and have a say on common resources. Have 99.9% of the people pay small amount for a robust social safety net for the few that really need it, not 20% of people paying exorbitant amounts to cover welfare and wants for the capable masses. A central group of planners (govt) don't know better than society as whole what's needed and when. You're controlled by a few and lose freedom and autonomy. Also, when gov't steps in and says, "we're handling this now" it takes away from the cohesiveness of the people .. the community leagues, churches, social organizations, etc that would typically handle this. This is way too long ... thank goodness for talk to text! My general thoughts are well summed up in this video ... 10 core beliefs of classic liberalism. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iU-8Uz_nMaQ.html
So you are saying that we can't govern ourselves? A government of the people by the people and for the people? We could. except a lot wealthy, powerful people corrupt it and then say look government doesn't work. They even get ordinary people saying this. Playing into their own hand. Capitalism will always corrupt democracy.
When your being robbed who do you call to catch the thief and bring him to justice. A government employee called a cop and other govt. employees to get justice and maybe compensation. I believe govt. should be as small as possible but some functions are necessary.Who will protect you from the shysters and hucksters that form cartels and monopolies that collude to fix prices and stamp out competition to the detriment of consumers. I don't call that free market I call that captured markets. Who you gonna call Ghostbusters? No, you call some entity that has the power to enforce this kind of criminal behavior. I can only think of one but I am open to suggestion.
Why was Milton Friedman against taxing corporations did he forget that in the eyes of law they are people too so why would these people get special treatment, just asking.
So true. The government couldn't save us so good ol' Ronnie boy gave that power to the corporations. And they have truly saved 'Murica. All the more power to those patriotic billionaire CEOs.
Friedman advocated for a negative income tax (a form of basic income for people below a certain upper tax bracket). Friedman's policies would have PREVENTED people from starving. We live in the 21st century, look shit up BEFORE you pull nonsense out of your ass!
If you knew Milton Friedman main proposals like negative income tax, end of minimum wage and sound monetary policy, than you would agree those reforms would eliminate poverty
They’ve never listened to Milton Friedman. If they did you’d know he wanted the fda and dea abolished. Like he wanted all drugs legalized. Here an African American is hating on Milton Friedman when it’s Milton Friedman that literally advocated for millions of blacks to be freed from prison with all drugs being legal. He’ll Milton Friedman did more for the black cause then the blm did. Sadly the blm said defund the police when they should have been quoting Milton Friedman and arguing to legalize all drugs.
Wrong!!! Milton Friedman advocated for free-enterprise =capitalism. What is being applied in America is the economic ideology of John Maynard Keynes =socialism.
Poverty is part of the human condition been around longer than the world's oldest profession. I looked up Milton Freidman and his negative income tax that people who are above some line pay taxes and then the people under this line get money from the government and spend it as they see fit. Sounds like a fight waiting to happen because to paraphrase Sen. Grassley Americans don't want people spending money on liquor, women and movies. Friedman explained the percentages of people working for minimum wages are based on the economy from 1960s and 1970s when teenagers were mostly affected by minimum wage. He said like 20% of head of households were minimum wage, that is no longer true. This just sounds his similar "trickle down" theory and I have been waiting 40 years for that. No thanks, its pie in the sky.
Fantastic book. Her chapter breaking down Friedman and the Chicago Boys is probably the best summary and analysis of them. Required reading for anyone interested in the subject.
@@Busto I went to undergrad and grad for school for Political Science and never saw it, or anything like it, assigned in that field, and I took a lot of courses related to political economy. However, I did have to read a very annoying amount of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and several libertarian cranks at both levels of education.
Hate to say it @FDSignifire, but Milton Friedman was entirely correct, and his policies to free the marketplace and maximize individual liberty/freedom have been why America remains the most successful society in history. Keynesian New Deal central planning has long been fully repudiated across the globe since Friedman's free market approach (originating with von Mises and Hayek) became prominent. Can you name a successful socialist economy? BTW, Sweden is not socialist...
love everything about this video, but FD, be careful saying "the very richest were paying as much as 90%." that 90% is the top marginal tax rate meaning it was 90% (from 1945-1964) on all amounts over 300K (modern equivalent of $3.1M). It really bugs me when conservatives bitch about "they're going to take 90% of *your* money" nooooo we're going to take 90% of every dollar you earned over $3.1M" ... so if you earn $37K working at Kroger, don't worry, nobody will be taking 90% from you.
This video is great except for the perpetuation of the misconception of a "middle class". From an economic standpoint the distinction between classes that aids analysis the most is that of ownership -- you either own the means of production or you don't. Few people do. This world is 99.99% workers & 0.01% owners. Those are the two classes: those who rule & those who are ruled.
@@timtebone1843that's not ownership of production. It's not the same thing. Ownership of production is having _legal copyright & ownership_ of the machinery, infrastructure, & facilities involved in performing labor. When you "own" your house the bank actually owns until you "pay it off", but after that the state still "owns" it & you pay property taxes until you die. You never "own" anything in the same sense that the capitalist/bourgeoisie class own things. This is the distinction between property & possessions, my friend. They are not the same thing. Property usually isn't something physically mobile that can be moved, but ownership of it can be transferred. Possessions can be carried in your pocket, on your person, or even stored within your property such as a car or a house you "own" via mortgage payments. Despite your ownership of that property it is usury, a specific type of debt. Again, it is a *very* small minority within a minority of folks on this planet who own the means of production, which is what drives all labor & through socio-economic organization drives society as a result.
I think there is still a useful distinction to be drawn within "workers" between those who historically had little agency and little security, and for the brief period between 1945 and 1980, when a significant subset of workers (almost exclusively White, and most beneficially, men) were able to achieve material and political success through the intervention of governments and unions in reining in the worst aspects of the ownership class, unlike anything seen before.
@@michaelvickers4437the emphasis needs to be on the past-tense for it to remain useful, however. The myth that it's the current status quo & that history hasn't proven a shift towards the current ever-narrowing power vacuum is harmful to the cause of reaching class consciousness, in my opinion. The perfect terminology introduced to distinguish different "degrees" of political agency among the working class was introduced by Lenin, who called those without ownership of production but _with_ a markedly higher income from their job as managers or intermediaries the "labor aristocracy". It certainly denotes a 'special' or privileged status of a minority of workers who are still pawns or tools of the bourgeoisie. It's been used differently/with subtle variants over the years, but that further proves the idea that history's march towards a monopolistic power vacuum is irrefutable. These silly class distinctions & imaginary stratifications to further divide the working class serve a particular purpose, are employed with certain effect AND affect, to intentionally sabotage the working class. To prevent us from attaining class consciousness both at the individual level & the mass line level. I'm glad you brought that up 👍 great f*cking comment. This is why I tell people the evolution of socialism is still underway, that it is a _living_ ideology. We had Marxism, then Leninism, then Marxism-Leninism, then Maoism, then Marxism-Leninism-Maoism 😆 Deng really put a damper on progress, but we can move beyond him by understanding Ho Chi Minh, who I think really took socialism to the next level.
@@Matthew.E.Kelly. . Saying we don't have a middle class is not the same as saying its not a thing. I said, own homes and have savings.. Its from the 60s lol
Friedman was the last person who understood that the true definition of the word "inflation" is, "Increasing the ratio of the amount of money in circulation to the amount of goods and services in the marketplace (GDP). We have allowed that definition to be replaced by the term "Rising Prices", which is why we do not understand what chiefly causes 'rising prices'.
The US hasn’t had the same president since 1982, we’ve really had the same president since 1964. Milton Friedman’s rhetoric was adopted by Reagan and others, but none of them actually adopted his policies. Milton Friedman wanted low taxes (Reagan’s effective tax rates on the rich remained roughly the same as past decades before him. People keep confusing headline rates with effective rates. Headline rates are meaningless). Friedman wanted balanced budgets (Reagan was the biggest spender since FDR. He tripled the national debt in 8 years despite having a higher tax revenue to GDP ratio than the recent presidents that proceeded him). Friedman wanted less regulations and free trade (Reagan increased net regulations by the end of his reign and was a protectionist). Friedman advocated for the “negative income tax” which is similar to universal basic income. It would simplify the welfare system while getting rid of the poverty trap. The current welfare system discourages people from seeking work. NIT encourages people to work while having their basic needs met. (Reagan and everyone after him have rejected NIT) Thatcher was similar in that she adopted Friedman’s rhetoric but didn’t actually adopt supply-side economics. The argument for supply-side economics isn’t to cut taxes on the rich. It’s to cut taxes for everyone, especially the working/middle class. Effective rates on the rich have only gone down if you are looking at capital gains and not ordinary income. With those lower rates, they are still generating more revenue as a percentage of GDP when rates were higher. The rich save and invest most of their wealth, meaning that money is used for more productive means, which generates more tax revenue. If you raise effective rates substantially higher, the rich will flee and you’ll get a lot less tax revenue, plus you lose their savings, investment, and charitable dollars. Keep rates the same on the rich, eliminate taxes or at least significantly reduce the taxes on the working/middle class. Get rid of regulations designed to protect big business and not protect consumers. Affordable healthcare and housing has been made illegal by the government. Friedman was an early advocate for school choice. K-12 has plenty of funding, including in the poorest neighborhoods of cities (they get a ton of state and federal funding. The worst neighborhoods often get twice as much per pupil spending than rich suburbs). Let students and their parents choose a school that fits their needs while keeping spending the same. School Choice holds bad public schools accountable. Good public schools will continue to be chosen and their methods replicated. Bad public schools outside of school choice are currently encouraged to fail because they get bigger budgets every time they fail. Money has never been the issue. Abolish government-guaranteed student loans and college tuition will plummet back to its previously affordable levels. College students at quality state universities used to be able to work during the summer to pay off their tuition. No one will lend to a college student without that government guarantee and without those loans, colleges can’t charge more than what people can afford. - F.D is also spreading lies about Friedman and the “Chicago Boys”. Pinochet never adopted anything resembling laissez-faire capitalism but simply ended Allende’s Marxist policies. Friedman opposed Pinochet’s authoritarianism. Pinochet adopted slightly more capitalistic markets and turned Chile into the most robust economy in Latin America. That doesn’t excuse his executions of dissidents. We should simply be accurate about the reality of the economic system while condemning political violence.
As someone who is on your side economically, the jabs towards whites kinda piss me off and alienate me. It desensitizes me to former and current racial plight when my people are actively mocked.
He kept talking about his poor working class parents and yet pushed ideas that would harm people like that, implying he was either delusional, demented, or for some reason really resented all of the other poor people. "I got out via my own hard work! (Because I am special.) Only hard workers deserve non-poverty! (If everyone gets it then I am not special.)" Actually I have no idea what he was really thinking, and it not really important but it is ironic.
He was sincere, chile has better standart of living that almost all countrys in latinomerica. There are arguments against a pro, monetarism stop calling diferent position demencial
He was a student of economics and anyone who studies it in detail always comes to the same conclusions he did. The policies he advocates raises the OVERALL standard of living. The policies he’s against helps raise the standard of living of a small group of individuals at the expense of a larger group of individuals. Protectionism, unions, minimum wages, rent controls all help a smaller group of people at the expense of a much larger group of people, reducing the OVERALL standard of living and so keep countries perpetually poor, as you see in South America and Africa where socialism and heavy regulation are rampant. In countries like Chile, Botswana, and South Korea which follow opposite policies, you can see that free trade, less unions, and no price controls ( min wages, rent controls) OVERALL produce a higher standard of living as these policies help the masses on a large scale at the expense of much smaller groups of people.
Indeed, and Milton Friedman would be considered a war criminal and be charged with crimes against humanity in a proper system of justice existed. For not only was Friedman an inspiration for Agusto Pinochet's corrupt and ruthless regime, he also served as an advisor to the mad dictator, helped inspire Reagan's bloody wars in Latin America and the Middle East, and was a key element of the Bushes' handling of foreign affairs that still haunts us to this day.
Laissez-faire government and Laissez-faire economics are counterintuitive ideas. Laffer Curve, peace through strength, and building a strong state on strong individuals given individual liberty and expecting individual responsibility, are counterintuitive ideas. Conservative ideas are counterintuitive. Liberalism is not an ideology. A left leaning bias is caused by mental and emotional instability that makes a person unable to still their mind long enough to understand how the counterintuitive nature of the universe works so a person falls back on their emotions to reach a conclusion. That is why there are no successful liberal political talk radio shows. Liberals need moving pictures or hand puppets to trigger their emotions. There was a huge global study where they asked thousands of people hundreds of questions and grouped them by their answers. People that ranked high in conscientiousness also favored conservative policies. People that ranked low in conscientiousness also favored liberal policies. Meaning liberals have no intention of doing what is right or making sacrifices for the good of society. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to report having mental problems in some groups and report higher mental problems across the board. This mental instability and inability to still their mind long enough to understand how conservative policies help poor and working class people is the cause of their problem. If you look up the traits of narcissists, you will see they are exactly the same as liberal politicians and activists, because they are both driven in total by their hatred and emotions.
3 The truth is right there in front of you despite what the liberal media has told you. Conservative policies are what actually help poor and lower income people. When during the Trump administration, the bottom 1/5th of wage earners had their incomes rise the fastest of all groups. That was the first time that had happened since the George W Bush administration. Because both Trump and W. used Kennedy's theory of using lower taxes, less immigration, deregulation, and smaller government to tighten up the labor market. Which raises wages, allows mobility, allows for advancement, and gives people dignity. Compare that to the Democrat policies of using high taxes, over regulation, open immigration, and big government to put permanent slack into the labor market. Which drives down wages and drives up housing prices at the same time, to the point tens of millions of people don't have any money left over at the end of the month. And it's the low wages at the bottom that allows the excesses at the top, causing the wealth gap. Raising the bottom 1/5th of wage earners wealth relative to everyone else is something liberals will never be able to do because of their policies.
The fact that it is conservative policies that help poor and lower income people is backed up by the IRS data. "Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent. By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.) That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more. What’s more, IRS data shows earners in higher income brackets contributed a bigger slice of the total income tax revenue pie following the passage of the tax reform law than they had in the previous year. In fact, every income bracket with filers earning $200,000 or more increased its tax burden in 2018 compared to 2017, and every income bracket with a top limit lower than $200,000 paid a smaller proportion of the total personal tax revenue collected. That means that Republicans’ tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive - the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years. The IRS data further shows that the tax reform law - which included a variety of business tax cuts, including a large reduction in the corporate income tax rate - spurred economic mobility. Every income bracket with a top level lower than $25,000 experienced a reduction in its number of filers, and every income bracket above $25,000 increased in size, with the biggest gains occurring in the brackets with a floor of at least $100,000. The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity."
Investigations consistently find that people who identify with liberal ideology are significantly more likely than others to be depressed, anxious, and to rank high on neuroticism. Liberals are also much more likely than conservatives to be diagnosed with mental illnesses or disorders. Liberals are roughly twice as likely as conservatives to report being diagnosed with a mental illness. Liberals Are Far More Likely to be Depressed, Anxious, or Otherwise Neurotic Compared to Conservatives. Liberals are significantly more likely to experience adverse mental and emotional conditions. People who score highly on “Dark Triad” characteristics (narcissism, psychopathy, Machivallianism) may be especially likely to gravitate towards certain strains of “social justice” ideology. Likewise with many inclined towards authoritarianism. Conclusion: The well-being gap between liberals and conservatives is one of the most robust patterns in social science research. It is not a product of things that happened over the last decade or so; it goes back as far as the available data reach. The differences manifest across age, gender, race, religion, and other dimensions. They are not merely present in the United States, but in most other studied countries as well. Some strains of liberal ideology likely exacerbate (and even incentivize) anxiety, depression, and other forms of unhealthy thinking. The increased power and prevalence of these ideological frameworks post-2011 may have contributed to the dramatic and asymmetrical rise in mental distress among liberals over the past decade. People who are unwell may be especially attracted to liberal politics over conservatism for a variety of reasons, and this may exacerbate observed ideological gaps net of other factors This article is an American Affairs online exclusive, published March 21, 2023. How to Understand the Well-Being Gap between Liberals and Conservatives by Musa al-Gharbi Chan, E. Y. (2019). Political orientation and physical health: The role of personal responsibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 117-122. Fatke, M. (2017). Personality Traits and Political Ideology: A First Global Assessment. Political Psychology, 38(5), 881-899.
Let me just point out that the "Nobel prize for economics" isn't. It's the _Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel_ - a prize that a bank set up, *not* one of the prizes Alfred Nobel set up, even though old Alfred was definitely one of the rich. That's kind of relevant here. You see, Alfred's prizes are awarded to "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind." (Kind of a mic drop moment here.)
Maybe, just maybe if the rich were not allowed to invest their wealth in existing companies, but had to either accept loss by inflation OR invest in a new company they started, things just might work better.
Friedman didn't say that corporations should be free from taxes. He was fine with limited government spending and leaving some areas/services to be supplied by government - IF the paxpayers got their moneys worth.
Black unemployment was always lower from 1942-1960 it was only after the war on poverty and the civil rights movement that black unemployment rose. I agree with Friedman and Sowell.
They’ve never listened to Milton Friedman. If they did you’d know he wanted the fda and dea abolished. Like he wanted all drugs legalized. Here an African American is hating on Milton Friedman when it’s Milton Friedman that literally advocated for millions of blacks to be freed from prison with all drugs being legal. He’ll Milton Friedman did more for the black cause then the blm did. Sadly the blm said defund the police when they should have been quoting Milton Friedman and arguing to legalize all drugs.
Have you ever looked at Reagan's economic metrics to have a say on Milton or Reagan? Milton and Sowell are probably two of the best economists we have seen. Of course, there is also Friedrich August von Hayek.
I took an economics class in high school, in 1980. We watched Free to Choose and discussed it. My high school was conservative, and one day, when our economics teacher called on me for my response to something Friedman said (knowing I would give a lefty take), after I said my piece, our teacher said "Our resident Socialist!" The label stuck on me for the remainder of high school. I wore it proudly. Oddly enough, in the '90's to early '00's, I was a conservative Democrat, but saw the error of my ways, and voted Bernie '16 and Warren '20. I'm now well to the left of the Democrats. "Drained Pool Politics" explains a LOT about the US during my lifetime.
9:10 wrong. He was not claiming that Union activity was causing inflation, what he actually means is that the government intervened by printing more money to nullify the gains to employees provided by the strikes. This is because inflation is created by governments, not by anyone else. Pretty much everything else you have said against Friedman is wrong as well; but hey, I admire your pragmatism in realising that saying false things in the internet gets you a lot of views and money; nothing like good old hypocrisy.
Milton directly stated that workers demanding higher wages led to corporations raising prices to make up the difference. Are you claiming he didn't say that?
@@RextheRebelthat doesn’t mean inflation. Your cost of living can never permanently increase without an increase in the supply of money. That is a fact.
A little simple math experiment disproves Friedman. Company owner invests capital (c) into building a widget. He also pays his employees in wages (w), and whatever is left over after he sells his widgets is his profit (p). The realized returns on the sale of his widgets will be represented by (r). Therefore, you have: r = c + w + p The stated goal of capitalism is to increase profits (p). That’s literally the mandate of every CEO on the planet, to increase shareholder value, aka profits. If a company isn’t increasing its profits, it will lose investors and will be forced out of business. The primary problem that Keynes recognized but Friedman completely ignores is that (r) isn’t a given, it depends entirely on how many widgets are sold and at what price. Milton Friedman argues for increasing capital investment as a way to improve the economic production of the nation, but if more money goes into increasing production, that means more widgets that need to be sold in order to maximize (r). You need people to buy your widgets in order to make any profit. If the extra money in society is going into increasing production and not into increasing wages, then you will gradually increase the amount of stuff produced while simultaneously reducing the number of consumers for that stuff. Considering that (c) and (w) have already been spent by the time the widgets have been produced, the only place for that loss to be realized is in (p). If (p) falls, then companies fail and people lose jobs. If more people lose their jobs, or downgrade to lower paying jobs, then you have even fewer consumers for your widgets and (p) falls even more, leading to a deflation spiral. I haven’t heard anything from the Chicago school that addresses this issue. They always dismiss it as “noise”, but it’s not just noise, it’s people’s livelihoods.
Two political directions: one, opportunities for everyone! Two, opportunities for those who work hard! Societies succeed when the hard workers are rewarded!
I well remember how Californians, with ray-gun as governor, tried to warn about him as possible president. Alas for the "underclass", larger year by year, and the people in mental hospitals turned out to become the homeless. Really great presentation.p.s.: please don't mock the crocs😢😂
Keynes was so based, only problem was the fact that the new deal, didn’t include most coloured people, but I think we can have a Keynesian 21st century Keynesian to include all
George Carlin got it right with his observation on the core difference between left-wingers and right-wingers. Keynesianism was by its very nature a people prioritising economic policy ... whereas Reagonomics and all the other neoliberalism related economic policies focus on the free market and profit accumulation by privately owned entities. *It is no surprise to retrace the re-emergence of massive income and wealth inequality, back to the replacement of keynesian economics with neoliberalism. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bMhCdNNufaQ.htmlsi=Z38ZLpzGEFxPazun
1945-1972(rebuilding of Europe after the war) From the 1960s on women started flooding into the workforce depressing wages. From the 1960s immigration began going hard and really fed up in the 1980s depressing wages and driving up the cost of housing.
As a former Californian no thanks to Reagan and his vile policies. I remember the time he closed so many mental health hospitals and it was like a homelessness crisis was born overnight. California still hasn't got out of that hole and it's been over fifty years. 😞
Homelessness was indeed created by reagan/Friedman, but it was all across the nation. When he was elected Governor, CA had what was acknowledged as the best education system in the world and he destroyed it. I had the misfortune of going to school in CA when Prop 13 went into effect. Economists at the time warned us what would happen and the people of CA ignored them.
Oh yeah, and he used nuclear weapons! Oh wait, did he? No, you can tell all the things Reagan didn’t do because RU-vidrs say he did, but don’t connect him to it.
The thing is, there was widespread abuse in American mental health institutions and many advocates hoped that community based care would improve outcomes for patients. But of course doing that would require funding community based care and well we all know how the Gipper felt about funding health...
@@Owesomasaurus No there wasn't, any more than there were "welfare queens" living large and driving new Cadillacs from the fortunes they made by having 6 kids and milking the welfare state. They lied to us. But you know what is true? It's easier to fool people than it is to convince people that they've been fooled. Here we are, over half a century after the fact, with access to all the evidence, and the lies are still being repeated by people who "remember".
So glad to see FD on here. I've learned a lot from his stuff - he's a great example of RU-vid in its most valuable journalistic state. As is this channel, of course.
This is character assassination and strawmanning. “Natural unemployment who probably equalled the number of black and brown people” I’m sorry wtf. What if I said “your video recommends more spending on welfare probably only for non jews.” It’s a baseless accusation. Also, natural unemployment at 2% of the population is a thing. 0% would mean no one is changing jobs Friedman made some mistakes, but I strongly recommend everyone to watch “free to choose”. Be critical of it, but it does have interesting ideas
The funny thing is that Friedman's ideas aren't new. The UK in the 19th century used them all the time, at home and abroad, and it led to two of the worst famines of the 19th century: the Bengal Famine of the 1870s, and the Potato Famine of the 1840s. Both times the famine was exacerbated by the decision for administrators to prioritize profits gained by selling grain to wealthier markets, rather than feeding the people who would immediately starve if they didn't receive food. These theories are already known, and their brutality and cruelty is only matched by their apathy for the consequences of their actions.
And astonishingly we adopt the same ideas again to tragedy of the Irish famine being played on the global stage. Shows how brainwashed we all into ignoring the past.
Did the video not just say that the government ought to have to no control over economics - and their involvement leads to catastrophe? Because the Potato Famine is a prime example of an intervention by a British-appointed governor, no? Not a business. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall it was more akin to an Imperial (and therefore governmental) led issue.
@@TheAmbush101 I wouldn't think another country's imperial decisions that unilaterally supersede the sovereign decisions of another country's distribution of its own food would count at all as an example Keynesian economics. It's not like Ireland's government starved itself.
@@KASC92 I’d agree. My point of contention is that it isn’t all that indicative of market economics. Rather, command economies taking advantage of market forces for their benefit. The Soviet Union frequently engaged in external market transactions - with limited or complete abandonment of an afflicted populace undergoing scarcity or traded resources - using the same principles. Yet, they wouldn’t be construed as a market economy nor using anything worthy of invoking those names.
@@TheAmbush101 It is though, it literally is landlords who have control over their own capital who decided that the more profitable use of their resources is to sell it in the home market, rather than give it to the starving poor who have nothing to give the money to survive off of. Or in Bengal, in the 18th century, that was when it was under the control of the British East India Company. Do you really want to tell me that the most famous private corporation, the most successful in Great Britain's history, made any decisions at the behest of the government? They found that selling the food that Bengali people had stored to prevent starvation was more productive in the short term if it was sold on the open market. They were right, and millions paid the price with their lives.
This is a serious miss characterization of Milton Freedman's ideas. Go look up Mr. Freedman your self and make your own opinion. The reason we have so many of the issues we have today, are because of Keynes ideas, of a central bank and government control. Freedman was for everyone's freedom, and the equal treatment of everyone. Rich or poor, black, white. Go study your self and make your own opinion.
The size and scope of the US federal government (and many state and municipal governments) has grown to be bigger than ever before, which is antithetical to the economic policies Milton Friedman advocated for.
Not sure where you got that but the US federal tax take as a percentage of GDP has remained fairly static since WW2 and if you include veterans pensions, more than half of it now goes to the military, prisons, and police. Are you proposing cutting those areas?
@@holobiont3197 yes. Gov spending in the past was 10% of GDP now its over 50%. The rule should be don't spend more than you grow your economy. If the GDP isn't there they should not get to spend the money. This incentivizes gov to grow the economy instead of spending money they dont have and hitting all of us with the inflation tax.
@@holobiont3197 I took a look at the "readily available" stats. Tax take as a percent of GDP has more than doubled since 1947, from 15.93% to 36.26% in 2022. Check the IMF's "Government expenditure, percent of GDP", I'd send a link but I think youtube will block it. And how about you get your facts straight before making claims
As for historical figures that might be worth talking about, Edmund Burke and his peers basically wrote the book on conservatism in an effort to postulate how capitalism could be used to preserve the hierarchical systems of royalty and the noble class against the rising push for democracy, which included removing the notion of labor value from the economic lexicon so they could pin the value of goods to their sale price rather than how hard they were to produce or any intrinsic worth they might have. Given the arguments made by people like NFT bros for why their monkey pictures are valuable, Mr. Burke's ideas might be surprisingly relevant to today's economic problems.
It's not that complicated..the more of something, the less value it has..whether diamonds, sand, food, or money..more low skilled people..more cheap labor..more money printed..less dollar value..simple, ..it's big gov. That prints more money - devaluing the currency..all while not suffering the results themselves..government supplies no value based goods/while simultaneously being the largest employer by far..there are 80,000 domestic employees in the C.I.A., that one..of hundreds of Gov. Departments, 86,000, were just added to the I.R.S. ( Friedman was for a very small government.. they add no value while burdening the people).. What of the 30 books Friedman wrote have you read?
Democracy and the push for capitalism is ultimately a system where the merchants and the clergy take over and become the new aristocracy while the aristocracy and the people are made irrelevant ie look at how Democracy replaced Constitutional Monarchies in most places.
No? The left existed in conjunction with him and before him Keynes was not a leftist he was not a socialist Keynes still believed in the free market but balanced with government intervention and regulation as opposed to the classical liberalism of before (laizze faire capitalism) The USSR was founded in 1922 meanwhile Keynes most famous and influential book The general theory of employment in 1936 It took until the late 30s and early 40s for Western governments to begin introducing Keynesian policies What exactly do you think the left is? The left isn't liberalism and socialism isn't when the government does stuff
The big problem with this classroom is that most americans have no idea how "progressive" tax brackets work. The wealthy were never taxed at those high rates on all of their income. When we talk about those tax rates it is only on the money over the prior bracket. Everyone making at least fifty thousand pays the same tax on that first fifty thousand, but money over that could cross into another bracket that was at a higher rate so only that excess money was taxed at the higher rate and added to the tax on the first fifty thousand. That continued up the ladder until you got to your total income. This encouraged those wealthy folks to reinvest into their companies and the nation. Why give 90% of it to the government when you could just buy new machinery to make your company more efficient next year? By encouraging them to keep their income lower this way it made things better for everyone. Only stupid people would pay that tax and stupid people rarely have that kind of money. It was the stick that went with the carrot of loopholes. Now they have all the loopholes without the stick and they love it. And our nation suffers. I would love to see one on Alan Greenspan and his next logical step on this road. Also how Greenspan worshiped Ayn Rand such that we ended up with members of congress making her required reading for staffers. Ayn Rand did more damage to this nation that anyone else I can think of.
Agreed. Rand was a disaster and still is, heritage foundation, foundation for economic education, and other think tanks still peddle her works and are often financed by big oil cus they know her philosophy is one that lets them not only get away with their crimes but be rewarded for them. Truly sick stats of affairs
do you know why most of us don't understand taxes...because no one can explain it, in any sensical way, to the average person. It is all double talk and academic B.S!
@@ciello___8307 It is the truth. Almost no one paid those rates to the government. Why do you think so many built libraries and donated to charities? The goodness of their heart? Or a tax right off? Charities are struggling today because of these lower tax rates at the top.
It seems that economists are treated as high priests, and the economy is God. If true, that is horrifying. It allows the powerful to grant their horrendous acts as "the market's will," i.e., "God's will." All these decisions, human decisions, are granted as divine and shouldn't be questioned.
This! These people have destroyed ecomonies in whole Latin America plus the US and we are all celebrating that university like its the mecca of progress for the poor.
Brothaman you need to comedyize your points and become a stand up comedian. Yes it would be high brow and many would miss the points, but a black man more than ANYONE else could reach the masses with financial humor.
Shame on you for such simplistic, dangerously harmful representation of a great man. Anyone who wants to educate himself properly, there is more than enough of Milton's content online, do yourself a favor. If you still don't understand, God help you and your country, for the result of your blindness will make your Great Depression look mild.
I think it would be better to describe tax rates with a little more nuance - it seems all too common that people don't understand marginal tax rates, and how much money people are actually earning (and keeping) before their *additional* income is taxed at the top rate. Too many people are worried "if I reach the next tax bracket I will take home less money", or that the top tax bracket will affect them when they're only making a median income.
Those with an authoritarian bent may point out that libertarians have not held the very-highest political offices - but the libertarians (at least, since they stole that moniker) have been a pervasive propaganda machine, even if they seldom are able to convince voters that they are caring humans.
He doesn’t back up anything he says. If you like him, it’s because you already agreed with him. He’s worse than Shapiro who mostly backs up his arguments, but isn’t really changing anyone’s mind
@@nunyabidness3075 Shapiro is just a fast talker that has loaded points and data that serves a narrative. Its a quick gotcha answer from him from guests that cannot provide stats themselves off the top of their head. Everyone has their biases though. But this presenter has charisma and historical knowledge from another political spectrum. Only way one can grow and question their thoughts is by listening to both sides and coming to your own conclusion.
@@shabadoob That’s not the only way to grow. The better way is to listen to people who offer complete arguments. In fact, someone who did that quite well, was Milton Friedman. Go listen to him. You may not agree with him, but you’ll see why he was so persuasive. He offers full arguments.
This is a gross mischaracterization of Milton Friedman's research, papers, talks, general views, and advised policies. You make the leap between Friedman and Reagan and other University of Chicago economists carelessly throughout your video. Your section on 'Economic Theory' is very misleading. It is a filtered, watered down and biased view of the actual economic theoretic frameworks you're referring to. I understand this is meant to be a quick rundown of the ideas you're getting across but to suggest that Friedman thought we should 'bail out' banks and then suggest that THIS is monetarism is very misleading. Monetarism is not the idea that we should bail out banks. It stems from the challenge to Keynsian economics that government and centralized institutions can combat the inherent volatility that free markets portray. Friedman, via monetarism (you should read his paper or at least a book of his before suggesting a framework of his), believed that the money supply ought to have a constant rate of growth and that attempting to control volatility will only lead to more recessions, less freedom for any and everyone regardless of class, and a worsening of life for many, including and especially the poor. The idea that we can control the economy is akin and can be argued to stem from the idea that humans can control most any natural phenomena, and as much of science has suggested, this isn't the case. Any-who, Friedman only sought to provide a constant supply of money via banks to ensure that the power of money is maintained when people need it most. The vehicle by which money is driven into the economy is through banks. Friedman could probably have cared less about the success or failure of the bank post-recession. He was also strongly against monopolies of any kind, including the modern 'too big to fail' central banks of the last decade. I could keep going on about this video and its mischaracterization of said theories but that may too much for one comment. I think at the crux of it, though, the argument you are against is aid for large businesses and the neglect of the working class. Milton Friedman didn't break the economy by suggesting either of these ideas or values. On the contrary, he advocated for the freedom of ALL people especially regardless of your gender, race, age or any other non-birth inherited characteristic. He mentions this in just about all of his works.
@@jamesmiller2129 guessing you don’t know figurative language. If you watched his other videos, he consistently jokingly disregards these people to counteract the perverted idolization often done when others talk about such figures like Milton Friedman
Did you imply printing more money would not cause inflation? Inflation is caused by the devaluation of currency and the more of anything there is, the less valuable it becomes. Money included. And your keynesian example at 6:50 was exactly what happened in weimar, germany which ended in drawn out devistation. That being said, i still wouldve respected your video if it didnt feel like you just wanted to push the "because racism" agenda. Too bad, you seemed like a cool dude in the beginning
In my freshman year of college in the early 1960s, my Economics 101 professor had us read a typical Keynesian book on Economics and "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman. We had to write a term paper based on the two divergent theories. I was amazed at how many of my classmates were taken in by "Capitalism and Freedom". But then again, I was one of the financially poorest students at the school and if I hadn't received a scholarship, I wouldn't have been able to attend.
The cold war was intentionally framed as Capitalism vs Communism instead of Democracy vs Dictatorship for this exact reason. To make the citizens of the US support the industrial elites over themselves. While also letting the government fall to corruption. If all the propaganda was Democracy vs Dictatorship, then we all would have been more focused on citizen involvement in politics and more willing to accept a broader mixed economy style with more social programs, nationalized industry, and regulations on industry.
@@5353Jumper The USSR and its allies never claimed to have achieved communism, they were still in the transitional phase between capitalism and communism known as socialism in Marxist theory.
@@SCHMALLZZZ and they got closest during Gorbachev's term but really the Russian Oligarchy never really tried anything but Capitalism. They only used socialism/communism as an excuse to seize property and wealth from the citizens and give it to the oligarchy. Which is why the whole cold war Capitalism vs Communism rhetoric is total BS. Propaganda used by the elite of both sides to steal wealth and power from the citizens. The real war was supposed to the Democracy vs Dictatorship, and though the pro democracy side did have some initial success the last 3 decades have seen the Dictatorship side winning. We may lose the cold war soon of we cannot get our citizens to see through the BS.
The US doesn't have a "free market" of health care so you got that wrong. It's heavily regulated and what you see now is at least a clear picture of what would happen if they did a takeover and monopolized that sector. At the very least fix the price issues before nationalizing it (which probably won't happen btw). The US had most of it's growth at the beginning of the 20th century, not the middle of it, although for the latter that growth itself came from Truman rolling back on the New Deal which had basically choked the US economy. The very rich didn't pay 90% as they have many ways of not paying taxes which continues to today. Just look at how the %of tax receipts has stayed constant. Also Friedman was a Keynesian, as the Monetarist school would still fall under that umbrella, he even said "We're all Keynesians now" when Nixon put the final nail in the coffin of the gold standard. Keynes himself was still a proponent of markets and gov intervention in times of crisis (which only prolongs the recession), but his followers (give them an inch and they'll take a mile) made sure to have the gov intervene throughout the economy boom and bust cycles making it much worse than it should be (what would typically be subjected to one sector now involves the entire economy) Reagan was also very interventionist in that basically like every president he did the opposite of what he claimed to stand on (just look at his totally "free market" approach to trading steel with Korea for example). All of this being said the crisis of today along with tech changes and automation will most likely lead to a form of UBI and a massive change in the entertainment business too. The rich will still not pay taxes though as the easiest thing to buy is a politician especially the ones who claim to be "for the people" ie Warren and AOC.
I called this. Shapiro always struck me as aping Friedman's speaking style. Also, just read Capitalism and Freedom, just try to imagine "Privatized National Parks".
Deregulation makes all of us less safe. Trickle down economics makes most of us poorer while greatly enriching a few. Benefits have fallen, wages have stagnated, costs have skyrocketed, and wealth inequality is worse than at any other time in human history. Success to Milton Friedman and his cabal is giving more to the haves and less to the have nots.
New boss same as the old boss. But you have to remember who the lawmakers were at the time. Laws were being fillibustered do you remember that? The president does run the administration and the three letter agencies but laws need to be written and passed. Remember what those proposed laws were? Oh yeah...health care for everybody. Who stalled it? Oh yeah the career republicans that are still there today. Remember any of that at all?
@@OceanusHelios Obama increased military spending over his tenure-Reagan would have done the same. Obama bailed out the banks and the not the people during the recession-Reagan would have done the same. Obama settled for subsidies with a private health care system-Reagan would have done the same. Obama cut food stamps benefit, do you really need to be reminded about Reagan’s position/actual actions on this issue? They are the same, take the current President’s words as proof because he said it himself “Nothing will fundamentally change”.
@@Tlacaelel1124 When the Republicans embraced theocracy and racism with their southern strategy the plutocrats that left as a result ended up Democrats. After the Republican party gutted the traditional democracts for a few decades these plutocrats ended up in charge. Now both parties are run by plutocrats who primarily differ on social/cultural issues.
@@peacefulpotato1836 That’s why Reagan listened to Bankers and Wall Street-not some economic intellectual that actually had principles. Flawed in my opinion but he could defend it.
Trickle down economics is such a childish take on economic policy lmfao. I remember my dad preaching to me about it as a kid, but it never works in practice.
On the face of it the last 50 years all politicians have pushed for globalization. Obama himself pushed for employing cheap Chinese rather than being like Trump who fought to increase tariffs or bring jobs back to the U.S. Trump did things bad but he actually tried something different. But most economists will say ya offshoring and employing millions of Chinese workers was deflationary. It let the bush and Obama etc print money and Chinese bought the debt and it was deflationary employing cheap Chinese. It destroyed rural America but it made cheaper tvs etc.
