Despite its dismal track record, collectivism continues to hold appeal for some. Professor Friedman discusses this dynamic. www.LibertyPen.com Source: Milton Friedman Speaks Buy it: www.freetochoose.net/store/pro...
+alex cody Given the general reception of those who lean toward the right on college campuses, I think one could imagine a scenario in which Friedman is unwelcome.
This man guidance made my country Chile to go from one of the poorest countries in South America, into one of the wealthiest in the region. For ever thankful.
I think the people of Chile had enough brains to deal with his guidance. For example the same guidance from "Chicago's boys" has failed in post-soviet Russia.
+Jordan Rodriguez Friedman emphasized theory because once put in practice as public policy his Monetarist doctrine spelled disaster. So as your post suggests, we are more likely to understand Milton's aims if we ignore the theory and mute the chatter long enough to examine the results. What we live by are dreams but what we are forced to live with are the social outcomes of those dreams.
+gary morrison Sorry dude, but "The PURSUIT of happiness" is not the same thing as "GUARANTEED happiness". Many achieve their dreams, many not. I can live with the fact that at least I tried my best. Or like Michael Jordan once said, "I can accept failure, what I cannot accept is not trying". The individual is the only one who can lift himself out of poverty and the ineptitude of government has shown how to make a living out of the poverty victimization card.
It was a function of Government investment that enabled the economic boom following WWll. This period of general prosperity however, was coming to an end by the early-70's. The outcome of the Reagan/ Friedman economic policy regime that followed nearly a decade later, resulted in massive unemployment, exacerbated by high interest rates, ultimately leading to the deindustrialization and disastrous financialization of the US economy Another outcome of Milton Friedman's advice, was the imposition of neoclassical and free-market policies that produced a massive transfer of wealth from the lower third of income distribution, primarily into the pockets of the wealthiest 5% at the top, The so called "free-market" proved just another kind of planned economy calling for an authoritarian takeover of public institutions and the redistribution of public assets into the hands of the already rich; See also, Austerity, Privatization, Structural Adjustment and Friedman/ Pinochet.
gary morrison "decade later, resulted in massive unemployment, " yes it did! 1980 unemployment was 7.1% Reagan left office in 1989 unemployment was at 5.3% Dec 1980: Interest Rates hit record high of 21.5% Reagan entered office in 1981 he left with rates at 10% "a massive transfer of wealth from the lower third of income distribution," So they taxed the lower class and gave welfare checks, food stamps, to the rich? Or did the whole economy expand? Yep, the economy grew. It is almost always the correct move to limit government institutions in favor of private ones. Also, if you want dictators, there is no faster way to get one than to have a socialist leader.
People say Capitalism is inequality, when we saw the facts in Soviet Union, where you could buy a car, if you were a member of Polit-Bureau. If you weren't, you had no chance. That was a fact and this is almost the same in the post Soviet Republics unfortunatelly.
Just because there was inequality in Soviet-style authoritarian socialism doesn't mean there isn't inequality in US-style free-market capitalism. Can you buy sports cars? Can you buy mansions in opulent areas? Are there things you cannot buy due to your current position in the social heirachy? If the answer to those questions is yes, as I suspect it is, then inequality exists between the ruling elite and the common man, I.e, you. This inequality isn't deserved, either. CEOs often earn over 300 times the annual wages of their employees. Can you honestly say that those CEOs do 300 times the work, work 300 times a hard, and, therefore, deserve their bat concentration of wealth? Social and economic inequality under both socialism and capitalism must be expunged.
+SirSoz I see, you can't get absolutely equal community, which has everything it needs. Yeah even today is inequality according to worth and wealth, but each people are equal under the law in USA. We can't provide an ideal conditions in society, but there were and here are still people in my country, who don't care about any tenets, break the law and do everything they want, cause of their posts. That's what i don't like in communism and this sittuation is an echo of communism.
+SirSoz how many people are capable of doing that CEOs job? and now many are for doing the regular jobs? what is the responsibility in the hands of the CEO? so, YOUR values are ought to judge the value of someone's work? that's a very dictatorial idea in principle. socialism is definitely the ideology of envy disguised in fairness.
@@SirSoz value is not work done its the use of that work as the freely expressed individuals who part with their property in the form of money determine it to be.
06:52 The crowd is clueless and does not get the joke about every men getting one house and then two men who will be his servants. That would yield something infinitely repetitive and therefore unsustainable.
You know, over the years I wanted to DISLIKE Professor Friedmans Ideology. That is when I realized I Couldn't HANDLE THE TRUTH! I saw myself as a " seeker of the Truth " when in reality I am simply Petty. This is an Absolutely Intriguing topic.....Thank you for Posting this Video. 🎸💚
Loving the doublethink there. Liberalism, a political ideology enforcing individualism, has been said to "make selfishness a virtue". How is working for the benefit of others, and others working for the benefit of you, selfish? It is selflessness in its most pure form. Individualism is the selfish one - you benefit at the cost of everyone else. There can only ever be a minority of winners, and a majority of losers. This would be fine if the system was meritocratic, but as it isn't (due to greater opportunities that the rich possess). So a disproportionate amount of people who do not deserve to get ahead succeed, and the people at the bottom, already disadvantaged, fall deep into poverty. Tell me, which belief is the selfish one.
+SirSoz Voluntarily working for the benefits of others is great and certainly not selfish. This is what every person has to do in capitalism - in order for you to eat, *others* have to benefit first by buying your stuff. Forcing other people to work for your benefit, and believing you have the right to force them just because you were born (which is the essence of any redistribution scheme, including socialism) is very selfish.
+SirSoz ''Liberalism, a political ideology enforcing individualism, has been said to "make selfishness a virtue". '' The key word is enforcing. It's the opposite of liberalism.
+SirSoz "you benefit at the cost of everyone else" This is collectivism you're describing here. You think people in labor camps work for their own benefit?
+rtcell +rtcell Capitalism doesn't involve the voluntary working for others. Capitalism has created a situation, through the unequal possession of wealth and private ownership of the means of production, where the poor must sell the only valuable thing they possess, their labour power, in order to avoid starvation. It is the equivalent of a doctor poisoning a man and his family, and offering them a cure for £1 million a pill. Is this a fair choice? No, of course not, because the situation has been created, and the choice is constrained by the threat of death. Choices cannot be free and voluntary if they are constrained by the threat of death, if a choice isn't made. To participate in such a system by paying workers as little as possible so that your rate of profit can rise (which all capitalists must do to remain competitive), IS selfish, as you are putting your own personal happiness above the happiness of multitudes.
His interpretation of the relationship between system and morality stun me. I have never thought things in this way. System has no meaning, moral values are subjective, it is only through free market to decide the collective moral standards of the majority..... My god, that shapes my new world......
It's up to the people from their cultural values through the politicans and the legal system/legislature that shapes collective moral standards not by implementing economically ignorant, totalitarian ,pseudo-scientific ,moralizing ideology aka socialism and fascism.
just like the Freud death wish example, another analogy I think of when comparing capitalism to socialism is : you have to love (aka take care of) yourself as an individual before you can even think of being ABLE to help the next person. This is why charitable giving and generosity flow much more freely in a capitalist nation than one of collectivism.
If only people would take what they need, that theory works. But people at the top take much more than they need. Charity tries to ameliorate the need at the bottom, but there's just too much greed. Reminds me of The Platform.
We live by are dreams but what we are forced to live with are the social outcomes of those dreams. RESULTS! Not intentions, you are correct and Milton thanks large!
By listening to Friedman, and Sowell, it seems clear that economics at its heart, is a factor of what actually works. It’s dispassionate. One must look at the results.
The problem now is that the average american thinks Sweden is socialist and america is very capitalist.. Sweden is actually more capitalist than the US, but has a larger welfare state. The US is a mixed market economy. We are burdened with social programs, government regulations, and corporatism. This is not true capitalism. So the perception of capitalism is obfuscated to Americans. We think our problems stem from capitalism when it actually stems from government intervention.
One of the great books on this issue is the book "Out of Step," the autobiography of the individualist philosopher Frank Chodorov. What makes Chodorov's analysis superior to that of von Mises and others who consider themselves libertarians is his recognition that there is a just distinction between those produced, tangible assets rightfully considered to be private property versus natural assets the individual control over which is rightfully considered a monopolistic privilege requiring a payment of the market-determined rent to the community. Friedman came close to Chodorov's position by embracing the idea that public revenue is best raised by the taxation of land values, a nod to Henry George.
"I used to believe in socialism, i still do. But socialism is an ideal, we can't have it in the real world until we are rich enough to afford it". This was a genius statement I must say. Living in Sweden I can see this in front of my own eyes. Sweden has had its good times with socialism(they did afford it), but because of it, the glory days are soon over.
You know what strikes me watching this? That Friedman would NOT be allowed to have speeches or conduct Q and A at most college campuses today. How sad is that? This crowd is listening intently and politely. Today there would be someone screaming and cursing and pointing and whatever other sad, childish display. I now think colleges should be shut down and should be started anew with strict guidelines of no safe spaces and dissent and discussion is our LIFEBLOOD.
@MrSnipsnip007 I apologize for the confusion. Note, I argued that it takes four to six years to be FULLY realized. While other economists would certainly agree that some actions can begin having an impact immediately, none would accept the premise (inherent in the data set broken up by presidential terms) that the full effect is immediate (particularly when their first budget doesn't even begin til October).
Yeah, right! :-D ... everyone gets poorer and poorer according to this distributiom model. Nothing can get bigger by divison. End result? Starvation, misery and death. Always. #DeathCult
He's absolutely right about socialism. Its a disaster. But his logic is beyond atrocious. He first suggests that morality is separate to systems of governing. Then at the end, he suggests that capitalism leads to justice. Dumbest fucking logic I've ever heard. Wars for oil profit, Panama Canal, Suez canal, shipping wars, etc. Maybe there is more to this specific speech, but most of his writings are about how great capitalism is. He had it right in the beginning...(Its not great, and its not evil). I would add that its as good as the people it contains.
The free market, when actually free does not cause the crimes you have mentioned. Only when big, corrupt government is involved do those series of events occur.
Slap Stick Economic systems aren't responsible for those crimes, Statist imperialist and political and monetary greed are, states are very greedy whether operating under a capitalist or socialist or whatever economic system, anything that is done through force is not capitalism
+Slap Stick When is the last time a corporation started a war for profit? Last time I checked corporations do not have standing armies. Only governments can start wars for profit
So laughably pathetic arguments...Less inequality in a society where the 1% owns 50% of the wealth and comparing that to Soviet politburo limos.But this was in the 70s when after years of Keynesian policies(brought about by the existence of the USSR)people were in fact able to believe that capitalism might have something good in store for the "ordinary man".Today the students would be throwing tomatoes at him.
@Friedstuffsable You are right about one thing - US public education is a perfect example of collectivism which is why it is such an unmitigated disaster, why even more socialistic countries adopt school choice and why private schools with entirely comparable student bodies outperform public schools by several orders of magnitude and at lower cost.
i was interested in using a clip from this vid in a video I am making. I must have all clips used cataloged with rights and credits. Do you know who owns this footage?
Atlas Shrugged has a similar idea: that the core motivation or collectivism is a morality of death. I think it's a cool dramatic idea. But the explanation seems simpler to me, too. I agree with Friedman, even though by another route.
Collectivism when initiated by the government almost always resorts in coercion which robs individuals of their free-will and saps human dignity. When individuals work together in corporations they do so out of their own choice. However collectivism brought about by the government leaves people with no choice. You also have to remember that although those business may have to work together collectively, they nonetheless aim to shine as individuals in their own right.
@dissimulate666 and by the way, how can labor provide materials (alone)? If I work on a piece of animal manure, will it turn into a DVD player? will it turn into gold? better yet, can I create something out of nothing? I may dig diamonds and that makes diamonds useful provided I am DIGGING diamonds and not my neighbor's bones. labor is essential to production but you need something to work into, you need TO KNOW how to work on somethings AND there must be a demand for a product.
@authorityblues How is a person who stocks shelves have an equal say to the CEO of that enterprise, how is that supposed to work? Now, i think i might know your rationale here. This cooperative's mutual cooperation would help the CEO too in his own endeavour. Do you think this is the right way?
He says morals are an individualistic idea. I disagree. We are taught our morals by our parents, by the societies we live in and by the people and ideas we “collectively” surround ourselves with.
I'd argue that your morals aren't taught, but are shaped by all those things, including the biggest of all: personal experience. You may think that your morals are identical to the people you adopted them from, but it may be in fact that your morals only borrow from those people, but have their own personal nuances that separate them from your parents and many others, making them more individualistic in nature. Ultimately, you will always believe in what you want to believe, and that will always differ from person to person. No two people will agree on everything morally. Conversely, some moral values do exist and are shared in the better interest of humanity as a collective, but if you dig deeper into the details of how one person thinks or feels about a plethora of issues, my argument still stands that you would have a hard time finding two people that will give identical responses to all of it.
The major discovery of Western philosophy in the moral arena was that the individual is the ultimate minority and as such is most deserving of protection against the collective of literally everyone else. First among those moral principles is property rights beginning with yourself, self-ownership. This is why the West came up with ideas like individual rights, the subordination of the government to the governed, governance by consent (democracy and the social contract), innocent until proven guilty etc. and other cultures did not. The simple fact is that basic principles like these led to the freedom that produced the most prosperous nations on earth with the greatest drive towards the protection of the individual the world has ever seen. The West has certainly not been perfect in implementing this but put into perspective it is doing well enough and consistently improving to the point that the violations that do happen seem absolutely outrageous even when they are usually minor compared to much of what happens elsewhere. You are actually using the word collective incorrectly here. Societies are, of course, groups of people taking part in the same social game. Their morals tend to broadly align, as is necessary for the society to be coherent at all, but the more nuance and specifics are added to the case being discussed the more controversy arises, people are not identical in their moral outlook and that is true whether the morals of the society are individualistic or collectivist. When we talk about collectivist or individualistic morals we are talking about the character of the moral systems. Individualistic systems begin with the idea of sovereign individuals and self-ownership and proceed from there, collectivist morals are based on social or economic class, caste or any number of other potential defining characteristics or combinations thereof. In collectivist systems the rules that apply to an individual are determined by the various characteristics possessed by that individual and which group associations come with those and therefore the prescriptions provided may or may not be appropriate to the situation. More critically, the group to which the individuals belong are all that really matters, the individuals do not. Individuals are therefore disposable as the loss of some members of a group will not destroy that group. There are times where collectivism is necessary (war for example, preservation of the society must come before preservation of the individuals), but without exception collectivist approaches to morality result in far more catastrophic results for the individuals than individualistic approaches. This is why systems like communism (collectivist on the basis of class), or fascism (collectivist on the basis of nationality) have such poor records when it comes to the treatment of their people. The mass deaths that result from the implementation of systems like those is a consequence of the collectivist nature of the system, not an anomaly within it. Western moral philosophy is absolutely individualistic in character. So essentially what Friedman is saying here is that collectivist societies are morally bankrupt.
With a constitution set in place would that not counter act majority rule? And the economic calculation problem is only a valid argument if a state would mimic the rate of consumption of the U.S. for example.
@shining3210 Small uncertainties in the system can produce total different outcomes. Which means it's chaotic by definition. Therefore I don't understand how a command economy can work.
I apologize for the confusion. While the discussion is certainly relevant (and vindicates my point) at the global "world" level, when I said "in the real world" I was speaking in terms of factual accuracy, not in an attempt to take the issue beyond the UK (where, again, my point remains valid).
Please correct me if I'm mistaken. But wouldn't a "central planned communist government" be a description of the economics and a "democratic republic" be that of social representation? Having said this, wouldn't it be possible to have an anarchist/communist democracy much like parts of Spain during the civil war/revolution?
1921,the program moved to the Commerce Department,where Secretary Herbert Hoover soon became the nation's foremost promoter of home ownership."Maintaining a high percentage of individual home owners is one of the searching tests that now challenge the people of the United States" Hoover wrote in 1925-"The present large proportion of families that own their own homes is both the foundation of a sound economic and social systemand a guarantee that our society will continue to develop rationally"
@dissimulate666 "there was no labor". technically there was no time w/o labor but that is also the time when there is no demand or want. probably you can figure out when was that.
@dissimulate666 I am talking about his exploitation theory" not "marxism" as a whole. that specific theory in which you assertion about "capitalists gain profits by exploitation" rests. so I just find it invalid.
In the USA, socialism became the equivalent of moderate policies in the rest of the world. Things like social democracy and keynesianism are regarded as socialism in the USA.
@dissimulate666 following your argument; Actors who are highly paid are EXPLOITED by the producers, Highly paid Lawyers are Exploited by the owner of the law firm and other highly paid professionals(workers) are exploited by their employers. I never denied the "value of labor", I just pointed out that labor is just one of the things in the equation, therefore discrediting the LTV and ET. Can things materialize with only labor? or is it because a you worked on something it auto..cont.
Can intellectuals answer me this question? If the economy is chaotic system, how can you control it? Even linear physical systems can be difficult to understand and control.
I clicked on this to get more ideas on collectivism to apply it to the digital collectivist idea. The beginning of his recorded/edited lecture can be directed to a broader audience especially talking about Freud and the death wish. The rest can be accessed through history books.
***** Witness bedrock understanding: For this, we're likely going to need some degree of "re-education", which sounds ominous enough, but is a gross understatement for what it will provide. This part is the difficult part that most people have a hard time grasping. Not for lack of intelligence, but for the previous and intentional mis-education that they were socialized to. "Once you are wet, it's so hard to get dry..." We may not be clear to what your socialization has been, but we'll find out soon enough, won't we? We are going to cover some pretty dense material here, so be ready for some double takes. The learning curve is steep from here on out, so hold on tight: We are going to be using source/proxy constructs whose actual and root definitions are not reflected in standard dictionaries. This has been done to purposely mislead you and I from understanding them accurately. We're going to give the accurate and root definitions at their actual source. When you finally come to see it, it's going to peel away so much for you to find and understand. The best thing is- unfortunately- is that almost everyone can see it if they are willing to just look. It's available to everyone to hear if they be still enough to listen. The current and standard dictionary definitions are proxy and are thus not direct to their source. This is done to keep us from noticing critical items of interest that would render the current State power constructs vulnerable. If one is not sure what they are dealing with, then how can they grasp and articulate it to begin with? So if you really come to understand this, we can then begin to spread this power to change the world for the betterment of everyone. Please be still enough to see and hear this: Individualism vs. Collectivism: Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well? As mentioned, most standard dictionaries intentionally don't include source definitions and instead cite spun political versions as source material when that is simply not so. Let's use the proxy that proceeds the following: (1) Individualism/ Collectivism, (2)Conservative/Liberal, (3) Capitalist/Socialist/Communist, and (4) various parties. (0) Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well?" This precedes any political definition as it encompasses every action in our daily lives regardless of politics. This is fundamental source code. Politics come after. With this, one can see that no matter the race, culture, religion, country or economic/political construct, Individualism (Conservative) is only tolerant of it's likeness where as Collectivism (Liberal) is more or less tolerant of everyone. Individualism- To the Individual self (in) Collectivism- To the Collective (out) Conservative- To Conserve or retain-to the self (in) Liberal- as in Liberty and freedom-for all (out) It is undeniable that Conservative is a proxy to Individualism where as Liberal is a proxy to Collectivism. As Conservatives/Individualists are only tolerant of those of their likeness, they tend to project their Individual ideals over others. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and so on did just that. If it seems confusing, then you are confusing proxies. One can have a Conservative in charge of a Collectivist Construct (Hitler) just a one can have a Liberal in charge of an Individualist Construct (Bill Clinton). But Collectivist constructs only work when Individuals refrain from from projecting their Individual ideals over a Collective whole. Collectivism relies on all Individual participant, not just one Individual projection over a Collective whole. Individualism is the collection of power and energy into densities or Individual points- like money and power, or Dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. where as Collectivism is the dispersal of a power and energy amongst the Collective, like social aid programs or civil rights. What has been kept hidden from everyone are some key fundamental points. There are 3 things in the known universe that mirror pure Individualism: Quantum Singularities(black holes), Cancer and literally Nothing. They all project over a collective, divide and consume, and are only tolerant of their likeness. Every thing else in the known Universe is Collective based. Even families are Collectives, until they are not... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were all Conservatives who helmed Collectivist ideological constructs and intentionally drove those Liberal/Collectivist constructs into the ground to make way for the one that most closely models Individualism: Conservative Capitalism. You thought that Conservative helmed Communism or Socialism was bad- Just wait until The Beast is throned in Conservative Capitalism. It is said that the third time's a real charm ;) You see, money is not the "root" of all evil as it is just a proxy for the source: Individualism. Money does like to collect into densities... Manson, Brevik, McVeigh, and Osama bin Laden all projected their separate, individual ideologies over a Collective to a devastating effect. They were all Conservatives of their respective ideologies. You see, Liberal/Collectivist Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists don't butcher themselves or others, but Conservative ones do. Individualism is the source behind every civilian on civilian crime or mass murder with the "Me First-@#$% Them" mentality it propagates. As we know, Densities gravitate to wards each other and interact until joined or dispersed. Individualism is the source of all sin as corruption begins with the Individual self. People discuss Individual rights sure enough, but if they are given to everyone, then they are actually Collective rights. The reason that no one has ever found solutions is that we've been given proxy definitions and not source definitions. We've all been given a bad map starting in grade school. like this guy in the video here... What I gave voice to cannot be refuted, but only hidden from view for a time. It will always resurface, as it is here and now. It is an ideal, a living construct and likely the strongest and most elegant one we know of. It is powerful and undeniable. And everywhere in our lives. And it has many Names... We've all been raised on stories of the good guy vs. the bad guy. Notice anything interesting about that? In every instance, the good guy sacrificed their individual self for the protection of the Collective whole where as the bad guy was willing to hurt others in projecting their ideals over the Collective? In every story we grew up with, it has been ever present. Even Christ and The Bible are Liberal Collectivist constructs. No where is that shown greater than where Christ sacrificed his Individual self to save the Collective whole. "Where two or more gather in My Name" is a Collective notion, not an Individual one. This is quite telling and gives strong formulaic reference to His existence, even if only as a mental construct or a parable. It's in the source code we discuss here. What is described so far is simply a source definition. Individualism vs. Collectivism: Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well?
The banana industry was never going to disappear. As you have said, the consumer, Australians, paid more for bananas to subsidies the industry. I gave that example because even you cannot deny that somebody was forced to pay more so that somebody else could earn money. In addition, the people who benefited most were not the farmers who were affected by the cyclone, but the farmers who weren't affected. They continued operating, whilst benefiting from government restrictions and lack of supply.
It's not my fault that you won't talk to yourself (though calling yourself a clown may be a bit harsh). Nothing I've said is factually assailable or even controversial economically. The text of Glass-Steagall itself supports my position as does the economic analysis avaiable (even the nature and quality of those who claim otherwise). Nothing I've presented is supposition (not even the analysis of the S&L crisis). I am not responsible for your ignorance.
@FletchforFreedom It is simply not, and putting the dots together should not be difficult as I have listed comprehensively the names of the chief landowners. The aristocrats below are not 'aristocrats' either - they are blue blooded families that go back a long way. How many acres does Rausing own in the UK by the way?
@dissimulate666 On "pay". My bad, I kinda confused it with demand. since it would imply that jobs exist simply because of the wages(not ur historical "assertions, I will explain later). but that is not the case. jobs (eventually labor) exist because of demand. So the real point is that labor (and production) exist because there is a demand to satisfy. Be it the need of the primitive man to eat and maybe have some shelter for himself or the demand of the modern man for..cont..
@Friedstuffsable It's been many years since I tayght for a semester. As many can attest, I have always been willing to anser economics questions at no charge when tme permits.
To clarify, a co-op is a specific type of collective. In our example, the factory may be a production co-op. The difference between a collective and a company is that in a collective, the people on the shop floor can fire the president. The advantage of a collective is that it allows people of little wealth to pool resources in order to become competitive in the market place, and thus gain wealth.
@Zoravar0v0 a CEO is the general manager of all operations. This takes a certain type of person but doesn't necessarily deserve more money. The point is that a workers value should be measured by his knowledge and dedication to a specific job. His value shouldn't be based on a title so therefore all employees who use their talents with equal dedication should all be paid equally. It's a win win for everyone.
But to save some time, here are some quotes from Riley 2013. "The major macroeconomic effects of protection on a domestic economy are negative" "resources are misallocated because they are directed away from efficient and competitive industries" "Capital resources are also wasted, and the returns to all the factors of production will necessarily be lower" - (in other words, inevitably be lower)
@CollectivePreference I'm not talking about China. And no, they weren't miserable failures - I recently read in the newspaper recently that GDP growth in Sovjet was an average of about 2% pr. year. Many centrally planned projects succeeded in providing clothes, food, housing materials etc. What do you think was produced in those factories that were sold off to Oligarks far below their value under the Yeltsin "anarchy period"? P.S. Look up nestle powdered milk
@daPlumber702 Mr. Friedman is the one claiming "expertise". If you disagree with me on some specific point I'd be glad to engage in a lively debate, but not personal attacks.
@authorityblues Let me make it simple for you by equal ability i mean by their equal contributions & why i said sarcastically a cooperative enterprise does not exist is because the ones that do exist might be equally owned but not equally controlled. The reason why they exist is because people have contradictory illusions.
