Yes, but ironically enough, Friedrich Hölderlin was supported by the state in his later years. Check his page on Wikipedia. Under the section "Later life and death" it says at the beginning of the second paragraph "Hölderlin's own family did not financially support him but petitioned successfully for his upkeep to be paid by the state."
@@peacheskong2245 No, what I meant is to have ideological consistency. Not to say or believe in one thing, and then do the complete opposite. Not preach for low taxes and to be free from the state, and then rely on the state for help. Avoiding hypocrisy as much as possible.
@@Xtermy But if the state is going to tax the hell out of you, you might as well get it back. It doesn't imply in any way that you believe the govt SHOULD be taxing the hell out of you, just that you ought to get your money's worth
I agree with you but I will say that the most common misconception on economics by those who are not in the know is that economics are some how extremely complicated and that you must need some kind of advanced degree to understand basic economics which. That just isn't true, at least when it comes to actual BASIC ECONOMICS and that is the best form of economic policy so it seems. I think a other issue with economics is one I can only speak of from my own personal experience which is when anyone first attempted to teach me economics I was in 7th grade in a civics class. I am 47 years old now and enjoy discussions about economics and learning about economics but when I was in 7th grade I thought that was the most agonizingly boring thing I ever heard of. I get that you have to start somewhere and we should all learn at least basic economics at some point during our schooling but I don't know trying to teach a very young kid basic eco nomics is practical. Is it? Perhaps that is a subject better suited for a junior or senior in high school than a younger kid but it should be taught non the less thar way perhaps our politicians would get away with much less mischief economically and monetarily.
He was really good at fooling people. He was oversimplifying the concept of where the money comes from. He's completely ignoring the fact that there's a huge difference between putting a tax burden on a collective (a corporation) versus shifting it to individuals. An individual is responsible for paying taxes after they've already agreed to work for a certain amount. A corporation who is responsible for taxes has to make a decision about whether they will lower worker pay or take the pay from somewhere else such as stock dividends or CEO pay. This is very much a matter of how the working class is treated. It's insane to give corporations total control over where their profits go and at the same time not expect them to pay any taxes. That ultimately hurts workers.
@@Triynko He simplifies it yes. Why? Because he is talking to a room full of economic illiterates with an attention span of 3 minutes. He was a world reknowned Nobel prize economist. I think I will take what he says over a random fruitcake on social media.
@@jacksonneedham2792 I thought we were done wishing people dead when they are bold enough to have an opinion? Isn't that the entire political agenda today? Don't hate people for their ideals?
Milton Friedman, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Freidrick Hayak and a few others are the economists that we need many more of in this country and politicians who would learn from them.
Not sure what country you're talking about, but in the UK Margaret Thatcher applied the neo-liberalism of Hayek and the following, majoritive Conservative government has adopted these principles... 40 years on, our economy is a shit show. We have some of the worst inequality in all of Europe, our health system is degrading, our companies have been bought out by foreign investors, our land sold off to foreign investors... all because of free market thinking. Highest bidder wins. Look at France, Germany, very left leaning but demonstrate better quality of life for all, greater GDP output, stronger financially. Be careful what you wish for, regulation protects the innocent from the greedy. Intrinsically we all are.
@@abcd-by6rw Complete BS The UK is highly regulated & taxed GDP per Capita is lower in France & Germany than Australia & United States which have less regulation & Taxes Keep drinking your Lefty cool aid bud
Me for Ukraine currently. Unwillingly, “imposed on the worker.” I formerly thought “the world is a stage, all wars are bankers wares, etc.” were just a little bit too nutty for me. The propaganda is thick.
I'm an economics major and I'm almost done my program. It's interesting to learn what different opinions different professors have on economics. The majority of my professors teach Keynesian economics but sometimes the empirical evidence shows how a certain policy can hinder one person and make another person better off. I don't see how these professors think that policies are the key to economic efficiency!? I haven't had a pure socialist professor most of them favor mixed economies.
Philosophically it's easy to argue for a totally free open laissez-faire economic system, but I think it's ultimately the lazy way to view economic policy. We have to take the middle ground hence a mixed economy. I guess the question is one of degree.
@@superdog797 Certain basic free market principles must still be worked into a mixed economy, like they are in Europe. Even countries that are frequently referred to as "socialist", such as Norway or Sweden, operate on a capitalist system that is primarily focused on ease of doing business. It is entirely possible to have a highly productive mixed economy, but only if you have a wise government that is focused purely on investing in productive programs and understands that taxes and bureaucracy surrounding business must be kept to an absolute minimum in order to maximize economic activity.
That's because in science and especially engineering mixed solutions are often the best. Your computer uses a mixed approach to security, using two different safety modes on your processor. It uses two, three or even four types of data storage in a hierarchy rather than one for everything; it tries a mix of cryptographic protocols to secure your home banking rather than relying on one. It's not that crazy to think that mixing would also work well in economics.
@@SaintNyx Calling European countries "Socialist" is basically your politicians calling them "naughty" as "being socialst" has these connotations in the US through their years of capitalist propaganda. How else could these politicians explain how a country can have a population with much less poverty, a higher standard of living and higher satisfaction while having a lower GDP and lower average net income.
Pretty dead on when it comes to corporate tax, especially today.. seeing that we've now overshadowed Japan as having the highest corporate tax in the world. The expense is already being passed down in to the employer and consumer in the form of higher prices and reduced employment. Not sure why many think the stick is going to be more effective than the carrot when it comes to corporations "paying their dues".
USA - Forbes.com US multinationals have a corporate income tax rate of 35%. But after deductions, the median US domestic company pays 23%, while the MNCs pay 28%. That makes the US No. 2 when it comes to be soaked by its own federal government. - www.forbes.com/pictures/fidj45hkdk/usa/ Are you listening to radio shows that are making you upset or angry? Just wondering.
Gabriel Nepenthe It depends on whether you are measuring just the corporate tax rate itself, or the collective, added fees on top of the actual tax rate percentage. For example, if you add up the other fees and liabilities a U.S. corporation has to pay(which includes payroll taxes, mandated insurance, property taxes, and various added state corporate taxes), the U.S. is closer to around 40%, even with the exemptions(which of course, costs a firm a full time accountant to even navigate though.) lol. Nah, Gabe. I'm always calm and cool. I'm just very skeptical of all these repeated assertions I keep seeing on various populist memes and articles from both parties regarding rhetoric that supposed to convince me to hate and despite certain things. I'm still not entirely sure why I'm supposed to hate the Koch brothers, for example.. or Capitalism itself for that matter. It's all pretty knee-jerk reactionary to me.. but you'll usually find me browsing videos on economics because it's a side interest of mine. Chicago, Austrian School, Keynesian, etc. I find economic history extremely fascinating.
Fair enough. I'll liken it to my side interest of morphology, or the study of how languages change over time. Does it do anything for me personally? Not really, but it's something I have a passionate interest in. :)
***** OK then. :) Elucidate me. I mean this is pretty necro as Rodney and I had already moved on, late 2014, but if you have something to add, please let me know what I'm missing.
You have a strong dislike for the lower class? Why? I have a lot of respect for everyone. I have no respect for people who on welfare or social security or medicare, but people who work hard their entire lives to give their children a better future so that some of them may become people like you? How can you dislike this? A huge majority of lower class people are like this. They work hard so their children can become something of themselves. That is respectable by any means.
Exactly. We already have the power to act, speak or think as we wish. You may not have the ability to GET what you want because of your current financial situation, but you have the power to act in a way that will eventually enable you to. The government is not supposed to GIVE you everything you WANT. I want the power to turn invisible; if this is not provided for me, am I lacking in freedom? Even if I am, who is supposed to provide that "freedom" for me?
When things are good Libertarians love to whine about taxes only to come begging the government for subsides when things are turning bad. They basically are trying to socialize losses and privatize earnings.
There's no free lunch. Anyone who thinks there is, has spent to much time listening to college professors .....or sitting in the public library contemplating their own existentialism. Lol.. With the exception of natural law, all other knowledge takes effort and energy to transmit. There are thousands of people working to enable you to use the Internet. Obviously advances in technology has lowerd the cost of some things, but while lower , it's generally more complex and certainly not free. I'd recommend getting out a bit and see how many people it takes to provide you with the basics you need to even survive .. things like electricity, drinking water, sewer, food etc.... it's a ton of work to keep your sorry ass alive in a free world. If you can comprehend that , then logically you should be able to understand that unless you're contributing, you're draining the system. Maybe I'm getting a little to abstract .... back to work for me. Thank you Milton Friedman!
Too many people just trying to implement a very abstract and flawed system that has kill more than 80 million people around the world. You barely see academics doing business and providing jobs.
My exact first line of logic when dealing with political activism. The way to improve the system is for more people to contribute and fewer to suck it dry. Produce more and/or consume less.
You feel that way about all forms of socialism ? Like the military industrial complex, about the billions in subsidies rich people and corporations get? You won’t draw social security when it’s time will you?
Exactly. It’s simple that government services have to be paid by someone. Yet, socialists use mental gymnastics to claim that the government can magically spawn in stuff.
1:43 - Corporations don't pay taxes people do. 5:07 - he who writes the check doesn't pay, the company dies. Makes sense. I just watched a video where he argued that the great depression was a result of the federal reserve not printing enough money, here he criticizes it as taxes and taxation without representation (another BS). Which one is it Mr Friedman?
I never understood how people can believe that you can be free and democratic by turning over all your money to government and trusting them to distribute it fairly.
This is basic economics, incidence of tax. I learnt this on secondary school. The fact that governments still make foolish decisions of this nature blows my mind.
I heard that by Canada (that's where I live unfortunately but it could be worse) not deregulating our banks we did not have a banking crisis like America. so I can say I am greatful for that regulation for example
Ever heard of China? It’s screwed the the game theory! No economist imagined singular nation the size of a continent and half the population of the rrest of the world to do this! So yes in doses protectionist approaches reset bad Marxism
@@eddiemac-637 In Mr. Friedman's own words, capitalism is not the only ingredient needed for prosperity, it's FREEDOM that must come first. China's authoritarian regime has always had trouble with democracy and civil rights, and nowadays that's starting to become a big issue for Xi Jinping who is strongly threatening Chinese free market and people's civil rights as of November 2021. I'm sure New Zealand is a better example of free market capitalism.
@BorreLira. China doesn't have a "free market". They never have Free market means non-state market. Non public sector control market. The CCP is the public sector/state. And it has ultimate control. Milton Friedman's 100% pro capitalism stance IS is freedom stance. You just don't understand what Capitalism actually is. China is socialist, top down centralized control of the economy. More "open" than they used to be, but still extremely regulated and controlled by the CCP. That, is NOT capitalism (free market). That is NOT the PRIVATE control of the means of production (capitalism.) China PUBLICLY controls the means of production. Capitalism, by definition IS freedom. China is NOT capitalism.
Unfortunately much of Friedmans genius is lost today on many people who think that human nature has become exceedingly complex in the last hundred years & that our new found intellectualism can solve these problems if we outsource them to conditioned experts. Meanwhile, a large part of my wife's job as a nurse has been to remind older ladies not to wipe back to front...
@@johannussteinmarch6403Friedman believed the opposite. Human nature is to control things. The only way to remove control and power from certain individuals and government is to decentralize that system and let people communicate locally.
Exactly! Everyone's is, and this is why I don't want the government or anyone else dictating FOR ME what I "should" or "shouldn't" do. Let me decide. Friedman answered this question which I will pose to you now: "If I see a man drowning in a river, does society have the right to force me to save him?"
New "taxing ideas" are often focusing on decoupling the link to e.g. worker's wages of taxes. Two "strategies" I see forming are either a wealth tax or a general income tax. Both have the same principle of no longer distinguishing between the different modes of wealth acquirement, but rather looking at the total income/wealth. The challenges have shifted from cost coupling to the flight of capital across geographical borders. An equally big challenge is the loss of jobs through automation, which several studies show are no longer compensated at the same (or higher) rate by the creation of new jobs. We will have structurally less work for more people, forcing us to think in altogether new ways of how to organize our economy. Do we lower working hours each year so we maintain levels of employment, or do we shift towards things like basic income in order to secure that enough people can not only keep themselves alive, but can partake in the economy. If no one has money, nothing is sold either. The biggest challenge we face is rebuilding democracy through increasing transparency and citizen involvement. We have a lot of human capital that's not being used.
Isn't the assumption that 6:45 too precipitous? He is assuming that printing more money doesn't influence the total amount of goods and services produced, which is something that, at the very least, is worth some consideration. One could argue that the government could spend as much as it wants asking for goods and services from various private businesses (need a hospital? Here's some freshly printed money. Need a new bridge, road or school? Have some dollar bills.) injecting more money into the system but increasing the total amount of goods being produced, which should offset inflation leaving the country one hospital, one road, one school richer. What am I missing here?
Because goverment spending means they have to take your income first - taking capital out of the economy then reallocate it in artificial ways. Your method did not work in Germany after WWI or Venezuela. They did precisely what you suggest
@@valvodka It doesn't seem to me that government spending means that. Government spending is different from private spending precisely because government can print money, whereas people outside the government can't. It works exactly the other way around, first the government print money and distribute it via different means, then it takes some of it back with taxation.
The government already does all that but only on things they deem important. There’s a reason that the US defence spending is more than the rest of the world’s spending combined. And guess whose taxes and government printed money pay for it all without rampant inflation every year for decades?
Without the money supply linked to the production of goods and services, it's value falters one way or the other. When the printing of money exceeds production, the value of the dollar declines while the cost of goods and services increases (inflation). If the production of goods and services out paces the printing of money, then the value of the dollar increases, thus pricing people out of the market (recession). The money supply obeys the very same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity.
@@jayejaycurry5485 The people on the left (who are in love with Keynes and think Friedman is a cold blooded monster) can make this argument: when the government wants a good or a service they print dollars and buy that good or service, injecting the "fresh" money into the economy. This DOES devalue the currency for a while (because of the law of supply and demand, as you pointed out), but keynesians argue that this injection also stimulates the production of other goods and services, which, in due time, more than offsets the initial devaluation. I don't like this reasoning but I cannot find out exactly where it is wrong. One could always invoke the Occam's razor and call it a day but I believe there is a more substantial objection to be made, I just can't figure out which one
The welfare state did little to rectify the situation in the 1940s, It was the supply of arms and wartime activities which allowed us to produce our way out of the depression. Even the 2008 financial collapse is the result of government's incorrect intervention. Government can have a place in the market, but whether we find them in the correct place is another story entirely.
I have the book handy. First, a little context: Viktor Frankl is a psychiatrist who spent time in a concentration camp, where he basically discovered his branch of pscyhology. His discovery was basically that you could virtually everything stripped from you: your job, your possessions, your education, your opportunities, etc. But the one thing that was yours: your thoughts, your inner experience. No one can "take" that from you, you can only give it up. That is your freedom.
I never went to college to learn economics, I learned by working and listening. my folks, never went to high school but ran a business, they learned at the school of hard knocks, they made money but they had to spend money to do it and had to make sacrifices. something most people are not willing to do today. Play Monopoly , you will learn something.
@ Liberty AboveAllElse: You don't allow people to reply to you directly hence this post. You said: "The only way to get everyone paying taxes is to eliminate the income tax altogether and go with a pure consumption tax. The more you spend, the more you pay." Income tax (assuming the tax collector does its job) is guaranteed to hit the rich's pockets. Consumption tax, on the other hand, is guaranteed to burden the poor and middle class the most. And on top, consumption may carry hidden tax: Inflation. You might as well have said: Cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes for everyone else! That's the way to the jungle, not to civilization.
Agreed, it should replace all other sales taxes. But VAT is typically much less than corp tax rate, so it would not replace that. Beside, govmt needs indirect taxes, like corp tax, so the population do not see how much govmt costs them.
I run a small chemical manufacturing plant in America and I sell everything I can make, with my customers paying higher to prioritize their order. So I suppose it depends on the industry. Industrial production in the US hasn't really changed much in the last 20 years. But the number of people employed in manufacturing has dropped by over 50%. Automation is the only thing keeping American manufacturing profitable.
I don't study economics but I do study electrical & computer engineering. In today's modern society, the idea of "free lunch" is already technically possible. This is how we get "free lunch". Everything in the universe is energy. Everything in our modern society today was possible because of energy, mainly from oil. Agriculture, production, distribution & cooking food all requires energy. If we had unlimited or abundant energy ultimately translates into "free lunch" for everyone. We already have the technology to harvest alternative renewable energies such as solar, wind and geothermal which can supply humanity unlimited energy forever. The only thing getting in our way is politics, corporations, outdated economics systems such as as capitalism/socialism, as well as a massive uneducated population in the field of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math), many of whom still reject science. The question should not be "do we have the money to build this energy infrastructure?", but rather "do we have the resources and human ingenuity to build it?". The answer is YES WE DO. How about we stop wasting our resources to build war planes, tanks, missiles, bombs, and other military crap, and start putting our resources in new energy technologies that will bring a new golden age in humanity.
+Super Capacitor No. Someone, some where will have to pay money or render services to others in order to obtain those resources. Still, there is no free lunch.
+Daniel E Take the commodities out of the stock market and here is your free lunch. Otherwise, make war to whoever doesn't agree with with you. That works too.
+Super Capacitor If you really studied engineering then you should know that we lack the storage capacity in our batteries needed to make solar and wind power viable. The cost is high because you need to use coal and oil to mine and produce the materials for these products and then once produced it isnt certain whether or not they can generate enough resources in order to start the cycle over again (just look at germany). How bout we stop wasting money on solar subsidies and start putting that money towards research and development so that one day the common man may actually sustain himself with renewable energy? Because as it stands today... even with the solar industry being heavily subsidized its still very expensive to get started and usually only rich people do it.
Yeah I agree storage is still a major issue and a bottleneck. Yes we need more research and development, definitely. But hopefully we can improve battery/storage technology quicker and nanotechnology seems promising.
+Super Capacitor Gotta have a military. Renewable sources are still hot garbage and grossly inefficient. Sure it will get better in time but green technology is anything but green and it sure as hell isn't free. The wind farms in Riverside county are the heaviest polluters in the region.
Of course corporations are people. That’s the entire reason they were created. Otherwise if a business went under the owners went to the poor house and the children starved.
“One day I was bushwhacking through the harsh Australian outback. Calluses, cuts and sweat building up on my aching skin… All of the sudden, breaking into a meadow I saw it!!! A huge table with a cornucopia of entrees and wonderful finger foods! At the foot of this table I observed a sign that simply read: ‘free lunch’”… said no one ever!
They’re called underground chickens, aka rabbits, and they *are* a free lunch! Great roasted over hot coals with a thyme, Dijon mustard and honey glaze and served with Warrigal greens and Jerusalem artichokes.
The problem is we aren't able to come up with a civilized society hence we are threatening eachh other with force so that some services can be provided.
It's a tautological reasoning don't you think? The problem isn't the taxes. But the services don't return. For the services to return they WANT more taxes. So on and so forth. Friedman talks about this several times.
It's actually both. Taxes increase prices and leaves less goods on the table (think of the sales tax you always pay for the groceries). And then the "service" that the tax supposedly pays for is garbage. I bet a privatized DMV would be MUCH faster than a state-controlled DMV.
This "free lunch myth" thing can be used to say that "Nothing is free" which is wrong. Who pays for the car? mathematics, engineering, musical instruments, 3D printers? Nobody paid for that. We got it for free by just being born into the world. “We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest.” -Buckminster Fuller
I'm talking about knowledge. Of course a car itself is not free but the concept of a car, you get for free by being born in the 21st century. You also get modern sewage systems, medicine and so on. There's probably only a few hundred people who comprise the modern technological world. We are standing on the shoulders of giants :)
***** But we make it worthwhile for those giants to do what they do. Many people are generally willing to slave away at some 9 to 5 job even if they find it boring, because it's more convenient to them to be apart of a developed system than it is to go out and become an entrepreneur. Technically I know I could do something greater with my life than working boring jobs to pay for my habits, but I'm too lazy to leave my job. It's this mass of people that SUPPORT and create incentive for the very advances you are referring to.
It could also be food subsidies. Farmers are of course handed very generous subsidies to over produce. Often freemarket mechanisms made it more profitable for farmers to under-produce to push up prices.
The tax is pushed onto the worker? Sometimes - other times, if the company is already paying its workers as little as it reasonably can (for minimum wage or competitive retention reasons), and much of the company’s profits are taken by the company’s largest shareholders to the tune of millions of dollars, the people that will take the hit are the shareholders, who are not always the workers.
If you listen to him at 5:12 you'll see that he refers to taxing profits too and that's what I was addressing. As for the second lie, with a horizontal or almost horizontal supply curve (as is the case in some recessions) increase in demand out of money printing will result in no or almost no price rise. The point is: we need not assume the amount of goods will remain the same, since producers can react at an increase in demand by increasing production. He's concealing this crucial fact.
To elaborate, I would NOT consider "struggling to get by" suffering at all. I've been living like that for years. It's tough, but it's a challenge, and I ENJOY figuring out how I'm going to overcome it. That's my perspective. The only state I can think of that I would consider suffering is being oppressed, not being challenged. If it's personal, how can you authentically say whether large groups of people are experiencing it?
So true. The idea that people have that government can provide what everyone needs at no cost and unable to affect anyone. Not only is unrealistic but ignorant in that it shows how some people think they can get whatever they want with no consequence
Well, if you don't then you die because you can't afford the bill to the hospital so yeah. I would rather be "ignorant" and "unrealistic" than fuckin die.
I had no question to begin with. The user I replied to was basically making the argument that a construction worker and a lawyer are equals(when that is clearly not the case). My argument was that pay comes down to the level of responsibility. Your claim that "(there are) people who prefer to make $10 an hour as opposed to study" only proves my point even further.
The answer to your question is purely supply and demand. There are fewer people willing to go to college for 4 years, law school for 3, and go through the rigor of passing the bar, so few lawyers are available to take those jobs and higher prices must be paid to entice them to go through that preparation. I worked in construction before I even had a high school diploma, and knew people who preferred to make $10-15/hr. rather than sacrifice and study their way through college.
Exactly! Who to trust is a hard thing. That doesn't make it bad and - I'm going in circles, I know - hard does not mean "should not have to do". Life is hard, decisions are hard, that's no reason to ask government to do all the decision making for you, as an individual. Make some choices, make some mistakes, get unlucky sometimes... that's life! It sucks, sure, but I'd rather have a hard life than a restricted one. That's what humanity has been fighting to get away from for centuries.
It should be pointed out that Stiglitz moves away from GE when he addresses Barone, hence the reply by professor Roemer to stiglitz. hence, the Roemer critique.
Inner experience: basically how you interpret phenomenon that is occuring externally. In other words, how things make you feel, why you think things happened, what you believe about what happened (or is happening or will happen), your attitude, etc. For that, I would read up on REBT or RBT (Rational Behavior Therapy or Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy). Essentially something occurs, you believe something about it and it shapes you. The belief part is your "inner experience".
There he who does business AND avoids the tax. This enables him to offer a product or service at a lower cost. Of course, there are many takers who prefer his lower price. This is a MAJOR problem with taxation.
We can agree on that point as well: I'm against subsidies. I may have said I'm for it earlier, if I did that was an error. I'm against subsidies as much as I am against regulations.
That's a complex question, but to answer simply: our own hardwiring. At a certain age we become cognizant of the feelings of others, we develop empathy. We know that certain things that bother us also bother others, and that's why we should not do them. Unless you are psychologically ill, you share this with others, and it provides a foundation for moral principles which we share.
What!?! No Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy? Next, you'll be telling me that there is no Easter Bunny. All taxes on businesses not paid by the employees are paid by the customers.
Monetary policy can indeed be used to increase employment. Money doesn't act as a set of enunciative sentences of the kind 'there is so much value in the markets' but as a set of commandments, as production orders. Money is a hormone. Every time you buy, you send the productive apparatus an order to produce. Also, by lowering rates, monetary easing increases investment, hence capital stock, hence the ratio capital/worker, hence labor marginal productivity; hence wages.
i like standards and compatibility: i noticed home theatres in a box dont have compatible speaker wires with one another. theres all kinds of different standards and it can cost more money.
Exactly! It is OUR job as citizens to persuade our fellow citizens of what we feel is right/wrong, like the two of us are doing now. THIS is democracy in action, and I think it's beautiful (no, I'm not exaggerating). This is freedom: you have a voice, I have a voice, and everyone else can join in, or ignore us, or be persuaded or remain obstinate in their beliefs. It's our choice, which means it's our responsibility! What more could you ask for?
In a nutshell, Libertarianism is the philosophy that individual freedom is the most important, not freedom of the many and oppression of the few (which is, in a nutshell, democracy). ok thats really interesting. i think libertarianism is quite radical then (although i can b quite radical myself calling for an alternative to capitalism through cooperatives).
exactly, not having money can make your life harder and it typically does. and the definition of freedom covers such hinderances: 1.The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. so if u are hindered u have less power and therefore less free but still free.
Yes, I have seen that particular distortion before. In fact, while the US expressed no opinion with regard to the border dispute and its resolution, the US, specifically Glaspie) had already asked about the massing of troops (with concern and disapproval). No such "green light" was given. the US position was no more than that it had no opinion with regard to what the final resolution was, NOT that it was okay to invade. CONTEXT is everything.
In Canada GST is not on food, but it is on non-necessary food like candy bars. In the UK, where VAT is much higher rate, but is zero on other necessities like kids clothes, and zero on books (based on encouraging education). Its a fair tax. Low income people spend most of their income on necessities, and as they become better off they gradually spend more on taxed discretionary/luxury items.
Correct, VAT is a sales tax (more precisely a PURCHASE TAX, it taxes consumer purchases) However, the number of steps in the supply chain is not relevant. Each step in chain charges customers VAT, and pays VAT to suppliers, then pays NETT DIFFERENCE to govmt as "collected tax". The nett result is VAT is collected for the "value added" (profit) for each step. The consumer ends up paying VAT one time on the entire cost, only because they will not be selling it again. Its very efficient.
You are born with that: your own personality, your own belief systems, etc. You can conform it to what you are being persuaded to believe, or you can retain it or alter it at your will. I believe the only purpose government serves is to provide an environment in which that can be cultivated and developed. This is not an "easy" environment, as there are competing beliefs and opinions, but it is a just one, in my opinion.
VAT in the US would not have to be as high as 30%. If it was it could probably replace income tax entirely, most people would think thats a good thing. VAT has the advantage of being very efficient to collect. The collection is done by the retailer.
Absolutely, businesses tax citizens every time you buy its products priced at 100% above its value, and every time you work for minimum wage. You are getting taxed.
Mike Blain A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.
Mike Blain Very simple. The master pays as little as he can in order to increase his profit while taxing your time, body, and metal capacities. On top of that you (the worker) have to pay taxes on your meager salary, and the master pays economists like Friedman to cut taxes for them, and also pays propaganda like this to have followers like you to believe in his nonsense to blame only the government for the hardships of the lower class.
jorgipogi So you think taxing your mental capacity is the same as paying tax. I'm afraid that kinda erodes your credibility. You are taxing my patience already. Give me the form to fill out for a refund.
It could work if it replaced sales tax, since that is in essence what it is -- a national sales tax. The VAT is collected at each step in the manufacturing process, not just the end product. If it were enacted, I would be paying the VAT based on $1/gallon produced. (I own a chemical manufacturing plant). My customers make other products and they would have to do the same. The retail price would start to rise rapidly if not offset with something else.
All that matters is productivity and innovation. This is where prosperity and advancement in the standard of living comes from. Money is just something we agree to use to exchange the output of productivity.
So again, they have choices: 1. Pay for it anyway, because it's more convenient than looking elsewhere and it's healthier. 2. Pay for the cheaper stuff, because it's more affordable and more convenient. 3. Make some effort and find out where they can find more affordable and healthier stuff. It seems that the mentality towards #3 is "but that's haaaaard." Which leads me back to what I said about suffering and hardship (vs. restriction).
Exactly. It's hard to know when people are honest and when they have an agenda. Sometimes it's both! Life is not a cut-and-dry thing that can be "fixed." It's a complex thing to slowly be pieced together and figured out. Who is "we"? Everybody? I hardly doubt that. Some people think it's bad, some don't care, some aren't sure, some think it's good. Why not let each individual decide for him or herself what to do about it? Why ask government to make one decision for everybody?
My deeper point is that we seem to have become entitled instead of appreciative: In order to GET education or employment SOMEONE has to PROVIDE it for you. It is not a "god given" right, because unless someone creates it, you can't have it. The drive for autonomy, on the other hand, is a natural right. Whether or not it is provided you are going to seek it and you can have it. Others can only make it more difficult for you.
I´m not talking about upper middle class USA. I´m talking about global economic and ecologic systems. I´m also not defending more government. Agree with you on that.
It would be nice to hear him follow his distinction on corporations vs. persons to its obvious conclusion: if they won't be taxed like persons and they can't be held accountable like persons, corporations should not have rights like persons.
2. Having less money does not make you less "free". It simply makes life harder. You can still take time off without money. You can still travel to Europe either by saving money and going LATER, finding a cheaper way or coming up with a creative solution on your own. Just because you cannot have/do something RIGHT THIS VERY INSTANCE does not make you less free.
“What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it heaven.”
Friedrich Hölderlin
Beastly quote. Going in my archives
Yes, but ironically enough, Friedrich Hölderlin was supported by the state in his later years.
Check his page on Wikipedia. Under the section "Later life and death" it says at the beginning of the second paragraph "Hölderlin's own family did not financially support him but petitioned successfully for his upkeep to be paid by the state."
@@Xtermy gotya make it work to your own advantage
@@peacheskong2245 No, what I meant is to have ideological consistency. Not to say or believe in one thing, and then do the complete opposite. Not preach for low taxes and to be free from the state, and then rely on the state for help. Avoiding hypocrisy as much as possible.
@@Xtermy But if the state is going to tax the hell out of you, you might as well get it back. It doesn't imply in any way that you believe the govt SHOULD be taxing the hell out of you, just that you ought to get your money's worth
Milton Friedman was a deep and sophisticated economic theorist who had the ability to explain concepts simply and concisely.
I agree with you but I will say that the most common misconception on economics by those who are not in the know is that economics are some how extremely complicated and that you must need some kind of advanced degree to understand basic economics which. That just isn't true, at least when it comes to actual BASIC ECONOMICS and that is the best form of economic policy so it seems.
I think a other issue with economics is one I can only speak of from my own personal experience which is when anyone first attempted to teach me economics I was in 7th grade in a civics class. I am 47 years old now and enjoy discussions about economics and learning about economics but when I was in 7th grade I thought that was the most agonizingly boring thing I ever heard of. I get that you have to start somewhere and we should all learn at least basic economics at some point during our schooling but I don't know trying to teach a very young kid basic eco nomics is practical. Is it? Perhaps that is a subject better suited for a junior or senior in high school than a younger kid but it should be taught non the less thar way perhaps our politicians would get away with much less mischief economically and monetarily.
Because he knew what he was what he was saying.
He was really good at fooling people. He was oversimplifying the concept of where the money comes from. He's completely ignoring the fact that there's a huge difference between putting a tax burden on a collective (a corporation) versus shifting it to individuals. An individual is responsible for paying taxes after they've already agreed to work for a certain amount. A corporation who is responsible for taxes has to make a decision about whether they will lower worker pay or take the pay from somewhere else such as stock dividends or CEO pay. This is very much a matter of how the working class is treated. It's insane to give corporations total control over where their profits go and at the same time not expect them to pay any taxes. That ultimately hurts workers.
@@Triynko He simplifies it yes. Why? Because he is talking to a room full of economic illiterates with an attention span of 3 minutes. He was a world reknowned Nobel prize economist. I think I will take what he says over a random fruitcake on social media.
@@Triynko someone didn't watch the video.
Please wake up Milton! We need you more than ever!
@@jacksonneedham2792 I resurrected him. He wants to talk to you...
@@jacksonneedham2792 I thought we were done wishing people dead when they are bold enough to have an opinion? Isn't that the entire political agenda today? Don't hate people for their ideals?
@@jasonebat1074 liberal dingleberries just hate other people
Milton Friedman wake up Milton Friedman wake up
@@sirbin2000 Truer words were - probably spoken at some point - but these are pretty damn close to the best!
No Santa Claus? Damn it Friedman!
I'm glad to have learned from watching videos from Milton Friedman.
thumbs up if you're watching this from marist econ class
Milton Friedman, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Freidrick Hayak and a few others are the economists that we need many more of in this country and politicians who would learn from them.
Not sure what country you're talking about, but in the UK Margaret Thatcher applied the neo-liberalism of Hayek and the following, majoritive Conservative government has adopted these principles... 40 years on, our economy is a shit show. We have some of the worst inequality in all of Europe, our health system is degrading, our companies have been bought out by foreign investors, our land sold off to foreign investors... all because of free market thinking. Highest bidder wins. Look at France, Germany, very left leaning but demonstrate better quality of life for all, greater GDP output, stronger financially. Be careful what you wish for, regulation protects the innocent from the greedy. Intrinsically we all are.
@@abcd-by6rw
Complete BS
The UK is highly regulated & taxed
GDP per Capita is lower in France & Germany than Australia & United States which have less regulation & Taxes
Keep drinking your Lefty cool aid bud
Amazing.... I can't listen to this man talk enough!
He talks a lot and says nothin.
@earllsimmins9373 yeah I'll be honest I've gone through a lot of growth in the last 6 years and I don't really stand by this comment anymore 😄
He is so clear and easy to understand. I find myself having a "duh" moment every time I think he will be challenged!
Somebody show this to Jeremy Corbyn
He won't listen.
Jeremy Corbyn, and politicians like him, are not interested in Truth, but Sounds-Good Propaganda and the suckers who believe it.
There is no free lunch there always someone paying for it.
ruclips.net/video/isYHxSxDIQ8/видео.html, people must realise that when they are forced to pay for school lunches.
Me for Ukraine currently. Unwillingly, “imposed on the worker.”
I formerly thought “the world is a stage, all wars are bankers wares, etc.” were just a little bit too nutty for me. The propaganda is thick.
I'm an economics major and I'm almost done my program. It's interesting to learn what different opinions different professors have on economics. The majority of my professors teach Keynesian economics but sometimes the empirical evidence shows how a certain policy can hinder one person and make another person better off. I don't see how these professors think that policies are the key to economic efficiency!? I haven't had a pure socialist professor most of them favor mixed economies.
Same here
Philosophically it's easy to argue for a totally free open laissez-faire economic system, but I think it's ultimately the lazy way to view economic policy. We have to take the middle ground hence a mixed economy. I guess the question is one of degree.
@@superdog797 Certain basic free market principles must still be worked into a mixed economy, like they are in Europe. Even countries that are frequently referred to as "socialist", such as Norway or Sweden, operate on a capitalist system that is primarily focused on ease of doing business.
It is entirely possible to have a highly productive mixed economy, but only if you have a wise government that is focused purely on investing in productive programs and understands that taxes and bureaucracy surrounding business must be kept to an absolute minimum in order to maximize economic activity.
That's because in science and especially engineering mixed solutions are often the best. Your computer uses a mixed approach to security, using two different safety modes on your processor. It uses two, three or even four types of data storage in a hierarchy rather than one for everything; it tries a mix of cryptographic protocols to secure your home banking rather than relying on one.
It's not that crazy to think that mixing would also work well in economics.
@@SaintNyx Calling European countries "Socialist" is basically your politicians calling them "naughty" as "being socialst" has these connotations in the US through their years of capitalist propaganda. How else could these politicians explain how a country can have a population with much less poverty, a higher standard of living and higher satisfaction while having a lower GDP and lower average net income.
Pretty dead on when it comes to corporate tax, especially today.. seeing that we've now overshadowed Japan as having the highest corporate tax in the world. The expense is already being passed down in to the employer and consumer in the form of higher prices and reduced employment. Not sure why many think the stick is going to be more effective than the carrot when it comes to corporations "paying their dues".
USA - Forbes.com
US multinationals have a corporate income tax rate of 35%. But after deductions, the median US domestic company pays 23%, while the MNCs pay 28%. That makes the US No. 2 when it comes to be soaked by its own federal government.
- www.forbes.com/pictures/fidj45hkdk/usa/
Are you listening to radio shows that are making you upset or angry? Just wondering.
Gabriel Nepenthe It depends on whether you are measuring just the corporate tax rate itself, or the collective, added fees on top of the actual tax rate percentage. For example, if you add up the other fees and liabilities a U.S. corporation has to pay(which includes payroll taxes, mandated insurance, property taxes, and various added state corporate taxes), the U.S. is closer to around 40%, even with the exemptions(which of course, costs a firm a full time accountant to even navigate though.)
lol. Nah, Gabe. I'm always calm and cool. I'm just very skeptical of all these repeated assertions I keep seeing on various populist memes and articles from both parties regarding rhetoric that supposed to convince me to hate and despite certain things. I'm still not entirely sure why I'm supposed to hate the Koch brothers, for example.. or Capitalism itself for that matter. It's all pretty knee-jerk reactionary to me.. but you'll usually find me browsing videos on economics because it's a side interest of mine. Chicago, Austrian School, Keynesian, etc. I find economic history extremely fascinating.
Fair enough. I'll liken it to my side interest of morphology, or the study of how languages change over time. Does it do anything for me personally? Not really, but it's something I have a passionate interest in. :)
Gabriel Nepenthe Whatever gives you an added, different lens to look at the observable world is never a waste of your time.
***** OK then. :) Elucidate me. I mean this is pretty necro as Rodney and I had already moved on, late 2014, but if you have something to add, please let me know what I'm missing.
You have a strong dislike for the lower class? Why? I have a lot of respect for everyone. I have no respect for people who on welfare or social security or medicare, but people who work hard their entire lives to give their children a better future so that some of them may become people like you? How can you dislike this? A huge majority of lower class people are like this. They work hard so their children can become something of themselves. That is respectable by any means.
Exactly. We already have the power to act, speak or think as we wish.
You may not have the ability to GET what you want because of your current financial situation, but you have the power to act in a way that will eventually enable you to. The government is not supposed to GIVE you everything you WANT. I want the power to turn invisible; if this is not provided for me, am I lacking in freedom? Even if I am, who is supposed to provide that "freedom" for me?
"No businesses pay tax but people pay taxes" so true
Its ironic that Libertarians get blamed for trying to STOP ever-increasing debt, as if the ever-increasing debt is not the problem.
When things are good Libertarians love to whine about taxes only to come begging the government for subsides when things are turning bad. They basically are trying to socialize losses and privatize earnings.
There's no free lunch. Anyone who thinks there is, has spent to much time listening to college professors .....or sitting in the public library contemplating their own existentialism. Lol.. With the exception of natural law, all other knowledge takes effort and energy to transmit. There are thousands of people working to enable you to use the Internet. Obviously advances in technology has lowerd the cost of some things, but while lower , it's generally more complex and certainly not free. I'd recommend getting out a bit and see how many people it takes to provide you with the basics you need to even survive .. things like electricity, drinking water, sewer, food etc.... it's a ton of work to keep your sorry ass alive in a free world. If you can comprehend that , then logically you should be able to understand that unless you're contributing, you're draining the system. Maybe I'm getting a little to abstract .... back to work for me. Thank you Milton Friedman!
Too many people just trying to implement a very abstract and flawed system that has kill more than 80 million people around the world. You barely see academics doing business and providing jobs.
My exact first line of logic when dealing with political activism. The way to improve the system is for more people to contribute and fewer to suck it dry. Produce more and/or consume less.
Such a simple economic concept- that even my adolescent child understands.
Yet Socialists still can’t wrap their minds around it
You feel that way about all forms of socialism ? Like the military industrial complex, about the billions in subsidies rich people and corporations get? You won’t draw social security when it’s time will you?
@@marquiswilliams6082 if you want to talk about something else than OP, then make your own OP.
And yet people in countries in Europe with a lot of social policies are on average happier, less poor and have a higher standard of living.
@@cyan_oxy6734 Hilarious, please see the European healthcare crisis and why most rich europeans fly to the states for higher quality healthcare.
Exactly. It’s simple that government services have to be paid by someone. Yet, socialists use mental gymnastics to claim that the government can magically spawn in stuff.
Taxation via inflation is about to go into hyperdrive!
1:43 - Corporations don't pay taxes people do. 5:07 - he who writes the check doesn't pay, the company dies. Makes sense.
I just watched a video where he argued that the great depression was a result of the federal reserve not printing enough money, here he criticizes it as taxes and taxation without representation (another BS). Which one is it Mr Friedman?
He clears away the miasma of mystification and leaves in its wake - clarity.
I never understood how people can believe that you can be free and democratic by turning over all your money to government and trusting them to distribute it fairly.
This is basic economics, incidence of tax. I learnt this on secondary school.
The fact that governments still make foolish decisions of this nature blows my mind.
Either governments are incompetent, or they are evil. Same result.
I heard that by Canada (that's where I live unfortunately but it could be worse) not deregulating our banks we did not have a banking crisis like America. so I can say I am greatful for that regulation for example
Brilliant man, I miss his insight. We need that most right now.
Every time I feel overwhelmed by the protectionist policies of my Country's government, I come here to look for some shelter on Mr. Friedman thoughts.
Ever heard of China? It’s screwed the the game theory! No economist imagined singular nation the size of a continent and half the population of the rrest of the world to do this! So yes in doses protectionist approaches reset bad Marxism
@@eddiemac-637 In Mr. Friedman's own words, capitalism is not the only ingredient needed for prosperity, it's FREEDOM that must come first. China's authoritarian regime has always had trouble with democracy and civil rights, and nowadays that's starting to become a big issue for Xi Jinping who is strongly threatening Chinese free market and people's civil rights as of November 2021. I'm sure New Zealand is a better example of free market capitalism.
@BorreLira. China doesn't have a "free market". They never have
Free market means non-state market. Non public sector control market. The CCP is the public sector/state. And it has ultimate control. Milton Friedman's 100% pro capitalism stance IS is freedom stance. You just don't understand what Capitalism actually is. China is socialist, top down centralized control of the economy. More "open" than they used to be, but still extremely regulated and controlled by the CCP. That, is NOT capitalism (free market). That is NOT the PRIVATE control of the means of production (capitalism.) China PUBLICLY controls the means of production. Capitalism, by definition IS freedom. China is NOT capitalism.
Unfortunately much of Friedmans genius is lost today on many people who think that human nature has become exceedingly complex in the last hundred years & that our new found intellectualism can solve these problems if we outsource them to conditioned experts.
Meanwhile, a large part of my wife's job as a nurse has been to remind older ladies not to wipe back to front...
@@johannussteinmarch6403Friedman believed the opposite. Human nature is to control things. The only way to remove control and power from certain individuals and government is to decentralize that system and let people communicate locally.
He makes a lot of sense to self-directing folks who want government out of their way. Not so much to those seeking to live as dependent children.
Exactly! Everyone's is, and this is why I don't want the government or anyone else dictating FOR ME what I "should" or "shouldn't" do. Let me decide.
Friedman answered this question which I will pose to you now: "If I see a man drowning in a river, does society have the right to force me to save him?"
Taxation through inflation.
inflation is a form of taxation? was that his point at the end?
yes.
God I so wish this guy could have educated the entire government of South Africa!
no santa clause??? wait a minute
New "taxing ideas" are often focusing on decoupling the link to e.g. worker's wages of taxes. Two "strategies" I see forming are either a wealth tax or a general income tax. Both have the same principle of no longer distinguishing between the different modes of wealth acquirement, but rather looking at the total income/wealth. The challenges have shifted from cost coupling to the flight of capital across geographical borders.
An equally big challenge is the loss of jobs through automation, which several studies show are no longer compensated at the same (or higher) rate by the creation of new jobs. We will have structurally less work for more people, forcing us to think in altogether new ways of how to organize our economy. Do we lower working hours each year so we maintain levels of employment, or do we shift towards things like basic income in order to secure that enough people can not only keep themselves alive, but can partake in the economy. If no one has money, nothing is sold either.
The biggest challenge we face is rebuilding democracy through increasing transparency and citizen involvement. We have a lot of human capital that's not being used.
Love all the negative comments by folks most likely who cannot balance their own check book. Ha!!!!!
whether they can balance a check book or not doesn't change the fact or whose paying the bills for other people (distribution of wealth)
You cannot dodge the cold logic of economics - and there's no magic money-tree to shake to get something for nothing!
Isn't the assumption that 6:45 too precipitous? He is assuming that printing more money doesn't influence the total amount of goods and services produced, which is something that, at the very least, is worth some consideration. One could argue that the government could spend as much as it wants asking for goods and services from various private businesses (need a hospital? Here's some freshly printed money. Need a new bridge, road or school? Have some dollar bills.) injecting more money into the system but increasing the total amount of goods being produced, which should offset inflation leaving the country one hospital, one road, one school richer. What am I missing here?
Because goverment spending means they have to take your income first - taking capital out of the economy then reallocate it in artificial ways. Your method did not work in Germany after WWI or Venezuela. They did precisely what you suggest
@@valvodka It doesn't seem to me that government spending means that. Government spending is different from private spending precisely because government can print money, whereas people outside the government can't. It works exactly the other way around, first the government print money and distribute it via different means, then it takes some of it back with taxation.
The government already does all that but only on things they deem important. There’s a reason that the US defence spending is more than the rest of the world’s spending combined. And guess whose taxes and government printed money pay for it all without rampant inflation every year for decades?
Without the money supply linked to the production of goods and services, it's value falters one way or the other. When the printing of money exceeds production, the value of the dollar declines while the cost of goods and services increases (inflation). If the production of goods and services out paces the printing of money, then the value of the dollar increases, thus pricing people out of the market (recession). The money supply obeys the very same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity.
@@jayejaycurry5485 The people on the left (who are in love with Keynes and think Friedman is a cold blooded monster) can make this argument: when the government wants a good or a service they print dollars and buy that good or service, injecting the "fresh" money into the economy.
This DOES devalue the currency for a while (because of the law of supply and demand, as you pointed out), but keynesians argue that this injection also stimulates the production of other goods and services, which, in due time, more than offsets the initial devaluation.
I don't like this reasoning but I cannot find out exactly where it is wrong. One could always invoke the Occam's razor and call it a day but I believe there is a more substantial objection to be made, I just can't figure out which one
The welfare state did little to rectify the situation in the 1940s, It was the supply of arms and wartime activities which allowed us to produce our way out of the depression. Even the 2008 financial collapse is the result of government's incorrect intervention. Government can have a place in the market, but whether we find them in the correct place is another story entirely.
I have the book handy. First, a little context: Viktor Frankl is a psychiatrist who spent time in a concentration camp, where he basically discovered his branch of pscyhology. His discovery was basically that you could virtually everything stripped from you: your job, your possessions, your education, your opportunities, etc. But the one thing that was yours: your thoughts, your inner experience. No one can "take" that from you, you can only give it up. That is your freedom.
Milton is the bomb lol
Taxes should be optional.
Weren't you listening? There is no such thing as a free lunch. Likewise, there is no such thing as free government.
This is really deep stuff.
Inflation is a form of taxation. Very well said! Yet at this day and age hardly anyone understands this. So sad…
1:31 is that you can create money at no cost that if you turn the printing press if 1:35 you produce those greenbacks
and euro's.
I never went to college to learn economics, I learned by working and listening. my folks, never went to high school but ran a business, they learned at the school of hard knocks, they made money but they had to spend money to do it and had to make sacrifices. something most people are not willing to do today. Play Monopoly , you will learn something.
2:40 - Sanders 2020 lol
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@ Liberty AboveAllElse: You don't allow people to reply to you directly hence this post.
You said: "The only way to get everyone paying taxes is to eliminate the income tax altogether and go with a pure consumption tax. The more you spend, the more you pay."
Income tax (assuming the tax collector does its job) is guaranteed to hit the rich's pockets. Consumption tax, on the other hand, is guaranteed to burden the poor and middle class the most. And on top, consumption may carry hidden tax: Inflation.
You might as well have said: Cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes for everyone else!
That's the way to the jungle, not to civilization.
Agreed, it should replace all other sales taxes. But VAT is typically much less than corp tax rate, so it would not replace that.
Beside, govmt needs indirect taxes, like corp tax, so the population do not see how much govmt costs them.
I run a small chemical manufacturing plant in America and I sell everything I can make, with my customers paying higher to prioritize their order. So I suppose it depends on the industry. Industrial production in the US hasn't really changed much in the last 20 years. But the number of people employed in manufacturing has dropped by over 50%. Automation is the only thing keeping American manufacturing profitable.
I don't study economics but I do study electrical & computer engineering.
In today's modern society, the idea of "free lunch" is already technically possible. This is how we get "free lunch".
Everything in the universe is energy. Everything in our modern society today was possible because of energy, mainly from oil.
Agriculture, production, distribution & cooking food all requires energy.
If we had unlimited or abundant energy ultimately translates into "free lunch" for everyone.
We already have the technology to harvest alternative renewable energies such as solar, wind and geothermal which can supply humanity unlimited energy forever.
The only thing getting in our way is politics, corporations, outdated economics systems such as as capitalism/socialism,
as well as a massive uneducated population in the field of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math), many of whom still reject science.
The question should not be "do we have the money to build this energy infrastructure?", but rather "do we have the resources and human ingenuity to build it?".
The answer is YES WE DO. How about we stop wasting our resources to build war planes, tanks, missiles, bombs, and other military crap,
and start putting our resources in new energy technologies that will bring a new golden age in humanity.
+Super Capacitor No. Someone, some where will have to pay money or render services to others in order to obtain those resources. Still, there is no free lunch.
+Daniel E
Take the commodities out of the stock market and here is your free lunch.
Otherwise, make war to whoever doesn't agree with with you. That works too.
+Super Capacitor If you really studied engineering then you should know that we lack the storage capacity in our batteries needed to make solar and wind power viable. The cost is high because you need to use coal and oil to mine and produce the materials for these products and then once produced it isnt certain whether or not they can generate enough resources in order to start the cycle over again (just look at germany). How bout we stop wasting money on solar subsidies and start putting that money towards research and development so that one day the common man may actually sustain himself with renewable energy? Because as it stands today... even with the solar industry being heavily subsidized its still very expensive to get started and usually only rich people do it.
Yeah I agree storage is still a major issue and a bottleneck. Yes we need more research and development, definitely. But hopefully we can improve battery/storage technology quicker and nanotechnology seems promising.
+Super Capacitor Gotta have a military. Renewable sources are still hot garbage and grossly inefficient. Sure it will get better in time but green technology is anything but green and it sure as hell isn't free. The wind farms in Riverside county are the heaviest polluters in the region.
And then the Supreme Court decided that businesses were people too.
Final Sentinel it's legal a legal definition, look at Black's law dictionary.
Of course corporations are people. That’s the entire reason they were created. Otherwise if a business went under the owners went to the poor house and the children starved.
Oh, when did that happen? What case?
"Milton Friedman explodes the myth that government can provide goods and services at no one's expense."
who said that?
He made up the myth first (is there anybody that agrees with the so called myth?), now he can expose it. Capitalism at its best!
I ate a free lunch today. It came at the expense of a raspberry bush.
“One day I was bushwhacking through the harsh Australian outback. Calluses, cuts and sweat building up on my aching skin… All of the sudden, breaking into a meadow I saw it!!! A huge table with a cornucopia of entrees and wonderful finger foods! At the foot of this table I observed a sign that simply read: ‘free lunch’”… said no one ever!
They’re called underground chickens, aka rabbits, and they *are* a free lunch! Great roasted over hot coals with a thyme, Dijon mustard and honey glaze and served with Warrigal greens and Jerusalem artichokes.
The problem isnt taxes... the problem is the no return of service for your taxes.
+zak00101 No, taxes are the problem. Did you watch the video?
The problem is we aren't able to come up with a civilized society hence we are threatening eachh other with force so that some services can be provided.
oliver mia Why do you think that is?
It's a tautological reasoning don't you think? The problem isn't the taxes. But the services don't return. For the services to return they WANT more taxes. So on and so forth. Friedman talks about this several times.
It's actually both. Taxes increase prices and leaves less goods on the table (think of the sales tax you always pay for the groceries). And then the "service" that the tax supposedly pays for is garbage. I bet a privatized DMV would be MUCH faster than a state-controlled DMV.
This "free lunch myth" thing can be used to say that "Nothing is free" which is wrong.
Who pays for the car? mathematics, engineering, musical instruments, 3D printers?
Nobody paid for that. We got it for free by just being born into the world.
“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest.” -Buckminster Fuller
Friedman is quite clear about what free lunch he is talking about, in the first couple of minutes. Did you only read the title?
Yeah, I saw it but I read somewhere where someone referred to this "free lunch myth" to claim that nothing is free.
*****
so how is a car, and the other things you listed, free?
I'm talking about knowledge.
Of course a car itself is not free but the concept of a car, you get for free by being born in the 21st century.
You also get modern sewage systems, medicine and so on.
There's probably only a few hundred people who comprise the modern technological world.
We are standing on the shoulders of giants :)
***** But we make it worthwhile for those giants to do what they do. Many people are generally willing to slave away at some 9 to 5 job even if they find it boring, because it's more convenient to them to be apart of a developed system than it is to go out and become an entrepreneur. Technically I know I could do something greater with my life than working boring jobs to pay for my habits, but I'm too lazy to leave my job. It's this mass of people that SUPPORT and create incentive for the very advances you are referring to.
It could also be food subsidies. Farmers are of course handed very generous subsidies to over produce. Often freemarket mechanisms made it more profitable for farmers to under-produce to push up prices.
The tax is pushed onto the worker? Sometimes - other times, if the company is already paying its workers as little as it reasonably can (for minimum wage or competitive retention reasons), and much of the company’s profits are taken by the company’s largest shareholders to the tune of millions of dollars, the people that will take the hit are the shareholders, who are not always the workers.
If you listen to him at 5:12 you'll see that he refers to taxing profits too and that's what I was addressing.
As for the second lie, with a horizontal or almost horizontal supply curve (as is the case in some recessions) increase in demand out of money printing will result in no or almost no price rise. The point is: we need not assume the amount of goods will remain the same, since producers can react at an increase in demand by increasing production. He's concealing this crucial fact.
To elaborate, I would NOT consider "struggling to get by" suffering at all. I've been living like that for years. It's tough, but it's a challenge, and I ENJOY figuring out how I'm going to overcome it. That's my perspective. The only state I can think of that I would consider suffering is being oppressed, not being challenged.
If it's personal, how can you authentically say whether large groups of people are experiencing it?
So true. The idea that people have that government can provide what everyone needs at no cost and unable to affect anyone. Not only is unrealistic but ignorant in that it shows how some people think they can get whatever they want with no consequence
Well, if you don't then you die because you can't afford the bill to the hospital so yeah.
I would rather be "ignorant" and "unrealistic" than fuckin die.
I had no question to begin with. The user I replied to was basically making the argument that a construction worker and a lawyer are equals(when that is clearly not the case). My argument was that pay comes down to the level of responsibility. Your claim that "(there are) people who prefer to make $10 an hour as opposed to study" only proves my point even further.
The answer to your question is purely supply and demand. There are fewer people willing to go to college for 4 years, law school for 3, and go through the rigor of passing the bar, so few lawyers are available to take those jobs and higher prices must be paid to entice them to go through that preparation. I worked in construction before I even had a high school diploma, and knew people who preferred to make $10-15/hr. rather than sacrifice and study their way through college.
Same with all the other "services" they provide.
Exactly! Who to trust is a hard thing. That doesn't make it bad and - I'm going in circles, I know - hard does not mean "should not have to do". Life is hard, decisions are hard, that's no reason to ask government to do all the decision making for you, as an individual. Make some choices, make some mistakes, get unlucky sometimes... that's life! It sucks, sure, but I'd rather have a hard life than a restricted one. That's what humanity has been fighting to get away from for centuries.
1:04 when he picks his nose 🤩 Humanity revealed
It should be pointed out that Stiglitz moves away from GE when he addresses Barone, hence the reply by professor Roemer to stiglitz. hence, the Roemer critique.
In 2021 the samething applies...
Inner experience: basically how you interpret phenomenon that is occuring externally. In other words, how things make you feel, why you think things happened, what you believe about what happened (or is happening or will happen), your attitude, etc. For that, I would read up on REBT or RBT (Rational Behavior Therapy or Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy). Essentially something occurs, you believe something about it and it shapes you. The belief part is your "inner experience".
There he who does business AND avoids the tax. This enables him to offer a product or service at a lower cost. Of course, there are many takers who prefer his lower price. This is a MAJOR problem with taxation.
6:00 guy getting his mind blown
We can agree on that point as well: I'm against subsidies. I may have said I'm for it earlier, if I did that was an error. I'm against subsidies as much as I am against regulations.
That's a complex question, but to answer simply: our own hardwiring. At a certain age we become cognizant of the feelings of others, we develop empathy. We know that certain things that bother us also bother others, and that's why we should not do them. Unless you are psychologically ill, you share this with others, and it provides a foundation for moral principles which we share.
What!?! No Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy? Next, you'll be telling me that there is no Easter Bunny.
All taxes on businesses not paid by the employees are paid by the customers.
Monetary policy can indeed be used to increase employment. Money doesn't act as a set of enunciative sentences of the kind 'there is so much value in the markets' but as a set of commandments, as production orders. Money is a hormone. Every time you buy, you send the productive apparatus an order to produce.
Also, by lowering rates, monetary easing increases investment, hence capital stock, hence the ratio capital/worker, hence labor marginal productivity; hence wages.
i like standards and compatibility: i noticed home theatres in a box dont have compatible speaker wires with one another. theres all kinds of different standards and it can cost more money.
Exactly! It is OUR job as citizens to persuade our fellow citizens of what we feel is right/wrong, like the two of us are doing now. THIS is democracy in action, and I think it's beautiful (no, I'm not exaggerating).
This is freedom: you have a voice, I have a voice, and everyone else can join in, or ignore us, or be persuaded or remain obstinate in their beliefs. It's our choice, which means it's our responsibility! What more could you ask for?
In a nutshell, Libertarianism is the philosophy that individual freedom is the most important, not freedom of the many and oppression of the few (which is, in a nutshell, democracy).
ok thats really interesting. i think libertarianism is quite radical then (although i can b quite radical myself calling for an alternative to capitalism through cooperatives).
Listening to him always makes me wonder if I shouldn't have majored in Econ.
This is the best argument for 98% taxation of private capital ever. Let do it!
exactly, not having money can make your life harder and it typically does. and the definition of freedom covers such hinderances: 1.The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. so if u are hindered u have less power and therefore less free but still free.
Yes, I have seen that particular distortion before. In fact, while the US expressed no opinion with regard to the border dispute and its resolution, the US, specifically Glaspie) had already asked about the massing of troops (with concern and disapproval).
No such "green light" was given. the US position was no more than that it had no opinion with regard to what the final resolution was, NOT that it was okay to invade.
CONTEXT is everything.
In Canada GST is not on food, but it is on non-necessary food like candy bars. In the UK, where VAT is much higher rate, but is zero on other necessities like kids clothes, and zero on books (based on encouraging education).
Its a fair tax. Low income people spend most of their income on necessities, and as they become better off they gradually spend more on taxed discretionary/luxury items.
Correct, VAT is a sales tax (more precisely a PURCHASE TAX, it taxes consumer purchases)
However, the number of steps in the supply chain is not relevant. Each step in chain charges customers VAT, and pays VAT to suppliers, then pays NETT DIFFERENCE to govmt as "collected tax". The nett result is VAT is collected for the "value added" (profit) for each step. The consumer ends up paying VAT one time on the entire cost, only because they will not be selling it again.
Its very efficient.
'robbing Peter to pay Paul'
You are born with that: your own personality, your own belief systems, etc. You can conform it to what you are being persuaded to believe, or you can retain it or alter it at your will. I believe the only purpose government serves is to provide an environment in which that can be cultivated and developed. This is not an "easy" environment, as there are competing beliefs and opinions, but it is a just one, in my opinion.
VAT in the US would not have to be as high as 30%. If it was it could probably replace income tax entirely, most people would think thats a good thing.
VAT has the advantage of being very efficient to collect. The collection is done by the retailer.
Absolutely, businesses tax citizens every time you buy its products priced at 100% above its value, and every time you work for minimum wage. You are getting taxed.
probably would be worth you finding out what "tax" actually is, before saying too much
Mike Blain A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.
jorgipogi
so how is "working for minimum wage" getting taxed?
Mike Blain Very simple. The master pays as little as he can in order to increase his profit while taxing your time, body, and metal capacities. On top of that you (the worker) have to pay taxes on your meager salary, and the master pays economists like Friedman to cut taxes for them, and also pays propaganda like this to have followers like you to believe in his nonsense to blame only the government for the hardships of the lower class.
jorgipogi
So you think taxing your mental capacity is the same as paying tax. I'm afraid that kinda erodes your credibility.
You are taxing my patience already. Give me the form to fill out for a refund.
What exactly is real wage? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to know. Is it based on hourly wages? Salaries? Income in general?
It could work if it replaced sales tax, since that is in essence what it is -- a national sales tax. The VAT is collected at each step in the manufacturing process, not just the end product. If it were enacted, I would be paying the VAT based on $1/gallon produced. (I own a chemical manufacturing plant). My customers make other products and they would have to do the same. The retail price would start to rise rapidly if not offset with something else.
it kinda encourages me to wonder where does the money come from and how will it affect the future.
All that matters is productivity and innovation. This is where prosperity and advancement in the standard of living comes from. Money is just something we agree to use to exchange the output of productivity.
So again, they have choices:
1. Pay for it anyway, because it's more convenient than looking elsewhere and it's healthier.
2. Pay for the cheaper stuff, because it's more affordable and more convenient.
3. Make some effort and find out where they can find more affordable and healthier stuff.
It seems that the mentality towards #3 is "but that's haaaaard." Which leads me back to what I said about suffering and hardship (vs. restriction).
Exactly. It's hard to know when people are honest and when they have an agenda. Sometimes it's both! Life is not a cut-and-dry thing that can be "fixed." It's a complex thing to slowly be pieced together and figured out.
Who is "we"? Everybody? I hardly doubt that. Some people think it's bad, some don't care, some aren't sure, some think it's good. Why not let each individual decide for him or herself what to do about it? Why ask government to make one decision for everybody?
Corporations don’t pay taxes; they collect taxes...
True. No business pays taxes. They collect taxes from their customers.
My deeper point is that we seem to have become entitled instead of appreciative: In order to GET education or employment SOMEONE has to PROVIDE it for you. It is not a "god given" right, because unless someone creates it, you can't have it. The drive for autonomy, on the other hand, is a natural right. Whether or not it is provided you are going to seek it and you can have it. Others can only make it more difficult for you.
I´m not talking about upper middle class USA. I´m talking about global economic and ecologic systems. I´m also not defending more government. Agree with you on that.
This is one of the most widespread myths
It would be nice to hear him follow his distinction on corporations vs. persons to its obvious conclusion: if they won't be taxed like persons and they can't be held accountable like persons, corporations should not have rights like persons.
2. Having less money does not make you less "free". It simply makes life harder. You can still take time off without money. You can still travel to Europe either by saving money and going LATER, finding a cheaper way or coming up with a creative solution on your own. Just because you cannot have/do something RIGHT THIS VERY INSTANCE does not make you less free.