What is Digg?107 Comments
- JoeFasanella, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43but look at digg, wikipedia, etc and opensource, good will does accomplish alot
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33But he isn't conservative. He considers himself a liberal, and I would tend to agree. His desire is to change things radically in government in order to make this country a better place for the people; not the government.
It was this kind of liberal thinking that brought great things to this country 200+ years ago. It brought us a freedom of speech and a freedom of religion and freedom from unfair taxes and tyranny.
If being liberal today meant sharing the thoughts he expressed, then I would gladly align myself with such a group. However, today, being liberal means supporting more and more government control and more taxation under the guise of helping the poor and saving the planet, and being conservative means supporting more government control and taxation under the guise of helping the poor by helping big business who will "naturally" give jobs to the poor, and who gives a crap about the planet?
It's all the same crap anymore and the biggest problem I have with that is I'm afraid to affect a change at this point would require the same kind of bloodshed it took to affect a change when we got out of a similar situation 200+ years ago.
I hate to see that happen again. - bitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30the fact that it is necessary to force people to be charitable with the threat of imprisonment (for evading taxes, which pay for charitable services) is disturbing, both because it shows that people are generally greedy, and because it's very easy to feel good about spending other people's money, which creates its own problems.
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27
America's founding fathers had the same mindset, and look what happened: Freedom and free markets unleashed the greatest stretch of human innovation and advancement in the history of mankind. - dicerandom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@Herolint:
Do not confuse Democrats (who I assume you're refering to re: taxation and welfare programs) with liberals, despite what the media tells you. From where I'm sitting (and I suspect Friedman would agree) the Dems and the GOP are both so conservative and centrist that there's virtually no difference between the two. In the beginning of the interview Friedman makes the distinction between what is commonly refered to as "liberal" and "conservative" (basically the same definitions the media uses today) and notes that he is a "liberal, in the true sense of liberal, in the sense in which it means of and pertaining to freedom".
If you're interested in a political party which is compatable with Friedman's economic and political views then I suggest you take a look at the Libertarian party ( http://www.lp.org ). Their party platform aligns almost point-for-point with what Friedman discussed in that interview.
@gr4v3d1gg3r:
How am I supposed to show much good will when over 30% of my income is going directly to the government? - KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Well when the alternative is coercion and the loss of freedom, I'll take the libertarian stance.
- Quadraginta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Well, that type of limitation on your imagination is probably a big part of why Friedman was a bigshot professor at the University of Chicago and you're not. As he suggested in the interview, it does take a certain amount of logical ability to see the the FLAMING IRRATIONAL SELF-CONTRADICTION in thinking that (1) the majority of people can't be trusted to voluntarily take care of problem X, but (2) that same majority of people CAN be trusted to voluntarily vote into power trustworthy politicians who will then take care of problem X. . .
Sheesh. - MattJF317, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27I'm probably going to get dugg down for this, but:
Even though I agree with him on most of what Friedman says, he makes things appear a lot more black and white than they are in reality sometimes... so be sure to watch this with somewhat of a critical eye also. - hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I think the recent trend of libertarian themed articles being Dugg up is a small example of a nationwide shift toward libertarian thinking.
Seems reasonable after our current president's spending increases and budget deficits, inefficient public school system, over-reaching foreign policy, mixing religion with government, circumventing the constitution, pork projects, etc, etc. - spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17exactly hoppdog, they set up the government to protect itself from its first enemy; itself.
I have to read this guy's books. I wish we conservatives had another guy this brilliant nowadays. - spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16The resultant dictatorships in communist countries are directly due to the nature of communism. Its exactly like Friedman was explaining, communism has great intentions, but its results and effects are not great. We can't judge anything by its intentions, but by its results. Communism fails every time.
- Epsilon26, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14The libertarian movement requires a level of conscious thought that the general public has failed to master. American's understand the basic concept of liberty, but they're constantly falling for the temptation of a free government handout.
Whenever a political party spends too much time in power, things start to go south. Our current two party system is brilliant in the sense that it creates stabilizing political gridlock, but we shouldn't pretend that today's "liberals" are fundamentally superior than today's "conservatives." They're really the same people preaching to different demographics. We could use more Milton Friedman in our national political diet. - bitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I don't understand your point. If you're saying that some government is necessary, even libertarians will agree with you.
- Epsilon26, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I think you're putting words in the original poster's mouth. Government has an optimal size, and bigger is not necessarily better. At it's current size, government creates more problems than it solves.
Milton didn't want to abolish government anymore than you do. Milton recognizes government's limitations better than most, because he made a career of studying government's failures. Milton's ideas have become so dominant because he studied his subjects empirically backed up his claims. - TheWorm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17I would like to see this guy take on some of today's issues. He seems like a rational intelligent conservative. A free thinker rather than today's conservatives that are run by money.
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Amazing video. His others on Google video are equally good.
I wish more people could see the world from his point of view. - chapium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Communism fails because it removes incentives to be efficient and productive.
- qwertydvorak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@ gr4v3d1gg3r: this may be impossible to imagine, but the world did not begin when you were born. charity is a concept that is as old as the bible itself, probably older. just so you know, before you came along there was a time when there was no such thing as a minimum wage. there was also a time without social security, nursing homes, and welfare. somehow in that timeframe humanity produced michaelangelo, plato, aristotle, newton, and many others... as far as seeing the goodwill, you must be blind. even with the government taking half our pay, somehow people still manage to offer up hard earned money, not to mention time volunteering, for charity. you must be blind and ignorant to not see charity all around. the united way, the red cross, als association, all the pink everythings for breast cancer, etc etc, and tis the season for the bell ringers of the salvation army. check out give.org for a little education.
- Viliam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"This, in turn, raised the price of bread and the next year the shep farmer found that his ten percent increase in wages was slowly being eroded by a myserious source of inflation."
If the inflation has consumed his profit, then the sheep farmer's decision was probably wrong in the long term. And the point is...? Should he be prevented (by the use of institutionalized violence) from making bad decisions?
The freedom is about being able to choose what you want. There is no guarantee that what you freely choose will benefit you. You are also free to make wrong choices. The others can give you some good advice, and you can choose to ignore it (and sometimes you can be right if you ignore it). - hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Urusai, communism was tried and rejected. Libertarianism (i.e. limited gov't, freedom, free-market, private property, etc.) was also tried. America was the result.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What are you even talking about, squidi? Are you aware that Friedman was himself the child of immigrants to the US who were poor themselves and that his father died when he was 15? Friedman was a self-made man, and certainly not one of the rich elite who was born into wealth. I'm just going to quote his autobiography from the Nobel Prize website:
"I was born July 31, 1912, in Brooklyn, N.Y., the fourth and last child and first son of Sarah Ethel (Landau) and Jeno Saul Friedman. My parents were born in Carpatho-Ruthenia (then a province of Austria-Hungary; later, part of inter-war Czechoslovakia, and, currently, of the Soviet Union). They emigrated to the U.S. in their teens, meeting in New York. When I was a year old, my parents moved to Rahway, N.J., a small town about 20 miles from New York City. There, my mother ran a small retail "dry goods" store, while my father engaged in a succession of mostly unsuccessful "jobbing" ventures. The family income was small and highly uncertain; financial crisis was a constant companion. Yet there was always enough to eat, and the family atmosphere was warm and supportive.
Along with my sisters, I attended public elementary and secondary schools, graduating from Rahway High School in 1928, just before my 16th birthday. My father died during my senior year in high school, leaving my mother plus two older sisters to support the family. Nonetheless, it was taken for granted that I would attend college, though, also, that I would have to finance myself.
I was awarded a competitive scholarship to Rutgers University (then a relatively small and predominantly private university receiving limited financial assistance from the State of New Jersey, mostly in the form of such scholarship awards). I was graduated from Rutgers in 1932, financing the rest of my college expenses by the usual mixture of waiting on tables, clerking in a retail store, occasional entrepreneurial ventures, and summer earnings. Initially, I specialized in mathematics, intending to become an actuary, and went so far as to take actuarial examinations, passing several but also failing several. Shortly, however, I became interested in economics, and eventually ended with the equivalent of a major in both fields." - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18He is a *classic* liberal which is pretty much the polar opposite of a modern liberal. Once upon a time, they were called liberals as a derivation of the word liberty. The founding fathers were radical liberals.
Many modern liberals have been trying to adopt the term "progressive" and I encourage them in their efforts. I want these wealth redistributing, hate speech criminalizing, racial quota endorsing, smoking banning, minimum wage imposing, university speech code enacting, hypocritical SOBs as thoroughly disassociated from the concepts of liberty as possible. *Modern* liberalism is anathema to liberty and that sort of oxymoron is just distressing.
To UtopianComplex... When libertarians tell you that charitable efforts can help to replace what liberal, confiscatory governments do, they are not claiming that a free market at work amidst a free population is a utopia. There will be lots of falling-through-the-cracks. It is conceivable (though I think quite unlikely) that overall prosperity would be lower under a free system. However, the advantages of liberty are not measured only in prosperity. I do not measure the quality of my life solely in prosperity... given my modest station in life, that's a good thing. *FREEDOM* is it's own positive factor. Simple self determination is worth so much more than any amount of protection and support that governmental regulation and welfare can ever give us.
A proper libertarian should only mention the charitable efforts people make in passing, not as a complete excuse. Properly speaking, freedom means things like the freedom to starve just as much as it means the freedom to speak and the freedom think. - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Watch this video for the explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbRcmKRv-zo&eurl= - almostretarded, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22Th world has yet to experiment with communism in the true Marxist sense of the word.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Why are people here still saying he is conservative? He wants 1) radical change, 2) less government... The exact opposite of conservative.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10In case you want to download it, the original higher quality video is here:
http://www.archive.org/details/openmind_ep494 - datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Here we go again with this same argument. "Communism" didn't work because it wasn't really communism. That isn't the point at all...the point is that it appears communism cannot be practically "applied" in real life situations without the loss of liberty and property, and often results in violence and countless deaths.
I am quite comfortable saying that, while communism looks great on paper, it certainly has failed to be a viable economic and political system. It simply can't be implemented in the real world. - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10They did, too bad they died off. :(
See: Founding Fathers - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@Urusai - the American constitution absolutely defines the Libertarian viewpoint.. It's essentially a libertarian manifesto.
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain *unalienable* *rights*, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness.’ - UtopianComplex, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22I agree with libertarian theory right up tell you get to that 'voluntary collective action part'. I just can't imagine that many of the problems that arise in completely free market conditions would be fixed by voluntary and charity means. I just don't think you can trust charity and goodwill to solve these problems.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Another reason is why he could be against minimum wage:
Hypothetical: -
Fred is employed, at $1.50 an hour to make one loaf of bread per hour. Taking into account the cost of ingredients for one loaf (say 50 cents), the employer sells the bread for $2.50 a loaf, making 50 cents profit.
Fred buys a loaf for his family, for $2.50. Which works out to be 1.6666 hours, about 1 hour 40 minutes of his wage.
The minimum wage is raised to $3 an hour.
Fred is now employed at $3 an hour. Taking into the cost of ingredients (which has now risen because the wage to pay the people to refine the ingredients has been increased), is now at $1.20. The bread would now have to sell for $4.70 to make 50 cents profit.
Fred buys a loaf of bread for $4.70. Which works out to be about 1 hour and 40 minutes of his wage.
It'd just be like adding another zero to the end of every wage and cost of everyone. It gets no where, it doesn't help people on minimum wage or anyone for that matter. - argoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5One of the big myths I hear is that libertarianism doesn't work in the "real world". Ah contraire. It is the only philosophy that faces the drug war head on, without creating gangs, police that violate civil liberties, and turning drug lords into millionaires. It is the only philosophy that deals with "corporate welfare" by restricting how they can abuse government in any meaningful way. It is the only philo that faces prostitution head on and drives it out in the open where it can be addressed, instead of underground where rapists go unreported. It is the only philosophy that forces accountability and cost controls in health care, education, and even retirement. It is the only philosophy that avoids the excessive debt and long term inflation of a fiat banking system. The fact that there is a tight correlation between a countries libertarian ranking and it's success should be telling. No other philo, especially social democrat, can claim that and it takes the "hard" issues head on. Things like the right to bear arms, innocent until proven guilty, free speech and religion are all are all straight from the libertarian play book. Could you imagine a social democrat or a republican coming up with those concepts? I couldn't.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8ahfoo, you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about if you're trying to tell me that Friedman was "not an economist". Do you just choose to ignore his work for monetary theory? That's what he won the Nobel Prize for. Every economist I know of believes that the equation M*V=P*Y is correct...that was Friedman's work. That was by no means all of it either, just the most recognizable of his contributions. To say that he was not an economist is just ignorant.
In your example, you suppose that the wheat farmer is completely helpless and non-responsive to changing environmental conditions. I don't see how that's a rational expectation. If I was a farmer and I suddenly had a bunch of deer threatening my crops, I would go out and shoot them or find some other way to either prevent them from coming onto my land or controlling their population. Problem solved. In fact, the wheat farmer may actually make some additional income by selling the deer meat and hide that he acquires from hunting deer. Seeing as how deer hunting is one of the oldest "sports" around, I don't know why this solution does not seem to immediately present itself to you. - itisme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@JoeFasanella
but look at digg, wikipedia, etc and opensource, good will does accomplish alot.
well in the case of digg good will, advertising and the ownership of our data by a company! - PeppermintPig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"There is no way simply volunteering/charity/donation can sustain a society. Besides if there is no tax law, most people wouldn't pay voluntarily. That's just our nature. Speaking of nature and wild lives, take a look at it, they were left mostly at our own willingness to sustain and now check them out."
I disagree. That argument is an affirmation for getting rid of government. If most people are evil or selfish, then having positions of power guarantees selfish people will fill them and use them to escape the so-called obligation to equality in paying taxes.... as politicians, they'll help their friends and hurt their enemies using the powers made available to them, and set arbitrary laws and taxes on the people.
Most people tend to think their ***** doesn't stink, but everybody else is dangerous and can't be trusted to do the 'right thing'. There's fallacy in that mindset, since you're assuming to have no faith in people, yet you might support government, and you seem to argue that you know how others should act and what is 'best' in a given situation.
An equality where everyone must pay taxes is punitive equality, which isn't very equal at all because wealth is not static: Value judgements are not set to a particular currency.
So much for that transparency in government, though. The people fear the government more than the other way around, which suggests it's definitely too big for it's own good. - Creamedweasel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7He's also talking about, I don't know, maybe 50 years ago? While minimum wages has gone up, the minimum cost of living has gone up more. Well known facts.
*editted to add more*
Also, since the minimum cost of living has increased, this means that businesses have actually been making more money and thus for the most part can hire more teenagers (age class discussed in film) at minimum wage prices. More money is being gained by employers than lost. *Note* I am not going into detail about outsourcing, just about this film. - oncomouse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I was actually just having a debate about this with a friend of mine on a long car trip. She's a Libertarian and I'm a democratic socialist. There is a very big "if" involved with libertarianism. It could work out, and if all the pieces fall into place, it could be great. There is an equal or greater chance of it all going to hell, however, and there would be no safety net to catch us. Is that worth the risk? If there was a big, red shiny button that could either turn earth into a utopia or bring about a nuclear holocaust, would you push it? I realize that example is ridiculously extreme, but you see my point.
Some people on here have brought up the idea that you should judge a country or system of government by its results. OK, lets look at most of Western Europe and Canada. These are almost all moderately socialist states. I'll take Sweden for example. Sweden is a socialist nation that enjoys one of the world's highest per capita incomes, highest standards of living, good education, universal health care, virtually 100% literacy rate, low crime rates, low pollution, and very progressive civil liberties. Sure people pay high taxes, but they get more for their money. Its like subsidizing your student loans - instead of getting nickeled and dimed to death for things like health care, you just pay it all in one lump sum to the government and they take care of it. You need a good government in order maintain such a system though. Notice how most of these nations have a much More politically active population, and more than two parties? That's what America needs is a strong third party and people that give a damn. Then we could have a nation where everyone could prosper, as opposed to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Somebody also brought up the idea of How we survived before socialism and cited Newton, Michelangelo, etc. Sure we produced some great minds back then, but that was in spite of the conditions of the time, not because of them. Living conditions back then were pretty ***** horrible for your average person, and they are still pretty horrible for your average person in the world. Go ask somebody in Darfur or Rwanda if they would like a form of moderate socialist government. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7One last little point for those that have not taken fully modern macroeconomics courses (this video is black and white, which means it was made way before most of the stuff we've figured out since then through statistical proof, i.e. how okuns law and other models work together)...anyway, Friedman says he sees no point in minimum wage laws because unskilled workers are simply discriminated against...come on now. Look at your local Burger King. Is that what you want in your economy??? If a minimum wage law means I finally get my goddamn whooper without ***** onions because someone can speak English then God bless America.
that's a simple counter-argument in a nutshell. - thebluedan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Don't sell people short. People can do amazing things. Like even solve there own problems with out charity or government. I guess you don't think rise above. There might be some trials and hardships buy to have to have the vision and the will to see beyond it. That is what is wrong today especially in the media, there is no encouraging of the individual. We all need to be like Jonathan E and beat the system.
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Whoops. Replace constitution with declaration of independence.
I'm not American - I don't need to know these things :P - Alpinesol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4People continuously complain about how they hate that the government is taking their money for social welfare programs they disagree with. Now its fine to disagree with those things, as they are clearly not perfect institutions, but one mus remember that the amount of money going towards social welfare programs pales in comparison to the amount of money going to the military. The US govt spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined. If you mad that your taxes are so high, you should really consider whether all that money spend on new gun technology is really worth it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7If this guy is right about government intervention being so horrible for the economy, why did our economy take off after the 1930s ended and Keynesian economics took effect, which was later followed by an even better monetarist model today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Real_gdp_per_capita.png
Fact. This black and white video was made before 85-90% of this growth occurred. Monetary and fiscal policy work when they are implemented correctly. Economic intellectuals are good for the economy after all. Get over it guys. - chapium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, he's an economist. Liberal and Conservative in american politics carry the opposite definition that they do in economics and political science.
- chapium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"You need a good government in order maintain such a system though."
I think thats the point Friedman is trying to make in the video. He claims that people spend their own money much more carefully than when they spend other people's money. This is what he believes leads the government to be wasteful.
Also, it doesnt seem Friedman is for zero intervention. Even he argues that social welfare policies were necessary and the right thing to do in the 1930s during the depression. - chapium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you are missing a few variables. For one, Europe was ransacked in ww1 and ww2. After ww2, the US had developed enormous production capacity.
Even if neither of those matter, it does not change the problem with your statement. Just because the economy grows does not mean that it hasn't been hampered by government intervention. Its not an issue which a) government intervenes then economy tanks or just b) government intervenes and economy grows.
There is a middle ground. - sjalloul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is why....Digg is the best place for information!
Milton Friedman explanation for liberals, true conservatives, and disposable income is beyond words, just watch the clip. - jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2go watch european public television. the pace, and intelligence of the hosts is still pretty high there.
in fact, i saw a very interesting show yesterday reguarding informatics/computer, their effects on society and their future. the host asked VERY sharp questions without having a degree in computer science at all. it was very nice to watch these people talk for this hour or so. - Negyxo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6His intellect just pounds my face into a brick wall.
- typo180, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@gr4v3d1gg3r
"The guy admitted in his own video this could lead to serfdom. And he was like 'so what.' "
Perhaps people call you blind because you watched this video and got his main argument wrong. He said serfdom was the consequence of a constantly expanding government power. I hope that was an honest mistake and not just an attempt to confuse the issue. - Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3a corporation can become a government or a force acting on a market where the government does not enforce fairness. a 'free' market has no monopolies and no selfish capitalistic intentions.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 