While I agree with @dystopianfuturetoday about Milton Friedman, I think that the right's demigod stating that criminalizing drugs has harmful effects on society is something which needs to be promoted.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'drugs, legalization, prohibition, economics, morality' to 'drugs, legalization, prohibition, economics, morality, milton friedman' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

>> ^renatojj:

@.


Np, glad you liked them. I'm not saying there is only one account of what went down, I'm saying that it is fact that America was most prosperous when taxes were the highest. You don't need to be a historian or theorizer to use Google and check that for yourself.

Your quick Google search brung up an article that deals only in theory, and the argument they use is that people that are taxed 0% are more motivated than people that are taxed 100% - so that the imperitive becomes to cover Govt. expenses while keeping the taxes as low as possible to maintain motivation. That makes perfect logical sense and doesn't disagree with the facts I bought to the table, that America has been most prosperous during periods of high taxation, it simply proves that low is subjective. Taxing someone who earns $10,000 50% of their income means they take home a tiny amount of money, the same tax rate on a billionaire means they still take home five hundred million dollars, more than enough don't you think? If all income was related to productivity then my argument would be different, but quite simply it's not. Look at derivatives trading or inheritence funds as a couple of examples.

Fixing tax rates is also just the beginning, there needs to be a complete overhaul of your taxation system, there is plenty of information out there that details how dozens of your fortune 500 companies are paying no tax at all (e.g. GE and Boeing), Pepco Holdings Inc had a negative 57.6% tax rate for 2010 according to this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

So not only are the tax rates poorly thought out, the tax system allows companies that rake in billions in profits ways by which to avoid paying any tax at all (and even get refunds).

The same goes for individuals as well, Mitt Romney, who made over twenty million in 2010, and has at least thirty million stashed in over 138 investment funds in the Caimans paid close to 15% tax in that same year. That's the same tax rate that someone earning $10,000 would have to pay.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566#.Tx-lKm_9PUd

Is he using this additional money he's making from not paying his taxes for productive purposes? It would appear not... His motive is profit, and to that end he's closed plants, cut employee wages, laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries, all while he and his partners have made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, while the companies he's invested in have often ended up going bankrupt:
http://www.romneygekko.com/mitt/

So my point is that it's a pipedream to think that lower taxes on the rich has only one effect, to make them more productive, it also carries with it a myriad of negative consequences as I've illustrated, the worst one being lobbying, which is rampant in your country. In terms of Chile, you say that all education there is state funded? Have a look at this report and you will see that the total investment in tertiary education Chile makes is probably close to about half a percent of their GDP, which is indeed lower than any other country surveyed, they are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to actual dollars invested in public education. Meanwhile the cost of education for students is the highest of any OECD country.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf

The reasons for that come full circle back to your economic theories. Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? America installed him as the dictator of Chile after the CIA organised a successful air strike on the palace of the existing democratically elected leader - Allende, which resulted in his death. It's well known that Pinochet relied on the Chicago boys for economic policy, who in turn were trained by Milton Friedman. Friedman was ... the major free-market economist of his time, and it's these exact same policies that still linger around today in the education system thanks to Patricio Aylwin and others. It's clear evidence that your model has flaws, and it's also clear who benefits the most from it.

We should pay Chile some reparations as well, we fucked that country up hardcore. Thank you Milton Friedman.

i admire ron paul for voting what he espouses.he is fairly consistent and i can respect that BUT he is also a devout ayn rand fan and that should give anyone pause.
a unrestricted free market will not produce the pseudo financial utopia the chicago economists like friedman espouse,no matter how much they may wish it.
in fact,it will produce the exact opposite and there are many examples that people who believe in unrestricted markets seem to ignore.

in my opinion a few small but powerful changes could make a difference:
1.get rid of citizens united and make it so no private money can fund public elections.
2.put a cork on the ability of the congress and senate to profit from insider trading AND the ability to turn their political influence into a lucrative career as a lobbyist.make the job about public service and not pure enrichment at the detriment of those you were elected to represent.
3.re-instate glass steagall and other measures to separate commercial from investment banks.
4.return the phrase "for the public good" (removed in the early 70's) from the corporate charter and allow civil and class action suits against corporations who are discovered abusing communities by what ever means.and allow AG's to dissolve a corporation for gross un-compliance.if they are going to be deemed a "person" then they should be held to the same standard of community as the rest of us.

these are just some of the points ron paul does not address and i feel they are so vitally important and are a few reasons i cant support him.
his stance on military intervention and recinding the gross over-powering of the executive branch i totally agree with.
i also am not against his end-the-fed and other useless federal government agencies.either make them more effective or give that power to the states and some (DOD comes to mind) are so bloated and cumbersome that they have taken on an eerie "too big to fail" kind of character.

there is one thing that i find curious.
since ron paul is a free market prophet,why arent the corporations backing this man up with all their money and influence?
gingrich,romney and obama are getting all the wall street campaign money and media exposure.while ron paul is being marginalized.
maybe i am just being cynical but it seems to me that ron pauls "free market" talk may be perceived as a de-rigging of the game and our corporate masters cant have that.they paid big money to keep your business in the shitter.

if thats the case...well..good on him but i have to admit not being an expert on corporations nor economics.so i could be way off the mark.

I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).


Well said sir, in my view no department is inherently bad or good, the value of the department depends on who is running it, how it is used and how policies governing the department are made. If the Department of Education is causing harm to the education of students then this could be fixed by resolving the underlying issue which is one of corrupt policy making. Look at Bill Gates for example, he's playing his part to destroy and privatize the education system so he can have Windows on every school computer and influence the public education budget. He's allowed to do this because of policy changes and enormous amounts of lobbying money (which go hand in hand).

Here's an interesting read about some of the sweeping changes he's been able to introduce via lobbying:
http://techrights.org/2011/09/09/new-york-times-and-washpo-on-edu/

Plus of course all the other issues dystopianfuturetoday mentions - these won't go away just by removing a couple of departments - the core issues of corruption and lobbying have to be fixed first.

Is Ron Paul going to fix these? Hell no. Even if he was strongly in favor of these sorts of real changes, he wouldn't get support for them under the current system, the GOP would block everything, the Dems would keep talking about how bad the GOP is for blocking everything, and everything would continue to get fucked just as badly, or worse, than it currently is.

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.

We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealth to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)

Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

>> ^marinara:

You miss the entire point.
Why would you concentrate on my characterization of the church, and ignore the fact that the elites in charge of this proposed bank would have unlimited money.
And the church is no stranger to power.
Yes, I love Ron Paul, Yes the Church is chasing power, Yes the Church will not care to use the proposed world bank to eliminate poverty.
Tell me how the Church is working to eliminate poverty now?
Tell me when the Church has given away power?
Tell me why I shouldn't love Ron?


Not really missing the point, just focusing on the part of your comment I find interesting.

Basically my read on all right-wing thought is that it's almost entirely motivated by fear. The modern, highly distilled version we have here in the American right is a particularly insane bunch who believe that every institution with any kind of power is evil. Not just too wrapped up in its own self-serving goals to meet the needs of ordinary people, but actually out to maliciously do harm to everyone else because they're all apparently inhuman monsters bent on our destruction.

That's what Ron Paul is a spokesman for.

The Catholic church is a lot of things, and it's made up of a lot of people. It's had a particularly awful history, but I do believe that in large part the modern Catholic Church believes what it preaches when it comes to social justice. I don't really see how or why they'd bother teaching social justice if their true goal was to abolish social justice. Take a look at right-wing churches in America for an example of how they could be twisting the teachings of Christ into some grand justification for Ayn Rand-style market fundamentalism, as well as hate and intolerance.

I also find the whole "fear the Fed" thing to be tiresome and quite misguided. If you think it's physically impossible for Central Banks to ever do any good, you simply need to go out and educate yourself on modern monetary theory. Read Milton Friedman if you think Keynes was some demon summoned straight from the bowels of hell. If you just think the institution is just being run by corrupt people, then presumably you're in the "fire Bernanke, and put a liberal conservative in his place" club. Or maybe you're like me and just want to modify the Fed's charter so there's more democratic accountability, and a clearer mandate.

Or we should just put the Pope in charge.

Mostly though I just find the very idea of a conspiracy amusing. The Pope isn't saying "the Catholic Church should be the Global Central Bank", he's saying "there should be a Global Central Bank whose mandate is to cure poverty". I like that idea! But, I think a) it's obviously politically impossible, and b) a global monetary union would be harder to pull off than the euro monetary union, and the euro is headed for collapse as it is...

But like I said originally, this seems tailor-made to get Ron Paul-style conspiracy theorists all in a tizzy, and apparently I was right!

>> ^aurens:

A short and varied list of Americans educated in public high schools before the creation, in 1980, of the Department of Education:
Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Warren Buffett
Toni Morrison
Carl Sagan
Ernest Hemingway
Linus Pauling
Sandra Day O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Milton Friedman
Noam Chomsky
Oprah Winfrey
George Lucas
Jimmy Carter
Paul Newman
Amelia Earhart
Walt Disney
George Carlin
Elvis Presley
Neil Armstrong
Richard Feynman
Aaron Copland
(I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the point.)>> ^ghark:
No public education ... Sounds exciting.



Aye aye, was being sarcastic

A short and varied list of Americans educated in public high schools before the creation, in 1980, of the Department of Education:

Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Warren Buffett
Toni Morrison
Carl Sagan
Ernest Hemingway
Linus Pauling
Sandra Day O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Milton Friedman
Noam Chomsky
Oprah Winfrey
George Lucas
Jimmy Carter
Paul Newman
Amelia Earhart
Walt Disney
George Carlin
Elvis Presley
Neil Armstrong
Richard Feynman
Aaron Copland

(I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the point.)>> ^ghark:

No public education ... Sounds exciting.

I can't upvote this crap.

Whoa, they have multiple demands? OMG, its almost as if there are multiple problems?!

Imagine, just imagine the tea party backed by corporations being more successful than the throngs of underemployed people asking for redistributive justice and jobs. Whoda thunk.

Milton Friedman is laughing in his gilded grave.

@dystopianfuturetoday

Yeah, I'm sure most libertarians aren't high-IQ types, but I can't think of a strong counter-argument against the statement about averages. I think the argument for it is:

1. Libertarianism is described by advocates as contributing to the world through successful individualism in an economic meritocracy, whereas liberalism and conservatism are described by advocates as contributing to the world through collectivist goals and social tastes.

2. Liberalism and conservatism both have strong below average IQ segments. Among conservatives, it's in the form of hillbillies and the religious, and among liberals, it's in the form of educational achievement gaps among non-Asian minorities (with Asian minorities and Jewish minorities scoring above European-descended groups). I can't think of any below average IQ segment within libertarianism.


Personally, I haven't read much Milton Friedman, but the people I've been exposed to who seem to me to be the smartest people alive - Peter Thiel, Paul Graham, and Steven Pinker - are all libertarian.

I don't get a super 'High IQ' vibe from right-libertarians, which isn't to say they are stupid - they are certainly more thoughtful than your typical conservative. But as far as intellectuals go, right-libertarians have a shallow bench. When Milton Friedman is your most revered intellectual, you've got problems...

I think part of the problem with finding young leaders is that in right-libertarian circles, it's generally considered taboo to question free market doctrine. While this kind of ideological purity is good at creating loyal and aggressive followers, it's not the kind of thing that inspires the critical thinking necessary for a good leader. That's why the younger leaders end up being creepy, dictatorial narcissists like Stefan Molyneux. Political fundamentalism isn't much different from religious fundamentalism in that respect.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^rougy:
Because capitalism just isn't the same without a little friendly torture.

Not just "not the same." You can't do it...you have to "Shock" the system. According to the "Shock Doctrine" at least...good read.


It's on my list.

Saw a documentary a while ago about how Friedman and the Chicago school of economics influenced Pinochet and the atrocities in post-Allende Chili. Made my blood boil.

Hardcore capitalists have some kind of fundamental resentment toward the working class and any gains that they may make, however modest.