"...make it more profitable for the wrong people to do the right things."

Or, as they say on the street, payola.

Corporatism in a nutshell.

That's good advice. It would be irresponsible to conflate political profitability in this analogy to corporatism. I wonder if Obama is profitable as president? Is he a corporation? Hmmm.

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.” -Milton Freidman

He's right.

Kind of like what happened with the bailout vote.

Just watched "Capitalism: A Love Story" last night .

I'm gonna agree with blankfist, and Milton Friedman on this one.

You get politicians to do the right thing by making the politics of doing the right thing more favorable than doing the wrong thing.

The right people can be convinced to do the wrong thing (Obama backed down on giving terrorists civilian trials), while the wrong people can be convinced to do the right thing (even dipshits like Joe Lieberman voted for HCR).

Friedman's a fuckstick.

The very word "profitable" belies everything he says and does.

It's not a metaphor to him. He means it literally.

I'm really sick of this shit. I'm really sick of this country.

Obama is a centrist, and he leans to the right, but he's what passes for the left-wing.

It's a joke. Our government is a joke and Friedman is a joke, because he views right and wrong in terms of profitable or unprofitable.

And when you speak in terms like that, you are not speaking for the welfare of a nation, only a particular part of that nation, the profiteers.

i am with rougy on friedman being an ammoral fuckstick but milton does have a point here but when you take his history and attitude it kind of blurs ones ability to see his point and try to resist the urge to kick that FUCK in the face.
the man was brilliant and totally devoid of any humanity.

There's a good book called the shock doctrine. The first half of it covers Freidman style economic principles, and how powerful they were in the 70's and 80's. Basicly he bankrupts countries, propigates corporate corruption, and his cherry on top is social indoctonation. Then when the countries have completly imploded, he has been asked, why did your economic philosophies fail? His response: because they haven't been excecuted to completion yet.
Aparenty starvation, police states, and genocide are all normal aspects of his ideology, but in the end it's worth it, because you will have economic stability.

this guy's a joke. He is right about people foolishly electing nice guys, when in the end they are more interested in special interests. What we need to do is make it more in their interest to care about the people of this country and not so much about the corporate interest. There are very real ways to go about doing that. Unfortunatly we have become complacent and accepting in the idea that it is they who make all the tough decisions. For us to even give thought to political discourse is a worthless excersise that in the end will be of no consequence. <-that idea is killing america right now.

Quite the spontaneous eruption of Friedman hate.

Personally, I think this is a very clear and succinct way of expressing how democracy works, even if he does slip in the word "profit" (which seems to drive certain people absolutely batshit crazy).

The real double-edged problem with his point is that we've let campaign finance, lobbying, and revolving-door practices get so out of hand, many (possibly even most) elected officials are acting on what's most individually profitable to them in a material sense, and not really worrying about having to face accountability from the public who want their representatives to act in service of the public good.

In other words, we've let our democracy get undermined, largely by Friedman's own disciples.

This is well worth a read.

I'm gonna put this out here, because where else but a Friedman video?

I'm 2000 years ahead of my time.

Ever been to Greece? You buy the sailboat I'll buy the gyros.
>> ^rougy:

I'm really sick of this shit. I'm really sick of this country.

Those in power will do what is right for the powerful, regardless of what is right for the society they rule. Change anything you wish, but power will continue to feed on itself, and the weak will never inherit the earth.

The only way to get what you want is to align what you want with the ability of the powerful to stay in power. Do you want legalized pot and doctor-assisted suicide? You can't, because those Jenga pieces will topple the tower. Do you want single-payer healthcare and regulation of the markets? Don't even bother.

Do you want soldiers to be accountable for murder during wartime?
Do you want education to stay out of the hands of Texas conservative lawmakers?
Do you want government transparency?

Don't even bother.

wow he completely overlooks the fact that you could elect a good person and do the same thing

= useless argument from Friedman

Friedman's ideas - which have guided the economic policy of the Reagan, the Bush and the Clinton administrations - have *failed us.

Deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics have looted our treasury, created unemployment by sending our jobs oversees, and have allowed corporations unprecedented control over our democracy.

I'm sure this Ayn Rand loving fuckstick meant well, but that doesn't make him any less of a *failure.

Adding video to channels (Fail) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

>> ^ghark:

wow he completely overlooks the fact that you could elect a good person and do the same thing
= useless argument from Friedman


People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being ruled by your inferiors" - Plato

"I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live"
Socrates

Moreover, if a good man makes it into office, he still needs political bucks to spend. Look at Ron Paul, he usually stands alone because he has nothing to "offer" but his ideals. He won't vote for your bill because you voted for his ect ect. So I understand your sentiment, it missed the point entirely.

>> ^rougy:

This is well worth a read.


TY rougy. I love the article.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Friedman's ideas - which have guided the economic policy of the Reagan, the Bush and the Clinton administrations - have failed us.
Deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics have looted our treasury, created unemployment by sending our jobs oversees, and have allowed corporations unprecedented control over our democracy.
I'm sure this Ayn Rand loving fuckstick meant well, but that doesn't make him any less of a failure.


Giving everyone free hosing didn't work out so well either. I would say any pure political idealism gets lost in the translation to those who we entrust to govern. For my part, I would rather those people have less power than more because of that. It is easier to fight large corporate tyrants than tyrants that have all the same powers and guns...just my 2 cents ( did you know this text block edits out plus signs?).

>> ^NetRunner:

Quite the spontaneous eruption of Friedman hate.
Personally, I think this is a very clear and succinct way of expressing how democracy works, even if he does slip in the word "profit" (which seems to drive certain people absolutely batshit crazy).
The real double-edged problem with his point is that we've let campaign finance, lobbying, and revolving-door practices get so out of hand, many (possibly even most) elected officials are acting on what's most individually profitable to them in a material sense, and not really worrying about having to face accountability from the public who want their representatives to act in service of the public good.
In other words, we've let our democracy get undermined, largely by Friedman's own disciples.


NetRunner's right... replace the word "profit" with "incentive" and we'll get closer to what Friedman's talking about.

*EDIT* that should read INCENTIVE, not inventive, as I originally wrote, haha.

God, this site just has the same uneducated people spewing socialist nonsense and even going so far as to smear mostly agreeable libertarians like Friedman. The Shock Doctrine is complete poop, there is no other way to say it. Anyone who recommends that book has probably read absolutely nothing from any libertarian ever. Here's a crash course on how utterly illogical and distorted that book is:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman/

GeeSussFreeK: People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.



Looks like someone is dangerously close to understanding the best political system. We're not supposed to be a democracy, because there are some things that no one should be able to vote on. 99 people shouldn't be able to vote away 1 guy's property because they don't like him. That basic truth gives way to the realization that we need to be ruled in some form by a benevolent dictator that can't easily be corrupted. That is the idea behind a republic: the constitution is nothing more than a paper dictator. Our dictators were highly intelligent people for their time, battled tyranny, and debated lengthily about how much power the Federal government should have over the states. Read the Federalist Papers, sometime. I don't think our schools bother to assign it anymore. People and judges still have to obey the paper dictator, however, and it's largely been subverted over time because it isn't clear enough in places. You can spend years studying how and why and dream of a replacement knowing what we know today. That most of the people on this forum still don't understand anything I've said in this paragraph is just flipping amazing. I would pay money to watch Friedman's zombie corpse debate the likes of anyone on this forum, because you're clearly not even 1% as capable of rational thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMb_72hgkJk

It's fucking scary how people on this forum associate neocons and libertarians. Modern day liberals and neocons are practically the same, it's the libertarians who are different. It's the libertarians who are saying "no, we don't think corporations should influence elections, but it's THIS unconstitutional power being exercised that's enabling that kind of influence." We understand that the market largely self-regulates because greed is offset by fear of loss. But when the government tries to eliminate fear by bailing out failed management with money appropriated from healthy businesses, insuring deposits on every bank, price fixing interest rates, and guaranteeing loans, rampant fraud and speculation ensues. DUH. Certain groups are always trying to offload their risk to someone else through the government, including debt to a future generation that hasn't been born yet. DISABLE IT ALREADY. FUCK. Politicians aren't efficient with money because they have no fear of losing what they didn't have to work to obtain. Again, DUH.

>> ^BansheeX:

God, this site just has the same uneducated people spewing socialist nonsense and even going so far as to smear mostly agreeable libertarians like Friedman. The Shock Doctrine is complete poop, there is no other way to say it. Anyone who recommends that book has probably read absolutely nothing from any libertarian ever. Here's a crash course on how utterly illogical and distorted that book is:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman/2
GeeSussFreeK: People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.
Looks like someone is dangerously close to understanding the best political system. We're not supposed to be a democracy, because there are some things that no one should be able to vote on. 99 people shouldn't be able to vote away 1 guy's property because they don't like him. That basic truth gives way to the realization that we need to be ruled in some form by a benevolent dictator that can't easily be corrupted. That is the idea behind a republic: the constitution is nothing more than a paper dictator. Our dictators were highly intelligent people for their time, battled tyranny, and debated lengthily about how much power the Federal government should have over the states. Read the Federalist Papers, sometime. I don't think our schools bother to assign it anymore. People and judges still have to obey the paper dictator, however, and it's largely been subverted over time because it isn't clear enough in places. You can spend years studying how and why and dream of a replacement knowing what we know today. That most of the people on this forum still don't understand anything I've said in this paragraph is just flipping amazing. I would pay money to watch Friedman's zombie corpse debate the likes of anyone on this forum, because you're clearly not even 1% as capable of rational thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMb_72hgkJk
It's fucking scary how people on this forum associate neocons and libertarians. Modern day liberals and neocons are practically the same, it's the libertarians who are different. It's the libertarians who are saying "no, we don't think corporations should influence elections, but it's THIS unconstitutional power being exercised that's enabling that kind of influence." We understand that the market largely self-regulates because greed is offset by fear of loss. But when the government tries to eliminate fear by bailing out failed management with money appropriated from healthy businesses, insuring deposits on every bank, price fixing interest rates, and guaranteeing loans, rampant fraud and speculation ensues. DUH. Certain groups are always trying to offload their risk to someone else through the government, including debt to a future generation that hasn't been born yet. DISABLE IT ALREADY. FUCK. Politicians aren't efficient with money because they have no fear of losing what they didn't have to work to obtain. Again, DUH.


ya know.
you made some great points too bad they got buried under your presumption and seeming bitterness.
word of advice:
if you wish people to take you seriously and consider any points you may make try to avoid calling people names before you begin your rant.
so you read the federalist papers,what do you want? a cookie?a pat on the back? a young polynesian prostitute?
so you are a libertarian and evidenced by your post you feel you have enough credible information to back up why.
are you going for the cookie again?
have you even considered that political ideology may..just MAY..be a very diverse substrate and that many with differing views can ALSO back up why they feel the way they do and can do it just as succinctly and competently as YOU did?
come on man!
you act like you are the only one who ever read a book,watched a lecture and came to a conclusion,everybody else is just retarded.
we have pretty simple rules here on the sift:
DON'T BE A WANKER.

Minor observation, but I think this might be the most votes a non-negative clip about Friedman has ever gotten on Videosift.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^NetRunner:
Quite the spontaneous eruption of Friedman hate.
Personally, I think this is a very clear and succinct way of expressing how democracy works, even if he does slip in the word "profit" (which seems to drive certain people absolutely batshit crazy).
The real double-edged problem with his point is that we've let campaign finance, lobbying, and revolving-door practices get so out of hand, many (possibly even most) elected officials are acting on what's most individually profitable to them in a material sense, and not really worrying about having to face accountability from the public who want their representatives to act in service of the public good.
In other words, we've let our democracy get undermined, largely by Friedman's own disciples.

NetRunner's right... replace the word "profit" with "inventive" and we'll get closer to what Friedman's talking about.


That should have said INCENTIVE, the basis for much economic reasoning, not 'inventive,' as I originally wrote, haha.

Well, people are driven by incentives - it's the way the world works whether we like it or not. If we make it profitable - literally - for politicians to do the right things then the right things will be done.

This fuckstick is right.

^He is right, but he says this as if having the ability to buy yourself a congress is a good thing. I don't see his argument as valid justification for the campaign finance corruption within our system.

Corporations fund the think tanks that tell you what to think. Are you a fan of Cato or Reason magazine? They are funded by the likes of Koch and Mellon Scaife, the same folks who fund all the hard right and neo-con think tanks. I take you at your word that your belief system is different from the corporatists, and I respect that, but regardless, you are still being led down a path by people who don't give a shit about these ideals; people who build up your ego by telling you that you are different, that you are special, that you have wisely risen above the two party nattering, but only on the condition that you obediently do as they say. What do you think will happen once you get your tiny government and deregulated markets? Utopia?

Conflating 'free market' capitalism with liberty is naive. The two are unrelated.

>> ^BansheeX:

God, this site just has the same uneducated people spewing socialist nonsense and even going so far as to smear mostly agreeable libertarians like Friedman. The Shock Doctrine is complete poop, there is no other way to say it. Anyone who recommends that book has probably read absolutely nothing from any libertarian ever. Here's a crash course on how utterly illogical and distorted that book is:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman/2
GeeSussFreeK: People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.

Looks like someone is dangerously close to understanding the best political system. We're not supposed to be a democracy, because there are some things that no one should be able to vote on. 99 people shouldn't be able to vote away 1 guy's property because they don't like him. That basic truth gives way to the realization that we need to be ruled in some form by a benevolent dictator that can't easily be corrupted. That is the idea behind a republic: the constitution is nothing more than a paper dictator. Our dictators were highly intelligent people for their time, battled tyranny, and debated lengthily about how much power the Federal government should have over the states. Read the Federalist Papers, sometime. I don't think our schools bother to assign it anymore. People and judges still have to obey the paper dictator, however, and it's largely been subverted over time because it isn't clear enough in places. You can spend years studying how and why and dream of a replacement knowing what we know today. That most of the people on this forum still don't understand anything I've said in this paragraph is just flipping amazing. I would pay money to watch Friedman's zombie corpse debate the likes of anyone on this forum, because you're clearly not even 1% as capable of rational thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMb_72hgkJk
It's fucking scary how people on this forum associate neocons and libertarians. Modern day liberals and neocons are practically the same, it's the libertarians who are different. It's the libertarians who are saying "no, we don't think corporations should influence elections, but it's THIS unconstitutional power being exercised that's enabling that kind of influence." We understand that the market largely self-regulates because greed is offset by fear of loss. But when the government tries to eliminate fear by bailing out failed management with money appropriated from healthy businesses, insuring deposits on every bank, price fixing interest rates, and guaranteeing loans, rampant fraud and speculation ensues. DUH. Certain groups are always trying to offload their risk to someone else through the government, including debt to a future generation that hasn't been born yet. DISABLE IT ALREADY. FUCK. Politicians aren't efficient with money because they have no fear of losing what they didn't have to work to obtain. Again, DUH.

The Shock Doctrine was spot on and Naomi Klein deserves a medal for her efforts.

>> ^imstellar28:

Ever been to Greece? You buy the sailboat I'll buy the gyros.
>> ^rougy:
I'm really sick of this shit. I'm really sick of this country.


No surprise. You're one of the pricks who are raping this country to hell.

Greece? The same Greece that had the rug pulled out from under it by the financiers that fucked over Iceland and hundreds of municipalities right here in the USA?

You're so clever.

^ i just like gyros.

that, and you know, the views...
http://i44.tinypic.com/1zehv5y.jpg

I'm amazed at how many of you watched this video and, apparently, have no idea what was said.

This has nothing to do with economics, corporatism or "buying a congress".

This has everything to do with politicians being narcissists who don't know what to do with themselves if they don't win their regular November popularity contest. That's all they care about; getting elected. They'll do whatever they think will get them votes. That's the currency Friedman is talking about: votes. Politicians follow the votes. Convince them that your position will earn them the most votes and it becomes their position.

Whether or not he's a fuckstick, a douchebag, a doodyhead or whatever else you want to call him is childish and irrelevant... argumentum ad hominem. Debate his claim or keep quiet because you're making yourself look really foolish.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'm amazed at how many of you watched this video and, apparently, have no idea what was said.
This has nothing to do with economics, corporatism or "buying a congress".
This has everything to do with politicians being narcissists who don't know what to do with themselves if they don't win their regular November popularity contest. That's all they care about; getting elected. They'll do whatever they think will get them votes. That's the currency Friedman is talking about: votes. Politicians follow the votes. Convince them that your position will earn them the most votes and it becomes their position.
Whether or not he's a fuckstick, a douchebag, a doodyhead or whatever else you want to call him is childish and irrelevant... argumentum ad hominem. Debate his claim or keep quiet because you're making yourself look really foolish.


But... but... but... he said "profit"! And that can only mean financial profitability... right? What other profit can their be? I've been trained to conflate profit with money and evil much like a dog conflates the sound of a can opening with eating.

@blankfist conflate is your word of the week it seems. We already have too many arguments about dictionaries, don't make me smack you with a thesaurus!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'm amazed at how many of you watched this video and, apparently, have no idea what was said.
This has nothing to do with economics, corporatism or "buying a congress".
This has everything to do with politicians being narcissists who don't know what to do with themselves if they don't win their regular November popularity contest. That's all they care about; getting elected. They'll do whatever they think will get them votes. That's the currency Friedman is talking about: votes. Politicians follow the votes. Convince them that your position will earn them the most votes and it becomes their position.
Whether or not he's a fuckstick, a douchebag, a doodyhead or whatever else you want to call him is childish and irrelevant... argumentum ad hominem. Debate his claim or keep quiet because you're making yourself look really foolish.


You've been well trained. You'll make an excellent pet one day.

>> ^NetRunner:
conflate is your word of the week it seems. We already have too many arguments about dictionaries, don't make me smack you with a thesaurus!


I used it twice in this posting and four times my entire time on this site. Is that the limit for word usage? Four? In that case, I'll need that thesaurus now. I think I've used 'the' more than that.

Stop conflating your arguments, it's statist. Cat fart.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
conflate is your word of the week it seems. We already have too many arguments about dictionaries, don't make me smack you with a thesaurus!

I used it twice in this posting and four times my entire time on this site. Is that the limit for word usage? Four? In that case, I'll need that thesaurus now. I think I've used 'the' more than that.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
conflate is your word of the week it seems. We already have too many arguments about dictionaries, don't make me smack you with a thesaurus!

I used it twice in this posting and four times my entire time on this site. Is that the limit for word usage? Four? In that case, I'll need that thesaurus now. I think I've used 'the' more than that.

That was a long winded "NUH-UUUUUUUUUH!"

You know what I think?



( >'.')><('.'< ) ( >'.')><('.'< )

It's surprising how many people in otherwise good standing don't abide by that rule.
>> ^enoch:

we have pretty simple rules here on the sift:
DON'T BE A WANKER.

politically profitable != financially profitable.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
conflate is your word of the week it seems. We already have too many arguments about dictionaries, don't make me smack you with a thesaurus!

I'll need that thesaurus now.


Come and get it baby. <NetRunner stuffs pocket thesaurus down the front of his pants>

You know I always give you what you need!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
conflate is your word of the week it seems. We already have too many arguments about dictionaries, don't make me smack you with a thesaurus!

I'll need that thesaurus now.

Come and get it baby. <NetRunner stuffs pocket thesaurus down the front of his pants>
You know I always give you what you need!


Hot interideological man on man action. Hot! Keep talking, my throbbing hard dicktionary is conflating.

>> ^gwiz665:

politically profitable != financially profitable.


You obviously don't follow American politics, or American culture in general, do you? It's all about the money.

What is love!?

Baby don't hurt me! Don't hurt me! No more!



My maniacal dancing was distroyed by this quote, "Hot interideological man on man action. Hot! Keep talking, my throbbing hard dicktionary is conflating."

I apologize for posting all of those ... BWAHAHAhAHAAHAHHHH!

Here's an example of political profitability != financial profitability:

Ron Paul returned $100k to the Treasury from his office budget and does so every year. Let's make that trend politically profitable!

In a way, you're right.

I'm trained in critical thinking and debate. Not extensively, mind you, as it's all been independent study, but enough to know that attacking the arguer rather than the argument ("argumentum ad hominem") instantly makes your argument irrelevant.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You've been well trained.

@blankfist, @dystopianfuturetoday, the existence of left-wing politics is a blunt demonstration of political profitability != financial profitability.

Virtually everything the left ever wants to achieve in terms of political goals is opposed tooth and nail by industry. Even partial victories involve grassroots organizations forcing politicians to struggle with the conflict between political profitability and financial profitability.

Oh, and blankfist, it's not like Paul is giving back $100k that he'd otherwise get to pocket, that's a case of trying to allocate government funds to optimize his personal political profit so he can continue to collect his government paycheck and associated benefits (like socialized medicine!).

@NetRunner. I'm pretty sure I said he gave back the money from his budget. That's still huge seeing how $100k could do a lot: expensive lunches, cocktails, lap dances, etc.

But, now that you mention it, he has voted against pay raises for congressmen and is against congressional policy that forces politicians to give up their private practice and suck from the government teat. Now, that's solid political profitability, if you ask me.

I'll say this, I didn't expect Milton Friedman in the top 15 on SocialSift.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'congress, wrong reasons, profiting, electing, manipulation' to 'congress, wrong reasons, profiting, electing, manipulation, wrong people, right things' - edited by calvados

>> ^xxovercastxx:

In a way, you're right.
I'm trained in critical thinking and debate. Not extensively, mind you, as it's all been independent study, but enough to know that attacking the arguer rather than the argument ("argumentum ad hominem") instantly makes your argument irrelevant.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You've been well trained.



Oh isn't that cute. He can fetch, play dead and roll over, and he thinks it's the result of critical thinking. If only he had a sense of humor he'd be perfect. Let's get his DNA sample to R&D pronto so that we can start the cloning process.

>> ^NetRunner:

the existence of left-wing politics is a blunt demonstration of political profitability != financial profitability.
Virtually everything the left ever wants to achieve in terms of political goals is opposed tooth and nail by industry. Even partial victories involve grassroots organizations forcing politicians to struggle with the conflict between political profitability and financial profitability.
Oh, and blankfist, it's not like Paul is giving back $100k that he'd otherwise get to pocket, that's a case of trying to allocate government funds to optimize his personal political profit so he can continue to collect his government paycheck and associated benefits (like socialized medicine!).


I understand the ideal, I just don't see it in reality at present. What has the left achieved in the past decade that is free of the influence of money? While healthcare reform is a step in the right direction, the concerns of big money ultimately won out over the concerns of the people.

I do want to believe and would love some hopeful examples, if you've got any.

@dystopianfuturetoday, I guess I'm not convinced that much of this country's history has been anything but largely dominated by corporate influence.

Only once you had a real foundation of an American "left" during the New Deal era did you really see anything but corporate influence making a difference.

I don't think what Friedman is talking about is a cure all, but there is really only two ways we reduce the influence of money on politics: A) through political activism for campaign finance & lobbying reforms in our system of democracy or B) a communist revolution that ends the accumulation of private wealth, or at least using it to bribe government officials.

I'm not ready to give up on option A, though I can't help but think that threatening B might at least get the media to acknowledge the existence of a grassroots left in this country.

>> ^NetRunner:

I guess I'm not convinced that much of this country's history has been anything but largely dominated by corporate influence.
Only once you had a real foundation of an American "left" during the New Deal era did you really see anything but corporate influence making a difference.
I don't think what Friedman is talking about is a cure all, but there is really only two ways we reduce the influence of money on politics: A) through political activism for campaign finance & lobbying reforms in our system of democracy or B) a communist revolution that ends the accumulation of private wealth, or at least using it to bribe government officials.
I'm not ready to give up on option A, though I can't help but think that threatening B might at least get the media to acknowledge the existence of a grassroots left in this country.


So Friedman's statement is feel good rhetorical fluff, money rules while the public drools, and we need campaign finance reform badly. We are pretty much in agreement here. What were we arguing about again?

Also, I believe we'd agreed to not publicly talk about the ommunistcay evolutionray at our last democratic meetup. Nice job spoiling the element of surprise.

@dystopianfuturetoday, we were arguing? I suspect you're only saying that as a ruse to get make up sex.

I suppose I think more highly of Friedman's description of democracy than mere rhetorical fluff, but I'm a big proponent of the idea that the right rhetorical "fluff" can move the world.

The way he says it, it sounds like "Yes we can!", and I love that kind of hopey changey stuff.

@dystopianfuturetoday and @NetRunner. Who's the bottom?

Head noogies and kisses.

^Friedman hates democracy. There is a video on the sift where he says that democracy is bad, because 51% of the populous could vote to murder 49%. I think he has another video that says kittens are bad, because they could gouge out your eyeballs while you sleep.