Yes, he was a monster.

Despite anything he said, he promoted wealth for the wealthy.

Always did.

Only obliquely related, but this is worth a read.

Thats right rottenseed...come to the dark side

>> ^rougy:

Yes, he was a monster.
Despite anything he said, he promoted wealth for the wealthy.
Always did.
Only obliquely related, but this is worth a read.

I don't think he was a monster. Maybe an extreme idealist. I think he meant well in all of his rants and ideology. And what he says about government programs and policies such as minimum wage backfiring and working the opposite may be correct.

@rottenseed, it's correct only within the confines of what Friedman deems profitable.

The minimum wage rant is a tired old song.

He's basically saying that the market (the people with the capital and money) are the only ones who can decide the worth of labor.

Trade unions, and minimum wage supporters, understand that the working class has a say in how much they get paid, and that's the crux of the argument.

Friedman deciding how much labor is worth vs. labor deciding how much labor is worth.

@rougy
I think his actual argument for why minimum wage is a bust is a weak one. There is a much better one in saying that it drives the price of goods up thus nothing is gained for those at minimum wage and it affects everybody else negatively. Another argument is that it's a means for an increase in sales tax and income tax. Tricky effin' government...

It may drive the cost of goods up, but it also creates more people who are able to afford those goods.

So do union wages.

An economy really wants as much money as possible to be distributed among as many people as possible if it is to work efficiently.

Depressions and recessions are created when there are not enough people on the bottom end of the pyramid to buy all of the commodities that are for sale.

One rich woman may buy a hundred pair of shoes, but a million people will buy a million pair of shoes.

The major problem with Friedman's capitalism is that most of the money keeps getting funneled to the people at the top, and due to their limited numbers, they don't buy enough product to keep the game in play.

@rougy, I would argue that it doesn't create more people who are able to afford those goods since the price of those goods will go up directly with the amount that minimum wage increases. Assuming, of course, there is a labor force working on minimum wage to create those goods. If minimum wage were to go up a quarter, that good would go up according to the increase of cost it takes to produce the item. So even though some are making more, the things they buy will cost more.

I do agree that Friedman's model is unrealistic. He fails to factor human condition. He might as well be Karl Marx in terms of unrealistic economic models.

One rich woman may buy a hundred pair of shoes, but a million people will buy a million pair of shoes.

True, but as a devil's advocate I'd have to say that this rich woman needs money for these shoes. Money that could come from a business. The money that'll buy her shoes comes may come from the work of a thousand people. That's people with jobs.

I like to play devil's advocate because I don't have to choose a side. Mainly because there's good points from both teams.

This was here before...did it die?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This was here before...did it die?

Couldn't find it...maybe you can and STEAL my thunder!!!!!! haha.