7 minutes long. Great stuff. Many different points that you may think are cool or stupid. I don't want to sully it with my crappy commentary. Watch and say stuff.
06-30-2016 11:45 PM
#1
| |
|
Milton Friedman on government and private enterprise7 minutes long. Great stuff. Many different points that you may think are cool or stupid. I don't want to sully it with my crappy commentary. Watch and say stuff. |
07-01-2016 12:17 AM
#2
| |
|
Answers to the first and third questions were good, the second was very wishy washy. |
07-01-2016 05:16 AM
#3
| |
I'm not so sure. His answer to the third question, answered first, was pretty bad to imo. By saying that a 40% tax having benefit means that therefore a 100% tax must also then be beneficial is a bit of a straw man. The original question was really asking if there is a benefit to having some central government chosing how to allocate a portion of resources as opposed to just individiuals, and it was kind of skated over by saying well you wouldn't think 100% is good so how can 40%. | |
| |
07-01-2016 05:23 AM
#4
| |
|
I honestly don't see how that was his question but at the same time it seemed a really stupid question so admittedly maybe I've misunderstood. |
07-01-2016 06:40 AM
#5
| |
I watched and paused when I had something to say: | |
| |
07-01-2016 08:14 AM
#6
| |
In his Brittain example, he ignores the fact that the gov't was only taking 10% taxes from its citizens, but massively exploiting many other people around the globe to subsidize them. I don't think it makes sense to draw an invisible line around Brittish citizens as the sole source of the Brittish economic wealth during that period. | |
07-01-2016 02:29 PM
#7
| |
|
The questioner posited that it could be that the inefficiency of being taxed could spur greater net benefit by incentivizing people to be even more productive and innovative than otherwise. I agree with you in that Friedman's initial response didn't address this perfectly since it could be posited that there are diminishing returns, i.e., this effect is positive at 20% tax rate but not at 80% tax rate. However, as Friedman gets further into explaining it, he makes a good point in that the inefficiency of the tax portion is just, well, inefficient, and intuitively and arithmetically it could be shown that having a smaller and smaller portion of people in this bracket puts a larger portion of people in the more efficient bracket, and thus generates greater net benefit. |
07-01-2016 03:17 PM
#8
| |
|
It's not evident in this video, but Friedman is a "the federal government should tax and spend on national defense" guy. After I put some thought into it, it is possible I will disagree with his logic (or maybe I'll agree with it), but it basically goes that he thinks the federal government should do nothing other than protect national security and constitutional liberties. Everything else should be handled by local governments; the more local the better. |
07-01-2016 03:38 PM
#9
| |
I wiki'd him and it says he was for volunteer armies. | |
| |
07-01-2016 03:42 PM
#10
| |
|
If you asked him this, he would likely make the point that the exploitation was relatively unproductive (just more productive than otherwise). Economically, Great Britain, at the height of its power, was still quite unproductive relative to today. The treatment of its subjects didn't give the empire an advantage that we would have today if only we exploited like they did. If I were to make an argument around this and the tax rate, I would say that this means that since GB got away with a 10% tax rate even though it was way more unproductive than we are today, it means that the optimal rate of today is lower. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-01-2016 at 04:05 PM. | |
07-01-2016 03:43 PM
#11
| |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-01-2016 at 03:46 PM. | |
07-01-2016 03:46 PM
#12
| |
|
I liked the second the best. I love the point that only people make value judgments. It is not because of government that people want safe-to-eat food; it is because of the values of people that people want safe-to-eat food. This is why I think the debate between governments and free markets boils down in a large way to efficiency. What most efficiently enacts the value judgments of people? |
07-01-2016 03:49 PM
#13
| |
Didn't coke say in court something to the affect of "No one would make the mistake of thinking Vita-waters were healthy"? I know people who made that mistake. I made that mistake. | |
| |
07-01-2016 03:57 PM
#14
| |
|
It should be noted that he doesn't say that this is why we don't need armies today. He was responding to the question of whether or not there are examples of countries being driven by free enterprise. |
07-01-2016 04:01 PM
#15
| |
| |
07-01-2016 04:02 PM
#16
| |
|
How do people believe if food is safe to eat? By the results and expectations. If the FDA was worthless and gave retarded evaluations and people were getting sick left and right when consuming items the FDA approves, people would stop listening to the FDA. Even a government monopoly depends on perceptions of the people. |
07-01-2016 04:02 PM
#17
| |
| |
07-01-2016 04:02 PM
#18
| |
| |
07-01-2016 04:13 PM
#19
| |
|
Some better than others. The argument for less government and more freedom is that it creates more efficiency. In some industries, we have seen this with our own eyes. When governments run enough elements of the food industry, inefficiency is so great that people starve. Wasn't there recent news about how there isn't any beer in Venezuela anymore? Found it. |
07-01-2016 04:20 PM
#20
| |
| |
07-01-2016 04:35 PM
#21
| |
| |
| |
07-01-2016 04:39 PM
#22
| |
All this History were people making choices, you can't discount it as simply a relic of a time when people weren't proper people who enjoyed proper rights like proper free choice. | |
| |
07-01-2016 04:43 PM
#23
| |
|
Rilla, a while back we had a debate on this line. I believe it is true that governments used to be more efficient at security than enterprise. My explanation is that back in these historical times, measuring invasion potential was too poor to be reliable and was ultimately quite inefficient. But assuming high invasion potential, which is what the governments that eventually became the most successful did, was very efficient. |
07-01-2016 04:44 PM
#24
| |
|
I certainly do not think human nature has changed one bit. |
07-01-2016 04:55 PM
#25
| |
I hear you, but I don't think that people in a position to make these choices think the same. I'm still of the magical belief that when given access to the inner thoughts and fully secured documents of a nation, you have to adjust your beliefs. This is why politicians always disappoint - when faced with the realities of the task, the demands of the people get moved to the backburner. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-01-2016 at 04:58 PM. | |
07-01-2016 05:00 PM
#26
| |
I swear I remember hearing about how Congress was all of the opinion that Wall Street perfectly understood risk all the way up to the 2008 market-readjustment. | |
| |
07-01-2016 05:05 PM
#27
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:08 PM
#28
| |
And, I just want to point out, that if a paradigm has been flipped, it's because we discovered oil. We can pump real, hard, manual labor out of the deep rocks and the world is still readjusting. | |
| |
07-01-2016 05:09 PM
#29
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:14 PM
#30
| |
|
In general, think throwing a lot of capital at a problem is efficient. |
07-01-2016 05:18 PM
#31
| |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-01-2016 at 05:22 PM. | |
07-01-2016 05:20 PM
#32
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:37 PM
#33
| |
|
A monopoly getting something wrong. Whodathunk? |
07-01-2016 05:38 PM
#34
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:39 PM
#35
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:40 PM
#36
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:40 PM
#37
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:41 PM
#38
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:42 PM
#39
| |
|
I want a currency free market. Bitcoin does not exist within a currency free market. |
07-01-2016 05:43 PM
#40
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:44 PM
#41
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:44 PM
#42
| |
|
Yes the world would be way behind if not for oil. It is by far the most important natural resource for production. |
07-01-2016 05:46 PM
#43
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:49 PM
#44
| |
It seems like the first innovation to trade was to put shiny metal as the universal I.O.U for all trades. Why bring my pigs to market and haggle with everyone for milk, bread, blankets, and whores, when I can just ask for small gold coins that everyone agrees are desirable? | |
| |
07-01-2016 05:50 PM
#45
| |
| |
07-01-2016 05:51 PM
#46
| |
|
To be clear, a currency-free market is idiotic. A free market of currency is good stuff. |
07-01-2016 05:54 PM
#47
| |
Yeah, I just got that. My bad. Still, currency underlies all trade, and you want currency to be subject to market forces. It's literally chaos the whole way down. | |
| |
07-01-2016 05:57 PM
#48
| |
| |
07-01-2016 06:00 PM
#49
| |
| |
07-01-2016 06:01 PM
#50
| |
|
Currency is already subject to market forces. Central banks daily do things in an attempt to accommodate. |
07-01-2016 06:03 PM
#51
| |
| |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-01-2016 at 07:04 PM. | |
07-01-2016 06:05 PM
#52
| |
Bitcoin is all about what you're about. It's valued on its protocol alone, as opposed to shininess. edit: and can't be controlled. (though, it can. I mean it's a stupid point to bring up bitcoin, only to show an example of how the best punch your belief in a free-market currency ends up when exposed to reality) | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-01-2016 at 06:12 PM. | |
07-01-2016 06:07 PM
#53
| |
| |
07-01-2016 06:38 PM
#54
| |
|
I'm about no government intervention, not choosing something because from one perspective the government intervenes less in it. |
07-01-2016 06:51 PM
#55
| |
|
Two quotations from a speech in 2002 in honor of Milton Friedman given by future Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: |
07-02-2016 12:19 PM
#56
| |
I really don't know anything about the Great Depression. Even when I was looking around for stuff about Spain and their silver mines in America, I saw some stuff about how it tanked on the Spanish poor. Just more shit to find out about. | |
| |
07-02-2016 12:30 PM
#57
| |
| |
07-02-2016 12:33 PM
#58
| |
| |
07-02-2016 07:12 PM
#59
| |
| |
07-02-2016 07:17 PM
#60
| |
| |
07-03-2016 06:08 AM
#61
| |
| |
07-03-2016 10:04 AM
#62
| |
It's been flooring me for a while how this simple explanation of gov't explains it so well. It's not the whole picture of how a gov't forms, but it seems to be robust for why gov'ts have spontaneously formed in every human population I've heard of. | |
07-03-2016 02:59 PM
#63
| |
| |
07-03-2016 03:04 PM
#64
| |
|
Yeah this is similar to the points involving how monopolized security is easier for people to legitimize. |
07-13-2016 06:55 AM
#65
| |
Last edited by Louise A. Radcliffe; 07-13-2016 at 07:01 AM. Reason: mistake
| |
07-13-2016 02:59 PM
#66
| |
I'm waiting to hear about alternatives. | |
| |
07-13-2016 03:02 PM
#67
| |
|
You use alternatives on a daily basis. |
07-13-2016 03:05 PM
#68
| |
Alternatives to the United States of America? | |
| |
07-13-2016 03:06 PM
#69
| |
Wait, wait, wait. | |
| |
07-13-2016 04:26 PM
#70
| |
|
Again, you use alternatives every day. Violence has a terrible track record of being the "most decisive" method to end conflict. |
07-13-2016 04:38 PM
#71
| |
| |
07-14-2016 04:38 AM
#72
| |
Again, I didn't say it's the thing you use on the scale of your life to make decisions, I said it was the most decisive method. | |
| |
07-14-2016 04:41 AM
#73
| |
| |
07-14-2016 05:13 AM
#74
| |
I'll just cut to the chase - you can't use examples of your day to day life because you live in a nation of laws. Every escalation of any dispute will eventually run into the authority of the State - it will either decide the resolution or it will decide which method will be used for resolution. If you don't like how the State handles it, what choice is left to you? What methods did the South use? | |
| |
07-14-2016 08:14 AM
#75
| |
I rather think states exist (or would exist) regardless of the method of achieving and maintaining that status. If the "most decisive method" was not violence, I suspect that states would choose whatever that method happens to be. I don't think the demand for government would go away. I think the need for a state goes deeper than violence (and protection from violence). | |