Milton Friedman on Socialism and Capitalism
- Thread starter InBenjiWeTrust
- Start date
@ said:
Well since the advent of genetic testing the divide between the two groups has been shown to almost be exclusively cultural. Jewish people are predisposed to certain illness more than Arabs but that is considered to be a product of their isolationist cultural heritage than any true genetic drift
@ said:
As to your first point, extreme socialism does suck compared to extreme capitalism. No-one can argue sensibly against that.
The point of this thread was to compare the two directly, and there is only one intelligent answer to that proposition.
As for Milton, even his detractors agreed that he was a brilliant theoretical economist. But he operated from the 1950's-1970's .. in a very different environment than we see today. You have to take this into consideration when listening to him.
On a side note, if we are wanting to talk about health care, i am not advocating a US System (its becoming more socialist than Australia's by the way), but we also can't pretend we have "free" healthcare in this Country. Nothing is for free, because someone pays for it all. We get slugged with a Medicare Levy, forced Private Health Insurance, Medicare Levy Surcharge, and increasing income taxes to pay for our health system. Against a backdrop of insurmountable government debt, we also can't pretend this current subsidized system will survive forever.
Eventually we will be forced to pay for doctor's visits and the such, which i don't think is a bad thing. If you have to pay $10.00 to see a doctor who has spent 10 years in med school, then you should be doing cartwheels that your not paying $500.00.
We live in a wealthy country, and i don't advocate against the government helping people who cant help themselves. But there should be defined limits to government charity, and there doesn't appear to be any in this day and age.
@ said:
You don't believe Jesus existed? So you have decided to ignore the educated and unquestioned findings of every historian and textual scholar the world over, including those that are overwhelmingly atheists and non-Christians?
Or more likely, you have not bothered to look at the expert opinions and findings of those who have devoted their careers to this question. You just woke up one day in a hash-inspired haze and decided to make an uneducated guess? Congratulations.
Secondly, the quote you mentioned was not uttered by Jesus. :roll
Based on your record of willful ignorance, you don't seem like someone who would understand any deep rooted analysis of religion and its impact on civilization, but western civilization is rooted in Christian teaching and philosophy. Freedom, democracy, human rights, morality, even secular government, (some have even made strong arguments for the Christian basis of Capitalism), basically everything that separates western civilization from the non-western, is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian philosophy. So I understand why you, as a card carrying marxist/leftist, would hate Christianity and Western Civilization at the same time, because they are inseparable.
As one loses steam, so does the other, which we are unfortunately witnessing emerge in slow motion.
@ said:
I am not opposed to a means tested co-payment to see a doctor. I have to see my GP monthly for the rest of my life for scripts and INR tests to make sure my warfarin is on the level. I would be out of pocket but it is a small price to pay if I can afford to pay it and I am routinely drawing on resources. And that doesn't count when I visit the GP on the odd occasion I'm crook.
Obviously I would not support pensioners, kids and low income earners being hit to see a quack though.
I don't see it fit to take a lot from those who get little back for their graft. There are many people out there whom work hard and earn little. I feel the same about business. Small businesses should receive tax reprieve compared to large businesses.
Governments would serve well by using a little foresight.
Meaningful infrastructure projects that the population can grow into rather than outgrow by the time they are finished and some commonsense planning would fare far better than repeated band aid solutions.
Meaningful infrastructure projects that the population can grow into rather than outgrow by the time they are finished and some commonsense planning would fare far better than repeated band aid solutions.
Nice, now people are arguing about Jesus and Christianity over "is capitalism evil" (or is socialism evil).
End of the day Capitalism is Amoral and hence evil by any yardstick. It does not care if people starve, collapse, work 70 hours a week and get no social life. There is no thought, no reason, no intelligence to "The market". Anyone who is saying "the market" will take care of things is relying on an inherently greedy thing to solve a problem, that it does not Know or care about. a 5 year old has more chance of washing it's own face then a market of solving problems.
No one thinks of the cost of Unemployment, of suicide, of the lack of hope for our under 20 year olds. Economists cannot measure the intangible, so most hence ignore it. Thomas Piketty is one rare exception and his conclusions are far more accurate then most (he also uses statistics like every tax return for the last 100 years to make his conclusions, unlike Milton who did not have the same resources and just guessed his conclusions).
Which is exactly what China has done. It has actually driven it's businesses via government investment. It's infrastructure investment is HUGE! Far more then any other country. Because of this foresight Businesses can grow far faster under China's controlled market then under other markets due to this infrastructure investment.
Another case of this is Wollongong Council went into partnership to build Woolongong mall, 50/50 private public, this was done to drive employment in the area. The GM ensured that his staff were familiar and ready to run commercial projects if needed. Later the Private part pulled out of the partnership, no issues council took over. Result, the area grew and many people who would have been unemployed kept their jobs.
Not saying this works all the time, but Government investment can work. Keeping government away from infrastructure investment leads to inexperience. Private/public partnerships are often WAY too expensive, and more costly long term. In short, smart long term investment will drive our country forward.
End of the day Capitalism is Amoral and hence evil by any yardstick. It does not care if people starve, collapse, work 70 hours a week and get no social life. There is no thought, no reason, no intelligence to "The market". Anyone who is saying "the market" will take care of things is relying on an inherently greedy thing to solve a problem, that it does not Know or care about. a 5 year old has more chance of washing it's own face then a market of solving problems.
No one thinks of the cost of Unemployment, of suicide, of the lack of hope for our under 20 year olds. Economists cannot measure the intangible, so most hence ignore it. Thomas Piketty is one rare exception and his conclusions are far more accurate then most (he also uses statistics like every tax return for the last 100 years to make his conclusions, unlike Milton who did not have the same resources and just guessed his conclusions).
@ said:
Which is exactly what China has done. It has actually driven it's businesses via government investment. It's infrastructure investment is HUGE! Far more then any other country. Because of this foresight Businesses can grow far faster under China's controlled market then under other markets due to this infrastructure investment.
Another case of this is Wollongong Council went into partnership to build Woolongong mall, 50/50 private public, this was done to drive employment in the area. The GM ensured that his staff were familiar and ready to run commercial projects if needed. Later the Private part pulled out of the partnership, no issues council took over. Result, the area grew and many people who would have been unemployed kept their jobs.
Not saying this works all the time, but Government investment can work. Keeping government away from infrastructure investment leads to inexperience. Private/public partnerships are often WAY too expensive, and more costly long term. In short, smart long term investment will drive our country forward.
@ said:
You said capitalism is evil, because it does not care if people starve. Well this shines a light on where the problem is with your viewpoints.
Its a fact that the rise of capitalism meant that there were far less people starving than ever before. The prosperity that Capitalism developed ensured that even unskilled workers were able to prosper through hard work and good financial sense. The prosperity and moving up between income classes has done far more to help people avoid starving to death, than the socialist response to make people line up all day for a loaf of bread or a cup of rice donated by the Government.
Ironically, Socialism in practice doesn't not only care if people are starving, it is often the cause of them starving.
But back to your first line … Its not capitalism's role to deal with people starving. Capitalism is a system of economics, not a social welfare and advocacy system. Where is society's role here , where is the community's role, where is the role of religious institutions, where is the individual moral responsibility to care for those who are starving (almost universally as a result of mental illness, rather than economic factors, by the way)?
Because Socialist thinking requires society to become reliant on big government to become 'daddy' to everyone, it automatically shifts responsibility for every aspect of life onto Government, and then society washes their hands of responsibility thereafter. So its the government's role is to treat you like a kid and make life decisions for you, because under socialism you are a means of capital and revenue production, rather than a free individual with God-given rights and freedoms. I'll mention that word 'evil' again.
But the funny thing is that there are farrrr more people starving in Socialist countries than there are in Capitalist countries. Explain that one for me.
@ said:
again you throw a binary choice at us. People starving under one extreme system, but more people starving under another! What do we want, a system which allows people to get ahead but not fall on their face.
"Its a fact that the rise of capitalism meant that there were far less people starving than ever before. "
Where capitalism has been extreme, they have starved. Did you forget about Britain employing it's Child workforce in the Industrial revolution for near starvation rates? Did you forget about the convicts being sent here for stealing a loaf of bread. It was that wonderful free market you like to advocate for, the one where some people have lots of money and some have few….
Guess what we got next? Horrible regulation! no child younger then 14 allowed to work. Wasn't this evil. Then we got safety laws, workplace injuries investigated and prevented, wasn't that burden on business Evil (not).
With capitalism (neo-con/extreme) the gap between rich and poor increases, those that have money, accumulate more.
Use your brain, admit that sensible compromises work. Don't go "socialism" as in some crazy government somewhere does not work so lets make Australia more capitalist!
Australia is not starving, New Zealand is not starving, Canada is not starving. We are all doing better then America and I see no reason to imitate their madness.
Government healthcare WORKS! Government funded basic education WORKS. What we are currently doing, with all it's faults, works better then Milton Friedmans theoretical ideal. Modern Economists like Piketty, Stiglitz and my favourite Keen actually prove what they are saying with real hard data. Computers in Friedman's time could not give him the answers he wanted so he just fudged his way through.
I could use a hamburger about now..
@ said:
Firstly you argue against a binary choice, well the whole thread is about a binary choice! it is about one guys' opinion of Socialism Vs Capitalism, so is it any wonder i am comparing the two directly?
You cant defend socialism in good conscious, so your turning it into a debate about something else. Well i'm not talking about something else, i'm talking about … Socialism Vs Capitalism.
I have not stated Capitalism is perfect (although your examples are more laizzet fair then capitalist), and i never would, but its only about a trillion times better than socialism which has literally failed each and every time it has been implemented. I don't need to come up with an example of a crazy failed state when talking about socialism, because they are all crazy failed states, or in the process of becoming so.
Look at socialist Denmark. They have a personal tax rate in excess of 60%, have their defense basically paid for by the USA, and their cost of living is through the roof. Is that a good enough example for you?
On a side note i have already stated that i have no problem with a wealthy government spending money on social needs such as healthcare (to a sensible extent), but that is a far cry from actual Socialism.
You don't seem to understand that a socialist state is nothing more than state sponsored theft of people's goods and services. Stealing one man's wealth to bring them back to the field, under threat of force, is an inherently evil system.
The choice between equality of opportunity (capitalism) or equality of outcome (socialism) is an easy one. One lets you be free, while the other makes you a slave. It cannot be more stark than that!
How many westerners do you see wanting to live in Cuba or Venezuela or Columbia? You've never asked yourself why it is always the other way around, people risking their lives to leave Socialist dumps to live in the Capitalist west?
I'm going around in circles now, so im happy to let this conversation die its inevitable death.
@ said:
Is the hamburger capitalist or socialist?
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
Concerning Denmark's defence being paid for by the USA. The world and especially Europe is tied up in complicated world politics, a remnant of two World Wars, capitalism, communism and nationalism. In effect an artificial situation that I don't think is wise to judge an economic system on.
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
@ said:
I read Josephus about Jesus's supposed existence. There is one para on it that is completely out of context with surrounding texts. Even if it was not out of context it still defies all common sense and science - back then there were naive, unscientific and superstitious people, just like we have now but you don't have such an excuse because of space science.
I would say that Christianity's angels and demons is more the product of hashish that could have been around then.
@ said:
Either/or…as long as it has beetroot on it...
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
Gotta have the beet.
Call a system whatever one wants, but nobody, even a CEO should receive more than twenty times the renumeration of that which their lowest paid worker is allowed. People at that level used to be taxed at higher rates, in some cases much higher, but the world has gone mad in my lifetime with some getting FIVE HUNDRED times more than their colleagues and governments creating tax havens.
Wealth can only be gained by taking off our fellow man at some level, so obscene wealth is evil. Philanthropy is one way of balancing things and I applaud those that participate in it, the other is the governments doing their part.
Call a system whatever one wants, but nobody, even a CEO should receive more than twenty times the renumeration of that which their lowest paid worker is allowed. People at that level used to be taxed at higher rates, in some cases much higher, but the world has gone mad in my lifetime with some getting FIVE HUNDRED times more than their colleagues and governments creating tax havens.
Wealth can only be gained by taking off our fellow man at some level, so obscene wealth is evil. Philanthropy is one way of balancing things and I applaud those that participate in it, the other is the governments doing their part.
