Nobody else in the world got to enjoy free helicopter rides. Chileans had it good!

It's pronounced Pinoshit!!

Milton Friedman was the devil incarnate ,he went to Chili knowing he could not enact his policies in the US , many people were killed because of him, Pinochet tied many alive to cut up railroad tracks put in helicopters some alive and dumped in the ocean. The survivors got the tracks I heard they made a memorial out of them.

@@VictorMartinez-zf6dt he did so Pinochet was his apostle

@@VictorMartinez-zf6dt nooooooo stop speaking the truth about my favourite hero milton friedman 😭😭😭

"The unwashed masses must be unwashed."

I know right ? Hopefully there's a special place in hell for his ass.

Wow, what a horrible monster you’ve created in your mind.

Did he want to create a dystopia because he was delusional enough to think his allies could hoard everything with there still being enough left over for the masses?

Pretty much

The uncertainties accompanying this present market is more reasons I have my daily investment decisions guided by a portfolio-coach seeing that their entire skill set is based on going long and short at the same time, they employ a profit-driven strategy based on individual risk tolerance...

My advisor is *‘’SOFIA ERAILDA SEMA’’.* She’s highly qualified and experienced in the financial market. She has extensive knowledge of portfolio diversity and is considered an expert in the field. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market

And a Democratic party that is 60 years behind the times in dealing with the GOP today.

Look at this BS advertisement masquerading as an organic YT comment thread! 🤣

@@anderseckstrand7033 - The irony is it got 1k likes LOL

Nailed it! More inflation here we come!

Not sure where you got that but the US federal tax take as a percentage of GDP has remained fairly static since WW2 and if you include veterans pensions, more than half of it now goes to the military, prisons, and police. Are you proposing cutting those areas?

@@holobiont3197 yes. Gov spending in the past was 10% of GDP now its over 50%. The rule should be don't spend more than you grow your economy. If the GDP isn't there they should not get to spend the money. This incentivizes gov to grow the economy instead of spending money they dont have and hitting all of us with the inflation tax.

@@ryanmarosy2940 I don't know if you believe that but it's not true. The stats are readily available.

Also, made colleges charge tuition. Before him, UCs and Cal-States were close to free. Regan cut that.

Homelessness was indeed created by reagan/Friedman, but it was all across the nation. When he was elected Governor, CA had what was acknowledged as the best education system in the world and he destroyed it. I had the misfortune of going to school in CA when Prop 13 went into effect. Economists at the time warned us what would happen and the people of CA ignored them.

Oh yeah, and he used nuclear weapons! Oh wait, did he? No, you can tell all the things Reagan didn’t do because KZfaqrs say he did, but don’t connect him to it.

The thing is, there was widespread abuse in American mental health institutions and many advocates hoped that community based care would improve outcomes for patients. But of course doing that would require funding community based care and well we all know how the Gipper felt about funding health...

@@Owesomasaurus No there wasn't, any more than there were "welfare queens" living large and driving new Cadillacs from the fortunes they made by having 6 kids and milking the welfare state. They lied to us. But you know what is true? It's easier to fool people than it is to convince people that they've been fooled. Here we are, over half a century after the fact, with access to all the evidence, and the lies are still being repeated by people who "remember".

His eugenics experiment is going exactly as planned. If you can't adapt to the made-up system, then you perish, along with your genetics. His goals accomplished. 🎉

Yup. The establishment of an overclass was always the goal. Most of our ancestors came to America to flee stratified societies. The goal of every conservative and libertarian is to make America into a stratified society.

Imagine being such as asshole that you're glad your own mother was mercilessly exploited, to have the best years of her life stolen by some rich parasite.

@@tofu_golem Don't forget nuance; many of the British groups that settled the future America fled the stratified society of Britain to make their own stratified societies that the Crown was intolerant of; the Puritans are the most prominent example-they only tolerated those that shared their beliefs, and Rhode Island was founded by people expelled from the Massachusetts colony for their religious dissent.

You're being excessively kind to Uncle Milty.

I think what gets missed is that the rich are people just like you also, who are fundamentally interested in enriching themselves. so this Reagan era myth that they would invest in the future turns out to be a lie, because giving the capitalist free money with no accountability is like giving a d*pehead fetnanyl. the rich are addicted to money and will do anything to see their number go bigger. just like you and me. And since they arent government agents, then they are not held accountable by the public. this is why we need UBI or some other way of getting American money back in the hands of the American people.

but yeah, Friedman and Sowell are definitely right-wingers.

@@maxonmendel5757 Milton Friedman calls himself a libertarian and Thomas Sowell is a conservative. Both would lean to the right of political discourse. Does being a right winger mean they’re bad people?

@@desmondnyaho3061 not necessarily, but it does describe a bias that they have that needs to be accounted for. Sowell isn't correct about everything because of his conservative bias

And not forget dr. Walter E. Williams.

first thing i thought of when saw this video was MF negative income tax.

They’ve never listened to Milton Friedman. If they did you’d know he wanted the fda and dea abolished. Like he wanted all drugs legalized. Here an African American is hating on Milton Friedman when it’s Milton Friedman that literally advocated for millions of blacks to be freed from prison with all drugs being legal. He’ll Milton Friedman did more for the black cause then the blm did. Sadly the blm said defund the police when they should have been quoting Milton Friedman and arguing to legalize all drugs.

Facts

Wrong!!! Milton Friedman advocated for free-enterprise =capitalism. What is being applied in America is the economic ideology of John Maynard Keynes =socialism.

Poverty is part of the human condition been around longer than the world's oldest profession. I looked up Milton Freidman and his negative income tax that people who are above some line pay taxes and then the people under this line get money from the government and spend it as they see fit. Sounds like a fight waiting to happen because to paraphrase Sen. Grassley Americans don't want people spending money on liquor, women and movies. Friedman explained the percentages of people working for minimum wages are based on the economy from 1960s and 1970s when teenagers were mostly affected by minimum wage. He said like 20% of head of households were minimum wage, that is no longer true. This just sounds his similar "trickle down" theory and I have been waiting 40 years for that. No thanks, its pie in the sky.

💯 Agree. I’ve learned so much about myself just watching him and Foreign, plus I’ve been exposed to a lot of other great creators through him as well.

It's my first time seeing FD. Do you know what his full name is? I like him!

@@rridderbusch518 I do not - I've just watched several of his videos.

@@rridderbusch518 youtube.com/@FDSignifire

Agreed. I learned a lot from KZfaq in general. A lot of great channels on here. I would say Second Thought is my favorite.

Thanks to the SPLC who demanded it

If only most homeless people in LA where from CA, then it would matter.

That's just liberal lies. San Fran spends 85k a year per homeless person to liberal non profits to solve the homeless problem. NYC gave all the money to deblasios wife's non profit

@@brettmcclain9289 most homeless people in California dwell roughly in the areas they lived in prior to becoming homeless. Many were born in the cities where they are now homeless.

Well... to be fair a lot of mental instituions were hellish places that hired people who get kicks out of being cruel and having power over vulnerable people. That was part of the reason for the backlash against them. Bad PR. But it certainly wasn't better to just dump everyone on the streets.

Other Nobel prize winners include Antonio Moniz for inventing the lobotomy and merchant of death Henry Kissinger got a peace prize, but Ghandi never did. Get a clue

So true 😊

So you are saying that we can't govern ourselves? A government of the people by the people and for the people? We could. except a lot wealthy, powerful people corrupt it and then say look government doesn't work. They even get ordinary people saying this. Playing into their own hand. Capitalism will always corrupt democracy.

When your being robbed who do you call to catch the thief and bring him to justice. A government employee called a cop and other govt. employees to get justice and maybe compensation. I believe govt. should be as small as possible but some functions are necessary.Who will protect you from the shysters and hucksters that form cartels and monopolies that collude to fix prices and stamp out competition to the detriment of consumers. I don't call that free market I call that captured markets. Who you gonna call Ghostbusters? No, you call some entity that has the power to enforce this kind of criminal behavior. I can only think of one but I am open to suggestion.

Why was Milton Friedman against taxing corporations did he forget that in the eyes of law they are people too so why would these people get special treatment, just asking.

But it is a lot easier to achieve low poverty rates with an economy that produces a flatter *pre-tax* income distribution like we had in the postwar era. We have more social spending today than back then, with poorer results in terms of equality.

@@mikealexander1935 America also had a 90 % corporate tax rate. What happened to that?

​@@stevonwhite8933 Capitalism happened baybee 😩

​@@mikealexander1935 Um. How does the social spending, then VS. now, break down on a per capita basis? ...I mean, you WOULD expect us to flatly spend more. We added about a third of our population since the 60's? Too, wages have been stagnant or falling. Further, the service sector practically _requires_ its' front line workers to live in penury...Remember, that's one out of five jobs now, and *The government is often subsidizing them.* (Think about it. If an employee can't afford to live on what they earn, and the government has to care for that employee instead, that's a backdoor subsidy to the company. Ok?) Anyway... You have to evaluate how much we're spending per person, and how much of it actually goes to poor people? States get block grants now, and they find interesting ways to NOT help poor people with it. ...I haven't got time to dig into it. I gotta shower, then drive to work. Have a nice day.

@@mikealexander1935 That 'pre-tax' income distribution was very much a result of the tax rates back then. Businesses saw no benefit it having income above a certain level so they just spread it among their employees or re-invested it into the business.

Complete and utter bullshit

It's not that complicated..the more of something, the less value it has..whether diamonds, sand, food, or money..more low skilled people..more cheap labor..more money printed..less dollar value..simple, ..it's big gov. That prints more money - devaluing the currency..all while not suffering the results themselves..government supplies no value based goods/while simultaneously being the largest employer by far..there are 80,000 domestic employees in the C.I.A., that one..of hundreds of Gov. Departments, 86,000, were just added to the I.R.S. ( Friedman was for a very small government.. they add no value while burdening the people).. What of the 30 books Friedman wrote have you read?

Democracy and the push for capitalism is ultimately a system where the merchants and the clergy take over and become the new aristocracy while the aristocracy and the people are made irrelevant ie look at how Democracy replaced Constitutional Monarchies in most places.

​@@mikebaum5976 Please. Your claims about government do not fit observed reality

@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 ok... explain.., in what way.

"transitory inflation economists" are not a thing. Also, Krugman is not a great economist. He's just "neoliberal lite".

@markus-o9n If Mr. Transitory Inflation Economist is too long, then a person can shorten it to Mr. Transitory. 😀

That was poetic, and profound. I hope you don’t mind if I steal this for future conversation.

@@evansmothermon1547 happy it was profound enough for you 😅 it's publicly posted, feel free to use it

And astonishingly we adopt the same ideas again to tragedy of the Irish famine being played on the global stage. Shows how brainwashed we all into ignoring the past.

Did the video not just say that the government ought to have to no control over economics - and their involvement leads to catastrophe? Because the Potato Famine is a prime example of an intervention by a British-appointed governor, no? Not a business. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall it was more akin to an Imperial (and therefore governmental) led issue.

@@TheAmbush101 I wouldn't think another country's imperial decisions that unilaterally supersede the sovereign decisions of another country's distribution of its own food would count at all as an example Keynesian economics. It's not like Ireland's government starved itself.

@@KASC92 I’d agree. My point of contention is that it isn’t all that indicative of market economics. Rather, command economies taking advantage of market forces for their benefit. The Soviet Union frequently engaged in external market transactions - with limited or complete abandonment of an afflicted populace undergoing scarcity or traded resources - using the same principles. Yet, they wouldn’t be construed as a market economy nor using anything worthy of invoking those names.

@@TheAmbush101 It is though, it literally is landlords who have control over their own capital who decided that the more profitable use of their resources is to sell it in the home market, rather than give it to the starving poor who have nothing to give the money to survive off of. Or in Bengal, in the 18th century, that was when it was under the control of the British East India Company. Do you really want to tell me that the most famous private corporation, the most successful in Great Britain's history, made any decisions at the behest of the government? They found that selling the food that Bengali people had stored to prevent starvation was more productive in the short term if it was sold on the open market. They were right, and millions paid the price with their lives.

Most people don't research past the talking points. No one paid 90%, there were plenty of tax loopholes, but again no one wants to learn the actual history when it would go against their narrative.

Most of those alleged high taxes were incremental and top bracket. Hardly anyone ever seems to notice this.

I noticed that too. Either he was gloating or uniquely clueless. ??

He was sincere, chile has better standart of living that almost all countrys in latinomerica. There are arguments against a pro, monetarism stop calling diferent position demencial

@@priyapepsiyes

He was a student of economics and anyone who studies it in detail always comes to the same conclusions he did. The policies he advocates raises the OVERALL standard of living. The policies he’s against helps raise the standard of living of a small group of individuals at the expense of a larger group of individuals. Protectionism, unions, minimum wages, rent controls all help a smaller group of people at the expense of a much larger group of people, reducing the OVERALL standard of living and so keep countries perpetually poor, as you see in South America and Africa where socialism and heavy regulation are rampant. In countries like Chile, Botswana, and South Korea which follow opposite policies, you can see that free trade, less unions, and no price controls ( min wages, rent controls) OVERALL produce a higher standard of living as these policies help the masses on a large scale at the expense of much smaller groups of people.

Agreed. Rand was a disaster and still is, heritage foundation, foundation for economic education, and other think tanks still peddle her works and are often financed by big oil cus they know her philosophy is one that lets them not only get away with their crimes but be rewarded for them. Truly sick stats of affairs

do you know why most of us don't understand taxes...because no one can explain it, in any sensical way, to the average person. It is all double talk and academic B.S!

Excellent explanation of the thought process behind those high tax policies. The rich obviously wont want to pay that high rate, so they reinvest!!!

​​@@joshuatall8134never quite understoond why basic economics isn't taught in high school

@@ciello___8307 It is the truth. Almost no one paid those rates to the government. Why do you think so many built libraries and donated to charities? The goodness of their heart? Or a tax right off? Charities are struggling today because of these lower tax rates at the top.

That explains a lot! I've always wondered when the Boomers became so selfish.

The cold war was intentionally framed as Capitalism vs Communism instead of Democracy vs Dictatorship for this exact reason. To make the citizens of the US support the industrial elites over themselves. While also letting the government fall to corruption. If all the propaganda was Democracy vs Dictatorship, then we all would have been more focused on citizen involvement in politics and more willing to accept a broader mixed economy style with more social programs, nationalized industry, and regulations on industry.

​@@5353Jumper The USSR and its allies never claimed to have achieved communism, they were still in the transitional phase between capitalism and communism known as socialism in Marxist theory.

@@SCHMALLZZZ and they got closest during Gorbachev's term but really the Russian Oligarchy never really tried anything but Capitalism. They only used socialism/communism as an excuse to seize property and wealth from the citizens and give it to the oligarchy. Which is why the whole cold war Capitalism vs Communism rhetoric is total BS. Propaganda used by the elite of both sides to steal wealth and power from the citizens. The real war was supposed to the Democracy vs Dictatorship, and though the pro democracy side did have some initial success the last 3 decades have seen the Dictatorship side winning. We may lose the cold war soon of we cannot get our citizens to see through the BS.

@@SCHMALLZZZ Which never would have been realized. All Animals are equal except some are more equal.

Same here

Of course there's a middle class. It's normally defined either as people who earn a specified wage (for instance the Pew research facility defines it as those earning between 43k and 130k a year). This accounts for roughly 50% of adults in the US

Caring is neither here nor there. A government should be dutiful to its people. After all, one can care and still do nothing.

No government ever cared about people only itself

That won't happen as long as those who vote are selfish and don't care about the less fortunate.

Never gonna happen. That's why I want to introduce you to David graeber

You just wanted to type alot

I'm actually trying to share something rather novel with you. I'm dyslexic, if I could have made it shorter, I would have. It's hard to condense over a decade of studying political philosophy, sociology, economy, and finance into a small piece of text.

This is where I'm at as well, I am baffled how people don't wake up to the grim and hopeless future we are letting take precedence.

Yea. Right now im trying to explain to my employer how a tile saw cannot cut trees down. They seem to think they rented a cut anything saw.

​@@JOVAHK11Nhopeless? Speak for yourself white boi. Capitalists sell us the rope that will be used to hang them.

Oh, you have no idea how many Americans the FDA has killed

How about the fact that is was founded by John D. Rockefeller, which is a major fact that gets glossed over.

This! These people have destroyed ecomonies in whole Latin America plus the US and we are all celebrating that university like its the mecca of progress for the poor.

@@sceinceguy And the major reason that those diabolical ideas get pushed and pushed well.

funny how the right uses the frankford school as their boogeyman and yet the chicago school exists and has done vastly more harm

Brothaman you need to comedyize your points and become a stand up comedian. Yes it would be high brow and many would miss the points, but a black man more than ANYONE else could reach the masses with financial humor.

I've read Galbraith's books. He was wrong about a lot of other things too. "Research consistently finds that the Americans who give most frequently, give the highest shares of their income, or donate specifically to causes to alleviate human poverty and suffering are those who are right-leaning and religious. Despite these gaps in behaviors, liberals have a broader sphere of moral concern and tend to feel higher levels of empathy (even if those sentiments don’t lead them to incur actual costs and risks on others’ behalf in the same manner as conservatives). Liberals tend to be troubled not just by the state of their own nation and community, but by the plight of animals and nature, of people and events in other countries, by hypothetical and projected future trends as well as historical injustices-most of which the typical person has little-to-no meaningful control or influence over. This can be a source of significant depression or anxiety (or “moral distress” to borrow a term from health care). Although liberals tend to be less emotionally stable than conservatives, they are also far more likely to prize emotionality and to dwell on their emotions and the emotions of others. They tend to react much more severely to unfortunate events-from public tragedies to political defeats to global catastrophes and beyond. Not only are their initial responses significantly more dramatic, but liberals are also adversely affected for longer periods of time. 5 Conclusion: The well-being gap between liberals and conservatives is one of the most robust patterns in social science research. It is not a product of things that happened over the last decade or so; it goes back as far as the available data reach. The differences manifest across age, gender, race, religion, and other dimensions. They are not merely present in the United States, but in most other studied countries as well. Consequently, satisfying explanations of the gaps in reported well-being between liberals and conservatives would have to generalize beyond the present moment, beyond isolated cultural or geographic contexts, and beyond specific demographic groups. This essay has explored some of the most likely and well-explored drivers of the observed patterns: There are likely some genetic and biological factors that simultaneously predispose people towards both mental illness/ wellness and liberalism/ conservatism, respectively. Net of these predispositions, conservatism probably helps adherents make sense of, and respond constructively to, adverse states of affairs. These effects are independent of, but enhanced by, religiosity and patriotism (which tend to be ideological fellow-travelers with conservatism). Some strains of liberal ideology, on the other hand, likely exacerbate (and even incentivize) anxiety, depression, and other forms of unhealthy thinking. The increased power and prevalence of these ideological frameworks post-2011 may have contributed to the dramatic and asymmetrical rise in mental distress among liberals over the past decade. People who are unwell may be especially attracted to liberal politics over conservatism for a variety of reasons, and this may exacerbate observed ideological gaps net of other factors" This article is an American Affairs online exclusive, published March 21, 2023.

The fact that it is conservative policies that help poor and lower income people is backed up by the IRS data. "Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent. By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.) That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more. What’s more, IRS data shows earners in higher income brackets contributed a bigger slice of the total income tax revenue pie following the passage of the tax reform law than they had in the previous year. In fact, every income bracket with filers earning $200,000 or more increased its tax burden in 2018 compared to 2017, and every income bracket with a top limit lower than $200,000 paid a smaller proportion of the total personal tax revenue collected. That means that Republicans’ tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive - the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years. The IRS data further shows that the tax reform law - which included a variety of business tax cuts, including a large reduction in the corporate income tax rate - spurred economic mobility. Every income bracket with a top level lower than $25,000 experienced a reduction in its number of filers, and every income bracket above $25,000 increased in size, with the biggest gains occurring in the brackets with a floor of at least $100,000. The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity."

@@practicaliching2311 Lmao, you guys are delusional

Your love for the poor resulted in some of the most dystopic hellscapes, particularly during twentieth century. Where do collectivists get their faux sense of moral superiority when their ideas are objectively less effective and efficient?

how easy it is to be selfless with someone else's money huh? according to keynessians theft is ok as long as its for "the greater good", you sure have a robin hood complex

i guess you loss the game

What if his influence was reversed?

Not quiet at all, my friend.

the american dream was never real

​@@boslyporshy6553the thing is, it won't, the rich won't let. It

​@@mateusmachadomartinsjunior4309 I thought that was because of the Lewis Powell memo, the shareholder capture of the economic system, and the constant need to break profit records in order to keep investors interested in a company.

i guess you loss the game

@@juanshaftpatel7488 Did you have a point?

@@DoremiFasolatido1979 yes..youre mad cuz you lost

enjoy poverty@@DoremiFasolatido1979

@@juanshaftpatel7488 I'm not sure what it is I lost, but, alrighty. Whatever it is you're talking about. Sure.

Is that you in your dp ?

Back then money literally was gold. Well then the dollar became gold backed so saving dollars literally was like saving gold! Remember gold and gold back dollars are totally different than a fiat dollar.

Your Gandma was not paid 30K for clerical work in 1946. She probably wasn't even paid $3K for clerical work in 1946. Engineers with a degree didn't break $30K till the late 70s or early 80s.

@@tonya3308 you’re correct, she and her husband had a business for which she did clerical work and that was the revenue from their business and all other assets combined.

I asked him not to mock the very shoes on my feet. 😢😂

Amazing book, that one!

@@krejados1 The post-Katrina stuff read like a conspiracy thriller. Then you remember that it's real.....Fffffuuuck!

Fantastic book. Her chapter breaking down Friedman and the Chicago Boys is probably the best summary and analysis of them. Required reading for anyone interested in the subject.

@@mitchpattimusic I'd be interested to know if this is required reading in any economics class

@@Busto I went to undergrad and grad for school for Political Science and never saw it, or anything like it, assigned in that field, and I took a lot of courses related to political economy. However, I did have to read a very annoying amount of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and several libertarian cranks at both levels of education.

He has his own KZfaq channel, and it is amazing! High recommend! F. D. Signifier

Yeah, I love this guy too. He’s an excellent reporter

He doesn’t back up anything he says. If you like him, it’s because you already agreed with him. He’s worse than Shapiro who mostly backs up his arguments, but isn’t really changing anyone’s mind

@@nunyabidness3075 Shapiro is just a fast talker that has loaded points and data that serves a narrative. Its a quick gotcha answer from him from guests that cannot provide stats themselves off the top of their head. Everyone has their biases though. But this presenter has charisma and historical knowledge from another political spectrum. Only way one can grow and question their thoughts is by listening to both sides and coming to your own conclusion.

@@shabadoob That’s not the only way to grow. The better way is to listen to people who offer complete arguments. In fact, someone who did that quite well, was Milton Friedman. Go listen to him. You may not agree with him, but you’ll see why he was so persuasive. He offers full arguments.

You mean Ronald Reagan?

Adding them all to my list of "The Worst People in the Modern World", thanks!

Don't forget Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh!

No thats marx

​@@worldofdoom995Actions vs ideas. The former goes to Friedman.

Friedman advocated for a negative income tax (a form of basic income for people below a certain upper tax bracket). Friedman's policies would have PREVENTED people from starving. We live in the 21st century, look shit up BEFORE you pull nonsense out of your ass!

Capitalism has lead to a significant drop in hunger worldwide. Maybe the dumbest comment of all.

@@jeffgifkins7684 sure. Friedmanism didn't tho since hunger rate started rising again recently.

I'd venture a guess: poor educational standards and lack of critical thinking skills, also not taught in schools.

You don't know what to attribute it to? Are you kidding? It is the usual suspects that run this as their platform.

The amount of money collected by the government, in relation to GDP, has not changed in 100 years.

@@brettmcclain9289 From CEIC Data, I find, "The US [tax revenue as a portion of GDP] data reached an all-time high of 19.5 % in 2000 and a record low of 13.7 % in 2009." That's a nearly 30% drop in 9 years. But it's also beside the point about public investment and inequity - taxes collected have increasingly been spent in ways that benefit the already-rich, decreasingly been spent on infrastructure and public goods and services. Taxes collected have increasingly been taken from those with lower incomes, and we all know who got the tax cuts. But, to return to my first point: You're wrong.

​@@drwalker9093I just have to say that the top 1% paid 723 billion in taxes and the bottom 90 paid 450 billion. The top 50% of tax payers paid 97.7% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 50 paid 2.3%. Not saying I disagree with you overall but I am saying the data doesn't necessarily support that.

New boss same as the old boss. But you have to remember who the lawmakers were at the time. Laws were being fillibustered do you remember that? The president does run the administration and the three letter agencies but laws need to be written and passed. Remember what those proposed laws were? Oh yeah...health care for everybody. Who stalled it? Oh yeah the career republicans that are still there today. Remember any of that at all?

@@OceanusHelios Obama increased military spending over his tenure-Reagan would have done the same. Obama bailed out the banks and the not the people during the recession-Reagan would have done the same. Obama settled for subsidies with a private health care system-Reagan would have done the same. Obama cut food stamps benefit, do you really need to be reminded about Reagan’s position/actual actions on this issue? They are the same, take the current President’s words as proof because he said it himself “Nothing will fundamentally change”.

@@Tlacaelel1124 When the Republicans embraced theocracy and racism with their southern strategy the plutocrats that left as a result ended up Democrats. After the Republican party gutted the traditional democracts for a few decades these plutocrats ended up in charge. Now both parties are run by plutocrats who primarily differ on social/cultural issues.

@@Tlacaelel1124Milton Friedman advocated for not bailing out the banks

@@peacefulpotato1836 That’s why Reagan listened to Bankers and Wall Street-not some economic intellectual that actually had principles. Flawed in my opinion but he could defend it.

We can only hope.

Why would they? Did they abort 2 million babies every year?

Somebody inform him that he should get a ticket to Russia and be more honest.

oh unfortunately, pretty much all conservatives think that actually is saving money

The fact that you misspelled his name even outside of the “shit” part is killing me 😂

On the face of it the last 50 years all politicians have pushed for globalization. Obama himself pushed for employing cheap Chinese rather than being like Trump who fought to increase tariffs or bring jobs back to the U.S. Trump did things bad but he actually tried something different. But most economists will say ya offshoring and employing millions of Chinese workers was deflationary. It let the bush and Obama etc print money and Chinese bought the debt and it was deflationary employing cheap Chinese. It destroyed rural America but it made cheaper tvs etc.

I call Milton Friedman Evil... Sometimes I even go as far as to say, he's a _Real Jerk!_

I call Milton Friedman a SOB..

Milton Friedman, more like milking unfree men.

Please enlighten us as to how he's wrong exactly.

@@VictorMartinez-zf6dt I have a better idea...since you are questioning, why don't you tell us why you think he is right.

He also helped damage Chile with his Chilean students running the country after the 1973 coup. His proposals to abolish medical licences would have been disastrous if his lot had their way there would be no government intervention preventable deaths and injuries would rise from negligence of parties and guess what it will be harder to take cases to court. No doubt he would have thought legal aid obscene.

Those economies were well in decline before Friedman became known.

Chile is the richest country in South America

Communism never works for the working class, capitalism is what gives normal people a better chance. Freedom is not perfect but is the best way, communism will destroy your life. Defend your constitution and freedom.

This was the intended effect of the voucher system - you’ve provided no evidence that this destroyed the education system. Are kids better off or worse off after the policy? Saying that money went from public schools to private schools is meaningless because that was the whole point of the program: that is, money should be directed from schools that underperform (public schools) to those that parents think will provide a better service to their kids. If anything, that funds have flowed out of public schools in Indiana is evidence of how dissatisfied parents have been with the public schools.

​@@henry1138 But public schools will in turn continue to underperform due to lack of resources; resources that private schools don't particularly need. If anything, it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy of those who just wanted to see public school fail.

@@lunayen Your comment assumes that it’s a lack of resources that caused public schools to underperform in the first place. Expenditures are not correlated with school quality. Take the case of St. Louis, where inner city schools enjoy some of the highest per capita spending in the state, but they consistently perform poorly and only recently were accredited by the state. Friedman’s perspective was that school quality cannot be explained by high expenditures, but rather by some measure of accountability by the school to its “consumers.” Though it might be hard to stomach the word “consumers” when referring to students and parents, the intuition still holds: a public school administration that does not have to be accountable to parents and has a monopoly over a certain district does not have the same incentives to satisfy these consumers. Maybe the solution isn’t privatization, but my original point was that OP’s comment misses the entire motivation behind voucher programs.

When it comes to inflation Friedman also reminded us that it comes only from DC. Stop printing and you stop inflation. It’s that simple

Trickle down economic dont exist

You clearly haven’t looked into Milton Friedman’s work. I suggest you look deeper into his ideas.

@@nothere4089 conservatives dont believe in complete deregulation dummy. we just believe in less reg than you do

They are ideologs lol

Worship of wealth and punishment of poverty

@@elizabethdavis1696 And we know what needs to be done with religious fanatics,

Ya, My Econ teacher LOVED Walmart; I said they were destroying small businesses. We were in a rural area that really needed a reliable store, and Walmart provided jobs ... his response was "Isn't it great?". I cringed. I knew the many small businesses that went bust because of Walmart, and the lack of variety in things I could buy as a result. It just made me fume.

@@rychei5393 I got kicked out of most of my ecom classes for openly debating the neoliberal scumbag professors. They always started the term saying how they expected full blown discourse and it’s ok to disagree even with him. They had had huge egos and loved wowing the 18-22 yrs old & shaping their minds. Basically “owning” the kids. I was 26 & couldn’t be shaped & already had one successful business I turned into a workers co-op when I left the biz. They hated that they were getting owned and had no rebuttals for me & I basically embarrassed them in front of the class. So they just kick me out. It was so much fun

Instead of being infuriated, (or agreeing with your professor and promoting sweatshops), why not visit a third world country and ask the people employed there what they think about sweat shops? Things are not black and white.

@@jedlicka1227 Well I saw the damage IN MY OWN COUNTRY, so I really didn't need to go see people in sweat shops (that also happens in THIS country, btw.) The mono culture of stores has quite literally limited selection options, brought to us by monopolistic mega businesses like Walmart.

Him and Second Thought are awesome!

In the past full employment policies were designed to achieve just the outcome you describe - as low an unemployment rate as possible. I'm not aware of a country that pursued full employment in a Keynesian sense that reached zero unemployment. The difference is that contemporary governments use unemployment rates to depress wages. I think its important to structure policy to encourage work for all those who want and are able to work; accepting a natural unemployment rate tho leads to complacency and wage suppression.

@@Owesomasaurus Cool thoughts, I see that.

youre gonna lose the game@@jessehughes8274

Glass Steagall's repeal is utterly meaningless. It's basically an article of faith at this point that it's why the 2008 collapse happened, but that's 100% wrong. It was written in 1930 to keep depositor bank runs from happening by not letting savings banks play investment banker and lose all their depositors' money. The reason 2008 happened is because there was never much of anything written to regulate the financial instruments that were invented in the 70 years that Glass-Steagall existed. It never had any teeth toward those things whatsoever. The law you need to know about is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which BANNED OUTRIGHT any regulation at all of any financial derivative product. That means mortgage-backed securities (invented in 1978, Glass-Steagall had nothing to say about them) and every other financial instrument that lets investors place bets like it's a casino. Glass Steagall is a dead end nothingburger, go rage about the CFMA that's really the problem.

hell yeah. though honestly, it's a bit insulting to the crackpots

You did us a service too. 😅

You must not be an Economist then. Friedman might have been wrong about many things, and the implementation of some of his ideas clearly didn't work, but he was extremely intelligent and made significant contributions to the field.

He did a video on Milton Friedman but didn't even know if he was alive??? Good research buddy.

@@jamesmiller2129 guessing you don’t know figurative language. If you watched his other videos, he consistently jokingly disregards these people to counteract the perverted idolization often done when others talk about such figures like Milton Friedman

@@QuestionsIAskMyself your reply does not address my issue at all (lack of research before criticism)

Sure, this is the moment in time with the most humans alive and longest life expectancy. Nothing tricked down XD.

Mainstream economics erroneously views inflation and unemployment as being in opposition. Stagflation is the term they invented when they couldn't explain why there were both. Monetarists like to ignore external economic factors like oil embargoes and blame everything on the money supply. Instead of changing their theories to accommodate the real world, they just make up exceptions. The Chicago school teaches dogma, not science.

I think his point was that Friedman and the Chicago School correctly predicted stagflation, but used it to promote their neoliberal economic policy.

in my economics class, we discussed the different "shocks" which influence inflation, and in the case of stagflation, it was a confluence of automation displacing workers in the 70's, coupled with massive increases in input costs, namely oil prices, due to OPEC influencing supply. Stagflation wasn't a natural part of the business cycle, but was influenced by cartel coordination which impacted the market. That's my take on it.

​@@joeymac4302why would automation have caused it? Should be the opposite. More production should boost economic growth and less jobs should lower prices

@@DrinkWater713 automation boosted productivity, which lowered prices, and also reduced total need for jobs. Short version is that it doesn't matter that products become slightly cheaper to produce if you don't have the wages to afford the product. The problem is that you are looking at it from a human perspective where productivity increases are a net benefit, rather than a business perspective, whereby automation makes workers input less valuable, meaning they lose wage leverage. automation was great for consumers, who had to pay less. It was also great from business owners, who had to hire less people and sold more products. But it was terrible for the average worker, given that it greatly undermined their value. Which would not be a problem if viewed from a non-capitalist perspective. Increased production should be a good thing, but in practice, humans are too crummy for it to actually work out, lol.

Trickle down economic is a socialist dogwhistle

Cause it wasn't a real theory in the first place. Reagan made it up.

Trickle down economics doesn't exist, it's a made up term by leftist who just hated Regan and misquoted what he actually meant.

i guess you loss the game

It depends on country and culture. Americans tend to forget that and sometimes even long for strong unions that are especially difficult to manage in a federal government. USA is economically the most prosperous country there is. However the middle class has thinned out, but that doesn't mean people don't have more opportunities than in most of the world. They have less security and that makes people unhappy. EU generally has way more security, but those policies stagnate economy in long run and make competition harder. US mostly needs way more transparency and better digital infrastructure. With that smaller government and broader middle class can be re-established. Administrative issues always materialize as needlessly large administrative sector after all which in turn hinders middle class. There is no quick miracle fix so it needs to be long term bipartisan effort. Less corruption = more trust = security and happiness. The federal system makes an universal fix really difficult, so for now the best option for common people in US is to vote with their feet and make states compete with each other in work and living standards.