Milton Friedman

>>8532588 (OP)
>I'd love to know more.
The implementation of his fiscal policies tanked the economies of the US and UK in 1980s. The modified version of said policies subsequently tanked the US and UK economies in the 1990s and 2000s, and will likely tank them again this decade.

File: UK Unemployment.jpg (19KB, 608x372px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 608x372px

>>8532615
Far be it from me to question the desirability of mass unemployment and one severe recession per decade.

File: image.jpg (101KB, 500x530px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x530px

>>8532648
>I don't know shit about anything: the post

>>8532648
PC.

Bait aside, are mass unemployment and recessions the necessary preconditions for the production of PCs and iPhones?

>>8532648
>Pro-capitalist pamphlets, printed under conditions of feudalism.

>>8532663
>An estimated 700 million dead from state capitalism.

>>8532663
>falling for the Ameritard 'socialism = communism' meme

Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn't go bankrupt when they go to the hospital

>>8532648
>Leftist logic, everyone
Those stupid russians, protesting communism while eating bread that was made in a communist society.

>>8532588

>Supported the idea of a Basic Income
>This would most likely require massive income redistribution and government intervention.
>Free-Marketers love him

I don't understand this and I am an economist.

>>8532648
Nice deflection.

File: Meme Wars.jpg (117KB, 567x318px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 567x318px

>>8532675
>cuck

>>8532615
>>/pol/

>>8532588
His masterpiece is Free to Choose. It's really good.

There's also a 10 episode show based on the book (itself based on a series of talks given by him in several universities), that has a section dedicated to Friedman explaining a point for half an hour in documentary form, and then the following half hour is him discussing the first section with 4 or 5 people, some who share his opinion and some who strongly disagree,

He's fantastic.

>>8532610
>the US and UK economies have tanked in any way in the last 35 years
Idiot.

If anything, the application of a limited set of his theories (which pretty much can be summed up as "let's try not to make more government jobs, because the private sector is the one that sustains it and nobody wants more taxes") to counter the 2008 market crash saved the world's economy.

Kill yourself, pinko.

File: But Seriously, Folks.jpg (269KB, 500x708px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 500x708px

>>8532690
>cuck

>>8532702
>muh

>tfw chilean
>tfw his "failed economic system" made Chile one of the most relevant countries in latinamerica, with one of the highest HDI, only topped by argentina and uruguay (and only by a little)
his system is great for taking countries out of the shithole, but it fails to take you to the developed side. Chile is pretty much stagnant in a stage were it needs to take a turn to the left or it will remain in the "almost developed" side of the spectrum.

File: Pinochet.jpg (88KB, 620x902px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 620x902px

It's a good thing neoclassical economics is incompatible with dictatorships.

>>8532674
Because his concept was the best solution to the welfare state system.

What he advocated, more than a "basic income" just like that, was a negative income tax. A system in which, if you're bellow the poverty line, you'd be given the welfare they're already giving out, but without all the bureaucracy - and without incentivinzing the welfare state. Only as a last resort, in essence.

Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

The concept goes great with the free market.

>>8532720
>the application of a limited set of his theories (which pretty much can be summed up as "let's not have government intervention in the economy, and let's do that by having the government intervene in the money supply") ushered in three recessions, the most recent of which was only halted by bailing out too-big-to-fail banks and corporations.

>>8532723
His system isn't fully implemented in Chile.

Some aspects of it are, but not all. You don't need to turn a bit to the left. You need to turn harder to the right.

More trade means a stronger economy. A stronger economy means a trickling down of resources and a rise in the living standards of the people at large.

>>8532729
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzgMNLtLJ2k

>>8532732
>What he advocated was a one-size-fits-all solution in a world of different shoe sizes

>>8532753
>>8532746
Wait, no, let me rephrase that. I formulated it quite wrong.

What he advocated was for the government not to have anything to do in your choice of shoes. Unless you didn't have any shoes nor the means to get your own, in which case you may request money from the government to get your shoes, and as you'd be given money instead of shoes, you're free to buy any shoes you want that fit under that budget, or if you can get better ones by haggling, good on you.

File: Trickle-down Economics.jpg (100KB, 625x409px)

100KB, 625x409px

>>8532743

>>8532763
>Has no lived experience of welfare.
>"But my book says this is how it should go."

>>8532732
http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm

>>8532772
Read Sowell, nigger.

Also, fucking watch the video I posted here >>8532732. In full.

>>8532720
>Kill yourself

>>8532780
>nigger

Have you considered a job in sales?

>>8532588
>it's either this generality or that generality
if humanity thought pragmatically and logically it would have gotten the actual best that is possible from both of the mentioned concepts.

>>8532732
>>8532763
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/32/the-voluntarism-fantasy/

>>8532768
I'm going to let Friedman reply to that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLwANVtnkA

>>8532802
https://psmag.com/the-imf-confirms-that-trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke-207d7ca469b

its an argument for concentrating wealth
detering democracy
empowering the elites

It's pretty obvious that neither side is going to convince the other. How about we not have this conversation, and say that we did?

>>8532800
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9fk7NpgIU&t=56s

>>8532828
OP asked for Friedman recommendations.

I'm the only one who actually replied to it >>8532720

>>8532835
This is /lit/, where /pol/tards ask dumb questions with an incendiary picture to watch the shit show

File: Fuck You.gif (159KB, 480x406px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 480x406px

>>8532831

>>8532588
The Servile State by Belloc
Small is Beautiful by Schumacher
What's Wrong with the World by Chesterton
Democracy: the God that Failed by Hoppe
..
Friedman is an interesting case because he is as much a salesman as he is a writer. His writings show that he is fully aware that his policies are firmly Liberal yet he spoken quotes paint his position as some sort of anti-Liberal position. This leads to a *lot* of confusion, like Libertarians and Objectivists thinking they are Conservatives and Progressives calling Capitalism "right wing".

>>8532876

Is it possible that his writings were done from a solely-economic point of view?

>>8533145
>a solely-economic point of view
No such animal.

File: 1a96e99e5c50b078c70ce11b35aaffa4158f3ffd.png (291KB, 667x547px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 667x547px

>>8532663
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOnIp69r6vg

>>8532610
You have no idea what you are talking about,
>>8532674
He argued that a basic income called " The negative income tax " was the best way for the government to provide any kind of welfare. Less bureaucracy . Less government . People making choices on their own.
>>8532723
Chicago Boys saved Chile. Chile is now the most prosperous country in Latin America. Santiago is probably the best city in Latin America.

You don't need leftist policy. If Chile continues to follow the road of Bachellet you will be doomed.
>>8532772
Pretending you need some experience in welfare to have an opnion. Are you a nigger?

>>8533227
>Red pill me on race realism
>You have no idea what you are talking about

File: image.jpg (94KB, 639x656px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 639x656px

>>8532588
Freedom is awesome.

>>8532588
>>8533235
Why do so many right-libertarian economists look like evil gnomes?

>>8533238
That's how jews look when they shave the beard.

File: bios-hayek01.jpg (87KB, 269x377px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 269x377px

>>8533238
I always see them as slug people. Saving this picture gave me the shudders.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 640x1136px)

38KB, 640x1136px

>>8532671
Is this bait? Socialism does not equal wellfare state. Socialism is the economic system that ends the exploitation of labor by capital. That basically means that in socialism, the divide between worker and owner is erased. The miners own their mine, the farmer owns his farm, the factor workers own their factory, and so on. I expect this sort of unfamiliarity with economics from the other boards but I'm always a it surprised when I find it on /lit/. I don't know why.

File: image.jpg (79KB, 407x767px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 407x767px

>>8533241
There are more notable left libertarian Jews than right wing ones. Jews played a significant role in basically every major modern political ideology except for national socialism, unless you look at natsoc as a reaction against Jews. Also, before anyone accuses this of being conspiracy theory nonsense or some shit, I'm not claiming that they're plotting to take over the world. I'm just stating facts. Antisemitism is degenerate as fuck.

>>8533252
Anon is clearly referring to social democracy, which is what most political moderates and undecideds mean when they refer to socialism.

>>8533235
>Anarchist
>looks like someone who has contemplated the emptiness of life in capitalism
>very /lit/ vibe
>AnCap
>looks like an actual math teacher in a 80s teen movie
>has that "i have felt up my great granddaughters and played senile" vibe

>>8533269
but fascism at least claims to be influenced by syndicalism, which is left-libertarian (although left-libertarian is a redundancy since so called right-libertarians are just classical liberals) and nazism is either a kind of fascism or influenced by it

>>8533245
This nigga looks like some backgrund portrait of a dev poorly treated to have a old time vibe stuck in Bioshock

>>8533269
Jesus dude, is there something that can't be memed by Spongebob? Is he one of the Great Memelords?

>>8533296
Don't know about Mussolini, but Franco and Hitler banned trade unions outright.

>>8533324
that's why I said claims, you see people linking fascism with syndicalism through georges sorel and mussolini's ideological history as well as the conscious use by the falange and subsequently the franco regime of the kind of populist rhetoric and propaganda that the cnt used to increase support for that government among the working class

>>8533324
>>8533338
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2XyoxK-uE

Hey, economists, what the hell happened in the 70s? The obviously-totally-biased-and-wrong impression I've got of the western world post-WW2 is
>pre-1970s: Keynesianism, more investment, increasing wealth, decreasing inequality, good times
>post-1970s: less investment, increasing inequality, slower increase in wealth overall with the occasional market crash
I'm vaguely aware of oil crises in the 70s, but what went so wrong? Why did Keynesianism get so discredited?

>>8533296
>although left-libertarian is a redundancy since so called right-libertarians are just classical liberals
It serves to distinguish US libertarianism from libertarian socialism, a term that was in use as early as 1938 when Secker & Warburg published Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker. I won't swear to it, but Rocker's mentor Kropotkin might have used the term as well.

In Europe, the association between libertarianism and anti-statist socialism persists to this day. When Albert Camus broke with Sartre and declared himself a libertarian in opposition to totalitarianism, he clearly did not did not have the US conception of libertarianism in mind, as his continued advocacy on behalf of syndicalism in particular and the labour movement more generally makes clear.

>>8533145
1) not according to those writings
2) Capitalism, Socialism, Communism - all explicitly Liberal

>>8533371
>libertarian socialism
Libertarianism as a general term for anarchism was used much earlier by Joseph Dejacque, libertarian socialism seems like a redundant term to me because Dejacque was a communist. The American liberals who call themselves libertarians are really just continuing the tradition in American politics of destroying terminology and making everything confusing and stupid.

File: SATAN.jpg (46KB, 620x400px)

46KB, 620x400px

A reminder that the Capitalist-Socialist dichotomy is one of the biggest red herrings in history. Both rely on mass employment and the worship of money. If it weren't for different names you'd have a hard time telling them apart. Both are pillars of the Globalist Mercatocracy.

>>8533367
More like keynesianism got out of hand.

Keynes' theories were supposed to be applied in time of crisis. Not to run afoul for decades - they can take a shit economy long collapsed almost (but not entirely) to normality, but when scaled up over the years, they completely destroy the system. Because government is not supposed to be big. Because the private sector is the one that generates wealth.

>>8533354
Am reading Broué and Témime on the Spanish Civil War. It's engrossing, though I have to make frequent recourse to the index that so I can keep clear in my mind who is killing who at any given time.

>>8533382
>Socialism and Communism
>Liberal

>>8533367
After decades of almost uninterrupted growth under Keynesianism, people forgot what a real economic crisis looks like—so when one finally hit, Baby Boomers declared Keynesianism broken, and opted for a system that gives us at least one years-long economic crisis per decade.

>>8533385
Well, "libertarian socialism" incorporates not only anarchism, but also left communism, council communism, and autonomist Marxism, so it's useful as an umbrella term. And communism is a sub-category of socialism, with both libertarian and authoritarian forms, so it's not at all redundant.

>>8533393
>education, postal services, health services, and transportation do not provide me with gadgets and gizmos, thus the public sector does not have any role in the creation of wealth

>>8533430
But you could refer to all those tendencies as libertarian to some extent without needing to clarify that they are socialist. Jurassian or libertarian kinds of communism also just fit under libertarian.

>>8533438
The argument is the opposite, actually.

They should not be in the public sector. Because they're in the public sector, they're gimped and are bound to provide a shit service, and the effects trickle down. Just look at public education, what it represents, and its effects.

>>8533407
yuuuuuup

File: Privatisation.jpg (174KB, 816x599px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 816x599px

>>8533451
>Because they're in the public sector, they're gimped and are bound to provide a shit service
Pic related.

>>8533504
>the government is efficient

>>8533504

>make sure things don't work

Noam needs to take off the tin foil hat. Private industries, almost without exception (I freely admit the 'almost') just do things better.

>>8533492
Nope, not unless you divorce the term from its actual meaning and repurpose it to signify anything that conservatives find disagreeable.

>>8533510
>Greentext, amirite?

>>8533596
Fantastic argument, senpai.

>>8533607
Fantastic argument, Anon-kun: >>8533510

>>8533631
Let me rephrase it then:

Are you saying the government is efficient? That public education will ever be as good as private education?

>>8533637
It supplies services to those who wouldn't otherwise have access to those services. How efficient the services are depends in part on the party in government.

>>8532588
His ideas were so shitty even Pinochet disregarded them once he saw how retarded Friedman was (privatizing the fire department for example, was a disaster). His economic policies have also devastated every third world country in which they've been implemented, Chile was on its way to meeting the same fate before a sensible public sector was established.

We are of course, kidding ourselves, if we think old Friedman was truly retarded. He just wanted to make him and his superrich pals even richer, they never cared about the 99.9% or the stability of nations.

File: battle stupid.jpg (69KB, 688x440px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 688x440px

>>8532588
Talks shit about Freedom and Equality, Used by Oligarchies to justify take overs and crash programs to redistribute wealth to the already rich and well-provided for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-R1o753pM

>>8533645
And then we go back to the clearly better approach of Milton's negative income tax.

File: Pipe Dream.gif (12KB, 297x219px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 297x219px

>>8533654

File: COSTANERA_CENTER.jpg (347KB, 1844x1071px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1844x1071px

>>8533646
>being this retarded
His economic policies were what saved Chile from being a complete shithole like the rest of Latin America. Besides that, you almost have no example of nations where his policies were used. I've only heard of Estonia and Chile and, even those, used only a part of his recomendations.

Your ad hominen is pretty pathetic. Just like yourself.

>>8533711
>His economic policies were what saved Chile from being a complete shithole like the rest of Latin America. They were so popular that the Chilean people ousted the man who implemented them at the first opportunity.

>>8533719
>large groups of retards can't be wrong!
Hitler gained power democratically, faglord

>>8533711
They were also partially implemented in the US and the UK in the '80s. During their strongest periods of economic growth, under Raegan and Thatcher.

>>8533728
see the link here >>8532743

>>8533733
And what drove that growth? Not work, that's for sure: >>8532640

>>8533728
>>8533738

>>8532779

>>8533743
A smart fiscal policy that minimized the role of government and thus cut on senseless expenditures, making the system much more efficient and much less prone to corruption.

>>8533719
How dumb can you be?

this >>8533728. Argumentum ad populum.

Besides that, your argument is a complete non sequitur. Just because Chileans voted for him to leave doesn't mean that the reason was his economic policies.

Finally, Pinochet left with 56% of the vote in a plebiscite. Not that big of consesus. He probrably left because of his surpression of civil rights.

Kill yourself.

>>8533773
Mass unemployment is "smart" and "efficient"? A system rife with asset-stripping and cronyism is "less prone to corruption"?

>>8533775
>>8533764

Also:

>Kill yourself.
You're an ideal fit for a sociopathic economic philosophy like Friedman's.

>>8533789
Well, it depends.

You need to have a clear concept of what the government means to you.

In a pure monarchy, the royal family owns the land you live in. You're a guest and you pay tribute to be allowed to live there. Hell, as a peasant, you may even be forced to work, and then there's no more unemployment. Yay!

Under a normal democracy, people own a citizenship (that may include some land), and their taxes, instead of being tribute to the owner of the land, is a concession to support the government that has been elected by the populace at large. No taxation without representation, and all.

The more taxes you have to pay to sustain a system with policies you don't support, the more you get away from this ideal. So yeah, a system where the state only provides but the most basic services IS smart and efficient, at least under the concept of a modern republic.

Also, mass unemployment is a result of minimum salary laws.

>>8532588
You can read "free to choose", or watch the documentary series. If you want more "ammunition" you can read Hayek's "road to serfdom". After that it gets more complex.

I'm having fun reading the comments of the underage redditors ITT.

>but capitalism is le evil :(((
>bosted from my iphon

>>8533832
>Well, it depends.
On whether you live at a comfortable remove from the social consequences of deleterious economic policy.

>Also, mass unemployment is a result of minimum salary laws.
Or the closing down of industries with coincidentally strong labour militancy and the sending of jobs overseas.

>>8533856
Hayek, who believed that the left argument for moral goods distribution in societies is based on the moral merit of individuals, when there is no such arguments?

Yeah, I'm sure he's a reliable source of information for OP.

>>8533856
Nice, the double shitty ad hominem

>>8533856
>but feudalism is evil. :(((
>printed under conditions of feudalism

>>8533832
>Also, mass unemployment is a result of minimum salary laws.

Wage floors definitely have something to do with unemployment, but I don't think you can point to them as THE cause.

>>8533880
>On whether you live at a comfortable remove from the social consequences of deleterious economic policy.
On whether you take responsibility for yourself or want others to take responsibility for you.

>Or the closing down of industries with coincidentally strong labour militancy and the sending of jobs overseas
As the result of there being minimum salary laws. If I own a... let's say an onahole factory. And, as a result of the minimum salary, it costs me $9 to make my onaholes, and I sell them at $10. And then the competition starts selling theirs at $7.50, with the same or better quality and tightness. Hell, they even added waifu voices to the fucking cocksleeves. Of course I'll just shut down my local factory and open a new one in a country where the minimum salary allows me to make better onaholes than the competition for less.

That is indeed the result. You just need to understand that actions have consequences. To see several steps ahead, not just the surface of things.

>>8533919
see >>8533921

Many a schmuck has fallen for Friedman... don't read his pop books or television interviews and shows which are just pure ideology underwritten for indoctrinating the public, actually try reading his academic works and understanding them and his critics. The entire essence of his theory is just that the government needs to control the money supply to maintain a reasonable (5%~ish) level of unemployment to prevent inflation (we gotta aim at maximizing the price of real estate, stocks and financial securities relative to wage levels). You're just falling for the asset-price illusion i.e. the feeling that the economy is better off if your typical "middle class" families net worth keeps rising... even when their debt servicing obligations are also rising and the access price to housing and other basic property keeps on increasing. If you want to be a consistent lolbertarian idiot at least peddle Mises or someone who's consistent in their idiocy

>>8533921
In brief, you choose not to view the situation from the perspective of anyone other the wage-giver.

>>8533921
You have provided a mechanism for minimum wage to cause unemployment, but you have not shown it to be the sole or majority cause. Give me a few minutes and ill come up with some proofs


>>8534013
Pure ideology. Proper economics will benefit both.

>>8534063
>Proper economics will benefit both.
But it doesn't. You're confusing theory with reality.

>>8534013
Absolutely.

I came up with the idea to make onaholes. I paid someone to design them. I paid for the machines. And if I'm not making a buck for them, then I'll just close the factory. I'm not doing this for fun. Or maybe just a little, once every two or three days, but that comes out of my own dic- er, pocket.

The other perspective would be the factory worker, and it's clearly outside the point. But let me have a go: I'm a highly trained cocksleeve maker. I can make plastic tighter and with more creases than anyone I know. I had to go to school for this though, and get into debt in order to learn how to make onaholes this good. But once I came out of college with my onahole making degree, I had a piece of paper certifying I knew how the art of fleshlights, so my employer knew that I deserved that minimum salary. And it was all going well, 'til the company started bleeding money. I could've keep on working for less if needed, but because there were minimum wage laws that required me to earn an unsustainable amount, I wasn't able to keep on working, legally that is, for less than that amount. So the factory closed and I'm unemployed.

If I had gotten an art degree instead, maybe I could have gotten a job at Starbucks...

>>8534075
Then the model needs modification. Hmm, perhaps to consider additional factors...

>>8534078
Why would a trained worker be working for minimum wage?

It is in the interests of employers to have unemployment.

>>8534078
Pure ideology.

>>8534106
>It is in the interests of employers to have unemployment.
That and driving down wages maximises profits for magnates and shareholders.

"It never occurred to me at the time that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom. Yet, that is precisely what I was doing. [My wife] Rose has repeatedly chided me over the years about the role that I played in making possible the current overgrown government we both criticize so strongly."

>>8534078
In the real world what generally ends up happening in such situations traditionally is that the designs/machinery/factory end up being sold off at a discount and ownership changes hands to someone who doesn't have your debt obligations to pay off in addition to the base wage bill and discounted capital costs.

>>8534109
... but it's a practical example.

>>8534106
>Why would a trained worker be working for minimum wage?
Because he's just making onaholes.

>It is in the interests of employers to have unemployment.
And it is in the interest of prospective employees to have the chance to get into lower-paying jobs in order to obtain the experience and CV to, step by step, get into higher and higher-paying jobs.

Too bad the government won't let you.

>>8534157
>"Oh, Milton, come here, you dictator-backing rascal."

>>8534078
If you'd gotten an art degree maybe you could have contributed to society instead of being a hollow shill.

I bet most of the posters here believe Jews are running the media and economy, but it's ok when *they* play laissez-faire capitalist

>>8534161
Or the employees get laid off and the factory gets sent overseas where wage laws are more lax, which was the point I was countering (>>8533880)

false dichotomy.

need more just equality and freedom. firstly need both kinds of equality and it demands redistribution

>>8534165
>... but it's a practical example.
A "practical example" divorced from reality: >>8534161

>>8534168
>art degree
>contributed to society
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>8534176
>>8534171

File: kraftwerk.jpg (19KB, 363x471px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 363x471px

>>8533504
>tfw this is happening in my country right now

>>8534165
>to obtain the experience and CV to, step by step, get into higher and higher-paying jobs

yeah breaking rocks is so helpful to working in an office

>>8534177
Not that Anon, but do you live in some alternate reality where artistic creations of different kinds spontaneously generate themselves?

>>8534161
The flow of capital is a result of the legal framework. Certain capital exports could always be prevented if desired. You're right though that the current legal framework encourages such things.

Also generally what happens when a factory moves to say Mexico/China is they don't actually pick up the old factory and put it on a boat to ship there. What happens is you get investment in new plant/equipment while the old is left to rot while the land value underneath it continues to grow in value. All you need to do is tax the assets and make it a real liability for the owner to force it onto the open market at a discount.

>>8534181
Except this >>8533880 went on in the UK in all through the 1980s, before the introduction of the minimum wage >>8534078.

>>8534227
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Boards_Act_1909

>>8534078
An art degree, like economics?

>>8534235
>No national minimum wage existed prior to 1998, although there were a variety of systems of wage controls focused on specific industries under the Trade Boards Act 1909.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Wage_Act_1998

>>8534255
>The Trade Boards Act 1909 was a piece of social legislation passed in the United Kingdom in 1909. It provided for the creation of boards which could set minimum wage criteria that were legally enforceable.[1] It was expanded and updated in the Trade Boards Act 1918.

>The Trade Boards Act 1918 (c 32) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that heavily shaped the post-World War I system of UK labour law, particularly regarding collective bargaining and the establishment of minimum wages. It was the result of the second of five Whitley Committee reports.[1]

>>8534269
>>8534255
>there were a variety of systems of wage controls focused on >>>specific<<< industries

>>8533525
"Liberalism is the ideology that the primary or even sole purpose of government/society is to maximize individual liberty and equality. Liberalism is roughly divided into two broad groups: those primarily focused on individual liberty, called Classical Liberals, and; those focused on equality, or Social Liberals, which are sometimes called Progressives"
That is what "Liberalism" means.
Socialism/COmmunism is focused on equality (of economic outcomes, in this case) instead of individual liberty.
But they are still Liberal!

>>8533269
What's wrong with antisemitism?

>>8533711
Chile is the relatively far from the equator, that's why it's not a shithole. Same goes for Argentina and Uruguay.

The closer to the equator, the more of a savage shithole you are.

>>8534360
'cept Costa Rica, for some reason.

Guatemala here.

>>8534344
No. Locke and Mill were liberals. The Whigs were liberals.

>>8533711
your pic is just a tiny bit of santiago which is just a tiny bit of chile.
chile is still a shit hole, only the rich got richer

>>8534344
Anyone who really cares about individual liberty is an anarchist (liberalism cannot really promise to protect individuals from power since they respect it) and socialism is more about equity than equality

>>8534354
Any belief that claims that all people belonging to an ethnic group, race, nation, ect. are bad is nonsensical. This includes the #KillAllWhiteMen idiots as well. Antisemitism has historically been one of the most vicious forms of mass hatred our species has seen and the conspiracy theories used to justify violence against Jews are ludicrous. To clarify, being critical of a religion or culture is one thing. Being a hateful bigot is another. You can be critical of Judaism, Jewish culture, or Israel without being an antisemite. I find circumcision to be a disturbing practice and I condemn the actions of Israel but that doesn't make me an antisemite. Many of my favorite artists are Jews and the all of the Jews I have interacted with have been great or at the very least decent people.

My love for my people (Germanics) doesn't stop me from seeing the good in those who aren't of northern European descent or fill me with hate for outsiders. I hopen you're not an antisemite or anything like that.

>>8533711
>muh chile
>what is the 1981 crisis
>dem poverty rates

just lol @ poltards, chile is a country which economy completely revolves around copper and wine, industry and innovation are pretty much non existant
>/pol/ will defend this

File: imgres.jpg (11KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 183x275px

Hey guys maybe this book would help

>>8534443
>mfw there are people that genuinely believe every jew is plotting some conspiracy against them

>>8532648
>iphone as an example
>basically all parts of iphone designed by pentagon funded projects

File: Capitalism_and_Freedom.jpg (29KB, 318x475px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 318x475px

>>8532588

>>8532640
In my country at that time we had 100% employment.

I'd prefer UK, though.

File: Careful lad.gif (3MB, 300x252px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x252px

>>8532640

>Boom and bust
>Bad

What do anti-capitalists want? Some fantasy economic system with constant growth and no recessions? Or one that results in stagnant mediocrity with no boom or bust?

Recessions are gonna happen with capitalism. The fact is they're an exception to the rule however, as opposed to formerly dirt-poor Socialist/Communist nations.

>>8534519

they don't understand that recessions burn down the forest of dead companies so new ones can grow.

in Keynesian economics of today we just pump more and more money into zombie banks and never let any business fail.

>>8534443
I'm sort of a practical racist. I don't hate every individual African immigrant for example, but I know that generally they are a negative force and upon encountering them I take not of the statistic fact that they are more likely to be stupid, impulsive, commit crime and become violent, often all while collecting welfare.

I can be friends with one or some of them and still disapprove of them in general and think they should be removed from the earth or at least my country whenever possible.

My problem with Jews is that they almost per definition push for a multicultural society (except for Israel of course) because that lessens the chance of them standing out like a sore thumb and a threat. They are a minority, and therefore push minority rights. That they often end up in positions of influence and power and are therefore more able to push their message of a more Jew-friendly world is directly against my interests.

I don't have an irrational hatred of them, I just realise my interest (not living among stupid violent savages) and theirs are generally at odds. Therefore it's quite reasonable for me to say: Except for a few exceptions, Jews are bad news.

>>8534370
I agree; So were Marx and Rand and Mao. Just different flavors

>>8532588
He's worth reading, but only to understand the ideas that have led to the ruin of America. Capitalism and Freedom is the one to read.

>>8534535
Yeah, let them collapse and hope we don't end up in a collective Detroit.

>>8534344
That expands the definition so far it is no longer a useful point of reference.

>the people who support libertarianism as an idea are massively poor or middle class at best
>the people who will actually gain $$$ from its policies are richer than rich
>but you see, the problem is socialism

>>8534581

> richest country in the world do free capitalism

> these ideas led America into ruin

It will always baffle me how blind to reality people like you are. i imagine you looking over your hipster glasses at your brand new computer and using it to bash the very system that put those things there. Yet, you're soo smart, I bet your professors love you.

>>8534495
That's because you assume you would have been guaranteed a job in the UK by virtue of being you.

>>8534519
>Being opposed to the Austrian School makes you an anti-capitalist.
Also:

>Recessions are an exception to the rule: they just happen to occur with monotonous regularity in conditions of neoliberalism.

>>8534616
You may be right, but I imagine you looking from underneath your dusty spiderweb-filled fedora, cheetos forming a circle around your monstrous abdomen, while you're supporting a system lead by the richest of the rich while you survive on neetbux and your mom's double shift paycheck.

>>8534535
>today's economy
>Keynesian

>>8534622
No anon, opposing the Austrian School makes you not retarded.

>>8534616
>free capitalism

Are you being serious right now? Protectionism? Unionism? That whole "The industrialized world is in shambles after WW2 so I guess we'll pick up the slack" thing? None of this rings a bell?

American capitalism is the freest it's ever been, and people are unhappier and more dissatisfied than ever.

>>8532720

I love you, anon.

>>8534639
>American capitalism is the freest it's ever been, and people are unhappier and more dissatisfied than ever.

Because free capitalism has created a gentry class that lords over everyone and controls one of the most corrupt political systems in the world while idiots like him bitch that some poorfag gets free healthcare.

>>8534625

250k net worth
29 year old
financial analyst
I own my own condo and just purchased my next downtown highrise condo that is being built right now.

sorry buddy

>>8534682
Kek

>>8534639

USA ranks like 11th on the list of economically free countries. Even socialist Europoor countries rank higher.

>>8534693
And? American capitalism is still much freer than it was a few decades ago.

>>8534718
Just because the shekels circulate freely doesn't mean you get them. The opposite is usually true.

>>8534718

how is freer?. I don't recall any laws like Dodd Frank, Obama Care, and the thousands of yearly crippling environmental regulations being repealed.

>>8533252
>he probably thinks r>g

>>8534758
>crippling environmental regulations

Honestly anon, kys

>>8534450
>blaming Friedmans policy for the 82 crisis

The cause of the crisis that took place in Chile in 1982 was the fault of exaclty changing the principles of free floating exchange rates.

>>8534639
>no it isn't

>>8534768

the only way we can stay free is by technology outpacing regulators, but as you see here in Austin Tx, Uber and the rest of the new innovators still fall prey to our government thugs and regulators.

>>8534781
>gubmint thugs

Keep going anon, it's a funny insight in the mind of a gullible fool.

>>8534758
>how is freer?
Less unionism, protectionism, the repeal of many regulations like Glass-Steagall, numerous new international agreements to allow capital to travel more freely, stronger ISDS laws, etc.

>>8533921
>muh neoclassical modelling

Read up on some actual studies before you spout your textbook crap. I'd start with Cards paper from 1993. Vast majority of the literature now swings that way.

>>8534008
>actually try reading his academic works and understanding them and his critics
Sound advice! Will probably take several years branching away from the pop stuff before I can use it though.

>maximizing the price of real estate, stocks and financial securities relative to wage levels = preventing inflation
>the asset-price illusion i.e. the feeling that the economy is better off if your typical "middle class" families net worth keeps rising
>debt servicing obligations

Didn't understand, Saved for posterity

>>8534622

NO BECAUSE I KNOW IT WAS FUCKING BETTER THAN COMUNIST POLAND YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>8534693
There are no socialist countries in Europe. Why are you conflating socialism with social democracy? Stop that.

>>8532876
The alliance between market libertarians/Friedmanites and conservatism fascinates me deeply, especially because politics right now can be viewed as the collapse of that alliance. About 10 years ago someone who railed against free trade and corporations was almost certain to be a granola-munching leftist, now rightists are the biggest protectionists out there.

The development of this fissure makes perfect sense, traditionalist opposition to unimpeded markets is well-established, I'm just surprised it took this long. I mean, megachurches are pretty big, we kept up this "Christianity and capitalism, together at last" thing up surprisingly long.

>>8535325
Yeah, it's fun stuff. In the UK it's pretty entertaining that Margaret Thatcher was head of a 'Conservative' government that did the absolute opposite of conserving in the name of the free market.

>>8532588
Literally responsible for multiple South American Genocides

>>8535325
The alliance between free market liberals and conservatism is old. It was helped by the left's opposition to private property/markets and businessmen willing to give up political and even economic freedom if it meant they personally benefited from it (union crushing, helping them get getting a leg up over the competition, favorable regulations, etc),

>>8533451
I'm really not sure what to think about public education. On the one hand there's plentiful evidence that it's wasteful (test scores have basically no correlation with spending per student), but on the other apparently charter schools haven't done any better. Private schools have a pretty clear confounding factor of student selection.

Only anecdotal, but my parents looked around for private schools for me but ultimately opted for the local public elementary school. All the private options were crazy creationist schools, with the occasional crazy hippie school for good measure.

>>8533719
A lot of the vote may have been in opposition to subsidized helicopter rides more than anything.

File: san sc.jpg (260KB, 1435x749px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1435x749px

>>8533227
its hell on earth

>>8532588
those who yearn for this kind of "freedom" secretly yearn for the state. to quantify freedom like this is to admit that you will argue everything on the state's terms. people like this don't want freedom, not in a general sense; they're perfectly complacent with their lack of choice in the matter. they just want a tad bit more choice here and there. in other words, they're fine with being cucked and mistreated, just as long as strap-ons aren't involved.

it's all part of the mass delusion that government is a "necessary" evil- an evil that just needs to be regulated and controlled, an evil that necessitates itself and that shouldn't be carefully considered beyond the empty buzzwords it supplies the populace, like "freedom" or "equality" or "justice". its servants will happily take part in the freedom-equality-justice equation and begin to think about everything on those terms. so what do you want? want more freedom? well, guess you're gonna have to compromise equality and justice. want more equality? sure, as long as you're fine with less freedom. want more justice? well, you're gonna have to watch us fuck your wife. by the way, we would have fucked your wife anyway. thank you for cucking yourself. now please go back to your government sponsored Job™ that you voted for after "more freedom" didn't work out for you. it's all fake. please don't cuck yourself OP

>>8533227
santiago is a fucking cesspool
only like 1/4 of it is decent-good

>>8535547
I knew that opponents of the New Deal also tended to be socially conservative, and I definitely know the Reagan coalition was the awkward combination of evangelicals and capitalists (creating the greatest arguments against Protestantism ever conceived), I'm just curious about any ideological justifications beyond hating the same people.

My suspicion is that the flip on free trade is because of immigration; if Mexican's benefit from coming in and working cheap jobs that still pay much better than anything in their country, then how are they being "exploited" by having similar jobs exported to them? Once you've accepted the "it's shit but considerably less so" argument, fair trade and WTC protests kinda fall apart. And if you're concerned with the plight of the world poor but are down-to-earth enough to see that charity and aid don't quite work, then building sweatshops in Africa is practically a moral imperative.

>>8532640

>full employment is desirable at any cost

baka sempai