Brilliant.
And in 1979 Friedman describes the risks of socialized medicine to an audience of physicians at Mayo Clinic.
Again, brilliant. And prescient.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
A Few Minutes With Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman summarizes his beliefs about Capitalism in just over two minutes in response to questions from Phil Donahue.
Brilliant.
And in 1979 Friedman describes the risks of socialized medicine to an audience of physicians at Mayo Clinic.
Again, brilliant. And prescient.
Brilliant.
And in 1979 Friedman describes the risks of socialized medicine to an audience of physicians at Mayo Clinic.
Again, brilliant. And prescient.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Uncle Milty never gets old. I can watch this again and again.
Milty was a very smart man, but limited in his vision because he never saw or anticipated the most powerful force of good known to modern man: the rise of Obama the Winner armed with the power of the internet, his artificial neural network, and a spine of pure coltan and titanium alloy.
What other natural, unregulated system do we label as an "-ism"?
"Darwinism" fits, But Capitalism doesn't since it doesn't mean unregulated or natural.
Has anyone been following the woes of Britain's NHS in the British Press? Lucianne.com usually has a good assortment of news report and official studies. "Scary" is not EVEN the word. And that's increasingly our future with each passing day..
The regulation you swoon for, Montana Urban Schmendrik, always corrupts rather than corrects. The free market, on the other hand, regulates fairly. No favorites. But that would put your soulmate power fiends in government out of work. So it's gotta go.
"Darwinism" fits, But Capitalism doesn't since it doesn't mean unregulated or natural.
I've never heard any scientist refer to a word "Darwinism", only "evolution".
It would really sound as strange as hearing "biologism", instead of just "biology". Etc.
Interestingly enough, biologism does have a dictionary definition, as does "economism". Both of which are used to describe ways of reducing all social phenomena to either biology or economics, respectively.
The regulation you swoon for, Montana Urban Schmendrik, always corrupts rather than corrects. The free market, on the other hand, regulates fairly. No favorites.
Including the regulation against insider trading? That's interesting - especially for a twerp who says he's in favor of fair competition and not picking favorites. You'll notice that both Alan Greenspan and Bag disagree with you, by the way. I wonder what you think you know that they don't.
Your question was stupid, the premise flawed, and your response a dodge, but other than that, you did mention that you heard a scientist talk once, so you got that going for you.
Don't we have FTC regulations against misleading or deceptive advertising? Shouldn't we enforce those, especially when someone deceives the entire population of the nation, and then forces everyone to buy anyway?
That is some evil capitalist shit right there. No evil capitalist has ever even tried to pull that off. Maybe they have souls they worry about.
Ha. There Milton goes again with his logic.
Don't we have FTC regulations against misleading or deceptive advertising? Shouldn't we enforce those, especially when someone deceives the entire population of the nation, and then forces everyone to buy anyway?
You mean the fact that increasing numbers of consumer products, including household chemicals, are allowed to keep the components of their goods off the label?
Sounds like Obama's taken after some of your finest friends in the biz.
That is some evil capitalist shit right there. No evil capitalist has ever even tried to pull that off. Maybe they have souls they worry about.
Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay, AIG's board, Bank of America's CEO, Jamie Dimon all thank you for your defense of their souls.
And don't be a douche, Bag o Vinegar. (I know that's hard, given your name). But you answered a question that you now backtrack to find "stupid" and "flawed" and a dodge in response, then you should have said so at the time, you lying slippery weasel.
Wouldn't that be fun if the FTC charged Obama and the Dems that voted for Obamacare with fraud and false and misleading claims@
Individuals can be greedy and corrupt. When whole governments act as corrupt royalty - mass suffering ensues.
Virgil - been following it for years. Only moron greedy inept incompetent hardened authoritarian leftists would want to copy Britain's NHS. It's a nightmare.
BTW, pretty much every country in the world has "socialized" medicine. Including most of the ones with the highest per capita incomes.
"Capitalism" like "Socialism" is good in theory - bad in practice. Which is why everyone has a mixed economy.
Uncle Milt is timelessly awesome.
And don't be a douche, Bag o Vinegar.
Why do you insist on labeling Bago's wit as acerbic? It could at time be called caustic.
You mean the fact that increasing numbers of consumer products, including household chemicals, are allowed to keep the components of their goods off the label?
I'm curious. Like what products?
Including the regulation against insider trading?
Insider trading, a favorite of Nancy Pelosi. Congress was exempt for insider trading rules; Pelosi became very wealthy because of that special treatment.
Here.
If you support Nancy remaining in office, you support unethical conduct.
I hope you know that Newsmax is a politically driven tabloid, Michael. If there's prosecutable conduct, I don't see how I'm standing in the way. And if as the interview shows, it was conduct that's unbecoming a house leader, that's a political decision on how to proceed as the definition is just that. In any event, she's not the speaker, just a rep and minority leader, and how does this have anything to do with actual, illegal behavior in the aggregate that does broadly hurt the market? Not much. But I understand how people get aggravated by problematic behavior on the part of another party's minority leaders… If you want her censured, go for it. It's easy to think we should speak for which reps from other districts should be allowed to hold office, but probably not very helpful.
But I digress. Weren't we talking about economics and whether any regulations were ok? It seems that you're agreeing on that larger point so if it takes pointing a finger at Pelosi to accept it then I accept your concession.
I'm curious. Like what products?
I can think of all sorts of products you'd find at a grocery store that would apply. Broadly speaking, all sorts of cleansers, including caustic Drano products that you'd think should say which strong acid is in the bottle. Just because the whole of America isn't a bunch of chemists, I don't think that should excuse a manufacturer from neglecting to provide that information for the benefit of those of us with at least marginal to better-than-average chemical fluency who would appreciate something more than a 1-800 number on the back to call for more information or in case of "accidental ingestion". Most of the time, I'm actually curious to know what the hell's in the bottle from an efficacy standpoint. I know how many of these chemicals work and don't think it's right that the manufacturer should hide the identity of those components on behalf of some poorly made argument through their lobbyists in Congress about giving the consumer "too much, daunting" information. That's a crock.
Bag can be as witty as he wants or thinks he is, but perhaps you'll forgive me if (once again) I'd been working on the assumption that he'd had a serious point to make. His earlier response was sensible enough. I'd hate to think that sensible points are made here just as "bait".
So you agree that her conduct is unethical. Why have you not called for her censure? It's because insider trading by a Dem is okay with you. Neat bit of hypocrisy, that.
Funny that you call Newsmax a politically driven tabloid. Your favorite newspapers are also polictically driven, as are you.
What are my "favorite" newspapers, then?
I didn't say her conduct was unethical®. I just don't act as judge, jury and prosecutor of people upon first hearing of some alleged legal "wrongdoing" on the fly. I know that believing in a fair hearing before passing judgment excludes me from membership in the club of Republican political moralizers, but I'm ok with that. And besides, I don't have a judge's robe, I've not been in on the jury, and I haven't been compensated by the state to bring charges on their behalf. I'm funny like that. ;-)
Plenty of Republicans have been canned from Congress for their behavior. Not because Democrats called for it (I didn't, at least - I usually have other things to worry about). But because the facts came out in the light of day and were shown to be, a good many more times than most of us are comfortable with, clearly wrong. Tom DeLay's money laundering conviction comes to mind. As does Mark Foley's soliciting of underage pages. Clearly criminal conduct or potentially so in those cases. And then there was Charlie Wrangel. And Larry Craig. Some of these had evidence for criminal wrongdoing, some for lesser wrongdoing, and many clearly abhorrent. Why are you so paranoid that Democrats are being protected or won't see a proper outcome for wrongdoing? And why are you so concerned that an anonymous internet commenter "rise" to call for a political response to a representative from San Francisco's conduct? Seriously? How far do we play this game? What will you, personally, do about Darrell Issa, or anyone else I could accuse of wrongdoing?
BTW, Pelosi voted and spoke out for the STOCK Act, which "shined a light on a gaping hole in our ethics laws and helped close it once and for all." (Her words). Name a Republican who's been so positive in helping to put an end to the gray areas that he could have once been alleged to have taken advantage of?
That would at least indicate the capacity for self-improvement, along with the improvement of the same system itself which Republicans seem to never want to stop taking advantage of…
Broadly speaking, all sorts of cleansers, including caustic Drano products that you'd think should say which strong acid is in the bottle.
Drano is caustic, there being acid in it is mostly a lye. It's actually a clever combination. I consider bases caustic -- like caustic soda.
What will you, personally, do about Darrell Issa, or anyone else I could accuse of wrongdoing?
People forever blame the Executive's party in power for excesses for example, shitty laws under Bush were largely Democratic misdeeds.
Let's not even begin to look too closely at Barney Frank's moral failings.
Frankly, Barney's crimes against the economy should have been prosecuted as much as any alleged Bush mishandling of economy
Ritmo, here's the problem: You are not able (or not wiling) to engage in a linear conversation. You ask a question; a reply is offered, and you veer off into another topic or topics. There is no real conversation, just a flinging of random complaints.
Sorry, I'm not in the market for troll services. I have no compelling reason interact with you.
Bless your heart.
No Michael - the problem is you turned a discussion on economics and regulation into a political and personal one: What does a discussion of a regulated economy have to do with me calling for Nancy Pelosi's censure?
If you don't like a devolved conversation, then here's some advice: Don't change the subject. It's like you're not even conscious of the fact that you did that.
Frankly, Barney's crimes against the economy should have been prosecuted as much as any alleged Bush mishandling of economy.
Fine. But why don't we just agree then that whatever they were both allowed to do would be prevented, in law, from being done again?
Go ahead and get rid of the CRA, but get rid of repealing Glass-Steagall, or whatever lack of regulations of CDOs, etc. played their part, too. This was clearly a two-part deal, what led to the meltdown, and hasn't really been fixed, has it?
Oh bullshit. I responded to you; you changed the conversation.
Nope. Your response was a change of subject from regulations to Nancy Pelosi and partisan cat-calls. It's instructive of why Republicans are taken less and less seriously with each generation to follow.
Buzz off. Take your trolling elsewhere.
Whatever you say, EBL. Seriously, you're starting down the same road that Althouse did with talk like this - as you're perfectly entitled to do. But as with the way you changed the subject, it's not like no one will notice.
Hopefully you're not married to a guy like Meade. ;-)
...And, once again, Ritmo manages to sow salt in a comment thread so thoroughly that it dies.
Some people enter into conversation in order to converse, to persuade, to entertain and to be entertained, to be challenged, to amuse, to learn, to enjoy oneself while adding to the enjoyment of others.
Then there's Ritmo.
What bravery it takes to censor like that!
Thanks. Message received. The free-speech zone has been closed.
And if you want your heart blessed (passive aggressively, as it was done to me) for that punitive and vindictive action, I've got just the guy for the job, above.
The Ratzinger obsession is another sullivanist tell.
Just sayin'
Well, at least you reveal the intriguing basis for your, er, rather interesting censorship.
But I'll be happy with the removal of that reference if you're strong enough to accept that I simply prefer for people, no matter how devoted they are to dogma, to address factual substance every now and then, and not, as I said, simply "castigate, demagogue, personalize, charm and demean", instead.
(Yes, I figured out how to retrieve the comment. We "Sullivanists" don't like being caught underestimating the emotional over-reactions of those of opponents of his who seem to be every bit as emotional as he).
BTW, if it's wrong to mention someone that Sullivan mentions, why not make it wrong to mention Sullivan himself? I guess that would make it hard to use your own, unusual and intentionally pejorative adjective of "sullivanist", though?
Just wondering.
Love you, Chickie. ;-)
I didn't delete you, R&B. Your last comment seems bifurcated in its direction.
When Sullivan uses the term "christianist" he doesn't intend to mock Christians or Christ. Only the branch of followers he's decided are nuts.
I use the term "sullivanist" likewise. Surprised you haven't figured that out yet. :)
It's also futile to talk to people who aren't here.
Post a Comment