That particular Friedman passage circulates around the conservative blogosphere regularly, and I for one never tire of watching it.

What a horror his life must be as he realizes that everything around him, everything he uses, every meal he eats was brought to him by capitalists.

You met a warped individual, with at least as many issues as the nearest heavily-tattooed lass on the stripper's pole, and they don't go away for him.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has firm opinions about other major things without having studied them. It's a religious zealotry.

Are you sure it wasn't Chuck(les)?

Did he have any suggestions for an alternative, or would he simply prefer any system but capitalism?

Opposition to capitalism has been cool for several generations now. So you meet a lot of people who know nothing about economics, but feel free to rail against the evils of 'capitalism'. But what they mean by the term is typically incorrect as to the actual structure and functioning of a capitalist economy. For instance, they'll decry market failings that result from state action and blame these on the free market.

Its obnoxious when someone cannot have a fact-based reasonable exchange. Name calling, refusal to let the other party speak, and hostility are not forms of intelligence or good debate. They just show the ignorance of one of the parties. I have said it before and I'll say it again. One thing I admire and respect about Amy is that no matter what the subject, she doesn't just throw random crap out there. Even when I disagree with her opinion on a topic, I know her argument is based on research.

Most people do not understand that economic freedom is intimately coupled with political freedom.

The only ones I hear complain about the evils of capitalism are government employees. At the rate things are going in NY, they will soon find out that they cannot survive off taxing other government workers.

Capitalism is hardly perfect - it's just better than the alternatives.

What was he doing at a gallery if capitalism is so awful? He does realize what galleries do, does he not?

Oh, that is right, those money-losing, trust-funded "businesses" run by the wives of rich men and the heirs of dead rich men are okay, because it is all about the art, right?

Best of all, he's a businessman and a rich man, too, with a vast library of first edition books.

People who want to have a socialist system should feel free to donate much of their money to the government. But, they never do.

Why just talk about the differences between Keynes and Hayek when you can rap about them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=player_embedded

Capitalism is hardly perfect - it's just better than the alternatives.

Posted by: MarkD

You know, I hear that all the time, but I am begining to belive capitalism is perfect. You see animals practicing it, its been the basline for damn near every economy since human scociety began ,and only when people try to control its every aspect in an attempt to move it twords socailsim do you wind up with all sorts of problems

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."

- attributed to Margaret Thatcher

So presumably all of the artists whose works were on display at this gallery donate all of their art to the Trotskyist Workers Collective, instead of selling it on the evil free market for $$$.

"People who want to have a socialist system should feel free to donate much of their money to the government. But, they never do"

Socialism is all about other peoples money, per Maggie. It's hopeless to try and reason with people who think that artistic freedom is good for art, but economic freedom is bad for the economy.

"Oh, that is right, those money-losing, trust-funded "businesses" run by the wives of rich men and the heirs of dead rich men are okay, because it is all about the art, right?" Spartee

Nailed.
In.
One.

Best of all, he's a businessman and a rich man, too, with a vast library of first edition books.

Too many rich people who advocate "from each..." don't in their wildest dreams expect that they'll be forced to live at the same level as the proletariat. In their mind, "from each" means the government will only take what they are willing to part with, not everything.

They think that they'll be the party elite, the dictators of the proletariat, guiding the rest toward utopia.

They'll be Che or Mao or Lenin, lining the enemies of the state against the wall to be shot, all in the name of the people.

They never think they'll be Robespierre, destroyed by their own creation.

=========================

And what about all those people who "became capitalists" as soon as they "got rich?"

They were capitalists all along. They just weren't very good at it.

They weren't giving away their art, novels, or screenplays. They were looking to cash in. But, in the meantime, they wanted a lifeline instead of having to get an actual job - so they advocated a government-provided lifeline.

They were already selling their wares, skills, and services. They just didn't have anything anyone wanted to pay a lot of money to get.

As soon as they hit upon a good or service they could sell at a profit, they started trying to protect their gains. When they were poor and struggling to make it, they were socialists because they were trying to secure a lifeline.

=========================

I advised my nephews when they graduated from high school to go out and acquire skills they could sell. And never stop acquiring skills.

Learn a trade or get a profession; get a personal skills tool box that would ensure they were always useful to society and they would never want for work.

One figured his high school diploma was enough. He's still looking for work that pays more than minimum wage.

Another learned a trade and is now considering going to college. But working in the meantime.

=========================

And let's be realistic. Do you think if the government took everything from a Donald Trump, a Warren Buffett, a Bill Gates, or even your local plumber, they couldn't find a way to earn it back? Harry Tuttle is out there, and he'll fix your A/C...for a fee.

Too many of those folks advocating confiscatory taxes on the "rich" think that this will bring everyone to an even level. It won't.

Those that earned their way to "rich" will do it again.

Too much of anything is a bad thing, including capitalism and socialism. There has to be a gentle mix of the 2. That bank you hate so much? It does not give a freaking CRAP about you! Not one little iota. You mean nothing, but less than nothing to it. Ford even calculated how much your life is worth once...and decided to not retrofit the Pinto with a rubber bladder to keep it from exploding on impact and maiming and killing it's customers. See - it turned out that it was cheaper to let the car go out there, kill and maim a few people, settle the lawsuits than to replace the problem part. That is also capitalism.

> Too much of anything is a bad thing, including
> capitalism and socialism.

So too much peace, love, and prosperity is a bad thing?

> That bank you hate so much? It does not give a
> freaking CRAP about you! Not one little iota. You
> mean nothing, but less than nothing to it.

That socialist government you love so much? It does not give a freaking CRAP about you! Not one little iota. You mean nothing, but less than nothing to it.

> Ford even calculated how much your life is
> worth once...and decided to not retrofit the
> Pinto with a rubber bladder to keep it from
> exploding on impact and maiming and killing
> it's customers. See - it turned out that it was
> cheaper to let the car go out there, kill and
> maim a few people, settle the lawsuits than to
> replace the problem part.

What do you think would have happened differently in a socialist country? Do they really have better records of safety?

"Does he realize everything was brought to him by capitalism?"

There's a truly sublime truth. EVERYTHING requires assembling capital. It doesn't matter if the shop or factory or highway is built by eeeevil 'capitalists', it requires the assembly of "capital" :

wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing

The difference is who controls the capital. Is it one central organization, or a number of smaller organizations?

I submit - on very much the same grounds that "monopolies are bad" (at least abusive ones, but we all know how power corrupts, and most monopolies are the result of government collusion) - that one massive organization directing everything is far more dangerous and destructive to our freedoms than a series of smaller ones, no matter how large, that the individual, other companies, or the government can take on.

Benjamin Franklin pointed out that there are two powerful human drives, the desire for power and the desire for money, and it is very dangerous let them get too closely coupled together. With socialism, the main way of getting wealth is via the acquisition of political power.

> Ford even calculated how much your life is
> worth once...and decided to not retrofit the
> Pinto with a rubber bladder to keep it from
> exploding on impact and maiming and killing
> it's customers. See - it turned out that it was
> cheaper to let the car go out there, kill and
> maim a few people, settle the lawsuits than to
> replace the problem part.

What do you think would have happened differently in a socialist country? Do they really have better records of safety?

In a socalist country as the car maker is owned 'by the people' you wouldnt even be allowed to sue, that or it wouldf be a show trial

What do you think would have happened differently in a socialist country?

Citizens of the Soviet bloc countries were forced to drive the Trabant, Lada, Skoda, Yugo and other mechanical and environmental nightmares.

Ion Mihai Pacepa related his experiences in the Romanian auto industry for the Wall Street Journal:

"Too luxurious for the idiots," [Nicolai] Ceausescu decreed when he saw the first Dacia car made in Romania. Immediately, the radio, right side mirror and backseat heating were dropped. Other "unnecessary luxuries" were soon eliminated by the bureaucrats and the workers' union that were running the factory. The car that finally hit the market was a stripped-down version of the old, stripped-down Renault 12. "Perfect for the idiots," Ceausescu approved.

[The East German Trabant] became famous in 1989 when thousands of East Germans used it to cross to the West. The Trabant originally derived from a well regarded West German car (the DKW) made by Audi, which today produces some of the most prestigious cars in the world. In the hands of the East German government, the unfortunate DKW became a farce of a car. The bureaucrats and the union that ran the Trabant factory made the car smaller and boxier, to give it a more proletarian look. To reduce production costs, they cut down on the size of the original, already small DKW engine, and they replaced the metal body with one made of plastic-covered cardboard. What rolled off the assembly line was a kind of horseless carriage that roared like a lawn mower and polluted the air worse than a whole city block full of big Western cars.

Germany's junkyards are now piled high with Trabants, which cannot be recycled because burning their plastic-covered cardboard bodies would release poisonous dioxins. German scientists are now trying to develop a bacterium to devour the cardboard-and-plastic body.

K's point was made, but not taken.

Consumer protection still has to go on, because the bulk of modern products are made in such a way that the ordinary person can't tell if it's dangerous.

Ford even calculated how much your life is worth once...and decided to not retrofit the Pinto with a rubber bladder to keep it from exploding on impact and maiming and killing it's customers. See - it turned out that it was cheaper to let the car go out there, kill and maim a few people, settle the lawsuits than to replace the problem part.

Ford did not calculate the value of a human life. The National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (the government) did. In a 1972 study to calculate the social costs of traffic accidents, the NHTSA set the value of each life lost at $200,000. This value considered only the lost earnings of traffic fatalities.

The NHTSA did not consider any ancillary benefits to not having people die on the highways. Nor did it consider the value a person might place on his own life.

Ford used the NHTSA figure in a memo when lobbying the NHTSA about proposed tougher standards for rollover crashes.

The plaintiffs in the Grimshaw case attempted to have the Ford memo introduced to discredit Ford management. The judge disallowed the memo and it was not introduced at the trial.

Should Ford have fixed the problem? Yes. Without question.

The company was sued often and suffered years of bad publicity over this issue.

Mother Jones, 60 Minutes, and other leftist media outlets used the Pinto gas tank and the memo to pummel Ford mercilessly.

Comedians from Johnny Carson to the Zucker Brothers (Top Secret) made the Pinto a running gag.

The Ford Pinto case is today used as a textbook example in US business schools of what not to do.

I especially like Milton Friedman's idea to fund militaries with progressive consumption taxes. He also thought gold nuts, were, well nuts, and advised taxing polluters.

Heh. I had a Ford Pinto. 1972 Runabout. Sky blue. Hatchback.

Flipped that thing end-over-end as I slid off a gravel road doing 40, and the front end dipped into a muddy field.

Totaled it.

Walked away completed unscathed. Not even a scratch.

Regarding your 'friend' at the gallery?

I gave up long ago trying to have conversations with people like that. Just not worth the effort. If they aren't interested in at least hearing my point of view, they weren't worthy of being friends in the first place. Fuck 'em.

For all I remember, you're the one that showed this to me, but here goes...

Milton Friedman is asked a question by a young (and thin) Michael Moore and just lambastes him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

Heh. I had a Ford Pinto. 1972 Runabout. Sky blue. Hatchback.

My family had a red 1976 Pinto Wagon when I first learned to drive. I avoided an accident when a woman cut me off shortly after getting my license. I steered away from her and then into the resulting skid and the car responded just like the driver's ed simulator.

It was totaled a few months later when a woman rear-ended my mother on a busy thoroughfare. The wagon bed buckled but the passenger compartment held and mom emerged unscathed.

I always liked that car despite the lack of power and butt-ugly fake wood paneling.

"I am begining to belive capitalism is perfect. You see animals practicing it"

One reason the animal economy is vibrant: the old and infirm are consumed by the strong, not supported by them.

So let's just put it on the table: anyone who claims to love America should be consuming at least one senior a month.

One reason the animal economy is vibrant: the old and infirm are consumed by the strong, not supported by them.

The animal economy also doesn't spend much on the education of its young, preferring the school of hard knocks - and in some cases simply eating them.

Thinking further on this, I don't know if I'd call the animal economy "capitalist."

The animal economy relies more on the "eat the other guy" model than the "purchase at a fair market price from the other guy" model so beloved by Adam Smith.

The gazelle isn't as much making a product and selling it to the lion as he is producing enzymes and proteins which the lion then eats him to obtain, often without the gazelle's explicit permission.

Property rights, vital in a capitalist economy, such as the property rights of the gazelle to his "self" are pretty much an after thought to the lion.

In fact, the animal economy seems more Marxist than capitalist.

Some animals are asked to sacrifice according to their ability in order to provide for other animals according to their needs.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" (in this case, the lions) decides what is good for the state as a whole and demands from the non-dictatorship inhabitants (in this case, the gazelles) that which has been deemed good for the state.

While the system works, no one seems to have asked the gazelles if they'd prefer something else.