The late Milton Friedman was a provocative teacher at my alma mater, the University of Chicago. He got his students involved with their studies. He was a gifted writer and communicator. And he received a Nobel Prize for his contributions to economics. But Friedman was more than an academic. He was an advocate for, and popularizer of, a radical right-wing economic… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (28)Page 1 of 1 pagesI wonder what Milton Friedman would be saying about the Wall St. bailouts. His main theme, as I recall was free markets and free enterprise — certainly this is not what we are seeing — nor is it what led us to this sorry state of affairs.
This is the mother of all government interventions!
For at least two decades congress has run the biggest and longest bipartisan cooperative venture with big business in the history of the free world.
The trashing of regulations instituted due to the Great depression experience was accomplished withthe full cooperation and urging of the very people who have been allowed to stay and direct the solution. (A lot like putting the James boys and the Daltons in charge of bank security.)
When the conventional “Wall St. Wisdom” touted the exporting of our best paying jobs as benefiting consumers, the congress went right along with what big business deemed best for all.
Only the low-end jobs would be lost… remember?
As soon as the (very) high-end was threatened a “too-big-to-fail” mantra filled our ears.
Now we are all paying premium prices for assets which have no market and even those who have never entered the stock casino are shareholders entrapped in the biggest ever pyramid scheme.
With the current lax attitude toward tax fraud, I guess we should all be able to take a $3,000 annual write-off for our stock losses. Right?
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 7, 2009 at 8:08 PM MR. SANDERS:
“Are we as human beings supposed to turn around and not see the suffering that so many of our brothers and sisters are experiencing?”REPLY: No, we should be concerned, and help with our own personal resources, not ask someone else to do it with their resources. How much does Mr. Sanders do personally to help others? Studies show that liberals like Mr. Sanders are less likely to donate their own time and resources to charity.
MR. SANDERS:
“Right-wing economists have argued that we can simply trust wealthy people and large corporations to do the right thing. Recent history has demonstrated what a silly idea that is.”REPLY: American corporations and individuals are the greatest charitable givers and creators in the whole world. Without American wealth there would be little help around the world.
Posted by Gregory D. Clift on Feb 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM Firstly ...
“Historians commonly suggest that the actions of political leaders are the result of the slow dissemination and society’s osmotic absorption of - the ideas of intellucuals. While it is true that political leaders absorb ideas from the academy, they also requisition ideas, embracing those thinkers who provide them with the intellectual underpinnings for what they want to do.”
( I quote this directly from the book - A History Of Nonviolence - )Secondly, I believe that the universities of today promote militaristic, warmongering wealth-hoarding societies.
Thirdly, regarding the reply from Gregory T. Hill, :
“REPLY: American corporations and individuals are the greatest charitable givers and creators in the whole world. Without American wealth there would be little help around the world.”
Well, personally I believe that charity is no substitute for organized justice.
Posted by Tonykennelly on Feb 12, 2009 at 12:06 PM Who has a right to the fruit of another persons labor?
What do you call someone who does not have a right to the fruit of their own labor?
Socialism is slavery
Posted by James Johnson on Feb 12, 2009 at 9:52 PM Bernie Sanders, the most openly left-wing adovocate of socialist dogma in congress, writes about the contirbutions of large companies to conservative candidates and causes and how they expect favorable results from their actions.
He fails to mention the billiion dollars spent by unions from monies taken from the working people of this country unforunate enough to have to pay union bosses to be able to earn a living.
I write as someone whose union dues monies were spent to back candates and causes that I was completely opposed to. I sent money to candidates who were opposed by the money taken from me and sent to the opposition.
The union I belonged to for thirty years. not only spends mandatory dues money on left-wing politicians such as Bernie Sanders but they have a political action fund that is supposedly voluntary but those who wish to work had better sign the card giving money to their political action fund.
Bernie and his cohorts are paying back the huge sums of money and free forced labor by union members by advocating what they hypocritically call the Free Choice Act which will force working people to join unions without a secret ballot.
So much for their let every vote be counted. Bernie Sanders is one of the most hypocritcal politicians in the United States and considering his contempories, that is quite a feat.
Donald Melquist
Posted by exunionmember on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:28 PM I knew Milton Friedman. He was one of the best teachers I ever had.
In the latter part of his career Friedman was quite explicit in his belief that Keynes was right about the 1930s. His position was that when the economy gets in that big a hole it is necessary for the government to step in and give it a fiscal-stimulus kick to get it going again.
Friedman came across in class as very worried that we might someday get in another Great Depression. I believe that is why he spent so much time and effort opposing a return to the gold standard.
Milton Friedman made it clear to us that he considered one category of the costs of the Depression to have been changes in the political sphere. And while he did not spell it out in so many words, he gave some of us the distinct impression that he included the rise to power of a lunatic-fringe crackpot named Adolf Hitler as being one of those costly changes.
Hitler could never have been appointed chancellor of Germany had it not been for the worldwide collapse of the capitalist system. This was another negative consequence of the Depression, along with the unemployment, the homelessness and the grinding poverty, and it is a consequence that I have yet to hear any Republican refer to in discussing President Obama’s stimulus program.
Posted by Jim Hill on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:32 PM 19 years ago I ran away from Soviet Union communism. When people have been asking me after my arrival what am I politically, I would proudly tell, “I am certainly a Democrat.” Time changes a lot.
After seeing what Left, that’s hijacked Democratic Party, has been doing to this greatest nation on Earth, I can as proudly say, “I am certainly NOT a Democrat.” (Just to clarify, not like you, communist, I am truly independent)
When I crossed the Soviet border, I hoped that I left behind and will never again hear the low level, nonsense, obtuse, left wing propaganda. Well ... Congratulations, Senator! The “Talker” of the House Pelosi and her Senate Cousin Reid, will truly be proud of you. What a shame!
Communists used to brand different sciences as capitalist propaganda. Senator Sanders proudly joins their ranks. Could you imagine a ultra right/left wing mathematics? How about Physics? Chemistry? Certainly economics, right?
Just because your opponents have been faster, or may be even smarter, to recognize and adopt the scientifically better theory, you, no matter how justifiably or not, immediately make this theory the enemy of the people.
Was it President Clinton who said, “Fortunately what’s is wrong with this country can be cured by what’s RIGHT with this country?” Senator Sanders, the Pelosi-Reid-Sanders triumvirate is what is wrong with this country. It won’t take much time and this wonderful country, the best country in the world, the shining city on the hill, will be back on its tracks and the ultra-left-wing-propagandists will be LEFT behind, using the language of your Soviet brethren, in the gutters of history ...
Posted by UzhasKakoi on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:36 PM In reply to JIm Hill who states the Hitler, a crackpot lunatic would have never won power in Germany if it hadn’t been for a financial crisis. I wonder if Mr. Hill sees the irony of his comparison since Barrack Obama would never have been elected as president of this country if it hadn’t been for the financial criisis.
A financial crisis caused in good part by the refusal of the Democrats to allow any control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Also those same Democrats threatened banks with huge fines and investigations if they did not give loans to unqualified home buyers. Now they blame the banks and the Bush administration for problems caused by the actions of Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd.
Back to you Jim.
Posted by exunionmember on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM If I went before the people in a town hall meeting in Vermont and asked for a show of hands of how many people thought it would be a good idea to abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, people would think I was crazy. Not one person in a hundred would support that idea because it is so patently absurd.
Mr. Sanders, I’m the one in a hundred, and its certainly not absurd!
Where do the resources which pay Social Security benefits come from? That’s correct: they come from personal and business taxes. In this sense, Social Security benefits are a RESIDUAL of profit making enterprise. If the businesses and individuals which fund Social Security fail or otherwise go out of existence, then there will be no Social Security. Collectively and over time, there can be no SS unless profit happens FIRST.
As both a young person and a participant in Social Security, I therefore prefer that my future benefits be paid from the more certain PROFIT portion of the income stream rather than the residual. In other words, I know that the rate of return on my account as presently constituted will equal that of a short to intermediate term U. S. Treasury bond. This is not good enough. I choose instead to “cut out the middle man” (Uncle Sam) and invest over time in a diverse portfolio of businesses with a CERTAIN profit stream that provides a premium over Treasury bonds. Due to the effects of compounding, over my 40 to 50 year working lifetime, investing my savings in this manner (instead of the SS administration) will provide me a retirement income nearly TRIPLE what SS provides.
Posted by c smith on Feb 13, 2009 at 12:22 AM Milton Friedman was a proponent of an open free market system where banks, investment houses, businesses, and individuals could compete to maximize their opportunities, and be free to fail unmolested and more importantly unprotected by Government interference. Milton Friedman never sanctioned and never would sanction corrupt, shadowy institutions like Freddie Mae & Freddie Mac protected by powerful and corrupt political benefactors like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd from proper oversight while at the same time they were directed by the Government to make improper and incredibly risky loans to people who simply couldn’t afford the loans. In an economy run under the principals that Milton Friedman espoused the current situation never would have happened because there would have been no expectation that the Government would bail out Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, the Banks, the investment houses, GM, Ford, or Chrysler. People would have evaluated the risk and made better decisions knowing full well that bad decisions would lead to the loss of every penny they invested. What we’ve had wasn’t the free market that Milton Friedman proposed with everyone sobered by the very real possiblity of failure. What we had was a corrupt ponzi scheme aided and abetted by corrupt politicians applying Government pressure and an implicit Government guarantee that large institutions were to large to fail. Socialist Sen Bernie Sanders knows full well that Milton Friedman would have denounced the entire corrupt Government entwined system that led up to this crisis with every ounce of strength he had. What he is doing is a complete and total distortion and fabrication of Milton Friedman’s work and a scurilous attack on the legacy of a dead man who can no longer defend his reputation and legacy against out and out lies. For shame!!!!!
Posted by valwayne on Feb 13, 2009 at 12:28 AM “I work in Washington, D.C., and I know about the power that big money has over process. When the insurance companies and the drug companies and the oil companies and the banks and the military-industrial complex make contributions to political campaigns, we usually know exactly what it is they want in return.”
All of the money in the world would do no good, Mr. Sanders if there were not a willing politician on the receiving end of that cash. Maybe the University is not as corrupt as you and your colleagues!
Meddling politicians interfered with the market to guarantee loans that would never have been made otherwise. They own this mess outright. And we are stuck with the bill. Milton Friedman was a great man and everyone, rich and poor, would be far better off if we were abiding by his free market principles instead of listening to Socialist crackpots!
Posted by thestalkinghorse on Feb 13, 2009 at 1:05 AM Wonderful Mr. Sanders!
So what prophet do you believe created more wealth and freedom for millions of common people not lucky enough to be born into wealth.
I find it so laughable that an avowed Socialist has any credibility or authority to speak on the subject of “free markets.”
Mr. Sanders, your followers must do one thing to stay true to your philosophies….. STOP THINKING.
Posted by KevinAndrews on Feb 13, 2009 at 1:13 AM Kevin,
How do you think Senator Sanders got (re)elected? Thoughtless supporters ...
Posted by UzhasKakoi on Feb 13, 2009 at 1:20 AM Sen. Sanders like President Obama, when they trash on Milton Friedman and the free markets saying we tried that philosophy the last eight years and it’s proven to be failed, refuse to acknowledge that under President Bush, we saw the largest governent spending increase. Yes, they did lower taxes, but, by comparison the spending outweighted the tax cuts exponentially.
SO in a sense, Sen. Sanders and Pres. Obama are right….errrr…correct. It’s just they’re wrong in the failed philosophy the speak so assuredly of.
SInce when was it a bad idea to allow people to make decisions for themselves…..I wonder if Sen Sanders has ever read a word in a Milton Friedman book?
Posted by Vealbone on Feb 13, 2009 at 2:01 AM I agree. It’s the failed right-wing ideology of Friedman that has led to massive poverty in places like Hong Kong, Ireland, Chile, and the U.S. It’s why millions of people try to escape capitalism. Look at all the Americans that risk their lives everyday trying to get into Cuba and Mexico. Observe the countless number or poor South Koreans that do whatever it takes to cross their northern border.
And look what happened in China, for example. Deng Xiopeng implemented many of Friedman’s ideas in the late 1970s and since then only half a billion people have been brought out of poverty. Seriously, that’s the best capitalism can do? Only half a billion? Weak.
Posted by pholland on Feb 13, 2009 at 2:38 AM In the USA, Friedman’s ideas contributed to nearly thirty years of almost-uninterrupted economic expansion, occasionally paused by anti-capital tinkering such as the 1990 tax increases. In Chile, his reforms lifted millions from shack-living poverty. Today’s crisis is in part a result of unethical greed, as well as politicians mandating (regulating) that financial institutions lend in ways that are anti-Friedman; don’t blame him for the mess of Barny Frank and Chris Dodd’s making.
Sander’s ideas have lead to the collapse of at least one empire (arguably several), and the enslavement (and deaths) of millions. Visit the former Eastern Block and listen to the “common men” seethe as they hiss the word “socialism”, that failed ideology that not only destroyed assets, but sucked meaning out of the souls of men. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work” was a common joke in the Soviet Union.
Even the Communist in China have seen the light—it’s so sad Sanders finds it blinding. Then again, maybe he just finds the math too complex to follow.
Posted by steve4laws on Feb 13, 2009 at 3:47 AM AND, following on Steve4laws who makes very good comments,
Friedman’s ideas have helped reduce high inflation rates around the world, have provided the framework for Ireland, one of the few economic superstars in Europe…I could go on and on.The author of this article must never have read anything of Milton Friedman wrote, or ever understood it. I thought the column was by a crank journalist, but it appears this is an elected official? It’s scary that such an uninformed, thoughtless, mean-spirited person could hold public office. You know when someone accuses another of being “ideological” that the author him or herself is nothing by an utter idealogue as is the author of this column. Such is the case here.
Friedman reached his conclusions with logic and judicious use of evidence. The author of this column obviously does not have the faintist idea of what that entails.
In short, Friedman’s legacy will live on, long long after this column’s author, even though a few setbacks may happen from time to time.
Posted by craig3 on Feb 13, 2009 at 5:02 AM This response could not have come from a better place:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123447962323279585.html
But does Senator Sanders even listen? Or is he like Al “The Father of the Internet - The Mother of The Global Warming” Gore. Making grandiose pronouncements and running away from questions and debates ...
Posted by UzhasKakoi on Feb 13, 2009 at 5:36 AM Uz: Loved the article but confused by your first reply. Was it rhetorical? I believe Sanders gets elected due to a huge amount of Group Think going on up there.
How do people like him get elected… they know politics and campaign well.
Based on his success as a Mayor, I suspect his executive decisions were in opposition to his personally held liberal views.
I know many successful Democrats that live conservative principles but believe and preach the opposite. What can you say… it’s a friggin’ paradox.
Posted by KevinAndrews on Feb 13, 2009 at 5:49 AM Mr. Sanders -
Do you really think that “deregulation” has cost us so much? If so, can you identify $1 million in costs that can specifically be identified and traced back to “deregulation”? $1 million is a modest amount in the current economic environment, so surely you can identify an instance to demonstrate your contention.
Now, the current crisis is directly traced to the Democratic Party, President Carter, and the Community Reinvestment Act 1977, and the changes made by President Clinton to the CRA in the early 1990s. Specifically, the Democratic Party made it a matter of law that mortgages be given to people who patently could not afford to repay the money that was borrowed, and that the suspect mortgages be bundled with good mortgages and sold as investment-grade packages worldwide. Can you give me a single example of a troubled financial institution (AEI, Merrill Lynch, CitiBank, Washington Mutual, etc.) that does not list toxic mortgages as their primary problem? No, you cannot. We got into many untenable situations (Fannie, Freddie, banks, ratings agencies, CDSs. CDOs, etc.) as a result of these toxic mortgages, all of these due to interference in free markets by Democrats, and none of them due to “deregulation”.
Now you may ask me if I can identify an example of Democrats interfering with the economy. Fair question, and ‘deed I can:
“A key figure in this scandal, Countrywide Financial, saw its low-income loan portfolio grow from $1 billion in 1992 to $80 billion in 1999, and to $600 billion in 2003.”
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/ci_11229435
The original bailout was pegged at $700 billion, which was probably about right to salvage the Democrats’ toxic mortgages, all things being equal. But all things were not equal. The Democrats were on the verge of electing a Marxist as president, and investors worldwide bailed out so their assets would not be subject to Marxist inefficiency and corruption. So a $700 billion problem became a $30 trillion (and counting) catastrophe.
Nor is this the first time that the Democrats/Marxists have deliberately screwed up the economy. LBJ’s War on Poverty cost over $6 trillion and did major damage to the lives of poor families. Obama is now introducing a $1 trillion stimulus package.
LBJ’s $6 trillion, the bailout’s $700 billion, and the stimulus’ $1 trillion all went directly to the national debt. If we could recover the $8 trillion or so that you Democrats pissed away, would the free market look somewhat more attractive?
We have had the strongest economy in history, in spite of the Democrats blatant attempts to ruin it. Now you may have come near succeeding in undermining the economy, the nation, and the Constitution. But not without a fight.
Posted by scorp on Feb 13, 2009 at 5:53 AM Senator Sanders,
I respectfully disagree with your opinions of Milton Friedman and the system his policies wrought. I am a member of the left-wing (I recognize that we have not reached a social and economic meritocracy and that our goal should be to reach towards that goal), but I an also a libertarian and free trader, because as a student of economics I realized that our society has progressed faster in the past 50 years than the previous 500 on many levels, from human development to technological advancement. The poor are far, far better off than they were 50 years ago, and just because the rich have gotten proportionately richer does not negate the fact that most Americans, including the lower classes have roofs over their heads, two cars, personal computers, televisions and other amenities that they would have only been able to dream about affording half a century ago.
The problem with socialism is that it sees money, wealth and property as a zero-sum game, when time and time again this is disproven. Free trade agreements have consistently led to measurable wealth growth for both countries, but mainly the poorer country, whose resources are now able to reach a different market and whose workers have access to better and more jobs. Taiwanese sweatshop women forty years ago now are solidly middle class and have all the amenities they need to live on - it’s such a common story it isn’t even an anecdote.
Inequality is not as important as making sure that society advances for the middle and lowest classes. And the statistics have shown that indeed they have - not in every case and not always consistently and not necessarily in proportion to the rich, but they have. Mobility is more important than outright equality, which will never occur, no matter how much the government wishes it to, because we are not all equal in ability or determination or luck. People who can work but are too lazy or pass up opportunities for advancement or act irresponsibly and lose their jobs should not be propped up at the expense of taxpayers - of course, the incapacitated and the elderly are a different scenario.
But back to Milton Friedman, I would argue that Friedman was more progressive than you and your socialist ilk. He called himself of the Left (and Adam Smith before him was as well). He recognized that entrepreneurship, not government handouts, was the best door to economic advancement.
In light of our current situation, he would have said that these corporations deserved to fail for their bad financial decisions, but also pointed out the many egregious errors made by both sides of the political spectrum. The Republicans and Democrats have both spent too much money that we simply don’t have, cut taxes when we were already running budget deficits, not properly monitoring their own bureaucracies, etc. If the government can’t monitor their own bureaucracies, how the heck can we pretend that they will catch the Madoffs, Enrons and bad financial decisions on corporations encloaked in the very best lawyers and accountants? No, the regulations that you wish to impose on the economy crush the little guy and the small business - maybe unintentionally, but it always does. Small businesses create most of the jobs in this country, so why do our politicians never seem to consider what is in their best interests? The Right is too in bed with the corporations and the Left is too in bed with unions and special interest groups, and the small businesses are left to fight it out on their own.
Bush was a heavily regulatory president - from Sarbanes-Oxley to the expansion of regulatory spending by 50% and the Federal Register by 25%. My six-person company was forced to spend 20% of our time filling out paperwork for SOX compliance. The politicians who were supposed to be overseeing Fannie and Freddie found Bush to be an easy scapegoat - and he WAS a lot at fault for his irresponsibility, but it was the fault of doing too much and not too little.
Posted by paperhats on Feb 13, 2009 at 6:56 AM Note also Friedman advocated for the Negative Income Tax, one of the most progressive tax ideas ever. However, I would propose replacing personal taxes with land value taxes, as did Smith, Marx, Keynes, Friedman, George and many other of the best economic minds.
Friedman recognized that the government is the primary oppressor of the poor and small business. That’s why he can be a free marketer and a progressive at the same time - because the government has time and time again, in all different political economic systems, held back the progress of the poor, and only by allowing entrepreneurship to flourish and setting up a meritocratic system will the poor have a chance to get out of the ghettos and into a better life.
He also realized that free trade was the best prevention of war. Looking back at almost every historical example, he was right. Most of the countries American has gone to war with, we did not have a strong trade relationship, and often had an embargo - from the gas embargo on Japan before WWII to the embargo of Iraq.
You’re set in your ways, so I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I hope some readers out there realize that centralized government planning has never, ever, in the course of human history, been able to do for the lowest and middle classes and for peace and progress what trade and the market has. In fact, centralized government in a democracy only makes your opponents more powerful, as Republicans are learning today after growing government beyond belief under Bush.
Posted by paperhats on Feb 13, 2009 at 6:57 AM Senator Sanders,
The expansion of market systems has led to the most rapid and pervasive improvement of life, for more people, in more places, than at any other period in the entire history of human civilization. In a human population pushing 7 billion, more people have a chance at a better life than in any previous epoch. Friedman’s ideas deserve a substantial share of the credit for this phenomenon. While there are still places where grinding poverty and the lack of any economic opportunity do exist, the percentage of people who have a shot at improving their lives is higher than ever. To suggest otherwise, as though more people live in misery than ever before, is false. And in those places, it is most often malignant governance that is at fault.The current economic debacle has been the result of a failure of ethics, a failure of the government oversight and enforcement of anti-fraud and anti-manipulation laws that is its proper role, and the market distortions brought about by institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. None of these can be laid at Friedman’s feet, but should instead be assigned to spendthrift idealists in the Democratic Party under Clinton and spendthrift warmongers under Bush.
Also, to align Friedman’s openly libertarian ideals with the Bush administration, with its warrentless surveillances, roughshod executive privileges, war based on false intel, and dalliances with torture. shows that you either know nothing about what Friedman actually advocated or are willing to distort to record out of all reality for the sake of polemics.
Look a little closer at the man’s writings and at the development of the world in the last 40 years. Without preconceived conclusions. You’ll see that this article should be retracted.
Posted by Joseph Kano on Feb 16, 2009 at 5:51 AM The most disturbing bit in Mr. Sanders’ essay is his belief that a large university should “be seeking to advance” or discourage any ideology. This is where the Left’s view of the academy becomes sinister. It cannot accept intellectual or ideological diversity. Sanders’ model university is a totalitarian box.
Posted by nicmart on Feb 17, 2009 at 8:06 PM It’s been a long time since I’ve seen so much condensed bull-crap, but I try to say away from RedState and the Freepers when I can.
• We’ve got a Russian in the comments who mixes Yakov Smirinoff-ish blocky grammar with a vocabulary better than 90% of native English speakers. It’s like a “triumvirate” of Troll BS.• We’ve got the self-proclaimed 30 year Union member who is pissed that he’s been supporting the Union buster party while his dues support the guys who are pro-labor (well, somewhat more pro-labor). ..and the best part is that he doesn’t know that Card Check DOESN’T ban private ballots. Nice right wing talking point.
• We’ve got the myth that Dems forced Banks to lend to un-qualified borrowers because of legislation to ensure fair lending. Of course we didn’t have a whole derivatives market buoyed by predatory lending and a valuation system that gave them AAA ratings on crap (god forbid we have regulation). I’m a White D.I.N.K. with great credit and the last time I got a mortgage I was told that it’s OK to fudge the application!
• We’ve got the false equivalence arguments about Academic Freedom. If someone dares to point out that failed policy and pure fantasy don’t merit the same academic standing as reality.. then the “liberal fascist” BS comes out. Maybe we can spin this comment section into ‘teaching the fake controversy’ Creationist bunk.
• We’ve got the ‘how much did you donate’ redirection. The better known examples are “how dare Al Gore not live in an igloo” and “How dare John Edwards not live in poverty”.
• And my favorites.. Big Business only operates in the public’s best interest and SOCIALISM..SOCIALISM..SOCIALISM!!!
Big Business:
Corporations are, by law, required to attempt to maximize profits for their investors.
Unless the share holders vote on charity over profit, it’s a serious violation of trust to go giving away resources to charity if it’s only for the sake of charity.
I don’t doubt that there are people in Corporations who wish to make contributions for purely humanitarian grounds. However, Corporations are able to do this because of selfish justifications. P.R., Marketing, Taxes.. these are the reasons why corporations are allowed to be charitable.Socialism:
The right wing is trying desperately to make Socialism a dirty word like Liberal. How about this. F.U. You’re just the next version of the old red-scare McCarthy-ites.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of capitalism like pretty much all those Socialist Liberal boogey-men. I’m just not so dishonest or naive to claim that we can have sustainable capitalism without someone keeping an eye on the foxes in our chicken coop. We tried that, you were wrong.
Un-like most Ah-Muricans, I’m familiar with the ‘lesser’ peoples outside the U.S. I’m not afraid to admit that some of those terrible Socialist countries have a better quality of life.. that they have better health care, better crime rates, better educational systems, more leisure time, and more over all contentment. How Dare They, those dirty hippies!!!I know what really infuriates the Right. Sanders is right and you’ve staked your personal self images around a defining philosophy that has been laid bare as wrong.
I’ll go out on a limb and claim it has the most potential but we’re saddled with a violent, greedy, lazy, anti-intellectual populace that keeps f’n it up.
Posted by ffakr on Feb 22, 2009 at 10:18 PM Dear ffakr,
Thank you for your comments. I obviously cannot match your wit and sarcasm, so I won’t event attempt ... Just wonder, if you found these heavenly spots in the world, what are you doing here?
After you answer this question, could you please also answer, what is the wait line for an American to enter these heavenly spots and how long would it take one to get a permanent status there? Accidentally how many people from these heavenly spots have been able to settle in the USA, according to you with way worst quality of life, legally last year only? Last five years?
Keep up inquiring ...
Posted by UzhasKakoi on Feb 23, 2009 at 2:29 AM .
Mr or Ms ffakr,Self-proclaimed 30 year union member? Grasping at straws there my sarcastic critic. I was an union ironworker for over thirty years in San Francisco. I went through the apprenticeship after majoring in International Relations at the University of Minnesota. At the time I joined the union I was a staunch liberal and proved the adage attributed to Winston Churchill, “If a person is not a socialist in their youth, they have no heart. If they remain on in their maturity, they have no head”.
As a youth, I believed much of the pie in the sky quote by one of your major intellectual peers, Rodney King, who so plaintively proclaimed, “Can’t we all just get along”. This was after his huge court settlement for being an arrested thug and before his many later arrests.
You very obviously fit the second part of the Churchill statement, unless of course your actual years match your intellectual maturity. If you are under 21, your naivety is excused. If you are older, then study the wonderful humanitarian results of the type of economy that you and Sanders wish to enforce on the American people. Cambodia, Stalinist USSR, Cuba, North Korea and a good number of others who have literally killed millions imposed their socialist utopias on their citizens. In fact go all the way back to the French Revolution and their killing spree. There in one thing that the left likes better than forcing their views on others and that is killing their opponents.
As to your comment about the Card Check forced unionism not mandating a ban of elections. Try to use your head and logic just a wee bit. Why do the unions wish the card check legislation? People can today sign cards to have an election. The card check law (hypocrisy named the Free Choice Act) is done specifically to avoid elections.
I know unions. I was a very active union member for 15 of my thirty years and held elective union office. When I joined the union in 1961, the unions were an entirely different scene that today. They actually represented the workers. Today they are another group of entrenched politicians that milk off a percentage of the worker’s wages in the guise of helping them.
In 1961, nearly 35 percent of the American work force belonged to unions. Today, less than 8 percent of the private work force is unionized and with good reason. The corruption of the union bosses goes hand in hypocritical hand with tax raisers such as Tom Daschle who don’t pay their taxes but raise the taxes of the working people who do not have the access to the tax dodges used by Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat political leadership. Bill Clinton comes to mind with his deducting the donation of his used underwear.
Now ffaker, tell us about your extensive travels that make you an expert on socialism. Tell us about those sucessful socialist economies. I have been in forty-five different countries. Outside of a few very lightly populated countries with homogenous populations such as Sweden, there are no successful socialist countries. And Sweden is slowly going in the tank since they have been living off the profits that they acquired by selling goods and services to the Nazis in WWII and Germany also in WWI.
You need a course not only in economics but in history.
You wish to challenge my “self-proclaimed union membership” you will be proved as wrong and the rest of your uniformed tirade.
Posted by exunionmember on Feb 23, 2009 at 3:12 AM It seems to me that most of these comments are written by social-Darwinist right-wing idealists who can’t bring themselves to admit that their faith in what they obviously hold to be sacred tenets is misplaced. I dare say this is so for no good reason except that such an admission constitutes a narcissistic blow to the ego. Considering that the current economic crisis can only be the consequence of failed economic management, and considering that this failed economic policy is largely influenced by naive idealists such as Friedman, what other explanation for the refusal to admit this can there be?
One of the problems with economic theories (and theories in general) is that it is practically impossible to identify and factor-in every possible variable. A major problem with right-wing economic theory, particularly with regard to the ideal of a deregulated market place, is that it fails to factor-in GREED and corruption - and I do not believe this is by accident, rather, right-wing politics and Social Darwinism are largely inspired by self-interest and the belief that competition will result in better outcomes than cooperation . Right-wing economic theory goes hand-in-hand with Social Darwinism, a theory based on the misinterpretation of Darwin’s notion of the survival of the fittest, a theory that suggests we should let the poor, the weak, the sick, the dis-advantaged people of the world perish so that we will end with a Utopian world populated only with wealthy, healthy people. Both theories are naive; there is no such thing as a level playing field and there never will be; there is no such thing as a world without misery and there never will be - but - if our politicians had the courage and determination to legislate against greed and distribute the wealth more evenly, we might just move a little closer to both ideals. I dare say even this is to much to hope for.
@ exunionmember, you say ffakr needs to take courses in economics and history yet your comments put forward a one-eyed view of both disciplines. Whilst it is true that there is corruption in the union movement (just as there is in politics, the legal-system, the financial sector etc. etc.) you fail to acknowledge that workers would be a lot worse off if the union movement had never come into existence. If you have any knowledge of the history of the union movement and its achievements, please explain why you make no mention of all the good they have done. It is no secret that unions fund the left side of politics whilst big business funds the right. So why your diatribe against the unions and no mention of the corrupt relationship between big business and the Republicans( which was clearly evidenced during the Bush administration, Halliburton for e.g)?
Posted by dividedsubject on May 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Sen. Bernie Sanders
- The Failed Prophet
As Wall Street collapses, so does Milton Friedman’s legacy. - Earth to Bush
While the prez pats himself on the back, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, hunger and homelessness - Which Side Are We On?
- No Small Achievement
- Remote Control
- An Indecent Act
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2009 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
