>tfw you will never quiz Milton Friedman on emerging modern issues
>tfw you will never attend a Milton Friedman lecture
>tfw you will never see the pure pragmatic libertarian movement that Milton Friedman wanted and could explain simply to any audience
>>72593305
We have Lawrence Reed
>>72593570
ty watching some videos
>>72593305
>pure pragmatic libertarian
he was a kike who advocated for private tyranny and unregulated capitalism
>>72594263
let's hear it bruv libertarianism seems to be the most pragmatic
>>72593305
>tfw Dr. Sowell is still kickin'.
>>72594437
It doesn't seem viable in practice. People inevitably vote in a welfare state.
>>72594397
>unregulated capitalism
he wanted a guaranteed minimum income tax which seems to be logically consistent with the idea that people can choose for themselves which services they want
>>72594653
>that entire passage
fuck
race war soon i guess
>>72594653
yes I agree but you need to choose a government that all races can agree upon. If a republic is best, then that will pacify the masses. Pacifying the masses the the key to world governance.
>>72594397
>private tyranny
>unregulated
The only tyrant that exists is a company that makes subpar products that people are incentivized to buy for reasons other than the product itself.
>>72594894
You're on to something, but racial discord seems to be the rule.
>>72594963
Economies of scale reach their logical conclusion in a monopoly. Even when monopolies make poor products and unethical decisions you can't find viable alternatives.
>>72594963
The failure would fall to the restrained market. If a market could remain unregulated throughout multiple generations, that would be the ideal platform for any entrepreneur? No?
>>72594963
I never understood why people don't understand this. Nobody forces anybody to buy anything unless they're a monopoly (which is illegal). That means the only bad companies that become powerful are companies that either get rich by stupid people who don't do their research and buy a shitty product/service from a shitty company, or by government subsidies in which case the company isn't capitalistic at all. It all has to do with the people in society.
>>72595029
fuckin a. a will always be interested in political governance until i die this a promise. Radical discord will be opposed until I am dead. This can realistically happen, and it's about rallying support for ideology.
>>72595141
But even if a monopoly happens, wouldn't it be the consumers' fault for getting it to that level in the first place?
>>72595551
Sorry, meant for >>72595133.
>>72594653
>Implying that monarchy is not the system in which Libertarianism performs the best
Absolutly disgusting
>>72593305
Friedman would just say whatever hurts the middle class and brings us closer to socialism.
If you wanted to build an economic philosophy that destroys the middle class fast. I couldn't think of a better way than allowing dictators to use slave labour without industrial protecting tariffs while we impose taxes and regulations.
>>72595551
Consumers can unwittingly create monopolies because they don't make decisions with that in mind. A large phone company can provide lower prices than a small one so consumers would rationally favor the large company. If this continues a monopoly can easily result.
>>72596192
But how did that "large company" get large in the first place?! Consumers!!!
>>72596349
thats not necessarly true, since most large companies deal with governments
>>72596380
But that's what I'm saying. A company that gets help/subsidies from the government isn't a truly capitalistic organization.
>>72596349
Consumers aren't always well informed. Betamax tapes were higher quality than VHS, but they didn't prevail. There are a great many ways to win over consumers. You can provide a better product, a better experience, be socially expected, or just be the only show in town. You can be the only show in town by shutting others out of the market or by being the first.
>>72596459
>company that gets help/subsidies from the government isn't a truly capitalistic organization.
im not talking about help and subsidies, im just talking about trading with the government.
>>72596459
What incentive does a business have to be capitalistic? If there were no welfare state wages would be higher because people would still need healthcare and food without government assistance. Why do you think the ultra-rich lean left so often?
>>72595799
t. retard
as for OP, I would enjoy seeing him debate sanders
>>72596587
I agree that most consumers are ill-informed, but that's not the company's fault for trying to sell a product/service. I understand that monopolies do happen, and they suck, but it all starts with the consumer. Instead of punishing the companies for being successful, we should educate the consumer to not allow that to happen in the first place.
>>72596605
I see where you're going, and you have a point, but that's why you can't trust the government in anything they do, including regulating the free market.
>>72596954
I don't think the consumers have the attention span nor does the company have the interest to make them meaningfully informed.
The crux of what I'm saying is that there are more enemies to freedom than the state. Market forces encourage economies of scale which limit choice. Consumers can also deem certain choices to be unacceptable and shun people who make those decisions.
>>72597203
Well I do agree that companies can become tyrannical and, in some cases, more powerful than the government itself, but I still believe that consumers are the life force of those companies and have the responsibility to be well informed participants in a capitalistic society.
>>72595133
there's such a thing as diseconomies of scale. it usually has to do with the people in charge not knowing what's going on at the lower levels.
if anything, we might expect large companies to be most hurt by moving further towards free markets. large companies are more likely to be in bed with politicians.
>>72597768
I agree, but power flows both ways. The consumers influence the company and the company influences consumers.
>>72598111
Diseconomies of scale do happen, but your second sentence has the real kicker.
Large companies are hurt by free markets. That's why they collude with each other, sell products at a loss to ruin competitors, and lobby for anti-competitive regulations.
overrated jew
>>72594653
tocqueville was a pretty cool dude.
>>72593305
right in the feels
>>72593305
>unions are bad goy don't side with the working class
>cheap labor is good goy we should have more illegal Mexicans
>outsourcing is good goy don't worry if you lose jobs, it'll lower costs
>tariffs are always bad goy it'll raise the cost of goods so let your country get ripped off
>>72601554
>USA stops all outsourcing
>cost of labor in developing countries tanks even further
>other nations use this to ramp up their manufacturing
>american-made goods are too expensive to export
>uncompetitive even in their own country
>massive tarrifs introduced to "save the jobs"
>????
>economic prosperity
Figure out ???? and we can revive the USSR.
I admit it will fix the problem with illegals, because no one in their right mind will want to live in the USA anymore.
You can trust us dumb goyim.
>TFW you will never red-pill him with empirical evidence.
>TFW you will never red-pill him on income inequality.
>TFW you will never red-pill him on executive compensation.
>TFW you will never red-pill him on social mobility.
>TFW you will never red-pill him on the failures of deregulation, Reaganomics and Greenspan's libertarian ideology allowing the GFC to happen.
>TFW you will never red-pill him on literally 99% of his political views.
