Posted on 01/27/2014 8:13:38 AM PST by cotton1706
"In my opinion, a society that aims for equality before liberty, will end up with neither equality nor liberty. And a society that aims first for liberty, will not end up with equality, but it will end up with a closer approach to equality, than any other kind of system than has ever been developed.
Now that conclusion, is based both on evidence across history, and also I believe, on reasoning, which if you try to follow through the implications of aiming first at equality, will become clear to you.
You can only aim at equality, by giving some people the right to take things from others. And what ultimately happens when you aim at equality, is that A and B decide what C shall do for D...except that they take a little bit of a commission off on the way."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
His is greatly missed.
Reality-based common sense
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/if-you-really-care-about-ending-poverty-stop-talking-about-inequality/282906/
For later.
2) He assumed that unemployed would always be able to find other productive employment. And while the economy's labor markets do try to find a new equilibrium, we are now at the point that we are off-shoring jobs faster than we are creating new ones. Unemployment is growing. Real wages have stagnated since we lowered the import tariffs in the 1960's. And now we are seeing real wages fall.
"John Hawkins: Let me ask you about this — what do you say to people who claim that free trade will eventually lead to high unemployment in the US as large numbers of jobs move to cheaper labor markets overseas?"
"Milton Friedman: Well, they only consider half of the problem. If you move jobs overseas, it creates incomes and dollars overseas. What do they do with that dollar income? Sooner or later it will be used to purchase US goods and that produces jobs in the United States."
The stores are full of Chinese made goods and Americans are unemployed. Thanks Freedman.
1) He assumed dollars would eventually come back to the U.S. to buy trade goods. Instead they are coming back to buy U.S. manufacturing firms and know how and U.S. debt.
2) He assumed that unemployed would always be able to find other productive employment. And while the economy's labor markets do try to find a new equilibrium, we are now at the point that we are off-shoring jobs faster than we are creating new ones. Unemployment is growing. Real wages have stagnated since we lowered the import tariffs in the 1960's. And now we are seeing real wages fall.
"John Hawkins: Let me ask you about this — what do you say to people who claim that free trade will eventually lead to high unemployment in the US as large numbers of jobs move to cheaper labor markets overseas?"
"Milton Friedman: Well, they only consider half of the problem. If you move jobs overseas, it creates incomes and dollars overseas. What do they do with that dollar income? Sooner or later it will be used to purchase US goods and that produces jobs in the United States."
The stores are full of Chinese made goods and Americans are unemployed. Thanks Freedman.
When A proposes to do B to C for the benefit of D, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken
I haven’t been a free trader since I read Pat Buchanan’s book The Great Betrayal.
As tariffs have gone down, income taxes have gone up. I’m for a revenue, not a protective tariff, basically a cover charge to get into the American market. Say, 5-10%, which is not a “trade barrier” but a cover charge.
I’m sure the Smoot and Hawley argument crowd will be parachuting in in 3...2...1...
Free Trade doesn’t work for a myriad of reasons...of course the biggest one is the other side must Free Trade with you...but does not.
Most nations put a Value Added Tax on US Imports...right there that is a tariff on US goods...and such is allowed by the World Trade Organization. The US is robbed when not countering with a tariff.
Smoot-Hawley Tariff not the cause of the Great Depression as many Free Traders claim. Europe had already tariffed and blocked goods coming from the Americas...S-H had to be done to counter
Why didn't I learn about this economist in high school? Seems to me the educational motives of the public school system are meant to churn out loyal obedient subjects and discourage critical thought and dissenters.
Breaks my hear to hear this question asked. But it looks like this person is on the right track, thankfully.
My intellectual journey began with Milton Friedman and ended with Thomas Aquinas. Truth will set you free.
Free trade doesn’t work between nations who are not equal, or where the playing field is not equal. A 32 dollar an hour union worker cannot compete with a 32 cent per hour worker in a foreign country. Nothing to do with unions in particular, just an example of dealing with whatever realities there are.
George Washington said a tariff should be at least the cost of shipping an item from a foreign country to here, so that like products (foreign and domestic) could compete equally.
Free trade does work within a like structure, for example, the United States was the greatest free trade area ever created, for states could not tax other states. But we had tariffs on imports.
“Tariffs at the gates, and free trade within” is a formula that works.
Milton Friedman was right about free trade working in regard to competition lowering prices. However, between unequal nations, tariffs should not be at zero. We should never have joined the WTO or ratified the GATT treaty, we can thank Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole for going along with a lame duck democrat congress in 1994 for that!
If tariffs are beneficial to countries, in the aggregate, why don't we establish tariffs between the states?
Then they have a pile of green pieces of paper, and we have iPads.
Because while the lack of a tariff might hurt a particular state, it benefits all the states as a whole. And we are one nation with consistent laws.
Likewise Free Trade hurts America but benefits the world. China is far better off, because of America's free trade policies than they would have been. But America is worse off.
They use those pile of green pieces of paper to buy U.S. firms and know how and U.S. debt. Now we have to buy our bacon from Chinese owned firms and we owe them interest to boot.
They use those pile of green pieces of paper to buy U.S. firms and know how and U.S. debt. Now we have to buy our bacon from Chinese owned firms and we owe them interest to boot.
Your error is in thinking that we have “free” trade now. We don’t. What we have is fascism being called free trade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.