Thursday, February 26, 2009

Milton Friedman Talks About Greed

If Milton Friedman were alive today I am certain that we would see that the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction economically and that the ramifications will we long lasting.

42 comments:

The B said...

you find great video links. I had never heard of Alfonzo Rachel until I found your blog and I am happy I did. His video are very entertaining and he is always right on the mark.

Digital Publius said...

Breathtakingly, blindingly, Brilliant! Not even Donahue, the bleeding heart jellyfish that walks like a man could rebut those immutable truths.

Ron B said...

That was just great. In all my years of watching Donahue, I cannot say that I ever saw him close his mouth when he had been whipped.

Can you send it to the Big "O". He does not get it with regards to capitalism.

RightKlik said...

This is a great video. Love it.

Kirk Petersen said...

A fabulous clip. Here's who else talks a good game on capitalism: My hero, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Conservative Black Woman said...

KP~That was an amazing video. She is now my hero!!!

brotherkomrade said...

If that subhuman were alive today...oh well,
here.

brotherkomrade said...

and here

Torrance Stephens - All-Mi-T said...

I am a gailbraith man myself

have a great weekend rawdawgbuffalo

JMK said...

Milton Friedman remains the greatest economist of the past 125 years and one of the greats of all time.

When the failed Allende regime (upwards of 30% unemployment, hyper-inflation and more than 40% of the people of that nation living below the poverty line) was overthrown in Chile by a Military Junta, the Pinochet regime wisely sought out the counsel of Milton Friedman and "the Chicago Boys" (fellow economists at The Chicago School) and Chile embarked on a miraculous economic reversal.

By the mid-1980s Chile had become "the economic jewel of South America."

Virtually all the Friedman reforms are still in use today in Chile.

Reagan used many of the SAME policies to take America's economy FROM a record HIGH 22 Misery Index (with DOUBLE DIGIT unemployment and inflation) and a prime lendingrrate of 23.5% TO a SINGLE DIGIT Misery Index by 1985, where it stayed throughout the rest of his tenure.

Reagan CUT income tax rates across-the-board by 25% and the top rate from 70% to 35% and income tax revenues skyrocketed FROM $619 Billion in 1981 to OVER $1 TRILLION by 1987!

Using Friemdan's policies the REAL "Worst American economy since the Great Depression" was improved EVERY YEAR, starting with year ONE...an immediate and drastic turnaround.

DJ Black Adam said...

CBW:

Milton Friedmans philosophy is almost 180 degress from that of JESUS.

All I'm saying...

brotherkomrade said...

JMK, you are always good for comic relief. Thank you.

JMK said...

“Milton Friedmans philosophy is almost 180 degress from that of JESUS.

”All I'm saying...” (DJBA)
<
<
One of Jesus’ primary teachings was that Charity is only a virtue when it’s done voluntarily.

Jefferson rightly based America’s basic precept of INDIVIDUALISM on that exact teaching. Jefferson believed that since all a government’s powers are given to it by the people, no government can rightly claim any powers that the people, as individuals, themselves don’t possess.

In other words, it would seem that both Jefferson and Jesus would agree that no government has the right to mandate “charity.” That is, even a 90% majority cannot morally mandate that the other 10% surrender a portion of their earnings toward “the common good.

Both would seem to agree that involuntary “donations” are neither virtuous nor charitable.

In other words, I could take a gun (I have 47 of them in my home) and use it to force you to forfeit half your weekly pay into a Church’s poor box, but that would be theft on my part and it would NOT be either virtuous nor “charitable” on your part, as you didn’t give that money up voluntarily.

Jesus taught that we are each self-owning individuals. America’s Founders took that as bolstering the dictum, “Those who do not work, shall not eat,” and that certainly seems in keeping with Jesus’ teachings.

brotherkomrade said...

My GOD!!!

Really JMK? Tell us more!!


I'm wondering about the work you do even more so than ever. John Perkins used to write about the 'Jackals'; gringos that went to third world countries as "financial consultants". Do you do stuff like that?

brotherkomrade said...

LOL!

Pinochet: "Democracy is the breeding ground of communism"

Wow, CBW I told you yoou need to get that RAID.

JMK said...

"JMK, you are always good for comic relief. Thank you." (BK)
<
<
For a second I was worried you were going to say something inane, like, "Tax revenues did not actually go up under Reagan," and offer some evidence....I'm happy to see you haven't been able to find any either.

I found that fact hard to believe back in 1988, when I first read about it.

Incredibly enough, in 1980, the U.S. took in $619 Billion in tax receipts....Reagan cut the top tax rate in half (from 70% to 35%) and all other tax rates by 25%....and tax revenues soared to over $1 TRILLION by 1987.

TODAY there are absolutely no people who claim that "income tax rates increase revenues."

WHY?

Because people (ALL people) respond to incentives.

Lower tax RATES incentivize spending and investment and more high-income earning people, take more of their incomes upfront when tax rates are lower.

Likewise, higher tax rates incentivize savings (deferring more of one's income in tax-deferred vehicles). Since the top 10% of income earners pay over 71% of all income taxes in the USA, when tax rates for that group rise, those people tend to save/defer more of their incomes (as they tend to have more disposable income anyway) and tax revenues go down.

You haven't made a single cogent, let alone convincing argument yet....so please, don't ruin that perfect record by attempting to start now.

JMK said...

Here's a leftist (PBS) video on the Chilean economic miracle.

Thee's no denying that Friedman's reforms led to economic vibrancy in that nation, saving millions form poverty and despair AND ultimately paved the way for a democratic government and more individual freedoms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfkZlbax0Lw&eurl=http:/

JMK said...

Compare the market-oriented Chile with socialist Venezuela and you get a stark comparison between Chile’s prosperity and Venezuela’s relative poverty.


Chile

Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade and a reputation for strong financial institutions and sound policy that have given it the strongest sovereign bond rating in South America. Exports account for 40% of GDP, with commodities making up some three-quarters of total exports. Copper alone provides one-third of government revenue. During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform was strengthened when the democratic government of Patricio AYLWIN - which took over from the military in 1990 - deepened the economic reform initiated by the military government. Growth in real GDP averaged 8%.


Unemployment Rate: 7.5%

Inflation Rate: 8.8%

Misery Index 16.3

Public Debt 3.8% of GDP

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ci.html


Venezuela

President Hugo CHAVEZ in 2008 continued efforts to increase the government's contol of the economy by nationalizing firms in the cement and steel sectors. In 2007 he nationalized firms in the petroleum, communications, and electricity sectors. In July 2008, CHAVEZ implemented by decree a number of laws that further consolidate and centralize authority over the economy through his plan for "21st Century Socialism."


Unemployment Rate: 8.5%

Inflation Rate: 31%

Misery Index: 39.5 – More than double Chile’s Misery Index.

Public Debt: 17.5% of GDP more than 4X higher than Chile’s percentage of GDP

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html


There's no question as to which works best - Chile's market-based economy is a far better economic model than Venezuela's socialist model.

Constructive Feedback said...

That was a BRILLIANT observation!!

Where is Steve?? He needs to hear this.

Brother Former Marxist is a lost cause.
He won't be happy until he is made the "Piggy" in the system that his anarchist friends bring forth that will look surprisingly like "The Lord of the Flies".

Brother Former Commrade: I was about to purchase some magazine titled "Anarchist Games". I put it back because I was not about to spend $4.95 to advance the cause of your friends.

Constructive Feedback said...

JMK:

Don't forget about the fact that Venezuela is a "Carbon Footprint" enabler.

brotherkomrade said...

Ha, Ha. I can't believe you're actually trying to whip out this old stodgy wrinkled and flaccid Chilean myth. Your numbers are facts coming from the CIA; an organization that ensured Pinochet's placement over a DEMOCRATICALLY elected president. His era was of failure? Only because he didn't live long enough. As for the numbers again, which class strata do they reflect coming from, of all places, the CIA. Damn =, you really suck at this JMK. But here, let me help you.

The "Neoliberal" Chilean Miracle -
The "neoliberals" needed a testbed to "prove" their ideology and refine their repressive methods. And since Chile had just been handed to a kindred spirit, Augusto Pinochet, he was recuited to try them out and see how well they worked. The idea wasn't really to actually test them, as much as it was to create the illusion that they worked, whether they actually did or not, so they could be sold everywhere else in the world under a variety of labels: "neoliberalism," "free-market economics," "libertarian economics" and "the Washington Consensus." Most objective economists knew quite well from the beginning that they wouldn't work in the long run and many said so publicly, but were quickly shouted down in the intellectual coup-de-etat of the Ronald Reagan years.

There were five cardinal points of "neoliberal" agenda that were and are to be implemented wherever it was or is to be implemented, beginning in Chile. They include:

* The supremacy of the free market. The market was to rule supreme, unrestrained by the intervention of government, labor unions, or anything else (other than corporate monopoly power) that constrained the operation of market forces, regardless of how much social disorder, suffering or exploitation results. Any undesirable effects are to be ascribed simply to "unidentified interventions" which, when they were identified, could be eliminated, and the problem solved thereby. Monopolies were simply assumed, against all evidence, to be self-limiting (though no one ever managed to explain how DeBeers Consolidated Mines had managed to create and maintain a worldwide monopoly on the diamond business for more than a century).
* Cutting, and eliminating when possible, expenditure for social services. Again, in the name of reducing government interference in the market, it was not necessary for government to involve itself in social welfare programs. To explain the obvious sufferinng that results, it is therefore claimed that when the poor suffer, it is due to their own laziness that they do not better themselves. That the accumulation of money was equivalent to the accumulation of power, with its attendant distortion of the functionings of the market, was not a concern. That this led inevitably to the disempowerment of the poor was not a concern - the poor were blamed for their condition by claiming their "inferiority" or "bad decisions." Social justice was a non-issue.
* Deregulation. If government is interfering in the market, it will only lead to a loss of profits, and therefore, government regulation had to be assumed to be bad. Therefore, it has to be reduced or eliminated, even in monopolistic situations. One neoliberal, Grover Norquist, an official in the George W. Bush administration commented that he wanted to reduce the size of government to the point where he "could drown it in the bathtub" - and then go on to do so.
* Privatization. Since government is assumed, as a given, to be inefficient, lazy, bloated and uneconomical in the provisioning of goods and services, it was only reasonable to presume that private enterprise could and would perform the delivery of services in a more efficient manner, and hence any activity that delivers goods or services to citizens should and must be privatized. Never was an explanation offered for the contrary incentive of capitalism - that the capitalist's basic profit-driven incentive is to charge as much money as possible for providing as few goods and services as possible.
* Elimination of the concept of "Community" or the "Common Good." Since this is antithetical to the notion of privatization and "rugged individualism," the concept of the commons (the air we must all breathe, the water we must all drink, etc.) to them, reeks faintly of Communism, it is assumed to be bad, wrong, and hence is oppositional to the "neoliberal" agenda. Such notions as public health, public education, etc., are to be replaced by private initiative, as anything else is simply considered to be a manifestation of lassitude, indolence and governmental dependence.

Pinochet allowed Milton Friedman and his cronies, principally Arnold Harberger, along with a small clique of Chilean "neoliberal" economists to implement this "neoliberal" agenda. Here was Friedman's chance to prove himself right and Samuelson wrong. Friedman was given a more-or-less free hand to implement whatever economic reforms he deemed needed, and Friedman did so with a vengeance. In a quick succession of reforms, the collective-bargaining law was abolished, essentially eliminating the influence of labor unions. The minimum wage law was abolished. The Social Security System was privatized, by being evenly divided among six companies, each to compete with each other. Public assets were sold, often at bargain basement prices, to whoever would buy them.

Click More info and truth.

JMK said...

The CIA Worldfactbook is merely that, a global synopsis of every nation on earth.

The bottomiline figure in ANY economy is the Misery Index - the unemployment rate and the inflation rate added together, as they tell how any given economy is treating the people.

While Chile's Misery Index is a "no bargain" 16.3, Venezuela's Misery Index is a staggering 39.5 and that was from early in 2008...with the price of oil (VZ's biggest export and primary source of wealth) dropping like a stone from mid-2008 on, that MI is only going to get HIGHER!

Which country has the LOWEST Misery Index in the world TODAY?

Why that would be Hong Kong!

The freest market and the least regulated economy in the world.

Friedman's policies not only turned Chile around from the "economic basketcase" it had been under Allende to "the jewel of South America," those same policies, saved America from the implosion of Keynesianism under Jimmy Carter.

Carter left a record high U.S. Misery Index of od 22, with DOUBLE DIGIT unemployment and inflation, not to mention a 23.5% prime lending rate.

Reagan, using Friedman's blueprint, turned that economy around IMMEDIATELY.

That Misery Index dropped EVERY YEAR until it reached SINGLE DIGITS in 1986, where it remained in the single digits throughout the rest of Reagan's tenure.

Tax revenues soared once tax RAYES were drastically CUT. Federal tax receipts nearly doubled over Reagan's eight years and the economy produced 8X what it had, in GDP, during JFK's last year in office!

"As I said, "TODAY there are absolutely no people who claim that "income tax rate increase revenues."

"WHY?

"Because people (ALL people) respond to incentives.

"Lower tax RATES incentivize spending and investment and more high-income earning people, take more of their incomes upfront when tax rates are lower.

"Likewise, higher tax rates incentivize savings (deferring more of one's income in tax-deferred vehicles). Since the top 10% of income earners pay over 71% of all income taxes in the USA, when tax rates for that group rise, those people tend to save/defer more of their incomes (as they tend to have more disposable income anyway) and tax revenues go down."

I can say that because I KNOW I won't be proven wrong on that.

JMK said...

"Brother Former Marxist is a lost cause. He won't be happy until he is made the "Piggy" in the system that his anarchist friends bring forth that will look surprisingly like "The Lord of the Flies". (CF)
<
<
I'm not worried about such an eventuality.

As Margaret Thatcher rightly pointed out, "Reality IS Conservative." By THAT, she meant, that there are basic laws of economics, and things like people responding to incentives that assure that policies that run counter to those laws fail.

The fact that "people respond to incentives" assures us that socialism's inane dictum, "FROM each according to his abilities, TO each according to his needs," ALWAYS FAILS.

WHY?

Because such a policy incentivizes a nation of "workers" with large families (HUGE NEEDS) and bad backs (MINIMAL ABILITIES).

brotherkomrade said...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

brotherkomrade said...

"I can say that because I KNOW I won't be proven wrong on that."

Yes you can be. Your data is skewed.

JMK said...

Sorry BK, butdisagreeing WITHOUT making an argument and presenting evidence argues AGAINST your own position.

Indeed Hong Kong DOES have the world's lowest Misery Index in the world.

And although Chile's 16.3 Misery Index is no bargain, Venezuela's staggering 39.5 MI is oppressive.

Same thing with Reagan's tenure - the numbers speak for themselves.

Reagan inherited the highest post-WW II American Misery Index (22) and a prime rate (23.5%) that threatened all commercial lending and turned that economy around drastically and immediately.

The Misery Index went down right away and EVERY YEAR until it reached SINGLE DIGITS in 1986, where it stayed throughout the rest of his tenure.

Only when Bush-Sr rekindled American Keynesianism, by cooperating with Ted Kennedy on a massive tax increase and other spending projects, did tax revenues fall, spending grow and the Misery climber over 10 (averaging 10.2 over Bush Sr's 4 years). While Bush Sr.'s 4-year average annual Misery Index (10.2) paled in comparison to Carter's staggering 16.3, Bush Sr., joined Carter and Ford as the only U.S. President's to preside over double digit Misery Indexes through their entire tenures!

While it's TRUE that any system based on private property rights, individualism over collectivism and Liberty as defined as "freedom from government action and intrusion," such as America's Constitution set up, tends to deliver wide disparities in income, property ownership rates and wealth, such systems also consistently deliver the MOST propserity to the MOST people.

JMK said...

A TYPO CORRECTION: "Only when Bush-Sr. rekindled American Keynesianism, by cooperating with Ted Kennedy on a massive tax increase and other spending projects, did tax revenues fall, spending grow and the Misery Index climb back over 10..."


AND one additional point;

"While it's TRUE that any system based on private property rights, individualism over collectivism and Liberty as defined as "freedom from government action and intrusion,"...tends to deliver wide disparities in income, property ownership rates and wealth, such systems also consistently deliver the MOST propserity to the MOST people.

That's ONLY true because the fluid economic model is true.

IF, for instance, one could prove that "there is only a given amount of wealth in the world," then one could argue in favor of the FIXED ECONOMIC PIE and that would bolster the Malthusian arguments of socialism.

BUT we don't have a fixed or static economic pie we have a fluid and changing economic pie as wealth both expands (as it did in the 1980s, the late 1990s and between 2003 and 2006) and contracts, as it is doing now.

Socialism's redistribution of the wealth ONLY works "assuming a fixed economic pie."

Which, of course, only exists in fantasy.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You wrote: "In other words, it would seem that both Jefferson and Jesus would agree that no government has the right to mandate “charity.” That is, even a 90% majority cannot morally mandate that the other 10% surrender a portion of their earnings toward “the common good."

Jesus says: "...Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Pay your taxes ;-)

We can do the exegetical approach all day JMK, I'm game :-)

JMK said...

"Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

"Pay your taxes ;-)" (DJBA)
<
<
I'm disappointed in you DJBA.

I gave you more credit for knowledge than that.

THAT cheerful "Pay your taxes" interpretation, of what is really a very profound quote, is the idiot's interpretation of Jesus - straight out of "Jesus for Dummies," or at least it should be.

The pop culture Jesus is a happy, hippie guru. He was NOT that at all...even I know that and I'm not a Christian, haven't been since I was eleven...quite awhile ago.

FACT:

(1) Rome had colonized most of the Mideast at the time Jesus lived.

(2) Jesus, John the Baptist and the other early "Christians" (they were actually all "reform Jews") were rabid ANTI-Roman, anti-Colonial activists, NOT the happy, pro-Roman ("Pay your taxes and honk if you get work") hipster dufus that your above interpretation and today's pop culture has morphed him into.

(3) Jesus' quote, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's," far from being that pop culture interpretation, as a cheery chant to "pay your taxes and embrace Roman rule," was EXACTLY the opposite.

What Christ said with that statement, was an admonishment to his fellow Jews, to in effect, "Stop playing the Roman's game....STOP using Roman currency and, instead, barter among yourselves and in the process, starve our Roman masters."

THAT, was, in effect, a declaration of independence, a call for a Jewish slave revolt. In fact, THAT quote, is, in a nutshell, why Rome finally had Jesus killed.
<
<
"We can do the exegetical approach all day JMK, I'm game :-)" (DJBA)


Apparently we can't, as you can't seem to hold up your end.

Jesus' teachings are based upon the efficacy of free will and rooted in "freedom" as LIBERTY (self-ownership) as his primary message is that each and every one of us is solely responsible for our OWN souls and our actions here in this life will determine our soul's ultimate fate.

There is NO other interpretation of Christ's teachings other than as one rooted in self-ownership/responsibility.

The pop culture hipster dufus you're thinking of is really Karl Marx.....a man, who, if alive when Jesus lived, would've almost certainly been among those whom Jesus expelled from the temple.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

I'm sorry, I have read about Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics, have heard some of his speaches, so I was going with what I already know, in listening to this I despise the ideology that he and his libertarian ilk wrought more.

All he did was frame his argument in false dichotomies and false equivilences. With him he is an even worse type of mammon worshipper. He is a deciever, whereas I can pardon the decieved.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

O.K. JMK, I'm your huckleberry today.

You wrote:

"There is NO other interpretation of Christ's teachings other than as one rooted in self-ownership/responsibility."

First off, I don't see Jesus as one of the flower children holding hands and singing kumbya with the Romans or the Sanhedrin. 2ndly, I don't see him as a baby in a manger, thirdly I don't see him quite in the framework in which you are casting Him; "I" see Him as a mighty King, Yeshuyah HaMoshaich Adonai Shekinu.

Now, you talk of Jesus' teachings, His teachings was and is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD. That is that people in and of themselves are wicked, selfish and greedy and in need of divine leading in order to change that base nature.

Whereas you, and in this segment Friedman, while accepting the actuality of man's greed and wickedness, CELEBRATE it.

Jesus expected His followers to care for their neighbors not to despise them because they were poor. Not to USE them because they were uninformed, which is a basis for the style of capitalism you have forwarded in regard to banking.

So please, do not try to frame Jesus in your capitalistic greed, which is disingenuous at best.

Now as for discussing Jesus and the Gospel in proper CONTEXT in regard to the “ism’s” of this world, we can definitely do that: “Eventus stultorum magister”.

Constructive Feedback said...

JMK:

A am forced to go against you after experiencing a bit of "indoctrination" this week.

You see - I attended a "Single Payer Healthcare" symposium provided by a "Progressive Radio Station".

They referenced CUBA as having a superior medical system to that of America.

Please note that Brother Former Marxist shares much with these Leftists that were on stage.

They, like B.F.M. said that Cuba said that Cuba would have all of the same technology as the USA BUT FOR THE EMBARGO imposed by the Imperialistic USA.

They talked about how Cuba has so many doctors....that they SEND THEM OVERSEAS!!! Cuba offered doctors to the USA during Katrina and the USA REJECTED IT!!!

They don't make note that the doctors are still agents of the state. Cuban doctors traveling to Africa via Europe are NOT ALLOWED TO DEPLANE for the fear of them escaping the Cuba regime.

These people (and B.F.M.) prefer receipt of entitlements over FREEDOM and PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Not only have they chosen to return to the BELLY OF THE BEAST rather than staying in Cuba...they would love to transform this nation in to Cuba.

JMK said...

“Eventus stultorum magister”. (DJBA)


And that experience teaches ALL of us that markets work and the command (government-run) economy doesn’t and cannot work.

I talk of Jesus as a philosopher, nothing more. Please do not talk to me of Churchiness and pieties...as I do not share in a belief in such things. I respect every individual's right to worship as they please, but I do not prosyletize myself and appreciate others eschewing that as well.

In my case, while I believe in some form of God, I do not believe in any earthly, man-made Church or religion, as is my free choice.

As to Jesus Christ, I accept SOME of his teachings and reject those that run counter to our human natures.

One I fully accept is “Before you’d remove the splinter from your neighbor’s eye, first remove the moat (plank) from your own.” ALL those who claim things like, “The rich/productive should do more to help the poor/non-productive,” should adhere to that admonition.

Am I saying that we should not all strive to be better people?

Not at all.

But again, experience shows us that it is generally BEST if those who are without (the poor/non-productive) find themselves motivated, through deprivation, to produce more, rather than to blame the high-producers for not caring enough for “the poor.”

As an example, in NYC, some 40,000 individuals (1/2 of 1% of the population) provide 60% of the tax support for NYC’s budget!

Those 40,000 are NOT “oppressors”, they are NOT “enemies of the poor...or of the people,” they are, in fact, the poor’s last best hope.

So, the question isn’t at all, “What do those 40,000 top-producers owe the rest of us, NO, it’s what do the rest of us 99.5% of the population owe OURSELVES (first and foremost) and each other (INCLUDING those ½ of 1% TOP producers)?

What we “owe” is mot merely “our best efforts,” we OWE production...to pull our share of the weight of this sled called productivity, on its journey toward greater prosperity.

Am I my brother’s keeper?

Not at all, NONE of us are! Each and every ONE of us is a sovereign, self-owning and self-responsible being, whether we like that reality, or not.

Did Jesus, or ANY other philosopher aside from the syphilitic Marx EVER endorse the misanthropic creed that goes, “From each according to his abilities, and TO each, according to his needs”?

The answer, of course, is that NO rational, sane philosopher, including Jesus, EVER endorsed that kind of misanthropy (outright hatred for mankind)...not a single other one.

The market-based economy and private property rights, enshrined in America’s Constitution, and endorsed by the likes of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Paine, and yes, Milton Friedman, does tend to result in wide disparities in wealth and an unequal apportionment of property, as individuals are unique and output varying degrees of productivity and innovation that results in that unequal distribution.

But what does the malignant screed, “From each according to his abilities, and TO each, according to his needs” deliver?

In EVERY case, it delivers an economy filled with “workers” with many children (HIGH NEEDS) and bad backs (LIMITED ABILITIES).

That is not a mere generality, it is exactly what occurs in every instance where non-productivity and sloth is rewarded at the expense of productivity.

JMK said...

"They don't make note that the doctors are still agents of the state. Cuban doctors traveling to Africa via Europe are NOT ALLOWED TO DEPLANE for the fear of them escaping the Cuba regime.

"These people (and B.F.M.) prefer receipt of entitlements over FREEDOM and PRIVATE PROPERTY." (CF)
<
<
That's exactly why commodities can never be "rights."

NONE of us are entitled to what anyone else produces.

People have free will and freedom, only so much as they have self-ownership/responsibility for themselves.

The great abolitionist and inventor, Lysander Spooner put it this way, back in 1868;

"On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

"No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle – but only in degree – between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure."

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You wrote: “I talk of Jesus as a philosopher, nothing more. Please do not talk to me of Churchiness and pieties...”

I didn’t mention church or pieties, I spoke of the message of Jesus, that being the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the fellowship of the Mystery, nothing more nothing less, that message is above and in spite of “religion” or “isms” of any kind, there is a distinct difference; if you cannot understand that and wish to cast me in whatever cookie cutter view you have of “church” folks, that is because of your self imposed limitations.

Now as for “Jesus as philosopher” that exemplifies the fact that you and I are talking about two different people. For example, I am not a Muslim, however; I feel no need to attempt the presumption of telling THEM who their founder is, I would not dare to define or redefine that for them, that is the epitome of arrogance and presumption. They have a founder that defines their faith, so do I, you don’t have to agree with how it is defined for me, but you should understand it before you seek to “correct” me in doctrine.

So, if you don’t want to be corrected, then don’t speak in definites or authoritatively regarding who YOU subjectively think JESUS is, especially when trying to “clarify” or trying to put a statement I made about the Jesus I KNOW (Not the one you redefine to fit your worldview) in “context”.

“As to Jesus Christ, I accept SOME of his teachings and reject those that run counter to our human natures.”

Well I am glad you admit that you have the Burger King Jesus, have it YOUR way. You statement is in itself a contradiction. Jesus taught most things that run counter to our human natures, His teachings were for us to follow HIS Spiritual precepts ABOVE our Human Natures, this is the basis for the fellowship of the Mystery. You would be better to reject the New Testament in its entirety that to presume to redefine it for your world view by cherry picking scriptures and applying them outside of the historical, literal or scriptural context. To do so is ridicules.

You wrote: “One I fully accept is “Before you’d remove the splinter from your neighbor’s eye, first remove the moat (plank) from your own.” ALL those who claim things like, “The rich/productive should do more to help the poor/non-productive,” should adhere to that admonition.”

See that’s the part about cherry picking that makes it so silly and inane, scripture in context with scripture is a powerful exegetical tool to see what is being.

You see, one might be tempted to list all the works that they do to help the poor as a point to show that they are not being hypocritical in the admonition to those who worship mammon, however; scripture in context with scripture, and it is well written Matthew 6.1-4: ““Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

See how that works? Context is a powerful thing. However, Like you already admitted, you have the Burger King Jesus, so taking His words in context with His other words isn’t high on your priority list.

Now regarding your statements about misanthropy, that again is a false dichotomy, you act as if the only choices that are present are Marxism and capitalism, Marx words in contrast to Friedman’s words. Ludicrous, Jesus message was far beyond those paradigms and boundaries.

I honestly don’t think Jesus was a “capitalist” or a “socialist”, there are socialistic tendencies in some of his teachings I will admit, as some of his teachings seem to support the ideas of free markets, that’s as far as it goes.

Who here supports rewarding “sloth”? Again, false choices, productive or non-productive, silliness.

What I have said, and what I believe, is that in a free market society, we are learning that SOME things are not best left to the markets. I believe that the military is one of those things, as well I think basic health care is one of those things, as I believe our criminal justice system is one of those things.

I believe that corporations should be regulated and taxed to play in this market, simple as that. It is simply the cost to do business in the most prosperous country on earth.

Nothing you can say from the JESUS I know goes counter to that.

As I said, I speak of the Gospel of the Kingdom, the Fellowship of the Mystery, not in proselytization but in proclamation, rather you agree with that message or not, is of no consequence to the actuality of it. As Jesus said (something you may or may not accept):

Matthew 13.19: “When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.”

Ab aeterno, ab antique, ab extra. Abundans cautela non nocet. Christo et Doctrinae, Christus Rex

Jus saying…

Blair said...

I don't speak latin. But I do know the Bible is a political document. It was voted on and some books were excluded, weren't politically correct. Just as a politician often says one thing and, in the next breath, says the opposite thing to garner support of different constituencies. The Bible can and has been quoted to support everything.

Friedman didn't speak in absolutes. He agreed capitalism has problems, but in comparison to alternate systems it's hard to beat. Yes, people should help their fellow man. But what if they don't? The argument is over degrees, peer pressure or societal force?. American capitalism is (once was) regulated by a Bill of Rights. The statement that we're unregulated is an admission that we don't enforce these laws anymore. We don't even have the Rule of Law (if it's illegal for a citizen, then it's illegal for the government). Unfettered capitalism was never the American system. The question is: how much is enough? how much is too much?

DJ Black Adam said...

@Blair:

You wrote: "I don't speak latin. But I do know the Bible is a political document. It was voted on and some books were excluded, weren't politically correct."

While I will admit that politics to some degree is adressed in the scriptures, and obviously politics as all other human activities at some point dealt with and influenced the people in the scriptures, and the early church in its choices regarding canon of scripture; theological soundness, clear authoriship etc., may have had more to deal with how books were determined to be in the various canons than "politics" in our modern sense.

Neither here nor there though, it is silly for the "right" to try to co-opt Jesus in their political views.

JMK said...

What I carefully explained to you DJBA is that I do not discuss any of Jesus' words in the context of the broader religion called "Christianity."

It is Christianity, a manmade precept, that is flawed.

Christianity has been badly misused, mostly by governments (in the past) for their own ends) and more recently for profit by poorly trained and intellectually limited evangelists.

Suffice to say that America's Founders based the precepts of Americanism (individual rights, the people in control of their government, and not the reverse, grounded in private property rights) on Jesus' teachings.

You ask, "Who here supports rewarding “sloth”, SOCIALISM itself ("FROM each according to his abilities, TO each according to his needs") is rooted in rewarding sloth and dependence, while punishing thrift, hard work, innovation and independence.

Not only TODAY, but throughout history, Command (government-run) economies deliver deprivation, often mass starvation and all too often mass murder....while more market-based economies consistently deliver MORE prosperity to MORE people, in EVERY case.

There are some actions that are primarily the scope of government - defense (the Military), ensuring domestic tranquility (the court system, the police, etc.), minting and establishing a common currency.

Providing commodities, like food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc. are NOT the purview of government. Government is a very inefficient delivery vehicle even for those things it is mandated to do.

FedEx and UPS do a far more efficient job of delivering packages than the USPS, and Motor Vehicles efficiency has been ramped up by privatizing many of its chief components (data access, etc).

America has a broken healthcare system in that it WRONGLY and UNJUSTLY burdens business and industry with the healthcare costs for 88% of America's citizens.

Moreover, that system "cheats" government out of revenues in the form of unclaimed, untaxed benefits that are delivered as part of one's overall compensation package.

America's businesses and industries have been fighting to get out from under that burden for decades now...and we will almost certainly move to some form of universal care WITH supplamental insurance available to those who wish to purchase that, to avoid the inevitable rationed care and procedural restricitons inherant in all universal healthcare systems worldwide.

"I believe that corporations should be regulated and taxed to play in this market, simple as that." (DJBA)


CONGRATULATIONS!

So, does every Capitalist.

Unfortunately for us (our competitiveness) our Corporate tax rate is second highest in the world!

When Ireland reduced theirs from 40% to 12% businesses flocked to that country and flourished, the Irish economy boomed and they improved their educational system to one of Europe's best virtually overnight.

The Corporate Income Tax is, of course, a stealth sales tax, as businesses, ALL businesses pass on ALL the costs of doing business to their customers, so a higher Corporate tax rate means our goods and services cost us more and they cost more abroad, making them less appealing to potential foreign customers.

I'm out in Colorado on training this week, so my access will be limited until the 8th or 9th, but I'll look in, as best I can.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

“What I carefully explained to you DJBA is that I do not discuss any of Jesus' words in the context of the broader religion called "Christianity."”

And what I thought I clearly explained to you was that I was discussing the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the Fellowship of the Mystery, above and beyond and in spite of Christianity or whatever it is that you have created in its place, predicated on the Bible that we both are quoting.

I don’t think I quoted one church father, I quoted the same Bible you quoted, you just cherry picked a scripture, whereas I look at the scripture in historical, literal and scriptural context.

Reading in context is not reading in the broader context of Christian history or “Christianity”.

My point to you, is you have no more or less of a right (and a whole lot less of study and time applied to actually learning Jesus teachings) than “Christianity” (in all its forms) to try to impose what YOU subjectively think onto Christ, that is disingenuous at best.

So, it would appear we have to agree to disagree on what we believe Jesus was about.

As for “capitalism”, I’m all for it, I am just for business and the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes (and I believe they are NOT).

There we have to agree to disagree as well.

JMK said...

You misquoted, deliberately or not (I'm hoping deliberately) that inane "Pay your taxes" interpretation of Christ's "Render onto Caeser..." quote.

As I noted, given that John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the other early Jews, who broke away from the traditions of the Pharasees, were rabid anti-Roman, anti-Colonialist activists. Interpreting THAT quote, that clearly meant "give back the coin of the realm to Rome (don't use it) and instead, barter among yourselves, to starve Colonial Rome," as a lame exortation to "pay your taxes," is as simplistic, naive and wrong-headed as claiming that a German (any German) after WW I and the Treaty of Versailles, would urge his fellow Germans to "pay your taxes, to help England and France rape your home country."

There's no way torationalize a pro-Roman exortation coming from Jesus' lips.

And THIS: "As for “capitalism”, I’m all for it, I am just for business and the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes (and I believe they are NOT)," (DJBA) is based on ignorance of the facts.

The top 10% of income earners in the U.S. (that group begins at a mere $109,000/year) pay 71% of all income taxes....they rake in appx 41% of the agregate annual income....they are indeed overtaxed.

America's businesses and industries pay the second highest Corporate tax in the world, which they ALL (as they MUST) pass onto us consumers.