The man who saved capitalism ......

[SuperDig]

It's a tragedy that Milton Friedman — born 100 years ago on July 31 — did not live long enough to combat the big-government ideas that have formed the core of Obamanomics. It's perhaps more tragic that our current president, who attended the University of Chicago where Friedman taught for decades, never fell under the influence of the world's greatest champion of the free market. Imagine how much better things would have turned out, for Obama and the country.

Friedman was a constant presence on these pages until his death in 2006 at age 94. If he could, he would surely be skewering today's $5 trillion expansion of spending and debt to create growth — and exposing the confederacy of economic dunces urging more of it.

In the 1960s, Friedman famously explained that "there's no such thing as a free lunch." If the government spends a dollar, that dollar has to come from producers and workers in the private economy. There is no magical "multiplier effect" by taking from productive Peter and giving to unproductive Paul. As obvious as that insight seems, it keeps being put to the test. Obamanomics may be the most expensive failed experiment in free-lunch economics in American history.

Equally illogical is the superstition that government can create prosperity by having Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke print more dollars. In the very short term, Friedman proved, excess money fools people with an illusion of prosperity. But the market quickly catches on, and there is no boost in output, just higher prices.

Next to Ronald Reagan, in the second half of the 20th century there was no more influential voice for economic freedom world-wide than Milton Friedman. Small in stature but a giant intellect, he was the economist who saved capitalism by dismembering the ideas of central planning when most of academia was mesmerized by the creed of government as savior.

If only the free market existed today ....

[lycanox]

We would have been a third world nation as 2007 has clearly demonstrated free market capitalism does not work.

[Reef Badlaw]

We would have been a third world nation as 2007 has clearly demonstrated free market capitalism does not work.

Name a non-Free Market C-system that lasted longer than about 85-years.

[MaximumPain]

Name a non-Free Market C-system that lasted longer than about 85-years.

Name a truly free market system that actually existed.

[lycanox]

Name a non-Free Market C-system that lasted longer than about 85-years.

Name an deregulated free market capitalistic economy that still exist and functions healthy today.
Without resorting to dictatorship. As is common in economies that resort to Friedman's ideals.

[MaximumPain]

Name an deregulated free market capitalistic economy that still exist and functions healthy today.
Without resorting to dictatorship. As is common in economies that resort to Friedman's ideals.

I was thinking about this.... perhaps the robber baron era in the US is an example? Im interested in the conservative opinion on this.... lets see what they post.

[Reef Badlaw]

You guys are misinterpreting the word 'free'... Okay, 'loose' market capitalism. There's always unexpectedly-greedy glitches, like selling bundled US mortgages as stocks, on the Euro markets.

[MaximumPain]

You guys are misinterpreting the word 'free'... Okay, 'loose' market capitalism. There's always unexpectedly-greedy glitches, like selling bundled US mortgages as stocks, on the Euro markets.

Or like hiring thugs to mess with your competition!! Or bribing government officials in order to get favorable zoning decisions... and the list goes on.

[SuperDig]

Looking for perfection in an economic idea won't happen. There will always be those to exploit it.

In the 1960s, Friedman famously explained that "there's no such thing as a free lunch." If the government spends a dollar, that dollar has to come from producers and workers in the private economy. There is no magical "multiplier effect" by taking from productive Peter and giving to unproductive Paul. As obvious as that insight seems, it keeps being put to the test. Obamanomics may be the most expensive failed experiment in free-lunch economics in American history.

How can you not see the above idea as true to day of our horrible economy? We've gone overboard in debt, robbed productive citizens, and given it to the unproductive. No one should have a free lunch, nor be rewarded for not contributing to society in some way, shape, or form. How can people advocate the government taking care of people from the cradle to the grave without them even putting forth effort to earn something for themselves? Basically, in today's world, the words "work ethic" do not exist, and it's a travesty to this generation. Our current establishment politicians should be run out of town for allowing things to get as bad as they have.

Equally illogical is the superstition that government can create prosperity by having Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke print more dollars. In the very short term, Friedman proved, excess money fools people with an illusion of prosperity. But the market quickly catches on, and there is no boost in output, just higher prices.

We are experiencing this problem right now, and have been for quite awhile. Do people not understand that the dollar devalues and prices rise? It's a mystery to me how so many people think it's "cool" to drop billions of dollars on needless grants, bailouts, stimulus programs, jobs bills, etc. This is why the economy has continually gone from boom to bust, boom to bust, and we will continue this trend until someone takes free market principles and applies them. The US should live within it's means, balance the budget, and understand they do NOT have to be involved in every foreign skirmish around the world.

Germany, in the 1920's proved this type of economy does not work. Yes, Germany had to pay war reparations, and printed infinite amounts of money to do so. They killed their currency by printing money, but the Unites States, at it's current pace could end up the exact same way. We have devalued our dollar over 50% in the past 4 years. What's it going to be in another 4 years, or maybe 10? Will it hit rock bottom? Will we be burning dollars to stay warm before it's all said and done? Mitt Romney will destroy this country, Barack Obama will destroy this country, and no matter who you put in office, unless they begin to cut REAL spending, will destroy this country.

You have to regulate some things due to greed and corruption in our government and corporations, but we CANNOT continue on the same path as we have in the past.

I just do not understand HOW all of the government expansion and handouts is going to help the economy in the long run. You tax the rich, you restart a vicious cycle that never ends. Why prolong the obvious? We will eventually fail, and the keynesian philosophy will not sustain the size and needs of the federal government. Get Barack Obama out of office quickly, fuck Mitt Romney, and vote for Gary Johnson for god's sake! It's hardly anything, but it's the most sane choice we have as Americans.

[Bob]

Government handouts to the poor is not and never has been an economic issue, it's a very small percentage of total govt. outlay. Consider it more of a crime prevention program.

[SuperDig]

Government handouts to the poor is not and never has been an economic issue, it's a very small percentage of total govt. outlay. Consider it more of a crime prevention program.

Bob, that has to be the most asinine thing I have ever read. You honestly believe the federal government only gives "handouts" the the poor?

[Bob]

Bob, that has to be the most asinine thing I have ever read. You honestly believe the federal government only gives "handouts" the the poor?

I was referring ONLY to handouts to the poor. Corporate welfare is a result of corporate ownership of government and is responsible for our current situation. Until this condition changes you won't be seeing anything resembling free market capitalism for a long time. Btw, the most asinine thing you have read is: "Colts draft replacement for Payton Manning, or anything that started with the phrase...Colts backup quarterback..."

[MaximumPain]

Here SuperDig let me respond to your posts by Friedman (is it doctor?).

In the 1960s, Friedman famously explained that "there's no such thing as a free lunch." If the government spends a dollar, that dollar has to come from producers and workers in the private economy. There is no magical "multiplier effect" by taking from productive Peter and giving to unproductive Paul. As obvious as that insight seems, it keeps being put to the test. Obamanomics may be the most expensive failed experiment in free-lunch economics in American history.

Actually there is a "magic multiplier" effect from investing in infrastructure. Its a shared resource that benefits everyone. Significantly reduces the cost of getting goods to market. Creates environments that allow businesses to thrive due to reliable energy, clean plentiful water, and security that protects not only the output of these businesses but their employees and customers too! When people feel safe they are more likely to go out and buy new things and make new investments. I would say that effect drops off when we waste that money on too much war or make it to easy for people to exploit the welfare system. Still there is a massively important roll for government to collectively maintain an environment that allows our society to function day to day.

Equally illogical is the superstition that government can create prosperity by having Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke print more dollars. In the very short term, Friedman proved, excess money fools people with an illusion of prosperity. But the market quickly catches on, and there is no boost in output, just higher prices.

That statement I agree with. The ability to Print money should not be a licenses to print money. In my opinion that is theft straight and simple. Theft from every person who has any amount of money. Theft through inflation makes every dollar I hold worth less.

[lycanox]

Looking for perfection in an economic idea won't happen. There will always be those to exploit it.

That does not mean we should support economic ideologies that simply dont work.

How can you not see the above idea as true to day of our horrible economy? We've gone overboard in debt, robbed productive citizens, and given it to the unproductive. No one should have a free lunch, nor be rewarded for not contributing to society in some way, shape, or form. How can people advocate the government taking care of people from the cradle to the grave without them even putting forth effort to earn something for themselves? Basically, in today's world, the words "work ethic" do not exist, and it's a travesty to this generation. Our current establishment politicians should be run out of town for allowing things to get as bad as they have.

Friedman is far from the only person that understands the importance of an healthy budget.

Nor is there anything wrong with setting up systems to aid the not so economically lucky with tax payers money. Not anybody can and will succeed in live. And it is extremely uncivilisid to just let them rot out of a stupid financial principle. Humanity deserves to go extinct if we start living like that. The idea that it undermines work ethics is pretty much complete and uther bullshit as people want to live in a better standard than the measly amount of money that the government allows them to have.
And lots of people stand a far better chance of starting anew with the aid of government assistance in reeducation, trainings that aid finding, getting and keeping a job, and other programs.

We are experiencing this problem right now, and have been for quite awhile. Do people not understand that the dollar devalues and prices rise? It's a mystery to me how so many people think it's "cool" to drop billions of dollars on needless grants, bailouts, stimulus programs, jobs bills, etc. This is why the economy has continually gone from boom to bust, boom to bust, and we will continue this trend until someone takes free market principles and applies them. The US should live within it's means, balance the budget, and understand they do NOT have to be involved in every foreign skirmish around the world.

Again, we dont need friedman to tell us that inflation is a bad thing.

And it is extremely doubtfull the economy would have recovered without all those bailouts and programs. The economy was extremely vulnerable in 2007 and empires afteral do collapse from time to time.

Germany, in the 1920's proved this type of economy does not work. Yes, Germany had to pay war reparations, and printed infinite amounts of money to do so. They killed their currency by printing money, but the Unites States, at it's current pace could end up the exact same way. We have devalued our dollar over 50% in the past 4 years. What's it going to be in another 4 years, or maybe 10? Will it hit rock bottom? Will we be burning dollars to stay warm before it's all said and done? Mitt Romney will destroy this country, Barack Obama will destroy this country, and no matter who you put in office, unless they begin to cut REAL spending, will destroy this country.

And 2007 did prove that Friedman ideologies does not work.

You have to regulate some things due to greed and corruption in our government and corporations, but we CANNOT continue on the same path as we have in the past.

Indeed, we have to reform our economy. But financial ideologies that center on the economy instead of the people living in the economy are not the way to go.

Afteral, Friedman states that an complete and uther economic collapse is just an normal part of economics and should be allowed. Regardless of the severe effects this has on people.

I just do not understand HOW all of the government expansion and handouts is going to help the economy in the long run. You tax the rich, you restart a vicious cycle that never ends. Why prolong the obvious? We will eventually fail, and the keynesian philosophy will not sustain the size and needs of the federal government. Get Barack Obama out of office quickly, fuck Mitt Romney, and vote for Gary Johnson for god's sake! It's hardly anything, but it's the most sane choice we have as Americans.

Of all the groups in the nation. The rich are simply the only group that can easily take an increase in taxes.
Tax the poor to much and they stop spending any money to power the economy. Force to many budget cuts, stop giving out bailouts or stop giving financial aid to the needy and the poor and people and corporations grow concerned about their financial future. And stop buying or hiring people.

The rich simply are the least important group in a financial system as most of their money is needlessly stagnant and outside the economy on their bank accounts. The wised thing would be to get them to invest that money in starting corporations and the like. But that would require the government again to create an favorable environment for that.

[Ningishiddza]

We would have been a third world nation as 2007 has clearly demonstrated free market capitalism does not work.

And you base that on what, exactly?

The Free Market is always in operation; always in play; regardless of the property theory you use (Capitalism, Socialism or Communism) and regardless of the economic system you use with your property system. There's just no getting around that.

The Free Market is working exactly as it should work.

There is a demand for goods and services in developing States. Post-Industrialized States not only failed to recognize that a demand existed, but, especially in the case of the United States, did everything in their power to block development by using force, threats, intimidation, fear, coercion, assassination, and military action to meddle in the domestic political, economic and social affairs of developing States.

The result was grotesque inefficiency in post-Industrialized States, which caused a recession, which resulted in the wholesale shift of Capital from those States that are grotesquely inefficient, like the US, to the developing States. That's how it works. That's why there are recessions.

Your appalling ignorance does not allow you to understand that this has happened before, many times, repeatedly in the world and even in the US. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, you had a recession due to gross inefficiency. The result was a wholesale shift of Capital....

1] Textile mills in the New England States closed and move to the Southeast, mainly Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

2] Manufacturing in the Midwest States closed and moved to the South and Southwest, mostly Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

3] Electronics fled the East Coast and moved to the West Coast, mostly Washington and California.

Note that later, electronics started moving to Southeast Asia.

The point is, did textiles ever return to New England? Nope, and they never will. Did manufacturing ever return to the Rust Belt? Nope, and it never will. Have semi-conductors and microchips returned to Silicon Vally? Have the jobs Microsoft and Apple off-shored to Southeast Asia ever come back?

Nope, and they never will. None of the jobs that have left will ever come back. That's just how it goes. Economics explains all of that perfectly, beautifully.

It would matter if the US was Capitalist with Market Economics, Socialist with Market Economics, Communist with Market Economics, Capitalist with Command Economics, Socialist with Command Economics, Communist with Command Economics or Capitalist, Socialist or Communist with an Hybrid Economic System, whatever happens is what happens.

The United States murdered and robbed for everything that it has; the unions drove wages up to obscene levels, and both of those resulted in an obscene standard of living greater than the rest of the world. Whatever goes up, must come down.

That's the beauty of Economics. Economics doesn't care about your race, or your ethnicity, or your politics; doesn't give a damn who your god is; doesn't care if you believe in an after-life or not; has no interest in how beautiful or ugly or intelligent or stupid you are; it just does what it does.

The Laws of Economics, like the Laws of Physics, Natural Law and Universal Law all seek one thing --- harmony and balance -- an equilibrium.

You can murder and steal and rob, like the United States did, and you can oppress the peoples of the world to skew the system to your advantage, but only for a time --- not forever.

The Laws of Economics, the Market, is in play right now, trying to balance the scales that the US (and to a lesser extent Western Europe) put out of whack. That will be very painful for Americans, and be a slight irritation for Western Europe, and the Japanese as Capital and Wealth is shifted to the developing States.

There's nothing short of nuclear war than anyone can do to stop it, so get over it already -- stop pointing fingers and start learning how to do less with less.

And for those who just can't seem to get it --- The Market does not operate in a vacuum....real sorry about your luck.

Contrary to what you believe, you can have pure Capitalism with an unfettered Free Market economics systems, but you must enact protections to prevent abuses in government, and the US never did that. You all have it wrong and got it backwards. You don't regulate Capitalists or the Market, you regulate politicians and campaign donors.

So for all you deceitfully deceptive people, the question is not "When has Capitalism and an unfettered market ever worked?", rather the real question is "When has there ever been adequate measures to prevent abuses -- to prevent politicians from becoming functionaries of the wealthy and powerful?"

And the answer to the latter is "Never." You never did, you do not now, and unless citizens take matters into their own hands, you never will.

Anyway, that's the sad story of about 68 different countries on Earth that the US interfered with, so don't blame Capitalism or Market Economics, rather blame your foreign policy and while finger-pointing, notice the four fingers pointing back at you, and deservedly so, since Americans were apathetic and didn't have the guts to take control over their own government.

[SuperDig]

That does not mean we should support economic ideologies that simply dont work.

Our current economic ideologies do not work. How far do we plummet before we change?

Friedman is far from the only person that understands the importance of an healthy budget.

I never said he was; however I believe Hayek had the right idea as well.

Nor is there anything wrong with setting up systems to aid the not so economically lucky with tax payers money. Not anybody can and will succeed in live. And it is extremely uncivilisid to just let them rot out of a stupid financial principle. Humanity deserves to go extinct if we start living like that. The idea that it undermines work ethics is pretty much complete and uther bullshit as people want to live in a better standard than the measly amount of money that the government allows them to have.
And lots of people stand a far better chance of starting anew with the aid of government assistance in reeducation, trainings that aid finding, getting and keeping a job, and other programs.

Do we ever draw the line in the sand? For instance, the United States outnumbers other countries 4 to 1 in college educated citizens. When do we say enough is enough, and push our citizens to live within their own means? When do the working class get a break from supporting everyone else?

Again, we dont need friedman to tell us that inflation is a bad thing.

And it is extremely doubtfull the economy would have recovered without all those bailouts and programs. The economy was extremely vulnerable in 2007 and empires afteral do collapse from time to time.

The economy still hasn't recovered, and won't recover for a long time until something changes with our economic philosophies. All the bailouts and programs did was be a major component to our inflation issues. 99% of the United States can't afford neccessities, much less start spending money to jump start the economy.

And 2007 did prove that Friedman ideologies does not work.

This ... I do not agree with. Free market economists predicted the 2007 crash years before it occurred. Keynesian methods have been in place for a very long time.

Indeed, we have to reform our economy. But financial ideologies that center on the economy instead of the people living in the economy are not the way to go.

Afteral, Friedman states that an complete and uther economic collapse is just an normal part of economics and should be allowed. Regardless of the severe effects this has on people.

The collapse needs to happen for the simple reason that crony capitalists and politicans have taken advantage of a broken planned economy through greed and corruption. It's the only way at this point unless we change our ways and go with a smaller government.

Of all the groups in the nation. The rich are simply the only group that can easily take an increase in taxes.
Tax the poor to much and they stop spending any money to power the economy. Force to many budget cuts, stop giving out bailouts or stop giving financial aid to the needy and the poor and people and corporations grow concerned about their financial future. And stop buying or hiring people.

Why is the answer more revenue?

The rich simply are the least important group in a financial system as most of their money is needlessly stagnant and outside the economy on their bank accounts. The wised thing would be to get them to invest that money in starting corporations and the like. But that would require the government again to create an favorable environment for that.

I would agree with you Lycanox. The government has created class warfare, unstable prices, complete uncertainty about the future through threats of taxes. Decrease taxes, cut REAL spending, not projected spending, and bring the troops home. If the government would do that for us ... I believe we would see the economy actually begin to heal itself.

[lycanox]

Our current economic ideologies do not work. How far do we plummet before we change?

Our current economic ideologies are for a large part based on Friedman.

I never said he was; however I believe Hayek had the right idea as well.

Do we ever draw the line in the sand? For instance, the United States outnumbers other countries 4 to 1 in college educated citizens. When do we say enough is enough, and push our citizens to live within their own means?

The students however rank quite low for an nation as developed as the US.

http://www.geographic.org/country_ra...ecd.html#maths

When do the working class get a break from supporting everyone else?

Which is why the rich should shoulder a bigger share of the burden.
And we should not just cut off people from the help they need.

The economy still hasn't recovered, and won't recover for a long time until something changes with our economic philosophies. All the bailouts and programs did was be a major component to our inflation issues. 99% of the United States can't afford neccessities, much less start spending money to jump start the economy.

Inflation on the other hand also boosts export which results in job growth. And the burden of inflation is lower than that of a collapse of the economy.

This ... I do not agree with. Free market economists predicted the 2007 crash years before it occurred. Keynesian methods have been in place for a very long time.

Free market economist then proceeded on silencing those that predicted the crash, export the risks to other parties and than tried to make profit of this trade and the demise of others.

An event largely preceded by large scale deregulation and privatization.

The collapse needs to happen for the simple reason that crony capitalists and politicans have taken advantage of a broken planned economy through greed and corruption. It's the only way at this point unless we change our ways and go with a smaller government.

And what about the people that live in the economy. Should they just accept a massive depression to allow a bunch of bookers to make massive gains. And do nothing.

As for the size of the government. That is just a political propaganda term. An government needs the size it needs to be to optimally function. One can not just set up arbitrary upper or lower limits for government size.

Why is the answer more revenue?

Becouse there are few other options that dont set off an a viscous circle of companies having to lay of people because people buy less to conserve money out of fear of being fired.

I would agree with you Lycanox. The government has created class warfare, unstable prices, complete uncertainty about the future through threats of taxes. Decrease taxes, cut REAL spending, not projected spending, and bring the troops home. If the government would do that for us ... I believe we would see the economy actually begin to heal itself.

Well, the entire system has created that. But for the largest part I agree.

[SuperDig]

Our current economic ideologies are for a large part based on Friedman.

Friedman believed that government's role in economic guidance should be restricted severely. He also believed the money supply versus inflation should also be monitored and controlled. Those things are NOT happening today, and government is allowed us to rack up over 15 trillion dollars in debt. I do not feel Friedman is the #1 most noble economist in history; however most of his ideas were on point. Friedman also pushed for a return to the gold standard at one point. His ideas and what the government is doing couldn't be further apart in my opinion.

The students however rank quite low for an nation as developed as the US.

http://www.geographic.org/country_ra...ecd.html#maths

I would agree with your link. The United States is nothing to brag about when looking at overall intelligence and testing; however they do hand out degrees like candy on Halloween. We are the most highly educated country in the world when you look at the number of citizens with college degrees, but when you look at the data on actual testing; we are at the bottom of the list. For profit schooling, cost of education, and greed have taken the place of providing our citizens with the actual intelligence to succeed. For instance, kill the federal department of education, and let the states fund, regulate, and hold education accountable for cirriculum. It's the only way we will improve.

Which is why the rich should shoulder a bigger share of the burden.
And we should not just cut off people from the help they need

I don't agree. When do we filter through and redefine those citizens that are actually "in need"? Eventually, we'll have no choice but to crackdown on those folks who have lived off the system their entire lives. Nowadays, you have entire families that have lived off the government for generations. Do you think that's right?

Inflation on the other hand also boosts export which results in job growth. And the burden of inflation is lower than that of a collapse of the economy.

Countries experiencing inflation do not ALWAYS have export growth. The fact alone that the US doesn't manufacture hardly anything makes this a non-factor talking about exports. Inflation alone can cause the collapse of the economy. A collapse is dependent upon the price of currency.

Free market economist then proceeded on silencing those that predicted the crash, export the risks to other parties and than tried to make profit of this trade and the demise of others.

An event largely preceded by large scale deregulation and privatization.

Free market economists are the ones that predicted the crash. They silenced themselves? Once the prediction was made, most every crony capitalist and politician tried to make profits. It wasn't limited to a certain belief.

And what about the people that live in the economy. Should they just accept a massive depression to allow a bunch of bookers to make massive gains. And do nothing.

As for the size of the government. That is just a political propaganda term. An government needs the size it needs to be to optimally function. One can not just set up arbitrary upper or lower limits for government size..

I don't believe it to be propaganda. Shrink the debt, spending, and revenue for the people of the nation. The actual purpose of the federal government is to protect the people from loss of freedom, not the other way around. It's grown in size largely because government has put it's nose in everyone's life

Becouse there are few other options that dont set off an a viscous circle of companies having to lay of people because people buy less to conserve money out of fear of being fired.

This idea perpetuates the boom bust economic cycle. Government shouldn't be allowed to fill the gaps. It's ideas like this that make the free market a dream never to be achieved. Business should be allowed to fail if it makes poor business choices. We've propped up the opposite idea for so long that people couldn't imagine a world without the government bailing them out. It's sad.

[lycanox]

Friedman believed that government's role in economic guidance should be restricted severely. He also believed the money supply versus inflation should also be monitored and controlled. Those things are NOT happening today, and government is allowed us to rack up over 15 trillion dollars in debt. I do not feel Friedman is the #1 most noble economist in history; however most of his ideas were on point. Friedman also pushed for a return to the gold standard at one point. His ideas and what the government is doing couldn't be further apart in my opinion.

Actually it is happening today. The reason why it does not seem to be happening is because the US is trying to devaluate the dollar to improve its export position compared with china.

I would agree with your link. The United States is nothing to brag about when looking at overall intelligence and testing; however they do hand out degrees like candy on Halloween. We are the most highly educated country in the world when you look at the number of citizens with college degrees, but when you look at the data on actual testing; we are at the bottom of the list. For profit schooling, cost of education, and greed have taken the place of providing our citizens with the actual intelligence to succeed. For instance, kill the federal department of education, and let the states fund, regulate, and hold education accountable for cirriculum. It's the only way we will improve.

I think that is a bad idea. Lots of states would jump to the opportunity to push religious or ideological agendas through the schools. Not to mention that the value of US education may start to fluctuate widely over the nation. Leading to a top student in state A may suffer due to a bad reputation due to the bad education of a top student in state B. Or worse, State C may become the laughing stock of the world by starting to teach creationism and other vague stuff. And the world has never been shy on generalizations.

I don't agree. When do we filter through and redefine those citizens that are actually "in need"? Eventually, we'll have no choice but to crackdown on those folks who have lived off the system their entire lives. Nowadays, you have entire families that have lived off the government for generations. Do you think that's right?

Naturally we need to sift the truly needed from the leeches.
On the other hand is prevention. The government spending some money to reeducate workers will save a lot of money later on unemployment checks through life.
Not to mention it gives the opportunity to direct workers to fields that are suffering an severe underemployment. Like nurses and teachers.

Countries experiencing inflation do not ALWAYS have export growth. The fact alone that the US doesn't manufacture hardly anything makes this a non-factor talking about exports. Inflation alone can cause the collapse of the economy. A collapse is dependent upon the price of currency.

The US would however start to become a bigger export player if the difference in value between the dollar and Yuan disapears or shifts in favor of the dollar.

And deflation or stagflation can also cause problems down the road. The value of a currency is always fluctuating. And as long there are no underlying problems (usually trust) that cause it. It should not be much of a problem as long the economy can keep up with it. .

Free market economists are the ones that predicted the crash. They silenced themselves? Once the prediction was made, most every crony capitalist and politician tried to make profits. It wasn't limited to a certain belief.

It was however made possible by deregulation and privatization.

I don't believe it to be propaganda. Shrink the debt, spending, and revenue for the people of the nation. The actual purpose of the federal government is to protect the people from loss of freedom, not the other way around. It's grown in size largely because government has put it's nose in everyone's life

And why would a bigger government automatically mean a severe lack of personal freedom? And how can the government protect the people without setting up regulations and such to protect such freedom. Again, its a matter of balance. Not big or small.

I doubt you afteral want a small government with little regulations on something like nuclear power plant safety.

This idea perpetuates the boom bust economic cycle. Government shouldn't be allowed to fill the gaps. It's ideas like this that make the free market a dream never to be achieved. Business should be allowed to fail if it makes poor business choices. We've propped up the opposite idea for so long that people couldn't imagine a world without the government bailing them out. It's sad.

Of all the corporations only a small percentage gets bailed out and you have to be a key player in the economy to be even considered.
I doubt there is any business owner that actually believes that it does not matter if they run their company in the ground because they receive a bail out regardless.

[Bob]

Has anybody ever been asked about your grades in school during a job interview? That shows me the true value of a college degree.

[PoorOldRobert]

Has anybody ever been asked about your grades in school during a job interview? That shows me the true value of a college degree.

Is it unreasonable for professionals we depend on to display their class ranking?
Next time you go to the doctor remember somebody finished last in the class.

[JenaS62]

Has anybody ever been asked about your grades in school during a job interview? That shows me the true value of a college degree.

Actually it must be asked for some degree/careers. My son has been looking to apply to internships for chemical engineering and every application asks for your GPA.

[MaximumPain]

Actually it must be asked for some degree/careers. My son has been looking to apply to internships for chemical engineering and every application asks for your GPA.

If its good enough you put it on your resume. If you are the same as another candidate but have a better GPA guess who probably gets the job? .....well the person whose uncle works for the place but if not for that!

[JenaS62]

If its good enough you put it on your resume. If you are the same as another candidate but have a better GPA guess who probably gets the job? .....well the person whose uncle works for the place but if not for that!

Do you work for a company MP? You have a seriously negative opinion of them. I love the company I work for. I am treated fairly. I am paid well. And I'm not in a union. Imagine that.

[MaximumPain]

Do you work for a company MP? You have a seriously negative opinion of them. I love the company I work for. I am treated fairly. I am paid well. And I'm not in a union. Imagine that.

Actually I have a relatively good opinion of the fortune 500 company I work for. Our organization has made some good choices during these times and has managed to stay in good shape with pretty stable stock prices and very few lay offs. My individual unit is a great place to work. My co-workers are all helpful and friendly, my supervisors and managers work with us to help us develop and to deal with issues that affect us doing our job.

Im not sure why you assume that comment was about my current employer? Im also not sure why you discount the power of nepotism in employment. Have you never heard the saying "Its not what you know, its who you know".

Several factors helped me get this job. One of them was my education and degree in the field I currently work in. Another was someone on the inside recommended me he was a friend not an uncle .

I am not a Union member but I have been let down by one in the past in a previous job.

The thing you don't understand about unions is that they create pressure on management that wouldn't otherwise be there. This forces them to treat people with some minimum level of decency. Sure many companies don't act in a way that necessitates a union but some do and I would never want to take power away from the people and give it to the corporations which is actually what being anti union means. Also in a free country people are allowed to organize and that includes unions. Sure in most cases they are in fact not necessary but they most certainly were in the past and I can easily envision a world where they would be necessary again.