Forum Post: An economist's quote for OWS
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 10:36 a.m. EST by Thrasymaque
(-2138)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." - Milton Friedman
This quote seems quite apt for OWS who want to implement direct democracy in the American society. We must remember that this system has not been tested in modern times, and that even though its intentions are the best, the results might not be. The effects of an economic system are very hard to predict; many economic scholars have attested to this. There are many variables to consider. And now that we live in a global economy, the economies of neighboring countries will also have an effect on our implementation of direct democracy. For example, when we think of Cuba's economy, it is not enough to say it is a communist state, we also have to address the countries surrounding it and how these interact with Cuba's economy. If we could lift Cuba out of the water and place it somewhere else on the map, its economy might change drastically even though the internal system has not. Its important to realize we cannot plan on how our neighbors would react to us changing our system completely.
With those thoughts, my question thus becomes - "Is it really the best time to try a completely new economic system when the economy seems so unstable? Shouldn't we attempt to stabilize it first before moving on to test direct democracy? And, shouldn't we have a plan B in place in case it does?"
it is not possible to have an isolated economy
Tell that to North-Korea!
I understand north korea is poor
I don't know, but the kids over their will play out the strings of any guitar!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pl8pVszpNM
What about quotes from when Friedman and the chicago boys was sucking up to Pinochet.
"The effects of an economic system are very hard to predict; many economic scholars have attested to this.". Only if they are fucking idiots.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own over 40% of all US wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. The lower 90 percent of Americans own less than 25% percent of all US wealth. Still, the rich want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
This is fundamentally flawed, the basic principles of economics comes to two factors. Time and energy, but more importantly how can you save your time and energy. The flow of currency (GDP) is only a reflection this system. Lets say Bob is good at farming, and Joe is a fantastic carpenter. Both need to eat a place to stay. So instead of Bob farming and then having to build his own house, he comes to an agreement that he will give Joe food in exchange for a house. Both men come out wealthier from this exchange. Eventually it will become more complected and effective as more people "produce goods that "save either time or energy"" as a side effect standard of living increases. Eventually the "barter system" will become so complex that a goods for goods exchange will become impractical. So to redress this (which I believe one of the most important invention of the human evolution) a currency system is established. Where all your time and energy is represented by a commonly accepted medium (aka dalla-dalla-bill yo). The more the people produce into this system the greater "everybody's standard of live increases" (just look at the life before and after the Automobile).
This system is incredible stable and resilient, so stable that it is able to support the standard of life of those who can not attribute to the system, even when the number of "freeloaders" (either the "unmotivated unemployed" or inefficient corporations that should of failed aka GE, GM, Feddie Mac Franny May) become so great that the strain on the energy and time of the producing majority cannot support the need for the over all system it dose not fail. Normally system would shed the extra baggage (like in the animal kingdom, if their isn't enough deer for the loins to eat the lions starve until they reach an equilibrium) or the "freeloaders are forced to find a niche in the system". The only time the system fails is when a third party (aka big government) forces the system to maintain the extra weight until the total consumption surpasses the total production (this is where you get inflation, the same reason a million dollars is worth less then it did a hundred years ago) and instead of equalizing out everybody's standard of live is reduced. The standard of living is reduced but the system still remains, until every producer in the system is removed.
Argue any point you want, most people will always fail until they find a niche (be a farmer, invent something ...) that they are great at or die, but the system will never collapses its like trying to get rid of the mass and keep the gravity. Its not the capitalist system has failed, but rather we failed the capitalist system. If we fall to see all the factors we will just repeat the past.
P.S. Love is free ya'll
You started out so well. Those first few lines were brilliant. Then, little by little, you stepped further and further away from reality. By the end of the second paragraph, your essay became nothing but die hard capitalist propaganda.
Hello. Earth to Odin. Come in Odin.
EVERYTHING CHANGES WHEN THE WEALTH BECOMES TOO CONCENTRATED. LIKE THE FINAL ROUND IN A GAME OF MONOPOLY, DEMAND DROPS ALONG WITH THE STANDARD OF LIVING. IT ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK THIS WAY. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL.
Well of course the essay was about the system the very basic of it. I did not implement all of the moral factors, but as I said the system is very resilient, if the government did its job and protect the people responsibility to govern their life, and not protect their buddies everyone will prosper
If our leaders were anywhere near as noble as they make themselves out to be, things would be a whole lot better. I guess we can agree on that much.
I'm sorry for the attitude. You were perfectly civil. I just get very frustrated when I read or hear arguments that are made with regard to wealth and prosperity but zero regard to distribution.
no problem one thing I learned is that nothing free everything must earned, their really are no losers in this system only the ones who give up. Only the individual can attain their individual goals and dreams.
It's so sad that OWS members are spending their days posting and re-posting spam instead of actually doing something productive. I know it's not your fault, you're probably being paid with OWS donations to post the same message over and over again in order to drown the critics of the movement. You probably just want to work, and that's commendable.
OWS is acting more and more like an authoritarian system.
Next.
How many times did you post that today? 50, 100?
BTW - Your text is near unreadable because it isn't separated in paragraphs. Write correctly, and it will be much easier to read and thus reach a wider audience.
The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global. These 'humanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base. Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame.
This is why the rich and famous have all taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product.
Charitywatch.org and Charitynavigator.org are both non-profit charity watchdogs. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money on private jet rides, five star accommodations, and PR crews.
The fans have been terribly misled. For example:
Virtually every penny 'donated' by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to date has come from repeated sales of baby photos. With each sale, the baby money goes to the 'Jolie-Pitt' foundation. A foundation which has never done anything but shelter funds. The 'donation' is immediately publicized worldwide.
When Jolie or Pitt have a new movie to promote, a portion is then donated from their own 'foundation' to a legitimate charity. This leaves their ignorant fans under the impression that 'another' donation has been made. When in fact, its the same baby money being transferred again and again. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, super-exclusive accommodations, photo ops, and PR crap. This saves Jolie and Pitt millions in travel/stay expenses and their respective studios tens of millions in advertising. It's all very calculated.
Of course, Jolie and Pitt could simply endorse any of the 1500 most efficient and effective charities. Of course, the baby money would go much further and do far more good if it were donated to such charities to begin with.
But that would be too boring.
The 'Make it Right' Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor, planner, or designer. He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more. Still, he has been showered with glorious praise by fellow celebrities and media outlets around the world. Again, the fans have been terribly misled.
In order to move into a 'green' home, the innocent victims of Katrina are required to provide a property deed, meet a number of financial requirements, and pay an average of $75,000 UP FRONT. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion (according to the website) forgiven. To date, only a few dozen former home owners have qualified.
The 'Make it Right' foundation was never intended to help the lower income residents of New Orleans reclaim anything lost in Katrina. In fact, 'Make it Right' is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward without them. Part of a calculated effort to raise property values in the area by displacing the poor. They are by design, excluded. Unable to qualify. Of course, Brad Pitt could have simply endorsed 'Habitat For Humanity'. A well known, proven, and efficient home building operation. Of course, the tens of millions in funding would have gone MUCH further.
But that would be too boring. Big name celebrities have no desire to make the world a better place.
Their primary goal is to appear as if they do.
It's a sham. Good will has become big business.
invisible children is another sham if you look at how they break down where the money goes.
It's truly sad that OWS protesters are resorting to questionable tactics to silence people who have opinions that differ from their own. It's creating a system in which freedom of speech and plurality of thought is not acceptable. Ironically, OWS exists because the "enemy" it wants to defeat allows free speech. OWS has more to learn from Washington, than Washington from OWS. You guys are on self destruction mode.
I don't want you silent. Anytime you want to debate the issues.
You are being paid by OWS to spam all the discussions which criticize the movement. This is a form or censorship. OWS is killing its own self. You guys should practice transparency and the honest exchange of ideas if you want a chance to survive much longer. In any case, I enjoy yours spam because you are discrediting OWS which I find is a terrible idea.
If we are so insificant, then why are so many of you trying so hard to discredit our cause or break our will? Why are you here?
You told us we were all part of the movement. The 99%. You told us we would have direct democracy and that everyone would be able to share their ideas. I am here to share my ideas. I never asked to be in the movement in the beginning, it's you that said I was. If someone says I'm part of something, I like to know what that is.
Milton Friedman-The fool of the century.
I think we can do without Mr. Friedman, whose work is directly responsible for the huge income gap. You want quotes?
"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
Robert F. Kennedy Address, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March 18, 1968
I'm interested in the particular quote I posted to make a point, not in the majority of his work. Life is not black and white, it's not because you disagree with someone's system that you must disagree with all his quotes and ideas. And this particular quote is right on the money. In economy, what counts at the end of the day is practice, not theory.
I disagree with the majority of his work and the quote. Read ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism [Hardcover]
http://www.amazon.com/ECONned-Unenlightened-Undermined-Democracy-Capitalism/dp/0230620515
Then come back and talk to me.
I also disagree with the majority of his work, but I agree with this particular quote and that is why I posted it. You are certainly welcome to disagree. I simply think what is achieved in practice by an economic system is more important that what is achieved in theory.
His work and theories were erroneous and incorrect. They have led us to this point. The guy was simply WRONG. His goal was to reduce the power and impact of government. All of his statements were designed to reinforce this goal. Given this fact, all of what he said is suspect.
Look at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/garrett-johnson/slouching-towards-neofeud_b_568972.html
and
http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
I shouldn't have written his name on the quote, and you would probably have agreed simply because it's obvious. I assume you believe the theory of an economic system is more important than the actual results it has on the field?
I'll post this again in a few days without his name, and I guarantee you people will agree with it. OWS supporters don't have much logic. As soon as they see the name of someone they don't agree with, they stop reading and dismiss it without thinking. Anyhow, it it will be interesting to try to experiment and see what happens.
[Removed]
Sorry, I have read to many critics of Zeitgeist to believe what they claim. The movement has been thoroughly debunked once, twice, and thrice.