World Star Hip Hop

[El Kabong]

Eh? Again, would the Olympics have any appeal if it was based upon family income groupings? No, it wouldn't. It is based upon either being good with no legs or good with legs. Either way, it doesn't help a doctor or a teacher. I don't care about any Olympics, it's daft.

If we are talking property, then I believe property should be taken at the point of death and redistributed. Then there would be no need for this nonsense of making poor people work until death. I also include the Royal family. Take their property and wealth and make them live like we all do. No special rules for Tim 'nice but dim'. Anything that I have at death should of course be put back into society, and the same for ALL others. That is where society has gone wrong. It isn't put back, they breed, and think they can have their shit rise. No, it shouldn't.

The crux of my argument is that I am beautiful and lovely, but we need to redistibute. I've no issues with that. I plan on getting old and doing the best I can, but when I am gone it goes back. I started with nothing, I shall end with nothing. That is just, that is the point. I may be a snowflake, but I'm also one who has manipulated the system and could easily rest for a decade and much more if he so desired and do so in a fair degree of opulence. The point is that nothing can achieve a lot and one shouldn't feel angry about losers like you with your petty insults and silly name calling.

You are the loser and have to live in a police state, I encourage people to rebel. That is the difference. The class I am from has nothing to lose whilst you and your group loses everything. It is easy for people like me to be, but I am a freak.

You don't care about the Olympics but you DO care about sport obviously I mean this IS a boxing site so there must be a part of you that enjoys competition to an extent.

The only way to redistribute wealth effectively is to eliminate the incentives to have wealth. What system offers the poor the best chance to better their position in life? Socialism? Communism? ....sorry pal CAPITALISM is king because it plays to behavioral psychology.




And again, you've attempted to change the topic. How does the culture worldstarhiphop is promoting help the poor? That is the question and you don't answer it because you're being contrarian to my views and when you're contrarian to my stance on this you are WRONG

[Gandalf]

I enjoy sports, but I don't think they matter in the great scheme of things. Sports are one of numerous ways of deflecting attention and manipulating nationalistic agendas. If others buy into it then cool, but when I hear a national anthem, then there is something wrong.

You posting a video of Milton Friedman, who was in my opinion one of the most repellent anti-humans to have ever existed, is not going to encourage me to believe that poor black culture is to blame for their plight. Friedmans views were extremist views and in practice DO NOT work without coercion and force. There is something in your mind that refuses to accept that Britain and America are failed economies and are largely fueled by extremism. Decent, functioning societies exist, but they are elsewhere in Europe. Britain and America are now borderline banana republics, though of course we make a mockery of that with the abberation of a bloated Monarchy.

World Star Hip Hop is what it is. I have nothing in common with it, I don't understand it, but is it any more negative and harmful than Milton Friedman and the harm being carried out from above? People are born poor and stay poor because of people like Friedman. Poor people look silly because of World Star Hip Hop. Change from the top and change will follow below as people rise up and have self worth.

[VictorCharlie]

Friedmans views were extremist views and in practice DO NOT work without coercion and force.

You get the award for the dumbest thing said on the internet today. Friedman is the most brilliant economist of our lifetime. But please explain how advocating for freedom and liberty in fact requires coercion and violence. The great irony of your statement is it is in fact centralized gov't regulations and programs that can only work through coercion and force. Thanks Miles. You ended my night with a good laugh.

[Gandalf]

Not really, but if it helps you sleep at night to accept right wing indoctrination then that is fine by me. Friedman's theories, and all they are are theories, have only been attempted through coercion, terror and force and societies that have experienced such economic brutalisation have ultimately rejected his ideas or else continue to experience massive social and economic disparities. The Shock Doctrine rips apart Friedman and Chicago for what they are.

Government is necessary as society will not correct itself. The problem with the West is that the governments now only listen to the business elite who don't even pay their share due to the bogus claims that globalisation is better for all. Globalisation is not better for all and now that the propaganda has been shown up for what it is, reality is now beginning to set in.

I find your extreme political views to be rather stupid too considering you have spent most of your life working for governments, but all is fair in love and war eh.

[AdamGB]

I'll be perfectly honest Miles, I stopped reading what looked like a dribble of a post after the unwarrented sense of importance in your first sentence. My little feelings are fine... As I said, I found you claiming that anybody else was elitest to be hilariously hypocritical, the end.

Anyway, I'll let you go now... I think I hear somebody from an unprivilaged background talking with unorthodox syntax!

[VictorCharlie]

Not really, but if it helps you sleep at night to accept right wing indoctrination then that is fine by me. Friedman's theories, and all they are are theories, have only been attempted through coercion, terror and force and societies that have experienced such economic brutalisation have ultimately rejected his ideas or else continue to experience massive social and economic disparities. The Shock Doctrine rips apart Friedman and Chicago for what they are.

Please explain how you coerce people into being free? Really Miles, you can disagree with freedom and liberty but suggesting that it requires a threat of violence to let people live their lives the way they want is pretty absurd. More importantly the examples that Keynes supporters always trot out of failed Austrian Economics are not examples of free markets but rather corporatism. Corporatism is only possible with a large and powerful gov't. How about instead of resorting to your typical ad hominem on Friedman you address the points he makes in the video? Name calling is pretty indicative of someone whose point lacks merit. If he is really the discredited buffoon you say he is it ought to be relatively easy for such academic as yourself.

Government is necessary as society will not correct itself. The problem with the West is that the governments now only listen to the business elite who don't even pay their share due to the bogus claims that globalisation is better for all. Globalisation is not better for all and now that the propaganda has been shown up for what it is, reality is now beginning to set in.

Again I love that your solution to collusion between gov't and business is....MORE gov't. Lets double down on stupid eh.

I find your extreme political views to be rather stupid too considering you have spent most of your life working for governments, but all is fair in love and war eh.

Your a hoot man. I have a job I enjoy and can do it irrespective of my pay b/c due to capitalism I have been able to make some sound investments which offer me a good and constant passive income stream. By the time I take the uniform off I'll be making more from my private business interests than my gov't paycheck. Keep trying to pigeon hole me as some poorly educated, indoctrinated goon if that makes you feel better though.

[Gandalf]

I have maintained my point of view numerous times over the years and if you want a decent critique of Friedman then I have already said to give The Shock Doctrine a spin. I get bored of going over the same ground in threads like this as I have my stance and you have yours. There isn't going to be much common ground.

A welfare system is a necessary component of any social democracy and I don't think many people would seriously maintain that it shouldn't be. Most sensible people see the sense in having taxes and taxes paying for hospitals, schools, maintaining infrastructure, job seekers allowance etc. It is about equality of opportunity and giving everyone a chance in life.

The problem I have with Friedman is that his economic theories are inhumane and that he aligned himself with dictators that inflicted unspeakable violence upon the ordinary people of their countries. Countries where his economic terrorists would go and speak a mantra of 'freemarkets' which in essence simply meant mass privatisation and when people reacted to the shock with dissent, violence and disappearing became the tools to further the trade. But as long as American multinationals can have their investment, then we shouldn't mind too much about any of that.

Milton Friedman was vile. Deregulation of financial markets leads to catastrophe, globalisation means competing with the world until the lowest common wage is reached, mass privatisation as seen in many countries leads to racketeering and ordinary people being fleeced, selling off council housing leads to young people generations later being excluded from ever owning a house. In each and every way, his crackpot notions have made people suffer.

I advocate largely the opposite of Milton Friedman and ordinary people with educations in the real world would agree. Experiments with extremist right wing freemarkets are inherently flawed and only exacerbate social inequality and in the process the rich corrupt the political system and make off with all the pie. Communism doesn't work and neither does the opposite. Reality lies somewhere in the middle and taxes and government are most certainly a part of it.

[VictorCharlie]

I have maintained my point of view numerous times over the years and if you want a decent critique of Friedman then I have already said to give The Shock Doctrine a spin. I get bored of going over the same ground in threads like this as I have my stance and you have yours. There isn't going to be much common ground.

I'm more interested in you addressing the points in the video rather than your ad hominem. If the best you got is to boo the messenger then you don't really seem to have an argument. Forget Milton, what if it was Chomsky making those comments? How would you address them then? I have read Shock Doctrine and as usual the author attempts to provide examples that are in no way the free market principles of Friedman as ones of failure. There is a long list of phonies passing off their economic plan as free market principles. Particularly in this country. More importantly Klein attempts to weave together a variety of non-sequitar story lines into some international story of collusion. She is neither a historian nor an economists but rather an activist so where there should a strong academic and objective review of free market principles there isn't.

A welfare system is a necessary component of any social democracy and I don't think many people would seriously maintain that it shouldn't be. Most sensible people see the sense in having taxes and taxes paying for hospitals, schools, maintaining infrastructure, job seekers allowance etc. It is about equality of opportunity and giving everyone a chance in life.

This is just an emotional appeal. All of these things exist outside of gov't and when done in the private sector are better. It should be noted though that the US is not a social democracy but rather a constitutional republic.

The problem I have with Friedman is that his economic theories are inhumane and that he aligned himself with dictators that inflicted unspeakable violence upon the ordinary people of their countries. Countries where his economic terrorists would go and speak a mantra of 'freemarkets' which in essence simply meant mass privatisation and when people reacted to the shock with dissent, violence and disappearing became the tools to further the trade.

Milton's philosophy is grounded in freedom and liberty and specifically economic freedom. That being said he was pro-gay marriage way before it was cool, against the drug war and evolved to be a non-interventionist. You probably agree more with him than you think. I'm guessing you are talking about Chile though. Milton gave a series of lectures there on the threat to freedom from a centralized military government over a week long perio, met w/Pinochet for 45 minutes and wrote Pinochet a letter about the economic issues of the country. He maintained his criticism of the Junta his entire life and it is myopic to at least not acknowledge the role of increased economic freedom leading to ultimate political freedom in Chile. It is disingenuous to suggest he "aligned" himself w/Pinochet. I don't know what is surprising to anyone that a Chilean perversion of free market principles done under the guidance of a brutal dictatorship didn't provide perfect results. It should be noted though that there was an initial boost to the economy up until the Lost Decade.

Milton Friedman was vile. Deregulation of financial markets leads to catastrophe, globalisation means competing with the world until the lowest common wage is reached, mass privatisation as seen in many countries leads to racketeering and ordinary people being fleeced, selling off council housing leads to young people generations later being excluded from ever owning a house. In each and every way, his crackpot notions have made people suffer.

Privatization in most places is simply a collusion between gov't and industry and not a free market solution. It is only b/c of a large powerful centralized gov't that this is capable of happening. Remove the gov't protections on industry and competition will lower prices thus improving the cost of living. Considering you advocate for a wage floor do you feel the same about pricing? Would you support a minimum price on goods? His ideas (as well as Bastiat, Hayek, Mises, Smith etc) have actually done more to alleviate suffering due to poverty than any gov't plan or idea.

I advocate largely the opposite of Milton Friedman and ordinary people with educations in the real world would agree.

The real world? Miles, you can't find me one business owner that thinks more gov't regulation will improve their bottom line except for where it creates an unfair advantage for them and curbs their competition. Spend 1 year running a business and you will be trumpeting the likes of Rothbard.

Experiments with extremist right wing freemarkets are inherently flawed and only exacerbate social inequality and in the process the rich corrupt the political system and make off with all the pie.

Again you are confusing corporatism and free markets. Capitalism has been the number one driving force to improve poverty in the world. You can make an argument that many people have used the name as cover for their own gov't collusion but that is an issue w/the gov't and not the underlying principles of freedom. Free movement of people, commerce and ideas are the best way to improve peace and quality of life. Economic freedom is equally paramount to liberty as political or any other type. That is the crux of Friedman's beliefs.