Excellent book by award-winning economist Milton Friedman who takes this mantra a step further and argues that capitalism is a necessary condition for maximum political freedom outright.
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211/ref=nodl_
Okay, how about I will read this Feminism and War and you will read this. Sound good?
Edit: Also, I'm not confrontational when presented with pushback, because you didn't actually give any pushback. You're refusing to give pushback.
"I don't mind powerful yet small government."
The more you read the more I will urge that there is no such thing, but you hit the nail on the head with the UBI or a negative income tax instead of a giant welfare state.
If that is an idea of yours, that is great and I urge you to read milton friedmans book
I can only guess that you will love it and consider your life enriched by it
> I provided entire essays, exhaustively documenting conflicts between bourgeois military states.
So no then? You can't provide actual quotes of Marx et al. claiming that military dictatorships we're a required part of their philosophy. Your argument is, in fact "here, read this 20 chapter book and you'll see I'm right".
Two can play at that game:
https://www.amazon.ca/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
See? I'm right too. Capitalism is the only way.
They're both important to me; I value all freedom, and won't just pick one over another.
EDIT: I forgot to add that Milton Friedman's classic work Capitalism and Freedom argues that in the long term the two are inseparable - either you have freedom or you don't. Countries can survive in the short-term with just economic or just personal freedom, but in the long-term one requires the other.
Ironically enough, ya you wasted your money. Sorry. Try this instead: https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466197378&sr=1-1&keywords=milton+friedman
He's only like the founder of modern economics though, so he's obviously full of shit.
Milton Friedman busted this up years ago:
If you're a firm paying a higher wage for average output (feminism) - you're going to go out of business. Outside of coercion, the wage you pay will settle on the market value.
If you're a firm paying lower wage for average output (sexism) - no average worker will work for you. Unless you're in a cartel situation, the wage you pay will settle on market value.
All libertarian philosophy tends to be more of a guiding theory than a nuts-and-bolts practicality, as it often doesn't have to endure too many real life tests. But - Milton's point was that if you engaged in racist hiring practices (choosing not to hire someone less qualified, because they're white), the free market would put you under.
I have a few recommendations for books on economics:
Free to Choose (I would probably recommend that you start with this)
You haven't' showed any evidence to the contrary that capitalism isn't a positive influence. You just say that it's not. I can provide a billion links showing that capitalism promotes freedom, cooperation, and equality.
But sure, I should ignore Nobel Prize winning economist because you said "nu uh.. i'm pretty sure..."
Not really. Socialism is about the "proletariat" (the state) controlling the means of production. The USSR, China, and North Korea were socialist. The UK and many European countries work on welfare capitalism (which, confusingly is often sold under terms like "democratic socialism") He wasn't being ironic, just pointing out there's a difference between socialism and welfare.
Unless of course you're arguing is that your flair's namesake was a socialist, since Milton Friedman supported a very similar idea:
​
>The idea. The idea of a negative income tax began gaining steam with the 1962 publication of economist Milton Friedman’s book “Capitalism and Freedom.” Friedman thought a negative income tax would alleviate poverty — and he believed it would have many additional benefits, as well.
>
>Friedman argued that a negative income tax improved on traditional welfare — he wanted to give poor people cash rather than an array of welfare benefits. People could then use the money as they saw fit. He contended this would simplify the system — since it would be administered centrally by the IRS, who would cut the checks, instead of many different organizations — and be more valuable to intended beneficiaries, thereby increasing our transfer system’s bang for its buck.
​
The difference between UBI and a negative income tax being that UBI is granted to anyone regardless of income, cutting more red tape and reducing some of the disincentives for work since you don't lose the benefits by making money.
​
Again, not an an-cap policy obviously ("an-cap policy" itself being an oxymoron), but I'd regard it as a libertarian alternative to welfare.
Republicans just don't believe in the Bible anymore.
What are some good introductory economics books? Is this good?
Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom
I could only find it with freedom included, is that ok?
1- No sigas intentando, esa es la señal en vivo. Capaz que repita el mismo discurso, eso está de moda
2- La economía es una actividad humana. Sin humanos no hay economía.
3- https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
4- Sí, es una de las consignas ideológicas más marcada: la teoría del chorreo.
5- La diatriba de la economía se basa en supuestos falsos como variables continuas, funciones derivables con continuidad y una población donde todos son omniscientes.
Y por último, no necesito pedirte permiso para decir que el neoliberalismo practicado por derecha, izquierda y centro es el gran causante de la crisis chilena.
No, libertarian capitalism. I think you should read this book; It would help.
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
I apologize that I can articulate my political and economic views; I am aware it can be intimidating. ��
Perhaps you would care to present a system to me that isn't "science fiction?" The superior system you allude to perhaps.
>This is what conservatives mean when they talk about "government nanny state overreach".
This is called a straw-man.
>Basically, they wish to hand over the power that used to reside in the hands of the people through their elected representatives to the private sector where they have NO voice.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in political philosophy and economics.
>It's downright undemocratic.
This is downright wrong. Democracy
Almost all of the work is fairly unaccessable academic economics work, its just not well enough known outside economics for much public facing work to have been done.
The exception to this is the work that Milton Friedman did (it usually surprises people that he was such a strong supporter of NIT given many people have the public perception that he was literally hitler and wanted to eat babies alive etc) he did a number of interviews on the subject and wrote about it in this book.
The concept itself is actually very very simple, its closest analog in current use would be the Earned Income Credit. If you earn below a certain level then you receive a quarterly refund check that brings you up to that level. If the level is $15k and you earn $1k then each year you will get $14k, if you earn $10k then you will get $5k. In reality we would likely make the refund graduated such that for each additional $1 you privately earn your benefit is only reduced by $0.75 (so we don't discourage people earning more) but that's the only real change that would be made. This would replace all current civilian entitlement programs other then Medicare, Medicaid and SS.
Read Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, he has a chapter about the voucher system where he goes into a lot of depth, and provides plenty of examples of the system at work. If you can't get the book, here is a summary of his position.
If you don't believe Friedman, take a look at the Evaluation sections of this brief from Hong Kong that analyzes voucher systems across the world (including the US). While the results don't show an increase in scholastic performance, the conclusion is that voucher systems generally have a net positive effect on the education system. Based on similar studies, Hong Kong went on to implement a partial voucher system in 2007.
The intuition here is that schools are uncompetitive because (1) parents have little school choice for their kids, (2) teachers' unions make a merit-based reward system for teachers unworkable, and (3) funding is already guaranteed through taxes.
NCLB and similar acts have good intentions, but aren't effectively executed. The voucher system forces schools to compete for pupils, and lets parents pick which school they want their kids to go to, which is generally the school with the best education in the area.
I'm interested to hear what sources you have that show the voucher system to be a bad thing. I've never heard a good argument against it, and would love to hear the other side of this issue.
Trickle down is not a right wing argument, it's a strawman made up by American Democrats.
Perhaps you should read This Book
Firstly, every system is flawed to personal conflict of interest. I'm sure if we were all mindless drones with the same mindsets, we'd work in a cohesive communist unite, like a bee or ant colony. But we aren't, and capitalism is the best system we have. Regulation and centralized government intervention is what has made the system so corrupt and unfair today.
You should read <em>Capitalism and Freedom</em> by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.