JayB Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 [video:youtube] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 The public is reaching the tipping point for pot policy reform right now. Look for legalization in several key states by 2012, most of the rest will follow suit within a few years, leaving the moron states behind, as usual. If Obama gets reelected, look for a change in federal law. If not...let's all ride that idiot train one more time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 i was hoping this woulda featured "manimal" milton sucking down a bongload or two Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 As if Friedman's ideology meant fewer economic monopolies. 30+ years of friedmanomics have made it much difficult to open a local hardware store and compete against the giants than taking on the drug cartel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 12, 2010 Author Share Posted April 12, 2010 Quick - someone break the news to Hardwicks! Anyhow - being a protectionist through and through I wasn't expecting you to break form when it came to drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 I didn't say anything about drugs, I only remarked that Friedmanomics accomplished the exact opposite of what it claimed to do, like much of free market fundamentalism. There isn't an economic sector where consolidation into oligopolies and huge entry costs aren't the rule since Friedman's economics theories became predominant. There is a big difference between fair trade and protectionism but I don't expect you to acknowledge it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 12, 2010 Author Share Posted April 12, 2010 I didn't say anything about drugs, I only remarked that Friedmanomics accomplished the exact opposite of what it claimed to do, like much of free market fundamentalism. There isn't an economic sector where consolidation into oligopolies and huge entry costs aren't the rule since Friedman's economics theories became predominant. You mean like local, organic produce and microbrews vs Agribusiness and Budweiser? Two examples in two seconds! The bigger the government, the greater the advantages for big business. Be it drugs or rugs. Its sort of like the Mentos of market competition. "The Cartelmaker!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 12, 2010 Author Share Posted April 12, 2010 But enough about that - what specific points of Friedman's arguments for the legalization of drugs do you disagree with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 You mean like local, organic produce and microbrews vs Agribusiness and Budweiser? Two examples in two seconds! as if organic producers didn't have to increasingly compete with agribusiness thanks to relaxation of regulations. Before long agribusiness will control that sector too. you denial that Friedman's so called free market competition has in fact engineered massive consolidations of most economic sectors into oligopolies is revealing and not very convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 But enough about that - what specific points of Friedman's arguments for the legalization of drugs do you disagree with? what Friedman thought about drugs is hardly relevant considering the economic fiasco his policies caused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 You mean like local, organic produce and microbrews vs Agribusiness and Budweiser? Two examples in two seconds! The bigger the government, the greater the advantages for big business. Be it drugs or rugs. Its sort of like the Mentos of market competition. "The Cartelmaker!" I thought the natural monopoly was the beatific business state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 most natural monopolies have been completely deregulated and turned over to the private sector. Just consider the nonexistent competition among cable operators for an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 As I recall from reading Mr. Milton centuries ago in biz school, he claimed that many capitalism's ills were due to non free market practices that create artificial competitive advantages, incentives, and shifted costs. Polluters not paying for cleaning up their messes and for the resources they destroyed, agricultural subsidies, and now, drug policy. Hard to argue with any of the points above, although I'm sure this represents a woefully incomplete summary of his beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 most natural monopolies have been completely deregulated and turned over to the private sector. Just consider the nonexistent competition among cable operators for an example. Which current monopolies are completely deregulated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 most natural monopolies have been completely deregulated and turned over to the private sector. Just consider the nonexistent competition among cable operators for an example. You're embarrassing yourself--again. Local regulators have been in bed with cable operators for decades--as well as trash haulers, energy companies, cell and land phone providers, etc. They are only monopolies insomuch as your precious government overlords allow them to be--and for a price, no less! Additionally, you might want to look at the Tacoma exception. (I know, sigh, this means actually educating yourself.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 As I recall from reading Mr. Milton centuries ago in biz school, he claimed that many capitalism's ills were due to non free market practices that create artificial competitive advantages, incentives, and shifted costs. Polluters not paying for cleaning up their messes and for the resources they destroyed, agricultural subsidies, and now, drug policy. Hard to argue with any of the points above, although I'm sure this represents a woefully incomplete summary of his beliefs. Friedman was a neoliberal whose main objective was complete deregulation to enable laissez faire or anarcho-capitalism. The results of which can be admired today in the state of the world economy as well as that of the nations that went bankrupt before this financial crisis (Argentina, Russia, Asian tigers, etc ..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Friedman was a neoliberal whose main objective was complete deregulation to enable laissez faire or anarcho-capitalism. The results of which can be admired today in the state of the world economy as well as that of the nations that went bankrupt before this financial crisis (Argentina, Russia, Asian tigers, etc ..) Don't forget the stunning success of the neoliberal project in Iraq! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 most natural monopolies have been completely deregulated and turned over to the private sector. Just consider the nonexistent competition among cable operators for an example. Which current monopolies are completely deregulated? Well? You made the statement, are you going to avoid providing examples for your claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.