Reddit Reddit reviews Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition

We found 45 Reddit comments about Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Books
Economics
Free Enterprise
Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition
University of Chicago Press
Check price on Amazon

45 Reddit comments about Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition:

u/tuberousplant · 32 pointsr/neoliberal

Milton Friedman speaks fairly eloquently on the topic of trade and tariffs. I'll post a mixture of his statements on the issue of free-trade and the promotion of it, as well as his thoughts on tariffs as a matter of protecting industries to allow it to gain a temporary advantage over other countries, thus creating employment in the process.

> Today, as always, there is much support for tariffs–euphemistically labeled “protection,” a good label for a bad cause. Producers of steel and steelworkers' unions press for restrictions on steel imports from Japan. Producers of TV sets and their workers lobby for “voluntary agreements” to limit imports of TV sets or components from Japan, Taiwan, or Hong Kong. Producers of textiles, shoes, cattle, sugar–they and myriad others complain about “unfair” competition from abroad and demand that government do something to “protect” them. Of course, no group makes its claims on the basis of naked self-interest. Every group speaks of the “general interest,” of the need to preserve jobs or to promote national security. The need to strengthen the dollar vis-à-vis the deutsche mark or the yen has more recently joined the traditional rationalizations for restrictions on imports.

As stated, trade tariffs which are often lobbied for and advocated by certain groups of people commonly make the argument that it is in the self-interest of the general population. The contrary is true: it is in the interest of a select group of people to have tariffs raised or implemented or have subsidies granted under the guise of competitiveness and efficiency. If a U.S. manufacturer is 2x less effective than a Japanese manufacturer at creating a certain good, is it the right decision to subsidize this manufacturer in order to raise its level of competitiveness versus the Japanese one? I would say no. As will be discussed later, jobs lost in export industry are gained in import industry, which is a point often forgotten. Americans will still desire cars or televisions even if there are no American manufacturers to produce said products. New jobs and business in import will appear to fill this employment gap and to provide for the consumer what they desire.

> One voice that is hardly ever raised is the consumer’s. That voice is drowned out in the cacophony of the “interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers” and their employees. The result is a serious distortion of the issue. For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number–for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs–jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.

Countries should produce goods of which they have the comparative advantage in producing. This is low hanging fruit but a good example of this. Why should Canada outsource the production of postage boxes to Belgium when we could readily manufacture them in Canada? If it is inefficient for us to do so then we should not do so, if we can get the good for cheaper elsewhere then we should strive to do that and to produce goods at which we are more effective. If a lawyer is 10x more efficient than practicing law than his secretary and also 2x a faster typist, should the lawyer do both jobs? No, of course not. The lawyer should practice law as comparatively he has the advantage in doing so, and let his secretary do the typing. The argument should not be surrounding the "creation of jobs", but the creation of jobs that are meaningful and more productive and beneficial for our population to be employed in.

> Another fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.

Imports are not bad, and trade deficits are not (necessarily) bad. Nation A trades with Nation B, but Nation B also trades with Nation C, Nation C also trades with Nation A and thus Nation A's currency will return back to their country. Because of markets for foreign currency, it is desirable that we import goods and do not necessarily need large trade surpluses as an indicator of a strong performing economy. The worst case scenario in this example of three countries trading is that if Nation A's currency never returns back into the country. If you were to think of a country as a household, you would certainly wish to pay less to receive more than the other way around.

In fact, Friedman describes almost perfectly why people who believe that the reduction of tariffs will in fact hurt domestic industry are misguided:

> The fallacy in this argument is the loose use of the terms “high” wage and “low” wage. What do high and low wages mean? American workers are paid in dollars; Japanese workers are paid in yen. How do we compare wages in dollars with wages in yen? How many yen equal a dollar? What determines the exchange rate? Consider an extreme case. Suppose that, to begin with, 360 yen equal a dollar. At this exchange rate, the actual rate of exchange for many years, suppose that the Japanese can produce and sell everything for fewer dollars than we can in the United States–TV sets, automobiles, steel, and even soybeans, wheat, milk, and ice cream. If we had free international trade, we would try to buy all our goods from Japan. This would seem to be the extreme horror story of the kind depicted by the defenders of tariffs–we would be flooded with Japanese goods and could sell them nothing.

> Before throwing up your hands in horror, carry the analysis one step further. How would we pay the Japanese? We would offer them dollar bills. What would they do with the dollar bills? We have assumed that at 360 yen to the dollar everything is cheaper in Japan, so there is nothing in the U.S. market that they would want to buy. If the Japanese exporters were willing to burn or bury the dollar bills, that would be wonderful for us. We would get all kinds of goods for green pieces of paper that we can produce in great abundance and very cheaply. We would have the most marvelous export industry conceivable.

> Of course, the Japanese would not in fact sell us useful goods in order to get useless pieces of paper to bury or burn. Like us, they want to get something real in return for their work. If all goods were cheaper in Japan than in the United States at 360 yen to the dollar, the exporters would try to get rid of their dollars, would try to sell them for 360 yen to the dollar in order to buy the cheaper Japanese goods. But who would be willing to buy the dollars? What is true for the Japanese exporter is true for everyone in Japan. No one will be willing to give 360 yen in exchange for one dollar if 360 yen will buy more of everything in Japan than one dollar will buy in the United States. The exporters, on discovering that no one will buy their dollars at 360 yen, will offer to take fewer yen for a dollar. The price of the dollar in terms of the yen will go down–to 300 yen for a dollar or 250 yen or 200 yen. Put the other way around, it will take more and more dollars to buy a given number of Japanese yen. Japanese goods are priced in yen, so their price in dollars will go up. Conversely, U.S. goods are priced in dollars, so the more dollars the Japanese get for a given number of yen, the cheaper U.S. goods become to the Japanese in terms of yen.

> The price of the dollar in terms of yen would fall, until, on the average, the dollar value of goods that the Japanese buy from the United States roughly equaled the dollar value of goods that the United States buys from Japan. At that price everybody who wanted to buy yen for dollars would find someone who was willing to sell him yen for dollars.

The actual situation is much more complex than this overly simplified answer, but it gives a good explanation as to why free-trade and a reduction in tariffs is beneficial. We often ignore the presence and importance of currency exchange markets when it comes to trade.

u/zip_zap_zip · 14 pointsr/Libertarian

Hey eggshellmoudling! I'm at work so I can't pull up many references, but I'll see if I can help with some of your questions here.

First, the question of income inequality being a threat, and how it relates to redistribution. I definitely agree with your assessment of the last answer. It was more of a condonement of wealth redistribution than an explanation of the problem we (saying that as a libertarian, but I don't speak for all of us) have with calling income inequality a threat. In and of itself, wealth inequality is simply a consequence of how society is working. I think that a good argument could be made that inequality IS a threat in a system like we find ourselves in now, because money is so closely tied with power and rich people can use their money to influence the government and get richer. However, a small percentage of a population being incredibly rich isn't inherently bad. As long as they have come across their money in a fair (loaded word) way, as in without coercing or tricking people, they have given enough to society to merit having that amount of wealth. The only potential threat, which is a pretty minor one really, is that they don't spend their money responsibly. If, for example, they use their money to pay every person in the world to stop working, they would disrupt every market and people would starve to death. A more realistic example might be hoarding it in a place where it isn't effectively invested. If they are using the money to invest in other industries or employ people for tasks that add wealth to the system, which almost every rich person does, they aren't hurting anyone by simply being rich.
As far as redistribution goes, we believe that the current amount of inequality is heavily aided by things like redistribution of wealth and government regulations. For an example of that, say a really poor person finds out that they have a knack for orthodontics (not sure how they found that out :p) and that they could help a lot of people and make a ton of money practicing it. It wouldn't matter at all in today's system because they would be restricted by the barriers of entry to that field established by the government. Like I said before, you can argue that wealth inequality is bad right now, IMO, because the rich are so easily able to use their wealth to keep the poor poor through government coersion, which is unfair to the poor.


Second, how do we address the problem of a tiny minority controlling the wealth and allow people like you to thrive? I don't think you'll like my answer to this one, but please understand that I'm trying to be respectful and if anything comes off as rude or condescending I apologize. One way to think of wealth is as a big pool. Production adds wealth to the pool, and by adding to the pool people are allocated a certain portion of the pool. It might help to say this simple truth: there is only as much wealth in the world as is produced. That sounds simple but has huge implications. Mainly, it means that if everyone is doing the thing that they do most effectively, society as a whole benefits from a bigger pool. Now, back to your question. I have addressed the first part already, but when it comes to people that are trying hard but aren't getting a big enough portion of the pool, the fundamental reason (in a market society) is that they aren't contributing enough to earn a bigger portion. They are contributing less to the wealth of the world so they don't get as much wealth themselves. The ways to fix that are to either (1) grow the entire pool or (2) find a new way to gain more of the pool, thereby contributing to (1). That being said, I would be willing to bet that your situation is entirely different from that. For example, I highly doubt that you would feel maxed out on effort, talent, and luck if there weren't so many boundaries set up in society today.

I rambled a bit there but hopefully it was helpful. Let me know if you have questions about anything. If you are interested in why we (or at least I) believe that our system would be the best for every individual on average, I would highly recommend reading Economics In One Lesson or Capitalism and Freedom (this one is a little more difficult). They lay everything out very logically and had a huge impact on my belief system.

u/ItsJustRight · 12 pointsr/Conservative

Milton Friedman was such a wise man. He and Friedrich Hayek were two people I would love to have on my side arguing the merits of capitalism.

Read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" sometime to truly understand what the other side wants to destroy. He even updated his book, I believe three times, as the landscape changed throughout history.

It's pretty fascinating.

u/icewolfsig226 · 12 pointsr/Libertarian

Here is a play list for Free to Choose video series posted on YouTube, all 10 parts.

Free to Choose - Playlist

There was a follow up 5 part series posted 10 years later that I have yet to watch. This original series was amazing though, and the debate held during the second half of an episode is something that is sorely lacking in today's media.

Also follow the book that goes with it - Free to Choose - they serve to complement one another. Read through most of the book so far.

I haven't read this yet, but it has come to me highly recommended Capitalism and Freedom.

u/TheLordPharaoh · 9 pointsr/changemyview

The immediate response is to your last point.

> We are, as a rule, talking about corporate profits here, so the connection between profits and social good is tenuous at best.

First of all, many smaller enterprises, such as YouTubers and other smaller producers are hurt by infringements of copy right as well as corporations and 'The Man'. Additionally, when no third party is harmed by the creation or transaction (called an externality in economics e.g. burning oil is an externality because everyone's natural resources suffer), a profit means that you created a social benefit. Big companies don't get paid arbitrarily; they're paid because people saw merit in their creations and chose to view or purchase those creations, hence, a social good.

If companies, small businesses, and content creators were paid far less for their work, far less quality content will be produced. If Disney knew they would barely turn a profit with every new release, would they throw billions at each movie and really ensure that it is a quality production? While many people are motivated by their own sense of creativity and desire to contribute, a significant portion of creation is driven by the desire for profits (not necessarily a bad thing). Without that desire, there would be no content, no creations for the public to enjoy.

Sauces:
https://youtu.be/tk862BbjWx4

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211


PS: While I believe that copyright and defense of intellectual property is necessary, modern American copyright law is fucking insane. Don't get me started on the DMCA.

u/AncillaryCorollary · 7 pointsr/Libertarian

Yes, please! Also, please include audiobook versions wherever possible as well. I love listening to audiobooks..

I'll start!
Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman
Audiobook
Online Book
Real Book (you know, that that thick rectangle thing with paper in it..

u/ezk3626 · 5 pointsr/Kaiserreich
u/haroldp · 4 pointsr/Libertarian

Great list! Let me add some more moderate titles:

17. That which is seen, and that which is not seen - Introduces the "Parable of the broken window" that underpins "Economics in One Lesson"
18. The Road the Serfdom - the case against collectivism, and prescient roadmap for collectivist failure
19. Free to Choose - in Print and Video
20. Capitalism and Freedom - and how they are linked
21. Civil Disobedience - Every other sentence is a poem to human liberty

u/DrunkHacker · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

Three books I'd suggest, in the order I'd read them:

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek

Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

Outside the libertarian canon, Rousseau's On the Social Contract and Rawls' A Theory of Justice should be on everyone's reading list. Rawls and Nozick are probably the two most influential political philosophers of the late 20th century and understanding their arguments about the justification of property rights and the original position are the ABCs of modern political debate.

u/UnnamedNamesake · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Here's one for you.

And we don't have books because Communists burned them all.

u/workpuppy · 3 pointsr/history

Capitalism and Freedom doesn't really leave much doubt as to his views on the subject. Heh.

Everything is so damn polarized these days.

u/psykocrime · 3 pointsr/Economics

Mmm... I have this but haven't gotten to it yet. Just started Sowell's Intellectuals and Society, but maybe I'll finally start this one next. But I also want to get through Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and Free To Choose and F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Gah... so many books, so little time to read...

<sigh />

u/ThisIsEgregious · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

OP, if you're seriously exploring libertarianism (at least to properly understand it) I would suggest watching and reading the work of Milton Friedman.

  1. Power of the Market - The Pencil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

  2. Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Fortieth-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0226264211

    There are lots of youtube videos of Milton Friedman and I highly recommend Capitalism and Freedom. In that book, he lays out how capitalism and free enterprise works better than government systems, no matter how well-intentioned or thoroughly planned-out they are. Based on your initial post, I think you'd find many of his arguments interesting and compelling.

    Edit w/ question: holybartender, why do you believe marijuana, or any drug, should be legalized?

    I'm curious to hear your answer as I'd bet it echoes many libertarian themes...
u/hondaaccords · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

Capitalism and Freedom

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

One of the most important books ever published by the greatest libertarian of the 20th century, Milton Friedman

u/Phredex · 2 pointsr/tampa

My wages are most certainly not below poverty levels. They were for a very short time when I was young, drunk and stupid, but then I realized that it was 100% up to me if I wanted to continue living like that.

I didn't, and I don't.

You say that the "large corporations" don't pay a "living wage". What do you believe a living wage is?

It did not take me very long at all to recognize that what I am paid is 100% based on the value I give to someone else, or the company I happen to work for right now.

You also mention "tax breaks" to corporations. You do, of course, realize that corporations do NOT pay taxes, and that any money that is funneled through the corporation to the Government (taxes) come directly out of the price the customers pay for the products? Every dime.

And that by adding uncountable levels of bureaucracy to the collection and distribution of money (taxes) it ends up costing far more than it otherwise would.

Jesus, kid, pick up an economics book and learn a little bit before you spout nonsense that you picked up in junior high school.

Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwdineshdsou-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0226264211

u/Spellersuntie · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Not everything I'm going to list is really libertarian per se but I think they do give important context for the libertarian/broader right wing movement

Economics in One Lesson. It's repetitive but gets the point across

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a philosophical perspective

IThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's difficult to call Heinlein a libertarian but this book definitely is. Also where the 'rational' part of my flair comes from!

There is No Alternative. I'm not sure how many people would consider Thatcher a libertarian but she's an important part of the history of the modern struggle against socialism that I think is overlooked in the United States

The Fatal Conceit. One of Hayek's must read works. A much shorter one that is I think just as important, Why I Am Not a Conservative

Atlas Shrugged. I'm not saying it's a good book or that you don't know of it but it's worth thumbing through just to see what all the hubbub's about. Prepare yourself for a latent S&M fetish.

Capitalism and Freedom. Maybe reading this will help you figure out why Naomi Klein seems to hate Friedman so much. Also very good and much more digestible is his television series Free to Choose and the similarly titled book

The Communist Manifesto. Provides good context. And maybe a chuckle.

u/rufus_driftwood · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

>Is there any actual evidence backing this claim?

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0226320618

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx


> i know that extremely high taxes would be detrimental but im thinking about taxes like 30-40%.

30-40% taxes are extremely high. Michael Caine and many others have vowed to leave England if the top tax rate exceeds 50%.

u/blacktrance · 2 pointsr/TrueAskReddit

Mises.org - What I think of as the "default libertarian position", to which others are compared. Some minarchists, some anarcho-capitalists. Ranging from culturally conservative to culturally neutral.

Reason Magazine - Reformist libertarian magazine. Mostly utilitarian moderates opposed to cultural conservatism.

Bleeding Heart Libertarians - Culturally radical libertarians, mostly minarchists and moderates with a few anarcho-capitalists. Recently had a debate about the NAP. Some deontologists, some virtue ethicists.

Center for a Stateless Society - Culturally radical free-market anti-capitalist anarcho-capitalists, and a few left-wing anarchists.

EconLog - Blog run by libertarian economists, though the material is accessible to the layman. The related EconLib has libertarian articles and books, and a few non-libertarian books about economics.

Roderick Long - Quasi-Objectivist virtue ethicist, culturally radical anarcho-capitalist.

Lew Rockwell - Former Ron Paul staffer, cultural conservative.

David Friedman - Utilitarian anarcho-capitalist, son of Milton Friedman.

Capitalism and Freedom - Book arguing for moderate libertarianism on utilitarian grounds.

/r/Libertarian - Mostly minarchists, sometimes culturally conservative.

/r/Anarcho_Capitalism - Anarcho-capitalists, as one would expect.

/r/Objectivism - Objectivists, as the name implies.

/r/LibertarianLeft - Mostly left-wing anarchists, but there are some left-leaning anarcho-capitalists too.

If you want more, I still have plenty of resources.

u/tgjj123 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

The Law - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594315/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1936594315

Economics in one lesson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0517548232

That which is seen and is not seen - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453857508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1453857508

Our enemy, the state - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E28SUM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001E28SUM

How capitalism save america - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400083311/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1400083311

New Deal or Raw Deal - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416592377/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1416592377

Lessons for the Young Economist - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550880/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550880

For a New Liberty - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610162641/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1610162641

What Has Government Done to Our Money? - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146997178X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146997178X

America's Great Depression - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146793481X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146793481X

Defending the Undefendable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550171/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550171

Metldown - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596985879

The Real Lincoln - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463

The Road to Serfdom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320553/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226320553

Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226264211

Radicals for Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586485725/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1586485725

Production Versus Plunder - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979987717/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0979987717

Atlas Shrugged - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452011876

The Myth of the Rational Voter - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691138737/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=0691138737

Foutainhead - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452273331/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452273331&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20

Anthem - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281253/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452281253&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20

There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!

u/seawolf06 · 1 pointr/BehavioralEconomics

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0517548232/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Qr69Ab6X58RAC

Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226264211/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_3w69Ab3PSWN8X

u/Calber4 · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

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.

u/JustAsIgnorantAsYou · 1 pointr/investing

Republicans just don't believe in the Bible anymore.

u/T0mThomas · 1 pointr/Libertarian

> 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.

u/ChoiceBandedSmeargle · 1 pointr/teenagers
  1. You should read up on lots of different ideologies these books are the good ones as they are pretty short and give a decent understanding of each school of thought.
    1. For Left Lib read the Conquest of Bread here
    2. For Auth Lib read the Manifesto here
    3. For Lib Right read Capitalism and Freedom which you can buy here
    4. For Liberalism/Conservatism just read any modern political theory
  2. Your first point while right is the exact problem AnComs try and prevent, because by dismantling power structures people cannot even make it to the top since there is no top.

    also thanks for the actual discussion, most people here are just calling me a Cuck then repeating points I already debunked
u/4chanisverysucks · 1 pointr/neoliberal

What are some good introductory economics books? Is this good?

u/PewpFog · 1 pointr/worldnews

"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

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I can only guess that you will love it and consider your life enriched by it

u/AngryDevilsAdvocate · 1 pointr/politics

Well I did read this

And then this

I'm currently on this

But I will admit, all three have said the same basic thing. Or at least, argued in the same direction. It's the cycle of "artists who sound like", where I only listen to radiohead and then porcupine tree and then bjork and then and then and then and I never hear anything new.

Give me a good contrary economic book, and if I can find it for less than 10 bucks used, I'll read it next month.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/politics

>Everyone can work hard, put in absurd hours and absurd amounts of effort, but not everyone can be rewarded.

Not true. Everyone that provides something of value to society is rewarded. It's not about "working hard," you need to actually contribute something to society to get rewarded for it.

The point is that we require a functional economy. If everyone was rewarded based on "working hard," we could all step outside, dig a hole, and then fill the same hole with dirt from another hole that someone else was digging. Hard work, yes, but totally worthless economically.

>Capitalism necessitates a hierarchy

Not true again. Capitalism presupposes nothing except that individuals are allowed the free exchange of their goods and services amongst one another. Socialism is defined by a rigid hierarchy where a select few individuals at the top have the sole power of providing employment. Socialism is, in fact, much more elitist than Capitalism, because in Capitalism there are any number of job creators, while in socialism there is only one.

>And of course the practical implementation of it is a failure.

Oh really? The economic system we've had in place, that has succeeded in bringing us through centuries of mindboggling technological progress, that has brought the quality of life up for every single individual (even the poorest person today lives better than a king hundreds of years ago), is "of course" a failure? Why have capitalist economies flourished for hundreds of years when every single attempt at socialism has resulted in a worsening economy and eventual bankruptcy?

>The theoretical model presupposes a fully egalitarian society

Again, incorrect. I'm starting to think your distrust of capitalism is from a complete failure of comprehension. Capitalism presumes that individuals are self interested and offers them a mechanism with which to express that self interest in order to benefit society. It's actually a rather ingenious device and set up.

>But the beauty of the notion, if we can get past that hitch, is that no one is left behind, no one is left out.

No one is left out in capitalism either. The only difference is the reward structure. If you don't want to contribute anything to society, a capitalist society will force you to provide for your own needs by growing your own food and making your own clothes. You will not be able to participate in market actions because you are not providing anything to the market. In socialism, these people are rewarded for doing nothing at the expense of those who actually do contribute to the overall economic wellfare. This is why life in socialist societies becomes steadily worse- the economic drain of the unproductive does in every socialist society.

>A real, effective system would require a system of human checks

Something like the human checks that natural competition provides in Capitalism? Why not allow multiple competitors to provide alternative products and let the people decide which one is better by which one they purchase? You cannot have a centrally run system checking itself. Once you put all of the power of employ into one place, you negate the power that any other institutions have. Whoever controls the ability of people to provide food for and clothe their family de facto controls the society. In Socialism, this is the government. In Capitalism, it is the people themselves.

>the instillation of the belief in children that helping others for mutual benefit is better than scheming for personal profit

This is again a failure of comprehension. Personal profit is not a dirty thing. One can only achieve personal profit by providing something of "mutual benefit" to society in a capitalist society. Furthermore, you're asking that human nature of wanting to help oneself and one's family to go away. But why? We have already addressed this with capitalism.

>The modern failure of it was the internally capitalist and hierarchical structure

Again, you're deadset on the idea that capitalism is hierarchical and socialism is not. Centrally planned authority is by its nature hierarchical, and dispersed, decentralized power will be less so. Don't keep it in your mind that capitalism is hierarchical and socialism is not- the latter is far more prone to great discrepancies than the first, and this has been proven time and time again in practical applications of socialism.

>I can see the appeal of both ideals, but I feel one would be more rewarding both personally and socially.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that you can because your understanding of both is flawed. Again, you're doing what all socialists do, which is comparing your ideals of socialism to the practical applications of capitalism.

I suggest you read Capitalism and Freedom to understand a bit more about capitalism, because this is where your knowledge is truly lacking.





u/liburty · 1 pointr/Libertarian

cap·i·tal·ism

  1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

    Yeah sounds like what I want. People voluntarily and spontaneously trading labor or capital for goods and services, unhindered by a coercive authority. A free market whose prices are reflected by consumers and production costs, uninterrupted by government protectionist policies, and so forth. It's obviously more complex.

    Here are some good books for ya. Read up.
u/btcthinker · 1 pointr/politics

> I think you have trouble understanding that I know that Capitalism is a very effective way to drive innovation as long as it may generate profit.

Great, so now we agree on something... it's not much, but it's something.

> It is however a very bad driver for innovation when there is not much profit behind it.

I never said it was perfect! What I am saying is that overall, it's the most efficient way to drive innovation across the board. That is, overall, it will produce more innovative ideas than any other model out there.

> But even if it would be the most awesome innovation driver ever and have no downsides in that department, it is fatally flawed in its core. Now I could give you the work of Dr. Murray Low to read as well (https://www.amazon.com/Seventeen-Contradictions-Capitalism-David-Harvey/dp/1781251606/280-4905634-3720005)

If you're done trying to make the logical case for your position, then I'll start throwing books and videos your way too!

The fact is that good ideas stand on their own merits. I don't need to watch a 90 minute video from somebody with whom I can't have a discussion. If I don't agree with any of the premises he proposes, then I have no way to rebut them and get an answer.

> When a system is as flawed as Capitalism we must look out for alternatives. And that may be Communism (or for Marxists rather Socialism because that is the transition before Communism).

We already know which systems provides us with the fundamentals to consistently and efficiently produce the most good ideas and eliminate the bad ones:

  • In science, it's the scientific method.
  • In politics, it's democracy.
  • In economics, it's capitalism.

    Are all of these system perfect? Far from it, but they're the most efficient ones we have available. Now, I'm all for the proposal and adoption of better ideas, but we've already tried the bad ones (religion, dictatorship, communism, etc.), so we don't need to try them again.

    > Also I am really interested in what "pure" Socialism is? There are multiple Socialist Systems: Anarchism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Planned Economy Socialism, and so on and on...

    We start with a fundamental concept: effort and reward. When I place my effort into something, which system will allow for the most efficient and largest yield of reward? If any of those forms of socialism do, and they do so more efficiently than capitalism, then let's adopt them. And if you're claiming that they do, then please bring forth the evidence that demonstrates it.
u/errantventure · 1 pointr/economy

>... what the imf did to the third world ...

Develop its industry? Build its infrastructure? Seed its capital markets? Bring its population from malaria-ridden jungles and into cities? Those heartless globalizing bastards!

But seriously though, get educated:

Niall Ferguson:
http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/1594201927

Milton Friedman:
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

Matt Ridley:
http://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-How-Prosperity-Evolves/dp/006145205X

Hernando De Soto:
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016146

u/CyclopesD · 1 pointr/The_Donald

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.

u/zugi · 1 pointr/Libertarian

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.

u/youreprobablyignoran · 0 pointsr/politics

>This is what conservatives mean when they talk about "government nanny state overreach".

This is called a straw-man.

Nanny State

>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.

Milton Friedman

F. A. Hayek

>It's downright undemocratic.

This is downright wrong. Democracy

u/zubzub2 · 0 pointsr/politics

>Let me be perfectly clear: there can be no liberty in a a world where no free market exists. Central planning necessitates control of every variable in order to maximize the result to society, which means that citizens participating in the plan must adhere to the central planners' decrees. Being offered choices by one's authoritarian rulers is not the equivalent to liberty; that is a false dichotomy.

Honestly, that's no more than asserting your own views.

I've seen some arguments in favor of economic freedom being necessary for other forms of freedom in Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom that are well-supported. Many such claims, though, seem to be little more than bald assertions. (And even of Friedman's arguments, while they may all be perfectly true, I'd prefer a more extensive collection of data supporting them, even if it made his book longer and more boring.)

u/TobiKato · 0 pointsr/politics

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.

u/howardson1 · -4 pointsr/Anarchism

i think it's unfair to say that all the right believes the poor are bums. Since the 60's, many elements on the right have recognized that poverty is the outcome of government policies that prevent the poor from generating income.

Look at Milton Friedman's [capitalism and freedom] (http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Fortieth-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0226264211) and clarence carson's [the war on the poor] (http://www.amazon.com/POOR-Negative-affects-government-programs/dp/B000J0IDVO/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407590748&sr=1-14&keywords=the+war+on+the+poor) and later Walter Williams' [the state against blacks] (http://www.amazon.com/State-Against-Blacks-Walter-Williams/dp/0070703787/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407590807&sr=1-1&keywords=the+state+against+blacks) an Charles murray's losing ground. All of these books are about institutional poverty resulting from government policies that make life worse for the poor, not a culture of poverty.

The poster's idea sounds like an unfeasible utopia. Societies without property rights are dirt poor; read Hernando de soto.

Getting rid of occupational licensing laws, zoning laws, the war on drugs, the social security tax, and compulsory schooling laws (which divert money and resources away from kids interested in learning and turn schools into prisons for those who don't) should help alleviate poverty.

u/choofyuppy · -5 pointsr/AustralianPolitics

>Literally nothing you have said is a factual statement. You’re just regurgitating the exact same talking points the OP mentioned. All bluster, zero substance.

“men should stop raping women” - Sarah Hanson Young. For a party who prides itself on gender equality, they sure know how to conflate all men into the rapey category. Replace "men" with another noun in public and see how it sounds, you'd probably be dragged into the human rights court.

>You “read some books” did you? Which ones exactly did you read, and which parts of them are you citing to support your tirade?

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

Give them a read, maybe you'll grow up.

>Also, you can fuck right off with your jingoistic “traditional Australian values” bullshit. Unless you’re an indigenous Australian, you have no more claim to what constitutes traditional Australian values than anyone else living here. We are an egalitarian nation, a nation that believes in fairness and a “fair go”. That sounds a lot closer to Socialism than the capitalist welfare state you’re batting for.

Didn't take long to go from "Indigenous Australians" to "Socialism" - so I won't take you seriously from here on in. Also, don't pretend like Australia is the only country that has been conquered and had it's culture changed by the conquers, it's pretty much happened to every piece of dirt on the planet...

>On the subject of “capitalism and markets”, no one in Australia hates fair competition more than the LNP. Government grants with no tender process? That’s not capitalism. Massive tax breaks and government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry? That’s not capitalism. The Greens would welcome a level playing field, where neither fossil fuels or the renewables industry got any government money. Would you?

Assuming I support the LNP. Assuming I support croney capitalism > free markets. Assuming I support subsidies at all. Assuming I don't support a level playing field that comes with free market capitalism. Pretending like the Greens even support a level playing field, because they don't support the idea of letting the market decide between renewable and fossil fuels naturally (even when renewables are winning the race, naturally, no thanks to big government, rather individuals and big tech).

https://greens.org.au/platform/renewables

"Under our plan, a set percentage of electric vehicle sales by car manufacturers will be mandated so that fossil fuel cars are transitioned off the road, and the cost of electric vehicles will be significantly reduced so more people can buy them sooner. "

https://greens.org.au/platform/public-ownership

"The Greens believe electricity, banking and the internet should be run as essential services, putting public good before corporate profit."

Totally a level playing field /s

Hitler, Marx, Lennin, Napoleon (totally not tyrants) loved Nationalizing things too and history shows it worked wonders /s

I better Venezuela to that list, nationalising everything there went exactly to plan /s

>I’m predicting you have nothing coherent to say and crawl back under your rock after some pathetic insults and a half-arsed assertion of victory. Surprise me.

Speak for yourself. Go take a long hard look in the mirror.

u/TofetTheGu · -8 pointsr/farming

My god. That is the most delusional and disingenuous thought process I've heard in awhile. Do yourself a favor and read these fantastic books before you belief system destroys the United States of America: Capitalism and Freedom, Why Government Is the Problem and Basic Economics.

Bonus points I think you hit almost every liberal regurgitated talking points.