Professor Milton Friedman: 'Liberty and Equality? (1978)'

Source:Brittle 13- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about liberty and equality, in 1978.

"Milton Friedman 1978.  From a lecture given at Stanford University. From Milton Friedman Speaks: Lecture 04, "The Role of Government in a Free Society:Free To Choose." 

From Brittle 13

As Classical Liberal economist Milton Friedman said, a society that aims for equality over liberty, will have neither. The reason being that if you keep taking from the wealthy to give to the poor, you take incentive that people need to make money. Because government will just jack it away from them. 

If society aims for liberty so people can live their own lives and essentially govern themselves and be as successful as their skills and production will allow, people who are better educated, more inventive, more creative, more strategic, more productive, will be more successful in life than people who aren’t. As they should be, because they put in the work to make that happen. Thats called capitalist economics, liberal capitalism, or liberal economics, even, where people can make as much money and be as successful as they can essentially can be. To have a strong economy, people have to have the incentive to be successful, or they won’t be.

But what we can have is an economy where we have equality of liberty where everyone has a shot to be as successful in life by getting a good education. And then putting those skills to work the best that they can. No economic system is perfect. Everyone comes with plus’ and minus’. The trick is to have an economic system that works the best. Where the plus’ outweighs the minus’s so much, that system is worth having. 

A progressive tax system is part of that, but not to the point that you tax wealth so much, that you take incentive away to create wealth in the first place. But a tax and educational system that encourages people to make money and for wealth to be created, instead of punishing those activities. And not having more incentive for people to be dependent on government for their financial survival.

There’s so such thing as true equality in any economic system. Where everyone is equal at least in a good way. In any economic system, where’s there’s a substantial amount of economic freedom, so people can make a good living, some people are going to make more money than others. Because we aren’t all equal economically, some people just bring more skills to the table than others. 

In a classical socialist economy where the state owns the economy, everyone might be equal economically, but they are all poor, unless they have a good government job. Take Cuba for example, but even they have moved to open up parts of their economy to privatization. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Paul Krugman: 'It's Not Fair That Some People Are Rich'

Source:Paul Krugman Blog- New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, talking about wealth inequality.

"The anecdotes in Paul Krugman's book Conscience of a Liberal destroy many of the myths about the Canadian system. It is mystifying that people talk about how long people must wait for hip replacements in Canada, but 2/3 of the hip replacements in the United States are already provided by Medicare. The United States healthcare system will be much better funded, so our system will be much better. 

There is not a hiring market for CEOs. They are paid based on the recommendations of a committee that is appointed by the CEO. In the 40s and 50s, this lead to incomes that was 30 or 40 times higher than the average worker. Now it is more like 350 times higher. There was a lower threshold for outrage back then. They didn't like that people were getting laid off when the CEOs were paying themselves so much. 

But now the political climate has changed. Now, if times are good, then they get a huge cut of the profits. If times are bad, then they are let go and they get a multi-million dollar severance package. This type of thing pervades the economy. Just look at people's expectations for equality in the workplace. It just isn't there, and that is because the climate has changed. 

In most rich countries, income is fairly equal. In poor countries, there is a wide distribution in income. If you look at America, they are somewhere in between. They are moving away from the Scandinavian countries and looking more and more like Latin American countries like Brazil. In Brazil, traffic is terrible, but the rich don't care because they always travel by helicopter. 

The problem isn't just that the rich have siphoned off all of the wealth of the past few decades, it is that there is a disintegration of society." 

From the Paul Krugman Blog 

When it comes to deciding what type of economic system a country should have, there are some things that have to be decided first. 

What's the best economic system for your particular country and you can look at other countries for ideas as well. But that doesn't mean what works in another country will automatically work in your country. What works in Canada, or America or Sweden might not work in France, Brazil or Mexico. 

You need to figure out how much freedom and ability if any, you're willing to give your population to deicide what type of life they are going to have and how much quality of life they'll be able to achieve. And how much taxes they are going to pay if any, how much assistance from government will be provided if any, for people who at the time can't quite make it on their own. 

How much regulation if any you're going to have, the rules of the road that individuals and business's will have. Will you have a private sector or not or a combination of a private-public sector economy, that Europe has.

Personally I believe in the economic system that America had up until ten years ago where people were able to make as much money as their skills and production would allow legally. Where people paid taxes based on their income, the more you made the more you paid essentially. And where government regulated how individuals and business's interacted with each other to prevent and punish abuses. And where we made things in America instead of shipping jobs oversees. 

To now where we have a system where the more you make, the more taxes you can escape from paying and get the biggest benefits in tax cuts. And where we have now a free and unfettered market thats not regulated very well, take Wall Street for example: a big reason for the Great Recession of 2008 that we are still struggling from. 

But I'm also not in favor of a socialist state whether it's Marxist Socialism, where the State owns the means of production in society and there's very little if any economic freedom for the people and there isn't any private sector. Take North Korea more of a 4th World country than a 3rd World country and easily one of the poorest countries in the World. 

I'm also not in favor of a social democratic economy, where even though there is a private sector, but where it's highly taxed (by American standards) and highly regulated (again, by American standards) and where the Central Government essentially collects all of the revenue in the economy and passes out its benefits to the people it feels needs its the most to finance an expansive welfare state, where you can essentially make a good living collecting Unemployment Insurance. (Take Sweden, for example) But even Sweden is rethinking their welfare system.

The best economic system for America is and why we did have the strongest economy in the world not just the largest ten years ago, is where everyone has a shot at a good education and can go out in the private sector and make as much money as their skills and production will allow. And pay taxes based on how much you make, where the economy is well regulated but not over regulated. Where the people are expected to be able to take care of themselves but where there's a safety net for people who fall down to help them get up. 

Thats what we had from 1981-2001, except for a couple of recessions and it resulted in the best economy the world has ever seen. Which is why so many former socialist economies have moved in our direction instead of the former Soviet Union. 

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Hefner- Milton Friedman: 'Other People's Money (1975)'

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman.

"Professor Friedman examines the dynamics of "doing good" with other people's money:Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

If you make money on your own, you have a job you get a pay check, or if you work for yourself, you support yourself with your own business, chances are if you're responsible, you're going to spend your own money in a responsible manner. Because if you don't, you're going to pay a price for that. (No pun intended) But for your own irresponsible spending. And have less money than you otherwise would've had on things you need to spend money on to survive, had you spent your money responsibly. 

So knowing that you're most likely to spend your money in a responsible way. When you're spending others people money, you should spend it in the responsible way that you would spend your own money. Not believing that you can take more chances with other people's money. Especially if you're spending someone's money and they give you more money and keep giving you money. 

You're not going to be as responsible generally speaking, because mistakes you make with other peoples money, unless consequences come with that spending, won't effect you the same way. As the persons whose credit card, or checkbook, or even cash that you're spending. So you're going to be more likely to make mistakes spending other people's money than your own. Because it doesn't come with the same consequences. 

The Federal Government is a perfect example of this and why it wastes so much money. 100B$ a year alone in some programs and departments alone. (According to GAO) Because the Federal Government doesn't make a dime on its own, all of its revenue comes from tax collection. Plus since it controls the U.S. Currency, it can print money like drunk sailors spend it. Giving it even more incentive to waste money and spend it irresponsibly. 

I bet you anything that if the Federal Government was a business (and I'm not suggesting it should be) that they would be a lot more efficient with the taxes it collects. I'm not making a case for not having a Federal Government, or making it weak. But what I am suggesting that it have solid rules on what it spends the money on that it collects. And that there's strong oversight from Congress and the GAO (the Government Accountability Office) on its spending and operations to cut back on the waste in it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

CSPAN: President Obama- 'Announces Afghanistan Troop Reduction'

Source:CSPAN- President Barack H. Obama, addressing the nation on his Afghanistan policy.

"Speaking from the White House, President Obama announced that 10,000 American forces would leave Afghanistan by the end of this year and another 20,000 would be withdrawn by the end of next year." 

From CSPAN

I supported the War in Afghanistan originally back in October 2001 shortly after 9/11, because Afghanistan was harboring some of the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11. As well as Afghanistan being a safe harbor for other terrorist activities. And we needed to get those people to prevent other Terrorists Attacks on America in the future. 

I didn't agree with how we funded the War in Afghanistan from the beginning and now. Borrowing over a trillion dollars and putting all of that money on the national debt card. The War in Afghanistan represents around 10% of our national debt alone. Military operations is something America is very good at. Nation building, not so much. 

Just look at our country for example: we need some nation building of our own, we need to rebuild our infrastructure, our roads, bridges, buildings, airports, our waters, our schools. As well as building things that we don't currently have to reduce traffic congestion (for example) by building more roads. 

If you look at what the original mission in Afghanistan was, get the terrorists, knock the Taliban out of power and install another government thats no longer a threat to us. Mission accomplished, we accomplished that nine years ago. 

The question now is where do we go from here. If the mission is to establish a new republic in Afghanistan with a functioning central government thats responsible without corruption, we are not going to accomplish that. 

If occupying a country which is what we are doing in Afghanistan and making the case that we need to be there until they have a responsible central government, then we could make that case to occupy several of Afghanistan's neighbors, like Pakistan and Iran. Afghanistan is going to have to decide what kind of country they are going to have going forward, we can't do that for them and be there indefinitely. 

At some point and by the end of 2011 I believe, we are going to have to decide whether Afghanistan can have a responsible central government going forward or not and how likely that is. If the answer is no which I believe it is, then we need to pull out and declare mission accomplished and declare we did all we could and accomplished what we originally set out. 

If the answer is yes, then we have to have a clear plan that everyone can understand and have a coalition behind us to help up accomplish that plan.

Motor Eagles: 'Advice on Women Bikers'

Source: Motor Eagles- Biker chick with advice. 

Source:The Daily Post 

"Renee's advice on Women Bikers. MotorEagles: Cool Bikes. Cool Riders (series)."

Source:The Free State- Biker chick and her bike. 

From Motor Eagles

The sexiest look on women today in my opinion, is the tight denim jeans with boots look. Whether they are jeans in boots or over boots. You see sexy women all the time wearing boots with their tight denim jeans, because it's the perfect way for a woman to show off her legs and butt. Sexy women to me physically, beautiful and well-built. Personally sexy women to me are confident women that know that they are sexy because they are sexy. 

Women who have the confidence to look sexy out in public. We see tight denim jeans with boots on women in all cultures. Celebrity, Rock & Roll, biker, country, hip hop they are all over the place. It's a mainstream and universal look, that became popular in the late 70s. With the tight dark wash designer denim jeans look that exploded in America. That was brought back into style around 2005 and has stayed ever since and if anything getting larger. 

Because this look is the perfect way for sexy women to show off their bodies. That they work hard to maintain by eating healthy balanced meals and working out. And guys including myself love these ladies for it. Ladies just need to make sure that they are wearing the right tight denim jeans for their bodies as well as boots. Because there isn’t much room for error with them because of how revealing they are. Its great to see biker chicks and sexy women of all backgrounds wearing this look. And just more evidence of how universal it is. 

PZI Jeans: Curvy Model Lynette- Shows of Her Curves: In PZI Skinny Jeans

Source:PZI Jeans- Curvy model Lynette, for PZI Jeans.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Curvy Model Lynette shows off her curves in PZI Jeans.” 

From PZI Jeans

Source:Jeans So Tight- feel free to check out her curve appeal: she's showing it off.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bone-thin woman who I considered sexy at least physically. I’m not into stereotypical valley girls, the tall rail thin blonde women with light complexions. That freak out about gaining a pound and put down people who eat full meals and work out. Brittany Spears would be an example of a valley girl who actually eats full balanced meals and works out and has an excellent body. But generally these women are rail-thin and put down people who aren’t. Curvy women back in the day were considered fat and unattractive in the 1970s and 80s. But by the late 1990s curvy women became stylish as long as they had tight curves and weren’t fat.

And this trend that started in the late 90s has been that way ever since and hopefully always be that way. And now we even see tight denim skinny jeans for curvy women and that will continue to grow. Women who are curvy, with tight curves, are sexy women to me because they are healthy. They eat full balanced meals and work out, they want to look good and show the rest of the world what they are working with. And because they are sexy, they are confident without being arrogant and have another sexy quality about them. They look great and know it.

And from a guys point of view, you see sexy curvy in tight denim jeans a lot, out in public or on TV. Rachael Ray being a perfect example of this, a woman who I would describe as the Queen of Hip Hugger Jeans. She knows she has a great body and wants the world to know it. And in some cases especially in Europe, you see healthy curvy women in tight leather jeans like on their soap operas. Health curvy women to me are sexy women because they take care of themselves and don’t starve themselves. And they should be proud of that and not be afraid to let the world see that because men especially will love them for it.

Larry King Live: Michael Moore: 'French & American Taxes'

Source:CNN- filmmaker/ political activist Michael Moore, on Larry King Live, I believe in 2009.

"Michael Moore On French & American Taxes"

From CNN

What Michael Moore and his followers don't understand is, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you pay taxes that is you're paying taxes which most Americans do you are paying for all these public services through taxes, which is money coming out of your wallet. 

There's no such thing as free health care, free education, free transportation, free pension or free anything in France, or anywhere else from the Federal or any other government, if you pay taxes. And if you consume services from the private sector, unless someone pays for those services for you you're paying for them out of your wallet as well. 

So when Michael Moore said that France only has a 10% Federal tax rate, he failed to mention all the other taxes that the French pay for to their Federal Government. which is what Larry King followed up on with Mr. Moore by asking him about the other payroll taxes that the French pay for. Maybe the only time I've ever been proud of Larry King for anything.

Also if you pay taxes, you're not only paying for the public services that you pay for, but you're paying for the public services that people who don't pay taxes consume. Because they don't make enough money to pay income taxes. So you're working to support yourself and your family and to pay for the public services you receive. But you're also working to pay for the public services that people who don't pay income taxes receive. 

The question is not whether we should pay taxes or pay for services that we receive in the public or private sectors or not. That question has already been answered, of course we should pay for the services that we receive. 

When me make our points in debates like this and and try to lay out what's the best vision for America and what America should like, we should stay as close to the facts as possible and speak to what we know. And not use terms like: "Europeans get free health care, education and other services". Because like anyone else if they pay taxes, they are not receiving those services for free. They are paying for them through taxation.

If Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists in America and Michael Moore would fit this category, ever want to be taken seriously and have real political power where they are at the very least a dominant faction in one of the major political parties, or have enough political support to run a government which includes both Congress and the White House, they got to stop putting out all these falsehoods and stick to the truth. And not just say: "Well it's really not free, but we call it free, because it comes from government and you're free from having to pay for those services in the private sector. " Because the fact is if you're paying for government services, you're paying for those services! 

Government services are not paid for them out-of-pocket with a bill and receipt like you would at a store, or when you sign up for lets private insurance, but you're paying for those services through taxes and generally payroll taxes. So you run a political campaign and layout everything you want to provide to the people and say all these things will be free, you're not telling the truth. And if you know those services aren't free, because they're being financed through taxes, you're even lying to people you say you want to help.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.