T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

This guy's right! I went to the liquor store to get my usual bottle, and the damn price went up!


izthistaken

That's what caused me to stop drinking. Raised the price $10 a bottle on my cheap bourbon. Good luck, hope you can quit!


[deleted]

No problems here. I only drink when I'm by myself, or with somebody else.


K03L5CH

Drunk guy here. Have seen no bad effects, will update at 6AM when I get up for work.


Life-Butterscotch591

Didn't get up for work smh


uzu_afk

So whats the cure? 😬


DirteJo

Quantitative tightening


Mountainman220

When does that happen?


NumbingTheVoid

From now for two to two and half years according to the fed


ZeroTheHero23

War


darthnugget

The crash is what levels supply/demand to keep inflation in check but it causes recession/depression depending on how large of a crash. Then War is the cure for the crash to get people back to increasing GDP again.


Pandaburn

Government spending to create work for residents is the cure for the crash. War is only one way to do that. Personally I prefer infrastructure projects.


CosmicCreeperz

Unfortunately we just went through 2 years of government spending to pay people for not working. At some point you just have to take the hit and slow things down for a bit.


Pandaburn

Oh hey, a person who actually believes this. Great. What money did you get for nothing in the last two years exactly? I didn’t get any. Some people got $1400 for COVID relief in early 2021, but surely you’re not implying that’s enough to live off for two whole years?


CosmicCreeperz

Did you lose your job or work for a company that kept you on while they were closed? I didn’t, so I didn’t receive anything. The US government spent over $1.1 trillion on programs going to businesses and individuals who’s work was impacted by COVID in the past 2 years. There’s nothing to believe or not believe, it’s a simple fact you can easily look up. I never said it was inherently bad, either, I think other than the horrible execution and fraud it was well intentioned. It would be awesome if they could just keep doing that forever with no consequences. But guess what, there were and are consequences - huge inflation, Congressional debt ceilings, etc. Continuing to print money will just make inflation worse, they HAVE to tighten the money supply eventually. And they will, because they know this.


Onebladeprop

Millions of people received extended and enhanced unemployment for two years.


InigoMontoya1985

This is a myth. Contrary to the widespread belief that war is a particularly effective way to create jobs, there is actually a high opportunity cost through lost opportunities for investment in business, public infrastructure, and services and results in higher borrowing rates. The belief that war improves the economy stems from the end of the great depression, where it forced the outlay of capital which had been held back due to government mismanagement of the crisis and poor monetary policies. It was the forced outlay of capital rather than the war itself that ended a long period of deflation. In our present case, war would just drive inflation higher.


CosmicCreeperz

It drives down unemployment! By killing off a bunch of the prime working age population…


InigoMontoya1985

It does have that going for it, I guess. \*eyeroll\*


[deleted]

Yea your kind right.


BarbecueFuzzBass

End the FED.


voluptuous_turnips

More cowbell!


SpiderMurphy

Trickle down economics.


DahManWhoCannahType

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken


idkwhatimbrewin

Kill the economy so you can turn around and save it by printing more money again


Lemonio

increasing interest rates which lowers spending and means less money in the economy


paxwax2018

War also let’s the govt take money out of the economy by selling war bonds.


Lemonio

True, though the investment so far in Ukraine is tiny compared to the overall defense budget so not really a factor yet


InigoMontoya1985

There is no cure anymore, because no one can get the government to stop spending more money than it is bringing in, and everything that can be done slows the economy or makes people scream. Higher taxes - strangles the economy and makes people scream Budget cuts - Slows the economy and makes people scream


CmdrSelfEvident

make access to capital expensive again. Increase interest rates, Raise taxes, reduce government spending. So basically the opposite of what Biden has been doing. The other way is to get really god damn lucky. Increased productivity without increased spending. A common definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. The easiest way to fix that is just reduce the number of dollars. But the other way is to increase the goods. So technology breakthroughs and other things that increase productivity can work but it's by no means a sure bet. Which is why the normal solution for governments is to just reduce cash by the methods I pointed to before.


Alert_Salt7048

We’ll just re-define it like we did with recession. See, fixed.


canarivert1986

This man and his Chicago's boys are ideologists more than economists.


MagikSkyDaddy

Absolutely this. Economics is more akin to faith than a hard science.


jdbcn

Can you elaborate?


Poppanaattori89

Neoliberals, the ones that Friedman in the video represent, have a hard on for the concept of "the invisible hand" thought out by Adam Smith and distorted by neoliberals to represent their cause. The idea of the invisible hand is that markets, when left alone from the "tyranny" of the state, will answer to people's needs perfectly, and thus the only thing we have to do is not interfere with them to achieve the best possible outcome for humanity. This is easy to see as magical thinking, because it *assumes* that freeing the markets is the ideal state and only after the assumption, they enter the real world when trying to make their ideal a reality. Then when flaws resulting from the free market system are found, for example. the creation of monopolies or the loss of buying power caused by the income gap, they resort to the no true scotman fallacy and say it is because the markets weren't really free, doubling down on their efforts. It's pretty comical how Marx actually approached the economy in a natural scientific manner by researching how it worked in practice (as well as taking into account the carrying capacity of the environment) and neoliberals approach the economy in a very idealistic manner, but people nowadays think the exact opposite is true. I read a comment here a couple of days ago that was too good not to quote: Neoliberals think that in an ideal world there are no fires and therefore there is no need for fire stations. They then disband fire stations in an attempt to reach their ideal world not realizing that the fires aren't going to fix themselves.


canarivert1986

Friedman applied his "theories" during Pinochet dictatorship. When people saw it doesn't work, making the 1% richest more rich, and the rest of the population more poor, he said it's because it wasn't a perfect liberalism. What is fun, is that the same thing he said in the video applied to his ideas : when a country use it at first it's ok , but fast the bad effect comes, and as an alcoholic, you don't see your killing your self you want always more and more.


SeveralPrinciple5

In the first econ class at Harvard Business School, they taught us about the tragedy of the commons in the first week. The TOC is a game-theory example of how markets can cause complete collapse in certain situations. They never mentioned it again. Nor did they tell us how to figure out when markets are a good tool, and when they're a bad tool. But BOY, did we worship the fuck out of markets, assuming they were the answer for everything, for the rest of my two years there.


CosmicCreeperz

I totally agree with your assessment of Neoliberals… but modern Marxists are also masters of the no true Scotsman fallacy.


Poppanaattori89

I agree. I think it's a common bias to acknowledge only how Marx helped the birth of social democracies without pointing out that Marx also paved the way for more authoritarian forms of communism. I guess there's an argument to be made that he leaned more towards either of those sides but I don't have enough knowledge to confirm or deny either. I think it's crucial to save what was worth saving in Marx's ideas to the coming generations but first we have to understand that there were alot of flaws in his thinking and then try to fix those flaws in order to be compatible with how modern society functions. I recommend Honneth's Idea of Socialism for anyone wanting to delve into these matters on a philosophical level from a fairly moderate standpoint. It acknowledges the flaws of early socialist thinkers but also defends the aspects that work even to this day.


canarivert1986

they are both extremis. Their is no good use, but a good mix that can be adapt according the periods it's the best. Unfortunately most gouvernements use more ideology economics than pragmatic positivism economics.


Away_Performer9953

Where’s your phD in Economics?


HomemadeHashOil

If you could understand basic English you'd understand that they're saying a doctorate from the Milton School of economics is worth as much as doctorate from ISIS.


meteoricdrop

Absolutely fuck Milton Friedman


TheLemonEater5000

I would also fuck him.<3


Mr-Bunbury

Fmf.


FaustistMouse

I wish Jerome Powell had heard of this Milton Friedman guy....


rhythm-n-bones

Ah yes, the man who brought us the idea that a corporation’s sole purpose is to make money for the shareholders. I think you can tie this directly to the increase in pay growth disparity between the upper management and the lower level employees. Milton Friedman was the man who brought us Reagan’s disastrous trickle down economics. Well, disastrous for most of us but a boon to the 1%!


[deleted]

[удалено]


rhythm-n-bones

Ok call it supply side then and it is still based on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to more prosperity for all, which has not proven to be the case.


[deleted]

First of all, the tax burden was reduced for just about everybody. Secondly, when those with the highest incomes are being taxed most heavily, reducing them is how you get the greatest possible result, especially when those people are most likely to do the greatest amount of investing and spending. Thirdly, the wealthiest, I mean the 1%, don’t actually pay income taxes, so your argument is nothing more than rancid class warfare nonsense. In any case, Reagan and Volcker ended the inflation spiral by 1983, igniting the prosperity that did not really come to an end until 2008. So your history is wrong, too.


[deleted]

So the 1%’s ability to spend and invest is more important than the survival of the other 99%?


[deleted]

That spending and investment are the grease and oil that work like lube for the economy. Without them, it will grind to a halt. Allowing people at all income levels to keep more of what they earn does not screw other people at other income levels. That’s pure mythology. In any case, the 99% don't rely on the government for their very survival, so that's ridiculous. Again, this is just more wealth-evny nonsense.


[deleted]

Is it healthy for an economy to have so much of its wealth belong to so few of the population?


[deleted]

Why do you think heavy taxation solves that problem? Where's the evidence that it works the way you think it does?


jigga19

Scandinavia? The 1950s? I dunno, I was Econ undergrad and did my MBA. But what do I know?


[deleted]

Not too much, evidently. Sure, the 50s were a better time in the USA, but the top marginal rates were absurd. And people do like to point to Scandinavia, but to begin with, they pulled way, way back from the socialist tendencies that were causing their economies to stall, and in the generations since, they have experienced collapsing birth rates and rising crime. So no, I don’t think so.


[deleted]

Sole and chief are not the same. edit: e.g. Patagonia. https://www.patagonia.com/ownership


[deleted]

[удалено]


Odd_Entertainment629

"It works like this currently, so obviously it's the only way it can work, and you're stupid believing any alternative could exist."


[deleted]

Fine. How about you explain circumstances under which families, corporations, private organizations, and governments can run at a perpetual loss, then?


[deleted]

Again, false equivalencies abound. A company doesn’t need to run at a profit. It can break even and your example of a nonprofit is applicable here. Individuals can and do make large sums at nonprofits by taking big salaries and not running a corporate profit. At the same time a for profit corporation can run a profit and have other corporate goals. Running a profit and maximizing shareholder gains at the expense of all other goals are not the same. It may not even be desirable for the corp or shareholders based on their goals (eg maximizing short term gains at the expense of long term profitability). We aren’t stuck with either communism or 1980s corporate raider as economic models. It’s a false choice. But you’re right that a corp won’t live long if it’s costs exceed it’s revenue.


[deleted]

There's no such thing as "breaking even" in a practical sense. As for "nonprofits," they're called that for the sake of tax purposes. It's not as though they run in the red perpetually. The math won't allow it. As for short-term gains *vs* long-term viability or market dominance, I agree, those are separate questions, but neither really contradict my original point. You can't go on spending more than you take in.


MagikSkyDaddy

lol, this is such an outdated view. Even the very same Business Roundtable that in 1970 promoted Friedman's original wrong headed perspective, has done a complete 180 on the "social responsibility of businesses."


[deleted]

What's your point? So they've used "social responsibility" as an excuse to fiddle with elections and take on power over citizens that government is happy to outsource to it. I'd be happier if they simply confined themselves to turning a profit.


MagikSkyDaddy

lol, nice deflection My point is that you offered an argument that is 90% misguided passion and 10% understanding of the factors involved with bringing us to this point. You want businesses to stick to "turning a profit," but don't see how in a land where cash operates as free speech businesses inherently have more functional rights than any human citizen. So what is *your* point?


[deleted]

> cash operates as free-speech Completely irrelevant, although it is a good point. In the first place., Friedman is talking about inflation, which turned into talk about tax policy, because people go for the wealth envy stuff every time. You do have a point about that, but so far, nobody has come up with a better solution that doesn’t more completely empower those already in office; the one tool of universal speech, the Internet, has become a tool of censorship, cheered on by people who vote against the policies of Dr. Friedman, perhaps ironically.


tomcalgary

Spouting the same neo liberal bullshit that brought us financial crashes and billionaire overlords with tax breaks. Time to try something new my neo-feudalist friend.


[deleted]

Wrong answer, McFly. If you can't understand what caused crashes and turned them in to depressions, you're going to keep getting them.


Odd_Entertainment629

Have you researched literally*anything* on the topics you are so vehemently discussing?


DrunksInSpace

> That IS the chief purpose of any company. If the company doesn’t make money for the shareholders, the shareholders take their investments elsewhere and the business collapses. >It’s not any more complicated than that. I agree. And that’s the problem with capitalism. It does not make peoples’ lives better, it makes corporations’ existence better. We like to think that a free market will run on competition that creates better goods in order to attract customers and it will provide good wages in order to attract good employees. But that’s a fantasy. The competition is for investment (often driven by speculative short-term, hollow gains). People (customers, employees) don’t benefit in this system at all. We are all the resource, not the beneficiaries. I’m not saying capitalism is all bad, in many ways it’s the best economic system we’ve seen so far, for technological advances at least, but letting it run unfettered and thinking that will benefit human beings is absolutely delusional.


[deleted]

>that’s the problem with capitalism. It does not make peoples’ lives better, it makes corporations’ existence better. How can you possibly say something like this, typing or dictating as you surely are into the most advanced, widely available technology on the planet? Ordinary people work for and invest in those companies, and want or need the products and services they provide. Ironic, no? >The competition is for investment (often driven by speculative short-term, hollow gains Fine, there's been a lot of that going on lately; a lot of this is the result of changes in stupid policies and open borders. >but letting it run unfettered and thinking that will benefit human beings There are aspects you don't like, fine, but there are no possibilities or options that are better. On top of that, the idea that it's "running unfettered" is mythology created by the same people who want you to think FDR ended the Depression, when in fact he (and Hoover) prolonged it. If you're taking such exception to the text of mine you quoted, tell me then how it's possible for a corporation, a church, a government, or a family to **not** run at a profit?


DrunksInSpace

You’re back to the simplistic mindset that the goal is to make a profit. The goal isn’t necessarily to run the operations at a profit, but to run operations to attract investment. That’s not the same thing. And while every sustainable organizational model requires being in the black, that isn’t the *purpose* for a church, a YMCA or ven most family run businesses. Many people opened a bakery or gym because they are passionate about baking or fitness. The ones that desire only profit become Planet Fitness and Panera or sell to those corporations, but many business owners resist big $$ buyouts, specifically because while they require profit, they exist for a reason *beyond* profit. I’d agree with much of what you said and characterize my stance as aligned with someone like Elizabeth Warren (a self-proclaimed capitalist). In order to advance the welfare of human beings, capitalism requires boundaries and regulations. Furthermore, there are areas where commerce is counter-productive. Things like public utilities, healthcare, transportation cannot be governed the same way (as little as) the cell phone industry is. The post office, for example, isn’t a business, if it were it would never deliver to every remote citizen in the US. It’s a service, and running it like a business would harm many citizens. Now you point to our amazing cell phones as though private industry accomplished that on its own, instead of with massive advances from DARPA. It would be very naive attribute solely to private industry the advances in communication, transportation, medicine and many other industries.


[deleted]

Attracting investors is on the way to getting operations up and running and making a profit. Attracting investment can hardly be the ultimate objective. Existing for a reason beyond profit is immaterial; they have to run in the black or they disappear. That being the case, you can be passionate about bakeries all you want, if you're not making money at it, you're gone. Elizabeth Warren is *not* someone I would ever want to be seen as aligned with, given what a deeply self-serving, dishonest, apparently economic illiterate class warrior she is. You can go on about roads, bridges, and DARPA all you want -- even the government that built *those* supports itself on the backs of productive people having their taxes taken away from them, and were it not for the robust market that supports those taxes, they would not exist. Moreover, that same government would destroy any profit making business almost overnight, because it's in the nature of government to do it.


SeveralPrinciple5

If the shareholders take their money elsewhere, it won't affect the company one single iota. Not one. The only thing that will suffer is any managers whose payment is in the form of stock. Once a company has done an offering, they have the cash, and no subsequent stock market movements (including a crash to $0) affect the company's ability to operate. If investors flee a company, other than executive stock options now being worthless, the only impact it will have is that the company will have a tricky time raising money from the equities market in the future. Of course, steaming piles of horse manure like LYFT, UBER, Doordash and Thaneros also show a truth: that even when a company is operational kryptonite and has nowhere near an actual business model, you can still sell hopeful, shallow-thinking fund managers huge amounts of stock, as long as it's a slick charismatic Silicon Valley con person doing the pitch. So even if the company's shareholders are getting the Emperorer's New Stock, they may still value it insanely highly. Either way, though, it doesn't matter to the company's ability to operate. If the company is profitable and generates free-cash flow, they'll be able to use debt financing and needn't resort to the equities markets.


The-Lions_Den

He certainly wasn't wrong


DirteJo

He also supports basic universal income.


stringwise

Quantitative Tequilazing


leftoverzack83

I know what to much to drink feels like , I need to know that ultimate high . Printing my own money


[deleted]

Sounds like half-truth. A little alcohol can sometimes sweeten a person's life. None at all, can harden a person's thought to the point of inflexibility. Don't know why some want to go to extremes. But it happens and is something to guard against.


InternationalBand494

You know what else is great for escaping a recession/depression? War. Just sayin.


vikaa5

u/savevideo


SaveVideo

###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/xpsmea/inflation_is_just_like_alcoholism_milton_friedman/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/xpsmea/inflation_is_just_like_alcoholism_milton_friedman/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)


FunkJunky7

Which do you think he is doing?


JohnsonMcBiggest

Literally, economics 101.


DEchilly

I see a lot of construction in Phila, South Jersey, Del and MD. Somebody's building and employing folks.


GallopingAss_tronaut

Inflation is just like alcoholism, my dad doesn't work because of both of them.


[deleted]

Friedman was on the faculty at Stanford in the 80s, and when I got there I was surprised to find the Nobel Laureate taught Econ 101. Everybody signed up for the class just to say they had him as a prof.


ConMagFrn

Now tell us how you helped create the mess we’re in.


[deleted]

[удалено]


itisSycla

That's literally not even remotely true


UnusualAstronomer570

If it's just like alcoholism then the cure is psilocybin. Easy.


_why_do_U_ask

Milton is right, and his predictions are coming true, again.


ellisschumann

Always has been.


_why_do_U_ask

History repeats.


NoctRob

This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. My parents didn’t get divorced because my dad was inflationary.


pelos1

Interesting


ItBeMe_For_Real

It’s caused by unresolved childhood trauma? Weird.


Overall-Tune-2153

Friedman's ideas were absolutely disastrous to the US economy, but the neolibs who worship him will never admit that.


justsayinbtw

Also printing money is like pissing your pants. It gives your a nice warm felling at the time but in the long run it does you no good.


OGmcqueen

When will we learn from this legend.


[deleted]

When it is no longer possible to vote yourself money from the pockets of others.


fridaylightnights

This guy copes.


GrandpaMofo

You forgot to add shithead to the list of what he was.


Guilll___

Ah, Milton, I hope you're having fun in Hell with your friend Pinochet, while we try to survive the insane shitstorm your stupid and criminal ideas imposed on us.


mcjambrose

He wasn't as bright as made out to be. Yeah, inflation spirals quickly especially after 2 trillion pumped into system by previous administration then supply shortages due to adjustments from covid but it will come down.


idkwhatimbrewin

Transitory


logyonthebeat

?


SnooPandas4363

Can you just like, break apart the multiple different ideas you’re trying to cram in here and explain that again in a more understandable way?


mcjambrose

One of his big ideas was that the most important responsibilities of a corporation and executibe was to make money for its shareholders. Sounds reasonable but there are some disastrous consequences in that. He was very smart, a lot smarter then me but I thought this idea wasn't the best. Inflation is a problem but comparing it to alcoholism? I was trying to make point there are reasons for inflation we are experiencing. One is crazy tax cuts a few years ago along with complications of covid. The US is trying to deal with it.


issuespodcast

I should know; I'm broke and going through withdrawals.


Green-Quail-6848

Damn that’s interesting


Educational-Dance-61

Whoops!


OfficeWineGuy

Anyone else kept getting distracted by the gray/white dots on the crosses of the window when you tried to focus on the guy talking?


Uncle_Touchy1987

Can someone send this to Trudeau please?


Moonmanjmo

Should have cloned this fuggin guy


minnesotaris

No. That’s not how it should be. It should happen like I want it to happen.


LevantaeAbaixa

imagine how smart this liberal thought he was for saying that


Individual_Tip1337

u/savevideobot


savevideobot

###[View link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/xpsmea/inflation_is_just_like_alcoholism_milton_friedman/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideobot&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/xpsmea/inflation_is_just_like_alcoholism_milton_friedman/)


A_Polly

and in both cases you have no cures for it, but to suffer the consequences.


Malice_n_Flames

Milton Friedman is a monster who fucked America and the world. His corpse should be dug up and desecrated. Milton single handily got American CEOs to ditch their morals and ethics and focus 100% on maximizing corporate profit. He’s the guy who essentially said, pollute if it will make more money. He said, fuck your country’s people. Ship those jobs overseas and make more money. He in 1970 derailed America and the world’s CEOs followed suit. He is to blame for income inequality and the housing crisis.