Libertarians...Quite Possibly the Stupidest People in the World....
- Thread starter CanadianKid
- Start date
Battleborne
Terminator
MY My...........
This has become a heated topic...so let's turn the tables on the Liberal mind set! Would it not be also fair to call Jane (Hanoi) Fonda a mass murderer....as she was the original Code Pink girl...and got alot of our boys needlessly killed when her antics enabled the NVA to continue the fight! I see the same results in the ME war with the antics of Code Pink...they are enabeling the terrorist...which kills alot of our boys! Just fair turn around!
This has become a heated topic...so let's turn the tables on the Liberal mind set! Would it not be also fair to call Jane (Hanoi) Fonda a mass murderer....as she was the original Code Pink girl...and got alot of our boys needlessly killed when her antics enabled the NVA to continue the fight! I see the same results in the ME war with the antics of Code Pink...they are enabeling the terrorist...which kills alot of our boys! Just fair turn around!
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So what you are saying is your knowledge on Friedman is extremely limited and that you just want to cling to your beliefs that he is in some way a murderer.
Such a sound line of reason cannot be thwarted.
Maybe we should look to Hitler's writings to see what he "really believed" and also ignore the dead bodies.
lol
So stupid. But beyond that.
This is immoral.
Those Chicago Boys were not acting under any order of Friedman's and to present it that way is disingenuous bull. Seriously, you are way over your head here.
First I "couldn't know how he believed" regardless of mounting evidence you present this?
His "real beliefs" were also very clear in his writing. More ignorance. Geez.
No I'm saying you don't know anything, and you're a liar, stupid, and defending a murderer, all in order to hang onto your religion of the free market.
I hope you never get tortured. I don't think anyone deserves it. Even people who believe in different economic policies than I do, believe it or not.
go tell it to the mass graves all over Friedman's labatory of South and Latin and Central Americas.
Go tell it to the shells of people, tortured horrifically, some in front of classrooms of people, to show the best way to do it, in classes taught by the chicago boys.
go tell it to them.
face it, you don't know shit about this.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Perhaps this can help answer your question and give you a clearer reading of that history .. a history that sounds incredibly familiar to current events.
"A month after Friedman's visit, the Chilean junta announced that inflation would be stopped "at any cost." The regime cut government spending twenty-seven percent, practically shuttered the national mint, and set fire to bundles of escudos. The state divested from the banking system and deregulated finance, including interest rates. It slashed import tariffs, freed prices on over 2000 products, and removed restrictions against foreign investments. Pinochet pulled Chile out of a number of alliances with neighboring countries intended to promote regional industrialization, turning his country into a gateway for the introduction of cheap goods into Latin America.
Tens of thousands of public workers lost their jobs as the government auctioned off, in what amounted to a spectacular transfer of wealth to the private sector, over four hundred state industries. Multinationals were not only granted the right to repatriate one hundred percent of their profits, but were given guaranteed exchange rates to help them do so. In order to build investor confidence, the escudo was fixed to the dollar. Within four years, nearly thirty percent of all property expropriated not just under Allende but under a previous Alliance for Progress land reform was returned to previous owners. New laws treated labor like any other "free" commodity, sweeping away four decades of progressive union legislation. Health care was privatized, as was the public pension fund.
GNP plummeted thirteen percent, industrial production fell 28 percent, and purchasing power collapsed to forty percent of its 1970 level. One national business after another went bankrupt. Unemployment soared.
Yet by 1978 the economy rebounded, expanding thirty-two percent between 1978 and 1981. Though salary levels remained close to twenty percent below what they were a decade previously, per capita income began to climb again. Perhaps even a better indicator of progress, torture and extrajudicial executions began to taper off. With hindsight, however, it is now clear that the Chicago economists, despite the credit they received for three years of economic growth, had set Chile on the road to near collapse.
The rebound of the economy was a function of the liberalization of the financial system and massive foreign investment. That investment, it turns out, led to a speculative binge, monopolization of the banking system, and heavy borrowing. The deluge of foreign capital did allow the fixed exchange rate to be maintained for a short period. But sharp increases in private debt * rising from $2 billion in 1978 to over $14 billion in 1982 -- put unsustainable pressure on Chile's currency. Pegged as it was to the appreciating US dollar, the value of the escudo was kept artificially high, leading to a flood of cheap imports. While consumers took advantage of liberalized credit to purchase TVs, cars, and other high-ticket items, savings shrank, debt increased, exports fell, and the trade deficit ballooned.
In 1982 things fell apart. Copper prices plummeted, accelerating Chile's balance of trade deficit. GDP plunged fifteen percent, while industrial production rapidly contracted. Bankruptcies tripled and unemployment hit 30 percent. Despite his pledge to hold firm, Pinochet devalued the escudo, devastating poor Chileans who had either availed themselves to liberalized credit to borrow in dollars or who held their savings in escudos. The Central Bank lost forty-five percent of its reserves, while the private banking system collapsed. The crisis forced the state, dusting off laws still on the books from the Allende period, to take over nearly seventy percent of the banking system and reimpose controls on finance, industry, prices and wages. Turning to the IMF for a bailout, Pinochet extended a public guarantee to repay foreign creditors and banks.
---
Today, Pinochet is under house arrest for his brand of "shock therapy," and Friedman is dead. But the world they helped usher in survives, in increasingly grotesque form. What was considered extreme in Chile in 1975 has now become the norm in the US today: a society where the market defines the totality of human fulfillment, and a government that tortures in the name of freedom."
http://www.counterpunch.org/grandin11172006.html
You really should read the entire article.
There is your "free market"
Dumbass, Friedman did not rule over Chile. All he did was share his views at a private school and speak with Pinochet once for under an hour. He shared the same views he has in his wirtings. To compare the actions to Hitler is beyond absurd.
They never will, but thanks for posting it, it's an interesting piece.
Face it, I do.
I even stated before that I think that he didn't speak out often enough against that government. I still know for a fact what he believed, it was there before you too. Pretending that he did that because he wanted to see those people tortured is preposterous and flies in the face of all the knowledge we have of the man.
That those "Chicago Boys" did what they did was not under any of his orders, nor promoted or cheered on by Friedman. That was a terrible thing our government did even while he was working for more freedom through the only means he knew.
You are so ignorant of the facts, and so fucking brainwashed. a real tool RS. Yeah, that's all he did.
Yeah, I gave some weight to what you had said and thought maybe he failed to denounce Pinochet. Turns out I was an idiot on that. He did, in fact, denounce Pinochet and your claims are totally without merit.
I still don't care much for Friedman. Not because of some stupid personal attack on his character though, but for policy reasons.
He actually believed not that freedom of markets would lead to democratic freedoms but that they were all of a whole. He thought that the definition of economic freedom was freedom in all things. But the real killer for Friedman is that in every case where his economic programs have been instituted the people have had to be repressed first. There is not one case where the people have willingly accepted the Friedman program. In fact Chile is only the tip of the iceberg. You can cite Argentina where The Ford Plant contained torture cells in its basement in order to more quickly locate and disrupt union activities on the plant floor. Even more damning is that in every country where the Friedman reforms have been instituted the people have either thrown off the original reforms or are worse off today than they were when the reforms were instituted.
With that I'm done with this. I really don't see why I am responsible for educating dummies and getting aggravated by their stupidity.
Friedman is not the only one with blood on his hands. And you guys want to bring this shit there. This "freedom".
Yeah, no thanks.
With that I'm done with this. I really don't see why I am responsible for educating dummies and getting aggravated by their stupidity.
Friedman is not the only one with blood on his hands. And you guys want to bring this shit there. This "freedom".
Yeah, no thanks.
What facts do you have to counter? You present nothing. Did he rule over Chile? If you can show some proof that he did, I will look at it.
