conclude Adam Smith's classical theory of economics to those of the monetarist Milton Friedman – who incidentally followed Keynesian's theories before shifting to the monetarist model again based on reinterpreting Keynsian consumption functions.
In any case what your clip most illuminates is that the involvement of big government either under Keynesian model (where government is supported by big finance and banking interests) to spend it's way out of a recession or the so called Friedman model (where government supported by multinational corporations) takes over with the intention of creating monopolies, through the "shock doctrine" model, will always fail - primarily because of the intervention of government. Both use a top down model of running an economy – a typical socialist approach of central planning. Your confusion lies in assuming that the free market enterprise as understood under Adam Smith's classical economics is the same as the so called "free market enterprise" currently existing. A major error left wing liberals often make.
Either way you look at it big government, is a nemesis to liberty, classical free enterprise and freedom.
I am not sure what the term "pseudo-libertarian" means if you understood what the term "pseudo" is in trying to critique the documentary.
You're conflating Keynesian economics with "free" market supply side economics. Quite a thing to conflate since they're polar opposites. You might as well say that socialism and fascism are the same thing.
Central planning is used in every kind of economic system, perhaps with the exception of a barter system. The only difference is who gets to make what decisions.
I think you're being rather presumptuous that I'm confusing Smith's ideas with the "free" marketeers. I would note that it's usually the right wing who reference Smith. David Kay Johnston explored this idea quite a bit in his book Free Lunch.
You said: "Either way you look at it big government, is a nemesis to liberty, classical free enterprise and freedom."
You might as well be a parrot on Friedman's shoulder with statements like that. Is there no difference in a "big" government, whether it's communist, a social democracy, a direct democracy, a republic, or a dictatorship?
The reality is that ANY INSTITUTION that has any significant power is a threat to libertry. Be it government, the church, the military, or big business.
What people are really saying when they talk about "big government being dangerous to liberty" is that they'd rather live under the tyranny of private unaccountable entities.
I use the term "pseudo-libertarian" to refer to the supporters of say the current Libertarian Party. I would include the Objectivist crowd in that as well. The reason being, is that libertarianism originally referred to anarcho-communism. A more accurate description I think of these "libertarians" would be capitalist-fundamentalism.
I chuckle when, I see people using You Tube snippets to trivialize andLi discuss complex issues.
Don't you?
Libertarianism = Anarchy, we tried that some where between the renaissance and the modern era. If memory serves correct, it didn't work out well other than giving rise to brutal empires and colonialism or somewhere in between.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
