Ellen Degeneres Videos
Ellen Degeneres Related Videos
Ellen Degeneres Sponsors
You like it? Share it!
Search
Ellen Degeneres videos :: Social Bookmarking 
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: CssEllen Degeneres Videos
Currently Watching: Latest videos by ideachannel
 |
The Power of Choice - Milton Friedman Posted by: ideachannel
Video duration: 389 seconds An excerpt from the biography of Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
 |
Talking Free Trade Posted by: ideachannel
Video duration: 197 seconds A video produced by students asking people on the street if they really know what free trade is. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
 |
Ultimate Resource Opening Segment Posted by: ideachannel
Video duration: 219 seconds See what happens when ordinary people are given the necessary tools to help themselves. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
 |
Milton Friedman Posted by: ideachannel
Video duration: 29 seconds Milton Friedman biography, From Bob Chitester and Free to Choose Media, the producer of Free to Choose. See www.freetochoosemedi a.org, www.freetochoose.net , and www.ideachannel.tv Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
 |
Damn Right... casino Posted by: ideachannel
Video duration: 39 seconds You might be fooled into thinking it's about public places going nonsmoking, but really it's about gambling. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
Latest comments made on this video:
By: cacapoopoo2327. on 18 Nov 08, 05:53:45
Greenspan is a traitor to his old ideas. He no longer believes in freedom . He went to the dark side a long time ago in a land far away.
By: toolshed333. on 26 Oct 08, 04:35:28
Wonderful, thought provoking man. R.I.P.
By: zsylvana. on 22 Oct 08, 19:57:02
1)Charmain behind the Swedish Economic Succes lies iin genreal following elements.Because of the so called RehnMeidner Model an economic model developed in 1951 by the trade union economists of the research department of the Swedish trade union umbrella federation LO, Gösta Rehn and Rudolf Meidner. They developed this overall economic model, which is based on the interaction of a strict fiscal discipline, a solidarity wage and to a forced active labor policy.
By: zsylvana. on 22 Oct 08, 19:51:50
2)Unprofitable enterprises from the market are to be pushed toward the solidarity wage policy, while profitable enterprises profited from the labour costs comparatively favorable for them, which set free employee by means of the active labor policy qualified for new jobs and which are controlled for inflation by a restrictive fiscal policy.
By: zsylvana. on 22 Oct 08, 19:48:53
2)Up to the end of the 1980s was Sweden internationally probably the most prominent example of a social-democratic way to full employment. )This goal could be kept upright also during the fast growth of the post-war period and the economic crises of the 1970s and 1980s. Central contents of the Swedish labor policy since the post-war period are the principle of full employment, and the claimant solidary wage policy with their theoretical correspondence in the Rehn Meidner model.
By: zsylvana. on 22 Oct 08, 05:12:31
chairman.I am glade you understand what the thing is all about.I mainly agree.And chris i donīt agree in all but i respect your wiews and knowledge and proper and polite argumentation.
By: chairmanRob. on 22 Oct 08, 02:16:36
The rise in the Scandinavian GNP and per capita income has little to do with the "socialist" policies of those particular countries. Instead it has more to do with the the political stability of said countries and the strong rule of law prevalent in them. By using the government as an agent of persuasion (not necessarily negative, mind you) for individual economic undertaking its no wonder their economic prosperity rose.
By: cris750. on 21 Oct 08, 16:02:41
That is Adam Smith leaned more to the Free Market. BANKS,etc. rather than seeing People and Banks cooperating together.
By: cris750. on 21 Oct 08, 15:47:15
Adam Smith also believed in the role of the state in the function of the market. However, I leaned more in the "Free" market to determine the economy of a state. While Karl Marx leaned more in the power of the state to determine the direction of the economy. Both missed the point that the people determine the direction of the state and the economy. The foundation, the people, determines the existence of both.
By: cris750. on 21 Oct 08, 15:33:59
Karl Marx was concentrating his refutation on both areas: religion and trusting the "free" market for wealth distribution. Wrong areas to attack. Adam Smith also was wrong in trusting the impulses of man(kind) to determine the circulation of wealth. ALSO, ADAM SMITH BELIEVED IN TAXES !!!! Read his book: "wealth of nations"
By: cris750. on 21 Oct 08, 15:25:54
Karl Marx attacked religion because Adam Smith expressed his idea of trusting the "free" market drive on the sentiments of man(kind). Karl Marx was attacking Smith's assumptions in "Theory of Moral Sentiments" which was later expressed also in "Wealth of nations".
By: cris750. on 21 Oct 08, 15:10:12
Free choice for people to determine the circulation of wealth is the basic foundation for any state to survive properly. Neither total state control nor total bank control is the answer. The equal role of state,banks and the people is the answer.
By: cris750. on 21 Oct 08, 15:06:00
Some Millioners in France are creating various accounts to help the banks.
By: jfeucht82. on 21 Oct 08, 01:48:32
If George Bush and Alan Greenspan had only listened to him more...
By: zsylvana. on 20 Oct 08, 12:06:15
Do mean you mean "Socialist" countries as the Scandinavian Countries?Denmark,Sweden,Norway?Mainly ruled by "Socialist" regimes since 1930?Highest livingstandard in the world and top 10 GNP since 1950?How does it match your models?
By: ideachannel. on 20 Oct 08, 11:46:23
Any capitalist or free-market society that has instituted elements of socialism has been impoverished. Likewise, countries that become wholly socialist either through elections or revolution become impoverished much more quickly and to a more desperate level. Communist/socialist societies could not raise their quality of living until they incorporate capitalist elements. The argument that socialism yields greater prosperity is simply wrong.
By: zsylvana. on 18 Oct 08, 03:02:40
We seem to live on different planets.
By: codexaenir. on 18 Oct 08, 02:29:42
Every country that has escaped poverty and developed has maintained a large measure of economic freedom. There is a positive correlation between economic freedom and growth. Likewise, countries that lack peaceful markets due to corruption, bad government, war, etc are the poorest in the world. Markets also correct themselves. If you watch CNBC, you might think we're in a disaster right now, but the fact is that you are better off than an overwhelming majority of people in the world.
By: zsylvana. on 17 Oct 08, 23:06:33
Defenders of market fundamentalism want to shift the blame from market failure to government failure.But US banks mismanaged risk on a colossal scale, with global consequences, while those running these institutions have walked away with billions of dollars in compensation.
By: zsylvana. on 17 Oct 08, 22:56:31
For a quarter-century, there has been a contest among developing countries, and the losers are clear: countries that pursued neo-liberal policies lost the growth sweepstakes.Though neo-liberals do not want to admit it, their ideology also failed another test. No one can claim that financial markets did a stellar job in allocating resources in the late 1990s, with 97% of investments in fiber optics taking years to see any light,and the more recent massive misallocation of resources to housing.
By: zsylvana. on 17 Oct 08, 22:51:12
Wrong Assumtion!The world has not been kind to neo-liberalism, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently, and serve the public interest well. It was this market fundamentalism that underlay Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and the so-called Washington Consensus in favor of privatization, liberalization, and independent central banks focusing single-mindedly on inflation.
By: ideachannel. on 17 Oct 08, 22:02:04
The fairest distribution of wealth is to allow the owner of the wealth to decide how it should be distributed. Socialism is an institutionalized policy of aggression against property.
By: ideachannel. on 17 Oct 08, 21:55:24
Jesus never took property from anyone against their will for the purposes of redistribution, nor did he ever condone taking property from anyone against their will for the purposes of redistribution. Anything that was given was given voluntarily. Altruism or generosity must be voluntary. The only way to be generous with another person's property (without their consent) is to steal it first.
By: zsylvana. on 17 Oct 08, 20:03:10
1)Friedman fans sticking there noses in books they donīt understand,bourgoise youngster integibillety have declined nowadays it seems.Humanist values once was a basic part of prober Upperclass education.Nowadays it only Greed!You should read Austrian school that you admire so loudly.Von Mises(that even wrote a book called "Socialism") and all the old Right Wingers had at least proper knowledge about the subject what Socialism is and therefore a polite debate,possible among different values.
By: zsylvana. on 17 Oct 08, 20:01:18
2.Definition of Socialism is NOT a matter of OWNERSHIP or MARKETECONOMY or not as you believe (and definitly not to put people in GULAG!)itīs a matter of FAIR Distribution of WEALTH! It is SUMMARIZED by all sort of Socialists in the simple Words:"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" It goes back to Old Christian Conmmunity values among followers of Jesus and his fisherman aposthels,and was even before that natural behaviuor for most human living on Earth.