# If your offended by logic, don't watch



## Fsyxxx (Aug 30, 2016)

i don't think of this as political per se... I just wish there were more people making these kinds of arguments on either side. To the point, succinct, and almost exactly how I look at things. If you disagree, no problem. Hopefully this doesn't fall into a catch all of politics and can be logically watched.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Great Post 2 | Way Cool 1


----------



## Mike1950 (Aug 30, 2016)

He was a very interesting man.


----------



## Fsyxxx (Aug 30, 2016)

Mike1950 said:


> He was a very interesting man.


I don't know too much about him, I'm surprised it took me this long to run across.


----------



## Mike1950 (Aug 30, 2016)

You look at the time frame he said those things- we have gone down the government-we are here to help you way for 3 decades since then- guessing By hairstyles. It has not worked. Since LBJ started "the war on Poverty" we have spent $17 trillion to reduce poverty by 3% since then. funny- just about ='s national debt.... I believe in welfare for safety net- not a career option.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Fsyxxx (Aug 30, 2016)

Mike1950 said:


> You look at the time frame he said those things- we have gone done the government-we are here to help you for 3 decades since then- guessing By hairstyles. It has not worked. Since LBJ started "the war on Poverty" we have spent $17 trillion to reduce poverty by 3% since then. funny- just about ='s national debt.... I believe in welfare for safety net- not a career option.


I completely agree, I'm not heartless but it's no ones job to support anyone else their entire life. Ron Paul discusses the welfare program in one of his books calling it not only ineffective but also immoral as it teaches generations of people this is as good as it gets for you. I paraphrased Dr. Paul somewhat.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Fsyxxx (Aug 30, 2016)

Different guy, love the statement.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## HomeBody (Sep 1, 2016)

I like the clip of Milton Friedman on the Donahue show. He rips Donahue a new one. Worth seeing. Gary


----------



## rocky1 (Sep 1, 2016)

Fact of the matter is, you can spend all of the money in the world and NEVER rid the world of poverty; it is mathematically impossible to do so. Using the law of averages, which has never changed... 1/3 of the people live above the mean, 1/3 of the people live within the mean, 1/3 of the people live below the mean. That WILL remain constant until the end of time, it doesn't matter what anyone makes, that will be so, because it is the law of averages, and doesn't have a damn thing to do with poverty, or anything else.

The poverty line is established at about the lower half of that bottom 1/3, and thus as long as that 1/3 exists and poverty is the bottom half of it... It's always going to be, and if your politician is sincere when he/she tells you they are spending millions of your tax dollars trying to fix it, he's a moron.

You can't fix poverty, it is mathematically impossible. Regardless of how many Trillions of dollars you spend on it, you cannot fix it. You may redefine it; but you cannot fix it.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 1, 2016)

Milton Friedman captured my attention in the 80s and so I read up on the various economic models being lauded by the various well-known (and not so well known) economists starting with Smith the working my way around. I fancied myself an armchair economist. It took me a while to realize that many of them are simply polemicists and Friedman is perhaps the worst of the bunch in that regard. Much of what he says sounds great but I think his work is way overrated. Yes he's also a bit of an intellectual as much as an economist, and he has more brains in his thumb that I have in my dense noggin, but I have an opinion and that opinion is that Mr. Friedman was wrong about some of his his theories especially his most notable of PIH. I wasn't smart enough to disprove it but a cadre of other economists have. 

Economists are a bit like cosmologists - most of what they expound upon and write about cannot be proved for many decades if ever. In my perfect world money is not needed, but we'd run on a science-based barter economy - but, they ain't letting me run the show yet so we have all these various money changers making obscene fortunes off of our labor by writing legislation that keeps the little guy little and powerless, so one of the ways they make tons of gold is to move paper and digits around and charge loads of fees for it. This says nothing about made-up "investments" most or all of which are nothing more than a legalized Ponzi scheme. 

These are just random thoughts and I have a lot more to say about it but I'm already tired of hearing myself talk seeing myself type . . . . .


----------



## DKMD (Sep 1, 2016)

Interesting stuff... 

His discussions about equal pay laws made me think about several recent publications describing the idea that female physicians make less money than their male counterparts. While there are apparent discrepancies in annual income, it isn't because of some payment difference. In the current system, I get paid for the work I do based on a system of codes(CPT codes). While there are geographic variations in what insurances pay for any given CPT code, there are no gender differences. If anyone in my area does a knee replacement for a Medicare patient, he or she gets the same payment that I get... Exactly the same payment. It's no different than someone who works for an hourly wage... More hours yields a bigger paycheck. The simplest way to make less money is to work less.

For physicians who have chosen to be employed by hospitals, the annual income is based on a contract with the employer but the majority of those contracts are also based on work performed. I suppose that hospitals could be discriminating against female physicians when negotiating contracts, but that is the less likely explanation in my opinion.


----------

