"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests."
boglerdude wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:29 am
"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests."
Free to succeed means free to fail
Agree with the quote. But what American society ever attempted that to any material degree?
boglerdude wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:29 am
"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests."
Free to succeed means free to fail
Agree with the quote. But what American society ever attempted that to any material degree?
Fortunately America hasn’t tried this fully, but there are plenty of socialist experiments that failed. See USSR - which removed market pricing, and Mises successfully predicted its failure years ahead of time.
boglerdude wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:29 am
"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests."
Free to succeed means free to fail
Agree with the quote. But what American society ever attempted that to any material degree?
Fortunately America hasn’t tried this fully, but there are plenty of socialist experiments that failed. See USSR - which removed market pricing, and Mises successfully predicted its failure years ahead of time.
Of course. I'd think none of us in this forum are in support of a society as defined above.
It'd be impossible to impose in this country. So, in general, a false bogeyperson.
boglerdude wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:29 am
"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests."
Free to succeed means free to fail
Agree with the quote. But what American society ever attempted that to any material degree?
Fortunately America hasn’t tried this fully, but there are plenty of socialist experiments that failed. See USSR - which removed market pricing, and Mises successfully predicted its failure years ahead of time.
Of course. I'd think none of us in this forum are in support of a society as defined above.
It'd be impossible to impose in this country. So, in general, a false bogeyperson.
It’s only false if you’re thinking in terms of all or nothing. It’s a bad idea in any degree
boglerdude wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:29 am
"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests."
Free to succeed means free to fail
Agree with the quote. But what American society ever attempted that to any material degree?
Fortunately America hasn’t tried this fully, but there are plenty of socialist experiments that failed. See USSR - which removed market pricing, and Mises successfully predicted its failure years ahead of time.
Of course. I'd think none of us in this forum are in support of a society as defined above.
It'd be impossible to impose in this country. So, in general, a false bogeyperson.
It’s only false if you’re thinking in terms of all or nothing. It’s a bad idea in any degree
The quote seemed to be a fairly black and white statement, implying an ALL.
yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 4:46 pm
Another excellent Lex!
Have listened to it once and will be listening to it again.
I've listened to very little Lex Fridman because the podcast episodes tend to run 3+ hours, and I hate to invest that much time and be disappointed in the result. But I decided to give this episode a try based on your recommendation and interest in Burn's biography subjects. Halfway in, it's been very good. The guest is well spoken historian and really interesting to listen to. So far the focus has been on Friedman.
I have to stop for a moment and comment when about the 2 hour 3 minute mark: Lex asks Burns to discuss her WSJ article (which I have not read) titled "How inflation ended neo-liberalism and reelected Donald Trump". Paraphrasing Burns below:
She talks about how in 1967 Friedman correctly predicted the coming inflation inflicted upon the US and Britain in the 70s. And from this a neo-liberal era arose that focused on monetary policy, free trade, and deregulation. Then once inflation was vanquished, over time people forgot about inflation, banks forgot interest rates can go up, MMT is born with some on the left saying "we can spend what we want", etc.
The return of inflation forced people to remember history. And once again it gave rise to a new political order. However, she anticipates Trump administration policies may continue to contribute to inflation and ultimately be his undoing.
Regarding her assertion that inflation's return led to reelection of Trump, I think this was indeed suggested in the pre-election polling when inflation always ranked #1 or #2 concern among voters, alongside immigration. Whatever happens, I sincerely hope we can drive a stake into the heart of the MMT idea once and for all. That MMT is a one-way path to inflation always seemed blatantly obvious to me.
yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 4:46 pm
Another excellent Lex!
Have listened to it once and will be listening to it again.
I've listened to very little Lex Fridman because the podcast episodes tend to run 3+ hours, and I hate to invest that much time and be disappointed in the result. But I decided to give this episode a try based on your recommendation and interest in Burn's biography subjects. Halfway in, it's been very good. The guest is well spoken historian and really interesting to listen to. So far the focus has been on Friedman.
I have to stop for a moment and comment when about the 2 hour 3 minute mark: Lex asks Burns to discuss her WSJ article (which I have not read) titled "How inflation ended neo-liberalism and reelected Donald Trump". Paraphrasing Burns below:
She talks about how in 1967 Friedman correctly predicted the coming inflation inflicted upon the US and Britain in the 70s. And from this a neo-liberal era arose that focused on monetary policy, free trade, and deregulation. Then once inflation was vanquished, over time people forgot about inflation, banks forgot interest rates can go up, MMT is born with some on the left saying "we can spend what we want", etc.
The return of inflation forced people to remember history. And once again it gave rise to a new political order. However, she anticipates Trump administration policies may continue to contribute to inflation and ultimately be his undoing.
Regarding her assertion that inflation's return led to reelection of Trump, I think this was indeed suggested in the pre-election polling when inflation always ranked #1 or #2 concern among voters, alongside immigration. Whatever happens, I sincerely hope we can drive a stake into the heart of the MMT idea once and for all. That MMT is a one-way path to inflation always seemed blatantly obvious to me.
Whenever I'm listening to any podcast ... I am not only listening to the podcast. I am listening to them when I'm either outside doing some physical work so that my mind is not otherwise occupied or when I am at this computer doing some form of repetitive work that does not engage much of my mind. I certainly cannot be listening to one while I am doing this or reading.
Glad to see that you have found this one of value to you.