For all of us who support economic freedom, progress through market competition and the most important of all, individualism. Capitalism work when you do. The commies have their own group, therefore so should we.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Media RSS Feed Report media Milton Friedman vs Michael Moore Junior
Post comment Comments
ComradeWinston
ComradeWinston Oct 22 2011, 9:44am says:

*sigh* The point was that it was a very cheap thing to do to fix the car to make it safe so the cars would not BLOW UP and they chose to save a buck which caused the deaths of a thousand people. Friedman throwing possibilities and theories at something that really happened is just a good tactic to win a debate and avoid the real scenario presented. If the kid was better at arguing he would have been calling him out more on that and wouldn't have bothered with his made up scenarios and pushed the REAL example.

The point is, the **** was cheap, they could have easily afforded it, they chose to be greedy, many people died as a result.

+1 vote     reply to comment
CommanderDG Author
CommanderDG Oct 22 2011, 3:16pm replied:

Clearly you didn't understood the point he made. It would have costed only 13$ by car yes, but first don't forget it was in the 70's. So in fact it would be worth almost 75$ today. Now, that is still not a lot, granted, however, if only in the first year(1971), they have sold 100000 cars, if you installed one of those plastic "block" on each of them it would have costed them 1.3 million back then but it would have worth 7 million today. That is only for one year! Therefore what the right thing to do it would have been to tell the consumers they could pay for a upgrade to protect themselves from a potential gas tank explosion in the event of rear end collision. They were not force to take the car nor not to ask question about it safety. People are cheap. If you are familiar with Ryan air you will understand. They do provide some crappy service but people do pay for it because it's CHEAPER. This is the same company which want to REMOVE the co-pilot and let the computer fly it. However, what do you do if your pilot is "unavailable"? Well in their perspective you simply have to train the stewardesses, and they will land the bird, which is bloody crazy. But, if people want to pay for that service, they should have the right to do so.

+3 votes   reply to comment
Realyboredguy Creator
Realyboredguy Oct 22 2011, 3:41pm replied:

ComanderDG is right. If you force the company to pay for all the possible safety measure you can imagine, not only it costs a fortune, but also the company is not free to make their own choice, nether is the customer. The customer is not free because he can't make the choice between a cheaper service or a beater service. Do you want to live in a society were everything is controlled by the government?

+3 votes   reply to comment
Guest
Guest Mar 31 2013, 2:02am replied:

This comment is currently awaiting admin approval, join now to view.

ComradeWinston
ComradeWinston Oct 22 2011, 4:35pm says:

How much do the windows, mirrors, or breaks cost? Certainly all of them individually cost more than that part which stops the car from exploding and killing people. Neither is it enough to increase in any significant way the price of a product which already costs thousands of dollars. You can say in total what that would cost sure, but in the end it fits the budget and much more profit is made. So if lives are debatable with an economically sound choice of adding something which will save hundreds is not thousands of lives or choosing to save a little bit of money in production that is an incredibly morally reprehensible choice which says, 'we care about customers money more so than the customer them self.' And that is where the divide is, when someone cares more about a frivolous economic system than their very own species.

+2 votes     reply to comment
CommanderDG Author
CommanderDG Oct 22 2011, 5:34pm replied:

But you are missing the point. The CONSUMMERS are buying it by CHOICE! Nobody(that I know of), would buy a car without windows. Although, I don't see much people driving a tank either. If they truly wanted security they could buy a armored vehicle but they don't because it's too expensive and some find it ugly. "And that is where the divide is, when someone cares more about a frivolous economic system than their very own species. " No the divide is, if people are smart enough to make choice on their own. You are wrong about what would generate more profit. Safety is not always a primordial element when buying something. You cannot base yourself on this argument without empirical proof. It fit budget you are right, we could change use the money for the windows and use it to shield the gas tank with a 2 inch titanium casket or improve other safety feature of the cars but that won't necessary make more profit. I agree consumers should be informed of the risk but they should also have the liberty to decide. The corporation should not be told how to build their product but if a consumer want more safety they should offer it as an improvement.

+2 votes   reply to comment
CommanderDG Author
CommanderDG Oct 22 2011, 5:48pm replied:

Additionally, only 27 people have been killed by a rear end collision based from this web site:
Auto.howstuffworks.com
The total redesign cost was evaluated at 137 million. The cost of the block is minimal compared to the redesign cost. That is what you fail to understand. If they really were worried they should have brought the car to a mechanic and made him make the change. Sure it would have costed a fortune, but why should you blame the company who sell the product if they do admit there is a design flaw and you still buy it and then use it. I do recognize Ford should have been more transparent and declare it right away but they shouldn't have been imposed to change the design.

Also a little change to my previous statement, if a consumer want more safety they should offer it as an improvement if the consumer is willing to pay for it.

+2 votes   reply to comment
ComradeWinston
ComradeWinston Oct 22 2011, 6:45pm replied:

The point is for the product to not blow up period. Ford could not easily afford this even though they make billions easily?

---------------------------

Alright, say every car producer made a ****** product that blows up after X distance, or that the lights catch fire after a week, or something crazy along those lines. (might as well happen with the quality of US products compared to other companies) A world where companies mutually understand each will not add a part or add one that is absolute **** to save money and make a bigger profit. Then what?

It's your choice to choose which piece of crap to buy. So you would say its not the companies fault if its not a good product, just because its your choice even if they all intentionally had such major faults?

-They, the company, are producing something. Something which to their benefit is cheap to make but of low quality and high price.
-Someone, the consumer, is buying that something because there is nothing better.
-They, the consumers, are forced to buy one of the available products on the 'free market' even though the choices are bad. But the only point is they all they get the "choice" of what they purchase?

So choice is good simply because you are 'free' to 'choose'?
There should be no standard of quality?
No basic right to be presented a well made product at a reasonable price?
You would actually trust an amoral system with the singular goal of the maximization of their profit to produce products of good quality on their own?

+2 votes     reply to comment
CommanderDG Author
CommanderDG Oct 22 2011, 11:40pm replied:

Please stop refuting without facts. But thanks for the numerous question.(not sarcastic)Ok well this gonna be a little long:
"might as well happen with the quality of US products compared to other companies"
First of all, this is not true. In fact, 20 years ago it was the Japanese car maker(Toyota and company) which had this reputation. Nowadays I think you could say KIA and other car producer of the same commercial grade that sell product of poor quality. And you are debating something ridiculous, it not like there was a car exploding every 5minute, we speak of 27 cars(most likely out of a little less than a million) which crash and blown up accidentally about 30 to forty years ago. Of course there is quality car to buy. It not like the Ford Pinto was the only one in the world. It had a design flaw, but statistically speaking it wasn't major. We could take magnifying glass and start to analyses every crack and every imperfection, but in truth we are merely scarring yourself for no good reason. You are more likely to die from a human error(drunk driving, or simply pure incompetence) than from a machine we built. There is no such product that as no flaws at all. If I am wrong please name it. If you want more security you need to spend more money which is logical.

+3 votes   reply to comment
CommanderDG Author
CommanderDG Oct 22 2011, 11:40pm replied:

Secondly, no the fault wasn't intentional, they discovered it afterward but they didn't mentioned it and that is blameworthy.

"-They, the company, are producing something. Something which to their benefit is cheap to make but of low quality and high price."

They do not have such a big profit margin(at least not anymore).
The corporation which do have the "largest" profit margin are the pharmaceutical company but it's 20%. It still take four years to double their initial investment. Define low quality. It a matter of perception. Yes of course compared to Rolls Royce it is but if you compared it to a Japanese car back then it was actually much better.

"-Someone, the consumer, is buying that something because there is nothing better."
That is pure fictions. It was far from being the only choice they had.

"-They, the consumers, are forced to buy one of the available products on the 'free market' even though the choices are bad. But the only point is they all they get the "choice" of what they purchase?"
Of course not. That the benefice of free market, there is what we call market competition. The company are competing to have the largest volume of consumers. This is what create the balance between high quality-high priced product, and low grade-low priced products.

"So choice is good simply because you are 'free' to 'choose'?"
Of course! There is plenty of choice, you are far from being limited.
"There should be no standard of quality?"
There are some standard of quality. As I previously stated, a ford(or Chevrolet,Dodge, Toyota, Saturn, KIA etc) and a Roll Royce(or Ferrari, Lamborghini, Mercedes, Bentley etc) are far from being the same quality. The standard are determined by the market after all.

+3 votes   reply to comment
CommanderDG Author
CommanderDG Oct 22 2011, 11:40pm replied:

"No basic right to be presented a well made product at a reasonable price?"
That pure jealousy(I am not a rich or close to being one, so don't bring that up).
Of course Ford and similar company can make good product, like I said there profit margin are small. The only reason they have such a big revenue is that they have been a powerful company for a very long time, therefore, they have a larger amount of customers which translate into more money. If you want a product of a higher grade you must pay more. Nothing is free. Besides, as technology goes up, so does the quality. A ford today is much better than it would have been for the same price if you consider the inflation, 30-40 years ago.

"You would actually trust an amoral system with the singular goal of the maximization of their profit to produce products of good quality on their own?"
Of course why not? Communism is no more moral than Capitalism is. All it does it fixing a price on the item which eventually destroy the rivalry between companies and eventually some goes bankrupt and people loose their jobs. In the end, the success of the products depends whether the customers are satisfied or not. Not which system you use. But if you impose a specific price on the product there is no money for improvements. Market competition imposes progress or else the company who doesn't, fall behind and make less money. For example RIM(Research in motion) was the leading producer of smartphone but they didn't improved their product quickly enough and both Google and Apple showed who's the boss.

+3 votes   reply to comment
CommanderDG Author
CommanderDG Oct 24 2011, 12:41am replied:

Has anyone actually read my 3 replies =P?

+1 vote   reply to comment
creptoin1n Creator
creptoin1n Dec 21 2011, 10:46am replied:

I read everything sir. and you my friend, are very well spoken and smart. I thank you for that.

+3 votes   reply to comment
James177 Creator
James177 Dec 28 2011, 1:12am replied:

I did.

+3 votes   reply to comment
CommanderDG Author
CommanderDG Jan 17 2012, 2:02pm replied:

Just checking =), but thanks

+1 vote   reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Description

Some people simply aren't bound by the rules of logic.

Video Details
Type
Demonstration
Date
Oct 20th, 2011
Length
06:56
Filename
milton-friedman-puts-a-young-michael-moore-in-his-place.mp4
Options
URL
Embed
Share
Report Abuse
Report media
Add Media
Members only