Political Crossfire Forums

[eynon]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2658685

A champion of freemarkets and economic liberty has passed........ :cry:

Quote: "Milton Friedman revived the economics of liberty when it had been all but forgotten," said former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, one of the politicians and colleagues who lauded Friedman on Thursday. "He was an intellectual freedom fighter. Never was there a less dismal practitioner of a dismal science."

he will be missed..........think I'll go pour some merlot on the ground.

[Fido]

Thank you Milt for showing the world how to go from a human maggot to a maggot free market in one simple act of faith. God love you!

[Protostar]

Fido wrote: Thank you Milt for showing the world how to go from a human maggot to a maggot free market in one simple act of faith. God love you!

Well that wasn't very nice. :-|

[Fido]

Protostar wrote: Fido wrote: Thank you Milt for showing the world how to go from a human maggot to a maggot free market in one simple act of faith. God love you!

Well that wasn't very nice. :-|

I am sure Milton understands now. Too late however to help clean up any of the mess he helped to make. Which I would say in a nut shell was the acceleration of social wealth into private hands. Denying to government the ability on a whim to consider the future and help to guide us there in preference to an anarchy of the free market is not good economic, nor good social theory. Certainly government that is bought and paid for is no better than the individual at making cogent choices, but we should never give up on the idea of government -when done right- as being much better than any individual alone at everything except eseeax.

[eynon]

Fido wrote: Protostar wrote: Fido wrote: Thank you Milt for showing the world how to go from a human maggot to a maggot free market in one simple act of faith. God love you!

Well that wasn't very nice. :-|

I am sure Milton understands now. Too late however to help clean up any of the mess he helped to make. Which I would say in a nut shell was the acceleration of social wealth into private hands. Denying to government the ability on a whim to consider the future and help to guide us there in preference to an anarchy of the free market is not good economic, nor good social theory. Certainly government that is bought and paid for is no better than the individual at making cogent choices, but we should never give up on the idea of government -when done right- as being much better than any individual alone at everything except eseeax.


hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html

[eynon]

Quote: In an essay titled "Is Capitalism Humane?" Friedman said that "a set of social institutions that stresses individual responsibility, that treats the individual … as responsible for and to himself, will lead to a higher and more desirable moral climate."

Friedman argued that government should allow the free market to operate to solve inflation and other economic problems. But he also urged adoption of a "negative income tax" in which people who earn less than a certain amount would get money back from national coffers.

such a maggot........ :roll:

[eynon]

this guy's catching up though:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/

[MplsBison]

Fido wrote:
but we should never give up on the idea of government -when done right- as being much better than any individual alone at everything.

You know, you're right.

Those damn Jews.

Gotta kill em' all.

[Kumar]

eynon wrote:
hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
That's pretty false. Many of those cases are not the bastions of the free market some make them out to be.

[eynon]

Kumar wrote: eynon wrote:
hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
That's pretty false. Many of those cases are not the bastions of the free market some make them out to be.


truth is there is no free-market, least none I can think of(we had this conversation lots in the LPHQ if I remember correctly)...........how-ever his theories did influence Deng Xiao Ping, Jiang Zemin and Dr. Manmohan Singh.

No-one has followed Friedman word for word, but his influence is still huge......

[Fido]

eynon wrote: Fido wrote: Protostar wrote: Fido wrote: Thank you Milt for showing the world how to go from a human maggot to a maggot free market in one simple act of faith. God love you!

Well that wasn't very nice. :-|

I am sure Milton understands now. Too late however to help clean up any of the mess he helped to make. Which I would say in a nut shell was the acceleration of social wealth into private hands. Denying to government the ability on a whim to consider the future and help to guide us there in preference to an anarchy of the free market is not good economic, nor good social theory. Certainly government that is bought and paid for is no better than the individual at making cogent choices, but we should never give up on the idea of government -when done right- as being much better than any individual alone at everything except eseeax.


hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html

I have more than a few books on the industrial revolution, and one book in particular that notes that it was the beginning of our consciousness of poverty. Yet, many would agree that it was a time of unprecedented prosperity. Wealth creation, capital formation, improvements across the board in science, mechanics, agriculture, and life span. Even worlds were conquered, in a sense, for so many found their world did not end at the next ditch when the British came by. But if you try to exclude all the causes that were not native to Britain, like the exploitation of slaves, or the importation of Sugar then you sense that the great resource exploited in England was not Coal or Iron, but the English. But to exploit them they had to be turned into individuals, because as individuals they could be turn off the commons which was a great bank of national wealth. It was the wealth of that nation of people, and inalienable. Turning that common property into private property that could be sold -stole hereditary rights from whole generations of people. It turned poor people with resources into impoverished people without resources who then used up their entire existences in feeding factories because that was the price of their life. It is wrong to assume that Adam Smith approved of this situation completely; but no doubt Friedman would have.

Government in England was as Friedman seemed to think it should be in America. I get the impression from what I have heard from him that it is not the duty of government to protect people from exploitation, but to get out of the way of their exploitation. We, like the wealthy of Britain have seen a lot of prosperity, at the expense of the environment, at the total loss of control and ownership of family farms, and at the expense of privatized everything and deregulated everything. The people have less and are more exploited. Government aids in this rather that preventing it. It is hardly a free market. It is no beggars banquet. It is a thieve's feast.

[StrangerWitCandy]

fff.org wrote: An Open Letter to Bill Bennett
by Milton Friedman, April 1990

In Oliver Cromwell's eloquent words, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.

Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

I append excerpts from a column that I wrote in 1972 on "Prohibition and Drugs." The major problem then was heroin from Marseilles; today, it is cocaine from Latin America. Today, also, the problem is far more serious than it was 17 years ago: more addicts, more innocent victims; more drug pushers, more law enforcement officials; more money spent to enforce prohibition, more money spent to circumvent prohibition.

Had drugs been decriminalized 17 years ago, "crack" would never have been invented (it was invented because the high cost of illegal drugs made it profitable to provide a cheaper version) and there would today be far fewer addicts. The lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent victims would have been saved, and not only in the U.S. The ghettos of our major cities would not be drug-and-crime-infested no-man's lands. Fewer people would be in jails, and fewer jails would have been built.

Columbia, Bolivia and Peru would not be suffering from narco-terror, and we would not be distorting our foreign policy because of narco-terror. Hell would not, in the words with which Billy Sunday welcomed Prohibition, "be forever for rent," but it would be a lot emptier.

Decriminalizing drugs is even more urgent now than in 1972, but we must recognize that the harm done in the interim cannot be wiped out, certainly not immediately. Postponing decriminalization will only make matters worse, and make the problem appear even more intractable.

Alcohol and tobacco cause many more deaths in users than do drugs. Decriminalization would not prevent us from treating drugs as we now treat alcohol and tobacco: prohibiting sales of drugs to minors, outlawing the advertising of drugs and similar measures. Such measures could be enforced, while outright prohibition cannot be. Moreover, if even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic.

This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes "on suspicion" can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[eynon]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: fff.org wrote: An Open Letter to Bill Bennett
by Milton Friedman, April 1990

In Oliver Cromwell's eloquent words, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.

Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

I append excerpts from a column that I wrote in 1972 on "Prohibition and Drugs." The major problem then was heroin from Marseilles; today, it is cocaine from Latin America. Today, also, the problem is far more serious than it was 17 years ago: more addicts, more innocent victims; more drug pushers, more law enforcement officials; more money spent to enforce prohibition, more money spent to circumvent prohibition.

Had drugs been decriminalized 17 years ago, "crack" would never have been invented (it was invented because the high cost of illegal drugs made it profitable to provide a cheaper version) and there would today be far fewer addicts. The lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent victims would have been saved, and not only in the U.S. The ghettos of our major cities would not be drug-and-crime-infested no-man's lands. Fewer people would be in jails, and fewer jails would have been built.

Columbia, Bolivia and Peru would not be suffering from narco-terror, and we would not be distorting our foreign policy because of narco-terror. Hell would not, in the words with which Billy Sunday welcomed Prohibition, "be forever for rent," but it would be a lot emptier.

Decriminalizing drugs is even more urgent now than in 1972, but we must recognize that the harm done in the interim cannot be wiped out, certainly not immediately. Postponing decriminalization will only make matters worse, and make the problem appear even more intractable.

Alcohol and tobacco cause many more deaths in users than do drugs. Decriminalization would not prevent us from treating drugs as we now treat alcohol and tobacco: prohibiting sales of drugs to minors, outlawing the advertising of drugs and similar measures. Such measures could be enforced, while outright prohibition cannot be. Moreover, if even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic.

This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes "on suspicion" can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

nice, isn't it.......... :-D

[Kumar]

eynon wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote:
hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
That's pretty false. Many of those cases are not the bastions of the free market some make them out to be.


truth is there is no free-market, least none I can think of(we had this conversation lots in the LPHQ if I remember correctly)...........how-ever his theories did influence Deng Xiao Ping, Jiang Zemin and Dr. Manmohan Singh.

No-one has followed Friedman word for word, but his influence is still huge......
I agree, there is no free market in the world today. What I meant was that government regulation played a key role in postwar rehabilitation of economies and it's important not to overlook that. Friedman's ideas were probably most relevant in countries badly in need of deregulation, like India in the early 1990s.

[Fido]

Kumar wrote: eynon wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote:
hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
That's pretty false. Many of those cases are not the bastions of the free market some make them out to be.


truth is there is no free-market, least none I can think of(we had this conversation lots in the LPHQ if I remember correctly)...........how-ever his theories did influence Deng Xiao Ping, Jiang Zemin and Dr. Manmohan Singh.

No-one has followed Friedman word for word, but his influence is still huge......
I agree, there is no free market in the world today. What I meant was that government regulation played a key role in postwar rehabilitation of economies and it's important not to overlook that. Friedman's ideas were probably most relevant in countries badly in need of deregulation, like India in the early 1990s.

I think Friedman was attacking the basis of modern society, and certainly the basis of democracy by attacking the right given to government to regulate industry in the best interest of the people and justice. It was as if to say: We have won the government, and the only thing keeping us from world wide plutocracy is the regulations that keep big fish from swallowing all they can get their mouths upon. Naturally he could think that this country could better stand mutual deregulation, and mutual free trade than a place like India. I don't think he really considered how much wealth a place like India might hold, or how much intelligence might be bred into a people subject to frequent invasions and imperialism. The fact is that much of our prosperity is built on the selling of this country to welcomed invaders from foreign lands, and the forced competition of our own labor with slave labor in foreign lands. Excluding the land which is not portable, the so called free market is resulting in a general loss of wealth from this land, and within this land, a loss of wealth from long time American white people into the hands of people having none of our culture and few of our values. Friedman helped sell America.

America is beyond the ability of Whites of European ancestry to legally repossess. We have not been protected by our government and we are not educated by our schools, and are trapped for the most part in quasi religious, magical conceptions of reality while non Europeans educated at our expense are beginning their command of business and science. I am not suggesting these people should be our slaves, but if this country does not control its markets, and rather lets itself be controlled by the need for markets, and does not control its education but rather lets its education be controlled by the merchants of belief then it will change. There is no possible way the whole world can know the blessings of Capital. If we cannot keep the second and third worlds out of here we will find ourselves very soon dominated by those we once dominated. We have to face the fact that having to deal with us has made them all better and smarter than we are, and they have been made free in our market while we are still bound by laws and culture, and religion to the point of being defenseless.

[eynon]

Kumar wrote: eynon wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote:
hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
That's pretty false. Many of those cases are not the bastions of the free market some make them out to be.


truth is there is no free-market, least none I can think of(we had this conversation lots in the LPHQ if I remember correctly)...........how-ever his theories did influence Deng Xiao Ping, Jiang Zemin and Dr. Manmohan Singh.

No-one has followed Friedman word for word, but his influence is still huge......
I agree, there is no free market in the world today. What I meant was that government regulation played a key role in postwar rehabilitation of economies and it's important not to overlook that. Friedman's ideas were probably most relevant in countries badly in need of deregulation, like India in the early 1990s.

or China in the 80s and 90s........I agree there is a mix involved. How-ever more liberal economic policies do help in the right situation. Consider West-Germany and it's glorious economic resurrection after the war. Of course the West German government was present in that growth, but more regulated economies like the UK and France were more stagnant.

As with all things in life there is a Golden-Mean between market and state.......

btw........what'd you think of Dr. Singh, I was an Indian politics buff in college(kinda lost track since), but I remember when Congress put him up as PM and thinking "that's one of the greatest political moves I think I've ever seen"........finally mending the rift between Congress and the Sikhs, but at the same time putting a great mind at the head of the Indian Republic. I think you'd be hard put to find a smarter world leader.

[Nathan]

There never will be a pure free market economy, but he did have a lot of influence and he was a great thinker. Although I disagreed with him on some issues, he still should be remembered with respect.

[Fido]

Nathan wrote: There never will be a pure free market economy, but he did have a lot of influence and he was a great thinker. Although I disagreed with him on some issues, he still should be remembered with respect.

I hope you have enough respect for both of us. For me I only see more solutionalism from Friedman. I don't care if you are looking for a free market, or a free ride. If you have a solution that does not recognize up front that we are all in on going relationships that are both fluid and volatile, and that going in and coming out people have to have enough justice, and enough give and take, and enough of truth to make communication; then you have nothing but an empty form. If anyone wants a solution I can live with put a human in it like a canary in a coal mine; and if that does not kill them too quick I'll consider it.

[Kumar]

Fido wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote:
hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
That's pretty false. Many of those cases are not the bastions of the free market some make them out to be.


truth is there is no free-market, least none I can think of(we had this conversation lots in the LPHQ if I remember correctly)...........how-ever his theories did influence Deng Xiao Ping, Jiang Zemin and Dr. Manmohan Singh.

No-one has followed Friedman word for word, but his influence is still huge......
I agree, there is no free market in the world today. What I meant was that government regulation played a key role in postwar rehabilitation of economies and it's important not to overlook that. Friedman's ideas were probably most relevant in countries badly in need of deregulation, like India in the early 1990s.

I think Friedman was attacking the basis of modern society, and certainly the basis of democracy by attacking the right given to government to regulate industry in the best interest of the people and justice. It was as if to say: We have won the government, and the only thing keeping us from world wide plutocracy is the regulations that keep big fish from swallowing all they can get their mouths upon. Naturally he could think that this country could better stand mutual deregulation, and mutual free trade than a place like India. I don't think he really considered how much wealth a place like India might hold, or how much intelligence might be bred into a people subject to frequent invasions and imperialism. The fact is that much of our prosperity is built on the selling of this country to welcomed invaders from foreign lands, and the forced competition of our own labor with slave labor in foreign lands. Excluding the land which is not portable, the so called free market is resulting in a general loss of wealth from this land, and within this land, a loss of wealth from long time American white people into the hands of people having none of our culture and few of our values. Friedman helped sell America.

America is beyond the ability of Whites of European ancestry to legally repossess. We have not been protected by our government and we are not educated by our schools, and are trapped for the most part in quasi religious, magical conceptions of reality while non Europeans educated at our expense are beginning their command of business and science. I am not suggesting these people should be our slaves, but if this country does not control its markets, and rather lets itself be controlled by the need for markets, and does not control its education but rather lets its education be controlled by the merchants of belief then it will change. There is no possible way the whole world can know the blessings of Capital. If we cannot keep the second and third worlds out of here we will find ourselves very soon dominated by those we once dominated. We have to face the fact that having to deal with us has made them all better and smarter than we are, and they have been made free in our market while we are still bound by laws and culture, and religion to the point of being defenseless.
You raise several good points, though I'm unsure why race matters in terms of state education and the like. It would perhaps be better to say non-citizens should not be educated at our expense? But globalization certainly has few overall benefits for countries like the US. I don't advocate pure protectionism, but what is happening now is certainly a sellout or outright destruction of core American assets in the name of "deregulation".

[Fido]

Kumar wrote: Fido wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote:
hmmm..........on one had we have what you're saying, on the other the greatest period of prosperity in human history.......China, India, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, the US, economic explosions based much on the theories this man pushed.

The only person who did more to create our modern era of propserity is Norman Borlaug: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
That's pretty false. Many of those cases are not the bastions of the free market some make them out to be.


truth is there is no free-market, least none I can think of(we had this conversation lots in the LPHQ if I remember correctly)...........how-ever his theories did influence Deng Xiao Ping, Jiang Zemin and Dr. Manmohan Singh.

No-one has followed Friedman word for word, but his influence is still huge......
I agree, there is no free market in the world today. What I meant was that government regulation played a key role in postwar rehabilitation of economies and it's important not to overlook that. Friedman's ideas were probably most relevant in countries badly in need of deregulation, like India in the early 1990s.

I think Friedman was attacking the basis of modern society, and certainly the basis of democracy by attacking the right given to government to regulate industry in the best interest of the people and justice. It was as if to say: We have won the government, and the only thing keeping us from world wide plutocracy is the regulations that keep big fish from swallowing all they can get their mouths upon. Naturally he could think that this country could better stand mutual deregulation, and mutual free trade than a place like India. I don't think he really considered how much wealth a place like India might hold, or how much intelligence might be bred into a people subject to frequent invasions and imperialism. The fact is that much of our prosperity is built on the selling of this country to welcomed invaders from foreign lands, and the forced competition of our own labor with slave labor in foreign lands. Excluding the land which is not portable, the so called free market is resulting in a general loss of wealth from this land, and within this land, a loss of wealth from long time American white people into the hands of people having none of our culture and few of our values. Friedman helped sell America.

America is beyond the ability of Whites of European ancestry to legally repossess. We have not been protected by our government and we are not educated by our schools, and are trapped for the most part in quasi religious, magical conceptions of reality while non Europeans educated at our expense are beginning their command of business and science. I am not suggesting these people should be our slaves, but if this country does not control its markets, and rather lets itself be controlled by the need for markets, and does not control its education but rather lets its education be controlled by the merchants of belief then it will change. There is no possible way the whole world can know the blessings of Capital. If we cannot keep the second and third worlds out of here we will find ourselves very soon dominated by those we once dominated. We have to face the fact that having to deal with us has made them all better and smarter than we are, and they have been made free in our market while we are still bound by laws and culture, and religion to the point of being defenseless.
You raise several good points, though I'm unsure why race matters in terms of state education and the like. It would perhaps be better to say non-citizens should not be educated at our expense? But globalization certainly has few overall benefits for countries like the US. I don't advocate pure protectionism, but what is happening now is certainly a sellout or outright destruction of core American assets in the name of "deregulation".

Global free markets often result in great shifts of political and economic power in societies, as well as global pollution, exploitation and expropriations of the environment, and wars, population shifts, -in size or through immigration. It is an easy thing to accept people into this country that we have helped to displace here, and to accept that they are here for freedom, but what freedom are they talking about. Political freedom, religious freedom, or economic freedom. The sad fact is that very often people come to these shores who do not think of themselves as Americans, and who will never think of themselves as Americans. Perhaps Friedman was one such person; but if a person comes from China, and another comes from Korea, and another comes from Turkey, and another from Russia; and each looks upon the American public as so many sheep while they identify with the wolf what should be their particular difference be to me?

The world's population is on the move. Before too long we will have over a million new Iraqis in this country, all claiming to love America and to be good Americans, and all in fact, lousy land lords. And another fact we have to consider is that because of our economic activity which is driving much of the shift in population, some of these people will arrive with a great deal of wealth. We have many wealthy, and successful business people in this country who are first generation immigrants. We might want to ask, what quantity of the loot these people are spending in the free market here was generated in the interest of an international free market there and sprinkled like pixie dust over distant populations to buy good will for our business, but loaded onto the taxes of free born Americans. It is difficult to see the vast numbers of foreign born people attending our universities, and paying cash for the privilege while worthy Bubbas and bubba-etts have to burden their futures with debt for the same knowledge.

I am not saying those who show up here are not worthy, or that they are representative of their people. I know many who come here as students will stay, and raise the general level of intelligence. I know many of these people have something to recommend them. I want to know that they desire to become Americans in the fullest sense of the word before they do become Americans. If there is something you would rather be than American, that is what you should be, and America should not be a corral filled with your prey. Ultimately the free market is a myth, and a painful one that does not take into account a lot of the misery it causes. It is freedom for those in a position, or for those lacking in moral restraints to take advantage of others. It creates no more wealth. It does add to the general volatility of society, and the general insecurity of the citizens. It is the addition of anarchy to a system of economics already well described as anarchy.