Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Milton Friedman

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:09:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

How can this be true?

Corporations owe back to society that helped them thrive. They should let future citizens have a chance at opportunity that they had themselves.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:10:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do agree with Friedman's Negative Income Tax idea though ... I have researched it and it sounds brilliant.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:13:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How senselessly disrespectful...his name is not "Socialist", and then they cut him off after Friedman's speech.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:18:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:09:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

How can this be true?

Corporations owe back to society that helped them thrive. They should let future citizens have a chance at opportunity that they had themselves.

Why?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:29:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

I disagree. Can you elaborate?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:39:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:29:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

I disagree. Can you elaborate?

Well if acting dishonestly or exploiting unaware customers can maximize profits those aren't ethically acceptable business practices condoned by any decent moral standard including Buddhism. I'm a little surprised any hardcore capitalists are buddhists given the emphasis on detachment from worldly possessions in buddhism. It's really quite anti-consumerism. Buddha would not be a tea partier.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:44:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:09:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

How can this be true?

Corporations owe back to society that helped them thrive. They should let future citizens have a chance at opportunity that they had themselves.

Corporations are already giving back to society by providing the consumers with a good that they demand. What else are you exactly proposing?

In a free market society, everybody has an equal chance of opportunity, regardless of what businesses do.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:44:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On topic:

Friedman is amazing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:51:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:13:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
How senselessly disrespectful...his name is not "Socialist", and then they cut him off after Friedman's speech.

I noticed that too
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:05:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:39:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:29:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

I disagree. Can you elaborate?

Well if acting dishonestly or exploiting unaware customers can maximize profits those aren't ethically acceptable business practices condoned by any decent moral standard including Buddhism.
He did not say that corporations should be dishonest or exploit unaware customers, but just the opposite. He claims, if a company is dishonest or exploits unaware customers, than they lose the customer's business. It is bad for business, to be dishonest and exploitative, and that is actually something I learned in my marketing class as well. It is a bad marketing to deal in shady business practices or screw the customer.

I'm a little surprised any hardcore capitalists are buddhists given the emphasis on detachment from worldly possessions in buddhism.
One does not have to give up all his worldly possessions to be detached from their possessions; one does however have to be detached in order to give up their possessions.
detachment allows for one to better handle the loss of the subject in question.

One can buy a video game, but not be attached to said video game. I have purchased games in the past that I am not attached to. I don't play them 24, and I don't freak out if they are lost; they are however there in case I have nothing to do, and I need some entertainment.

It's really quite anti-consumerism. Buddha would not be a tea partier.

It's not anti-consumerism. Marketing does not create materialism. Marketing directs and informs the customers on which product to purchase. Marketing uses preexisting feelings, and goals to attract customers. Ads for Fat loss programs don't target people in shape, they target people who want to get in shape.
McDonald's commercials targets people who are hungry, and or high.
Insurance commercials target people who are uninsured or unhappy with their current insurance plan.
Commercials for new computer models target people who are unhappy with their computer's performance, such as their computer is too slow, or it freezes allot.

Marketers who ignore the appropriate segment, often fail. Capitalism is simple, you have a basic need, and I have the solution. I inform you of the solution, and the advantages of choosing me over my competition, than if you choose me, I give you the solution in exchange for appropriate compensation.
If I have a product nobody wants or needs, I cannot move the product, because the product is worthless.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He did not say that corporations should be dishonest or exploit unaware customers, but just the opposite. He claims, if a company is dishonest or exploits unaware customers, than they lose the customer's business. It is bad for business, to be dishonest and exploitative, and that is actually something I learned in my marketing class as well. It is a bad marketing to deal in shady business practices or screw the customer.

You obviously can't say that's true 100% of the time. In the real world dishonest or misleading practices can easily lead to higher profit. Regardless, whether misleading customers is good or bad for business is irrelevant to the Buddha because it would be morally wrong. There's undoubtedly cases in the short term where there's benefit...

It's not anti-consumerism. Marketing does not create materialism.

Marketing promotes materialism. I don't want to sidetrack our conversations, let's focus most on the first point: It's undoubtedly true that if you mislead or "stretch the truth" to some misinformed customers you can get a little extra out of them. This is Business 101. I'm not saying all business are dishonest, but people can easily skew info to their advantage. It's indisputable that morality can get in the way of profits.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:57:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:18:44 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:09:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

How can this be true?

Corporations owe back to society that helped them thrive. They should let future citizens have a chance at opportunity that they had themselves.

Why?

Elizabeth Warren, a true Progressive, basically sums my reason up (though not fully):
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:57:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:18:44 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:09:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

How can this be true?

Corporations owe back to society that helped them thrive. They should let future citizens have a chance at opportunity that they had themselves.

Why?

Elizabeth Warren, a true Progressive, basically sums my reason up (though not fully):



But, still, thats all nice and dandy, but why are the obligated to do it still?

I mean, they also paid for those roads, and those police, and everything else, and are still paying for it.

The way she puts it, its like they aren't even paying for it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:07:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Don't get me wrong Contra, I believe in giving back to society through charity, and various works, but the who obligation reasoning is faulty.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:21:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:03:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/8/2012 9:57:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:18:44 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:09:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

How can this be true?

Corporations owe back to society that helped them thrive. They should let future citizens have a chance at opportunity that they had themselves.

Why?

Elizabeth Warren, a true Progressive, basically sums my reason up (though not fully):



But, still, thats all nice and dandy, but why are the obligated to do it still?

I mean, they also paid for those roads, and those police, and everything else, and are still paying for it.

The way she puts it, its like they aren't even paying for it.

I'll post my reasons on this forum tomorrow or soon after.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:25:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:44:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
On topic:

Friedman is amazing.

I wish he was still alive :/
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:30:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:52:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
He did not say that corporations should be dishonest or exploit unaware customers, but just the opposite. He claims, if a company is dishonest or exploits unaware customers, than they lose the customer's business. It is bad for business, to be dishonest and exploitative, and that is actually something I learned in my marketing class as well. It is a bad marketing to deal in shady business practices or screw the customer.

You obviously can't say that's true 100% of the time. In the real world dishonest or misleading practices can easily lead to higher profit.
Not in the long run, so in the long run they fail to deliver profits to the investors. Customer satisfaction is required for a bussiness to survive.
Regardless, whether misleading customers is good or bad for business is irrelevant to the Buddha because it would be morally wrong.

Buddhism and Marketing experts agree that it's a bad idea to conduct immoral bussiness practices. Buddhists believe the immoral practices would lead to suffering. Marketing experts believe the immoral practices would lead to unsatisfied customers and thus a loss of profit.

Seems Buddhists and marketers agree immorality causes suffering, and that we should avoid immoral practices.

There's undoubtedly cases in the short term where there's benefit...

Long term effects outweighs the short term effects. If I make a hefty profit today but go bankrupt next week the investors won't be happy.

It's not anti-consumerism. Marketing does not create materialism.

Marketing promotes materialism.

Its Marketing 101 that marketing does not create materialism. Marketing directs and informs.
Source: principles of marketing course and book

I don't want to sidetrack our conversations, let's focus most on the first point: It's undoubtedly true that if you mislead or "stretch the truth" to some misinformed customers you can get a little extra out of them. This is Business 101.
No bussiness 101 is keep the customer satisfied
I'm not saying all business are dishonest, but people can easily skew info to their advantage. It's indisputable that morality can get in the way of profits.
BS in fact morality can turn something unprofitable into something profitable. Just look at all the inefficient green products that sell regardless of better and cheaper options.
It's bussiness 101 that by maintaining a reputation of morality helps the bussiness's profit margins, while a reputation of immorality hurts the company.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:39:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:57:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:18:44 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:09:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/8/2012 8:06:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I think I've watched this, and I use to be a huge Milton Friedman fan. I still like parts of Capitalism and Freedom, but I don't think his economic philosophy is compatible with Buddhism. I remember he explicitly states that the only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Come to think of it, I don't think that statement is really compatible with any moral philosophy.

How can this be true?

Corporations owe back to society that helped them thrive. They should let future citizens have a chance at opportunity that they had themselves.

Why?

Elizabeth Warren, a true Progressive, basically sums my reason up (though not fully):



Elizabeth Warren just harps and harps about public services but every single one that she mentions is done at the state and local levels yet she's trying to grow the federal government, which there is absolutely no good reason to.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:46:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not in the long run, so in the long run they fail to deliver profits to the investors. Customer satisfaction is required for a bussiness to survive.

I'm going to cite one real life example that happened to me and then I'm done with this conversation since most rational people believe that profit and good behavior are not completely in tandem. I belonged to a small gym for like 6 months and they billed me by the month to my credit card. I told one of the trainers I was going to stop, and so I stopped but I realized months later (like 10 months) that they were still charging me. They obviously knew who I was and that I hadn't been there for like 10 months. Nonetheless, I don't have a case against them because I had to tell the head of the gym I was stopping instead of the trainer.

So now, do you believe had the gym been fair and stopped charging me after I left but never explicitly cancelled they would have somehow benefitted in the long run? I'm probably never going back regardless.

There are millions upon millions of examples where there just isn't this transparency...the world does not operate in perfect accordance with theory. Even if we take the theory we ought presume it only applies on average.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:54:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:46:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Not in the long run, so in the long run they fail to deliver profits to the investors. Customer satisfaction is required for a bussiness to survive.

I'm going to cite one real life example that happened to me and then I'm done with this conversation since most rational people believe that profit and good behavior are not completely in tandem. I belonged to a small gym for like 6 months and they billed me by the month to my credit card. I told one of the trainers I was going to stop, and so I stopped but I realized months later (like 10 months) that they were still charging me. They obviously knew who I was and that I hadn't been there for like 10 months. Nonetheless, I don't have a case against them because I had to tell the head of the gym I was stopping instead of the trainer.

That was a mistake on your part for not going through the proper channels. You can't blame the owner for your mistake.
The trainer may have assumed you would talk to the owner, and the owner who was not informed continued to charge you.

So now, do you believe had the gym been fair and stopped charging me after I left but never explicitly cancelled they would have somehow benefitted in the long run? I'm probably never going back regardless.

Don't blame others for your mistake.

There are millions upon millions of examples where there just isn't this transparency...the world does not operate in perfect accordance with theory. Even if we take the theory we ought presume it only applies on average.

So than why do you assume a socialist theory is any better?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 11:08:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That was a mistake on your part for not going through the proper channels. You can't blame the owner for your mistake.
The trainer may have assumed you would talk to the owner, and the owner who was not informed continued to charge you.

Even if we accept that I made a mistake, and I'll admit I was at fault, is it honestly in good character to continue to charge a broke college student $100/month for facilities he's not using? I'm talking outside of economics here - do you keep charging even if his credit card is declined? Do you call up a debt collection agency?

I'm not advancing socialism here.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 11:24:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I couldn't find the one I wanted, but I like this one too.
The one I wanted is where Friedman is at a a school for gifted children and he asks what the difference is between a child inheriting wealth from their parents vs inheriting a talent or skill which will lead to wealth.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 7:08:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 11:08:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That was a mistake on your part for not going through the proper channels. You can't blame the owner for your mistake.
The trainer may have assumed you would talk to the owner, and the owner who was not informed continued to charge you.

Even if we accept that I made a mistake, and I'll admit I was at fault, is it honestly in good character to continue to charge a broke college student $100/month for facilities he's not using? I'm talking outside of economics here - do you keep charging even if his credit card is declined? Do you call up a debt collection agency?

I'm not advancing socialism here.

You are essentially correct. The Friedman method makes a god of money, and reduces everything to its cost. Absent a moral operant no corporation can be a function for good and must view everything as either an asset or a liability, including people. In the late 19th and early 20ty century principled thinkers saw nor actual difference between communism and capitalism, what might today be called a distinction without a difference. There is no difference between a big corporation and/or a big government, both are morally indefensible.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 7:27:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 11:08:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That was a mistake on your part for not going through the proper channels. You can't blame the owner for your mistake.
The trainer may have assumed you would talk to the owner, and the owner who was not informed continued to charge you.

Even if we accept that I made a mistake, and I'll admit I was at fault, is it honestly in good character to continue to charge a broke college student $100/month for facilities he's not using?

Image if the company was to go out of their way to check every single subscriber's status. There is a reason it is the obligation of the subscriber to cancel their subscription and not the company. You did not cancel your subscription. It was still in the computers that you were subscribed. They are not to blame, you are.

It was neither moral or immoral. What it was, was practical. Your suffering was caused because you strayed from the 8-fold path when canceling your subscription. You did not pay attention to what you were suppose to do, and you put little effort into canceling the subscription. Your suffering was perpetuated by the fact you blamed others for your mistake.

I'm talking outside of economics here - do you keep charging even if his credit card is declined? Do you call up a debt collection agency?

You owed them money. They have to pay employees. They have to be able to afford the gym's upkeep.
So yes, it was right for them to call up a collection agency.

Obviously you did not like how they handled the situation; so if you were to apply for another gym membership, would you choose the same gym or a competitor?

I'm not advancing socialism here.

You are saying capitalism does not agree with Buddhism. The opposite of capitalism is socialism. If you are anti-capitalist, you are socialist. Unless you are pushing for a mixed economy, in which case, you are promoting a disaster.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 7:32:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
has anyone noticed milton freidmen is the best?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 7:36:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 11:24:20 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I couldn't find the one I wanted, but I like this one too.
The one I wanted is where Friedman is at a a school for gifted children and he asks what the difference is between a child inheriting wealth from their parents vs inheriting a talent or skill which will lead to wealth.




This video is very relevant to the discussion between me and OMG, and I thank you for sharing.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 7:52:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It was neither moral or immoral. What it was, was practical. Your suffering was caused because you strayed from the 8-fold path when canceling your subscription.

I love how you're able to turn Buddha into Ayn Rand. We both know this discussion is going nowhere since it should be clear that we live in different universes (although in all fairness I'd certainly prefer yours in theory). I suppose Buddha, had he been alive today, would have supported cutting government coverage of medical insurance for the poor as well (hey, they can't handle money - not Buddha's problem.) I don't know what to say, on some level I envy your unwavering optimism but I can't be bothered to break it down.