"Principles have to be balanced." What does that mean? Balanced for what? Why? What I think he means here is that one principle has to be balanced by another; meaning the profit-and-loss system has to be "balanced" by concerns for safety. But, that is a false premise; it presumes automatically that businesses that operate in the former principle have no concern about safety whatsoever. Certainly they do. Even the Zeppelin company did when they flew the Hindenburg around filled with H2.
the hypocrisy of the libertarians is that they advocate an unfettered free market system with no regulations, yet they don't want to work at Foxconn or apple over in china where workers are committing suicide, they don't want to work in a sweatshop with abysmal labor laws, no union, no worker rights, they love the idea of an unfettered free market, they just don't like the actual results of their ideology. Start putting your money where your mouth is libertarians and move to China or India.
@DoneWithDogma It's not hypocrisy because we don't advocate telling other people what they should do. Workers are best off when they are employed, and a free market is the best way to employ workers. The further that countries move away from free markets, the worse the conditions in the country. The hypocrisy with liberals is that they think that people are too stupid to solve their own problems so they need some elite person (which is deemed by them to be smart) that can solve all the problems.
@kriskats19 that can hardly be deemed as a response to my comment, of course workers are best off when they are employed(they wouldn't be workers if they weren't would they?), and libertarians seem to think that once the free market is completely free of all government restraints that corporations will suddenly give a shit about their employees, bankers will magically become charitable samaritans, and air and water quality will be immaculate for no reason, it's childish and stupid.
@DoneWithDogma To add what kriskats19 said, China and India are controlled economies with plenty of regulations; they just have fewer than America does, and they make deals with corporate interests that seek cheap labor. It's not as though you can go over to China right now and open up a store. You're going to pay some mean taxes unless you do what every company tries to do in America and abroad, negotiate with the politicians, both local and national, for breaks here and there.
So what happens to the people who cant afford a decent product or service cause the prices are too high. You get what you pay for is just to fascist man. Somebody has to control the product and services.
@Ares3ful The answer for a fully developed human being is to make more money, rearrange priorities or beg from charity. One has no moral claim on the production of others. Of course, that is why we have Democrats -- to conjure a legal claim on the production of others. Screw morality.
@fzqlcs That's a disgusting comment life is not about making more money for good social treatment and that's where Friedman failed his view on humanity. we are not talking about middle classes a middle class has the privilege to rearrange priority's where the poor don't have any you know. Milton Friedman' view on monetary policy worked very well in Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Niger and Malawi.
Freidman cannot imagine a democratic economy. If I get the Pinto to save gas, am I ever gonna know it's missing this safety part without some institution that looks into these things. Am I suppose to know how a properly installed gas tank looks, Should I also know how my local nuclear plant works and go and inspect it myself.
We need to count on each other as our life systems become complex. A system built on greed may have worked in a limited way for the last few hundred years but that's over.
I laugh at the people accusing capitalism of poor working conditions and child labor. If these people did any research, they would find that capitalism actually ended child labor!
@boshembechle You are a truly a fucking idiot, child labor is everywhere in India, China, and other third world countries. It just moved from America to another country where it cannot be seen. The shoes you are wearing are made from a child.
Yes, Amrit, We should ban child labor in India. Because that will cause all legit establishments to stop employing children, leaving only the illegal ones to be the ONLY employers of children.. e.g. Child prostitution. The children will be so better off there. Right?
This whole case was one big smear campaign only 27 people died from rear end collision with this year and model. In total the Ford Pinto had one of the lowest casualty rates of compact cars for that year and it was ONLY in that year that this was a problem. Keep in mind the hundreds of deaths was NOT from REAR end collisions but from ALL collisions in general. I suggest everyone read "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case".
Friedman very patient. Explains thoroughly because he wants to impart his knowledge onto others. and the last point so true. it is not the fault of the electric company. money would have to be taken from somewhere and that would ideally be from that persons family, associates, co-workers and neighbors.
The "trickle-down" Theory: The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
I'm actually looking for some children to buy. Anyone want to sell me their child? I'll feed them They'll work hard, learn good work ethics, and above all, I will ADD VALUE to their now worthless lives being student leeches. If you really believe in big "C" Corporate Capitalism, let me buy your children, and I'll put them to work in my sweatshop. Long hours, no pay, let them sleep on the ground, JUST THINK, of the INCREASE to GDP!!! Oh, did I tell you I'll ship them all off to the 3rd world?!
@JoshMan522 A idiot how is that free choice if the kids dont have a choice? I used to cut grass for 5 dollars was that slave labor? I had a paper route was that slave labor. Hell i lied to an employer to get my first job because i wanted to buy a NES and i was underage. I also suggest you read up on child labor its not a simple black and white issue.Often those kids are starving and if not for jobs would sell themselves to get food. I would bet any NorthK kid would love to have a job.
Milton is right on the money, and the student (Who some say is Michael Moore) can't grasp the concepts presented to him by Freidman. Following his principals which many still follow today, all auto manufacturers should install rear facing backup cameras to prevent running over children.
Right now auto manufacturers can produce safer, more efficient cars but the cost of them is very high. Why should the government dictate to the consumer what we should pay, or what it should cost to build a car
milton friedman is right, you can reduce your chance of getting killed at any time. it just depends on how much you're willing to give up for it. you could wear a helmet all day to prevent head trauma, you could avoid streets, not drive cars, eat healthy foods to minimize chance of disease, never smoke or drink alcohol, install alarm systems in case of fire, and so onwards..
@ApocDevTeam Or you could just eat pacific salmon that were caught by Japanese trollers whose government didn't want to tell us about radiation from Fukashima contamination, nor did "our experts" want to warn us properly. Mmmmmmmmm... gotta love that FREE MARKET DEATH. Tastes like "home" doesn't it?! Better than mommy's cookin'!
@ApocDevTeam In a system which requires giving up one thing for another, it most often comes down to, what one can afford to give up. With a rapidly disappearing middle class, it is getting to the point where an American can either afford anything they want... If they happen to be among the lucky 10 percent, or cannot even afford to survive, much less do so in comfort and safety. Step down from your ivory tower for just a little while.
Free and efficient markets is a lovely concept except that it fails to acknowledge and adjust for the power difference betweent the participants that comes with capital. Wallmart is a great example: they move in, shut down local businesses through price competition, acheive monopolistic power in the community and then use that to drive up prices and drive down wages and benefits once competition is reduced. Unregulated markets provoke monopolies which kills competition. This is capitalism.
@dtorfleming wow really? First, no company can be a monopoly, it is against the law. Walmart have competition, have you heard of Target, Cosco, Ralphs and how about Amazon? If Walmart drive down wages and benefits, people can CHOOSE to not work for Walmart and work for other companies that pays them better wages and benefits. The fact that people are willing to work for Walmart with the wage that is offer, is because it is a fair market value for the worker.
Excellent. I'm glad that you agree with me that capitalism is a flawed system and therefore requires government intervention and regulations as exampled by the anti-trust laws your mentioned.
Friedman however supported corporate monopolies because of the economies of scale they theoretically provide. Unlike you, he failed to recognize that monopolies lose their efficiency incentive once they dominate the market.
@dannyc525 This whole comment is BS(Bad Science). In a market where the actual unemployment rate is above 19 percent, and the cost of an education is more than the resultant benefit, with no guarantee of finding work in the field studied, regardless of demand at the time of beginning those courses. Thus, the workers who are employed by Wal-Mart don't have the luxury of choice, especially in those smaller markets where they can, and often do, dominate. to be continued...
@dannyc525 continued from previous post... One need not hold a monopoly, to control market pricing and wage indexing. dtorfleming never said Wal-Mart had a monopoly anywhere. They said they acted as though they had that level of power. They certainly have the buying power to pull off such tactics in smaller communities. As to whether or not they actually work by these ethics, or lack thereof, I cannot say. But, they do have the potential.
@dtorfleming if the market wasn't so regulated(tariffs mostly), wal mart would eventually lose ground as china's currency strenghtens, so their goods won't look so attractive to wal mart, and they'll lose big, all the governmetn has to do then is sit back and NOT bail them out
A small tribe in S.America depends on a forest for it's food and materials. Acme Inc buys the forest from the distant govt. Acme then fences off access to the forest and offers the tribal members jobs clear cutting it and minding cattle thereafter at starvation wages. If the tribe enters the land Acme guards shoot and kill them. The tribe now is owned by Acme. Acme fires all US labor & replicates the process. Milton says horray for the free market!
Oh, you must mean property rights provided for and enforced by big government. Milton would not agree. He would say that the most efficient use of the land resource and of the human capital is obviously as grazing land for cattle and cow hands. The market has moved capital and resources to where they can provide the best economic value.
Therein lies the flaw. If economic efficiency is the only value, then humanity and liberty have no value. He's a sick man.
@dtorfleming No, forget your twisted understanding. I mean property rights that are simply acknowledged by government and protected by law. You obviously know nothing of Milton. He understood that acknowledging property rights is the necessary understanding to base capitalism upon. Your judgment of Milton as a sick man is meaningless. The "evidence" you provided by commenting of this video indicates you are just blowing ignorance out your ass.
But there is no property rights problem here. The govenrment sold the unclaimed land to a corporation, which now has the property rights. The socialist tribesmen who used it before never laid a legal claim to it.
You simply fail to acknowledge that there are flaws to unregulated capitalism, and failing to evolve a logical argument you instead revert to person insults to avoid the topic. Well done.
@dtorfleming what you just said about government sold unclaimed land to a corporation have nothing to do with capitalism. If you are saying Government claimed property rights from the tribesmen that was living there, that's a whole separate issue and it has nothing to do with capitalism.
Are you intentionally missing the point? Captilalism uses profitability as a solitary measure of success without consideration for lives destroyed, ecosystems poisoned and other externalities. You have failed to examine the example corporation's incentive model and resulting behavior which causes harm to society in order to increase net margins.
@dtorfleming Yes, to all of your post, and I will add: the trickle down obviously is a failed model. Look at the amount of money at the top of the pyramid these days relative to the peons down below!!! Holy hannah, you'd have to be blind or crazy not to see it all! Give me a break!
Nice to find someone thoughtful here. Regarding trickle-down, when I was a young conservative at the UChicago Grad School of Business I asked my very esteemed conserative econ professor about it. He literally laughed and said, no, that's a political movement, not a legitimate economic theory. He instructed me to research it and write 40 pages for my team final project. It shattered my perspective to discover that no economist supported it unless they were working in politics.
@dtorfleming Lives being destroyed, ecosystems being poisoned is inevitable regardless if it is through Capitalism or not. Let say car is made/invented without using Capitalism to achieve it, are you saying cars won't be destructive to the environment or job being replace anymore? Again, I do not see how tribesmen getting screwed by the Gov't have anything to do with Capitalism. Let say you bought a house and later find out someone is living in it, you blame this on Capitalism?
@dtorfleming Yeah, well done fzqlcs.... or whatever your name is. Way to insult your way out of a wet paper bag; too bad you haven't argued out of it.
And frankly I pity Friedman. His was and is a soul without love. He didn't seem able to care for anything to which he couldn't attached a dollar value. Rich and empty. Very sad.
Contrast him with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both of which are brilliant, successful and eventually learned the value of human beings and commited themselves to helping others. Friedman died without growing into a decent human.
The laws of physics and economics may seem "sad", nevertheless they exist.
And note to that if you think about it none values more the life of other human beings than he that is prepared to respect their property and individuality.
I read some of the comments here, and I have to wonder whether we've all seen the same video. I have to believe the comments critical of Friedman come from individuals who haven't seen his other speeches or talks. He was a very intelligent and well-spoken person with reasoned ideas.
At the heart of all his talks was the idea that individuals should be free to decide their own best interests. I find this difficult to disagree with, and his viewpoints all derived from there.
You disagree with Milton Friedman...so anyone with an opinion other than yours deserves to die?? I would be shocked, but thats what Communists have been saying for over 100 years. You don't like the Mensheviks? Don't argue with them, just shoot them.You have a dispute with your neighbors? Don't negotiate, just bomb Yeonpyeong island. Comments like yours are the best argument for capitalism.
@TheTollundWoman "Hi, Mr. Strawman, how are you today?" "Don't call me fat!" "I didn't Mr Strawman, I asked how you're doing." "You're always calling me stupid!"
@TheTollundWoman Not to mention, I love how you imply capitalists don't kill each other, especially over ideologies or material possessions i bet! YAY!
This kid is a hero! He never backed down! Milton exposes what a cold blooded animal he was (and even picks his nose in this video). Yick -- the guy gives me the creeps!
@JoshMan522 You clearly do not get Friedman's point. If you buy a smaller car, you know that it is more unsafe than a big car, yet you still do it because it is cheaper. So you sacrifice safety for money. It's the same thing with the plastic part, except that Ford did not inform you about it. And Friedman also says, that you should be able to sue companies that conceal such things. That makes it unprofitable to do. So where is the problem?
@andentoren Having the right to sue a company for sneaking by some fatal flaws, is entirely dependent on court costs and amounts that are rewarded to the claimants. Your hypothesis that it will make it unprofitable for companies to be deceptive is entirely theoretical, yet you present it like it's fact.
@JoshMan522 Indeed, it does not make it unprofitable in all cases, but that is desirable! I cannot tell you the right number for one human life, you could look into some court cases to get numbers. But i believe in the USA people often get millions "just" for disabilites that result from using a flawed prduct. Besides, it will also damage the companies image, imposing more costs.
What do you mean that the right to sue a company depends on court costs? Doesnt make sense to me.
Here's the difference professor: No one is claiming in the case of murder that customer demand and civil suits are sufficient to curb unethical behavior. But Friedman does claim that corporations should not be regulated since he says demand and civil suits would solve all problems.
Additionally, in the case of murder there are criminal penalties to punish the unethical, and so should there be for corporations.
@dtorfleming Imagine a world where there were laws that companies have to be transparent about such safety related issues and the companies would all stick to it. The customer could decide for himself the risks he wants to take. There is no Problem with that, is there? But since some people always brake the law, you need to be able to sue those people/companies for high sums of money as to prevent such behaviour. Friedman says that and aren't those criminal penalties?
Civil suits to recover damages are not criminal penalties. Additionally, these come after the damage has already taken place. For example, asbestos used in household materials may not be discovered by consumers until many years later when tens of thousands of people have the resulting cancers.
Also, there exists something called the manager's time bias wherein the management may decide to maximize current personal income by doing wrong with knowledge that they won't be here when the information goes public several years later.
Without criminal penalties, the management have little concern for lawsuits that come later. A CEO can be in, make his millions on inflated stock prices and then get out before the shit hits the fan.
The transparency you mention would be very helpful in driving consumer behavior to influence producers, but corporations won't do this willingly. Reference genetically modified food labeling where corporations are working together to ensure they don't have to reveal this information to consumers. Why? Because they specifically don't want consumers to be able to distinguish and make this choice.
@dtorfleming I didn't say there should only be civil suits neither did i say that managers should get away unpunished.
I also only approve on the "forced" transparency on safety issues because that can seriously harm an individual long term. I can't see how genetically modified food harms you, but I didn't inform myself about it. But if there were a transparent company it would simply put all the intransparent ones out of the place if what you say is right.
@andentoren Milton Friedman is/was an economist... his values had nothing to do with fundamental principles, or morality. He very well demonstrates that in this video. He also directed the arguments to his own advantage... Rather than addressing the question as stated, he redirects to pose a new question which is completely unrelated to that asked of him. Also, smaller cars are not inherently less safe than larger cars. to be continued.
@andentoren continued from previous post... The question is about whether or not Ford was moral in their actions to set an arbitrary price tag on human life, as opposed to including in initial construction, a 13 dollar part which would have saved lives, and would not have cost nearly as much as a recall years down the line. A re-design was in order as soon as the problem was known, which, as stated, was pre-release of the car in question. It would have saved lives and credibility.
@frankleeseaux Basically every company sets a price on human life. You could at a cost improve the safety of virtually any product. You're right, bigger cars are not always safer than smaller cars. But that's not the point. There are cars of different safety degrees and the customer can decide for himself which one he wants to take.
@frankleeseaux About the recall: Who says that companies always have to make right decisions? Of course they do a lot of mistakes but far less than the government.
13 Dollars makes it sound so cheap, why don't you say 200000 Dollars per live saved?
@andentoren The problem is if I die, I can't sue, but even if someone did on my behalf, and won, it's still not a fair trade from my point of view, I'm dead. So that's why everyone has to be telling the truth, so I make my own decisions, and decide my own level of risk. That's why we need government regulations, at least at some minimm.
@andentoren Unless it is that you buy a smaller car to lessen your impact on the environment. In which case your motivation is not saving money, but saving lives. Responsibilty should not be discarded in either case.
@andentoren interestingly enough, the internal memo on the Pinto's gas tank is not the full truth. In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, by Gary T. Schwartz said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut. Reasons: 1) The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation, 2) The Pinto's fuel tank location was commonplace at the time in American cars. (taken from Wikipedia and cited)
I should be free to set up a factory to employ children. Yet, I am stuck in this country PAYING for the free education of children for families I don't even know! What B.S. What happened to MY liberties?!
@lucatosatto So ostensibly you think we should pay billions of dollars to save one life? In a world bound by scarcity how do you provide infinite resources?
@lucatosatto It sounds altruistic, and is tempting to think that way, but its just not practical.
It is a fact of life that no one person is worth an infinite amount, and that indeed, some lives are worth more than others.
If society had a choice - would it pay for the health and welfare of a bum drinking away his liver, or a brain surgeon who was injured by a drunk driver in a car accident - or neither?
@Zimnyification I am not aware of the solid proof, but I do know Moore wasn't always a bloated fat ass like today and that there is some resemblance to other photos of him in his youth.
fair enough for young people to ask such questions. Fair enough of a professor to teach them how to think and which thinking mistakes they are still commiting.
You're without a heart when you're 20 and not a "leftist". But you're stupid if you're 30 and still one though ;)
thanks to this dude's advice, the Reagan government handed a whopping 300 billion dollar deficit to the Clinton government (double what was initially thought - back in the day that sort of money was "substantial" to say the least). Milton, Thatcher and Reagan represent the extremely selfish "capitalism is great" 80s. Most of the arguments for capitalism here are pretty juvenile. Thanks to capatilism we have the freemarket and globalization.
@mykebulvai oh for the days when deficits were in merely the billions. i didn't like Reagan back then, but relatively speaking, he looks like a penny-pincher now.
There was a President between Reagan and Clinton btw. We had George Sr. and a War that gave Clinton his deficit. Which a Republican House helped him fix into a surplus.
A deficit is only a yearly calculation and the average deficit overall Presidents is around 300bil a year. George W handed Obama a 300bil deficit in his final year in office afaik. Then Obama put everyone to shame and just went into the trillions like it was nothing.
@fishblades . There was a group of true gentlemen who are today known as the "founding fathers of The American Republic" - and one thoroughly awesome dude in particular Dr Benjamin Franklin who said one of the main reasons for the declaration of independence is so that the Colonies in the Americas could escape the strangulation from the bank of England.
Skipping ahead to the 20th century the Federal Reserve was created. Hear the founding fathers are rolling in their graves?
@fishblades Considering this,, blind Milton, & the current economic, political & social system where corporations truly rule America (this is not a conspiracy - corporate lobbyist anyone?). Where corporations can exercise "human rights" against the state and individuals. Through arm twisting for deregulation even after this recent financial meltdown. And a culture that is encouraged to be selfish and greedy.
If this is the highest plateau for capitalism. Give me back the bartering system.
@ossiorn I don't see how the free market is to blame if the relatives of the deceased are willing to engage in cash for blood - or how an alternate economic system would prevent such a thing. Furthermore, paying off the relatives is no guarantee that the car company's reputation will be protected.
If regulators are open to bribes, this merely backs Friedman's argument that the regulators should be disbanded. Regulation only works until regulatory capture (...inevitably...?) occurs.
@aldoreshgaramok . lol that's a funny comment. You'd be surprised to find socialist elements in todays America. Likewise in the "Socialist" regimes of the past where the people preaching "socialist" ideals preaching one thing and doing exactly the opposite like obliterating social security systems long in place.
@mykebulvai I am not sure how the comment is "funny", since its true. And on the contrary, I am not surprised to see socialist ideas being implemented in America today, since they are obvious public knowledge.
What "socialist" regimes of the past are you speaking of? Russia? India? China? And furthermore, the hypocrisy of those regimes is obvious, since socialism/communism denies the intrinsic human desire for personal advancement and self-betterment.
@aldoreshgaramok Part 1, it's funny because peeps immediately associate fascist dictatorships as "socialism" and automatically associate "capitalism" with "democracy". Black and white. Take for example social security. It is an inconvienient characteristic of "socialism". The relatively functional "democracies" of the world all have element of "socialism" that people turn a blind eye on. They falsely attribute the relative balance and harmony of the classes to "capitalism" and "democracy".
@aldoreshgaramok Part 2. And yet, as I mentioned, most uninformed peeps see the word "socialism" and think immediately Communist China (which ironically has more billionaires than the US and an ever widening gap between rich and poor). By the way, India isn't a "socialist" country.
When Josef Stalin rose to power, the people initially hailed it as a victory for the working class. First few years during his rule he removed social security systems put in place.
@aldoreshgaramok Part 3. And coming back to another quasi characteristic of socialism - state regulation. Or in America's current predicament (thanks to the ongoing trend set by Reagan) - continuous deregulation, because as Reagan would put it "big government is the problem" - we have corporations that buy the loyalties of politicians like consumers buy products from a store. Crony capitalism. What might indeed save America may well infact be a characteristic of socialism. Inconvenient.
@aldoreshgaramok Socialism refers to policies designed to benefit the collective whole, etc. healthcare for all.....it has nothing to do with the collusion between private industry and government....that is corporatism....that is fascism.....that is what the free-market economy inevitably evolves into.
@jmintube This is just splitting hairs. Your definition of fascism has simply redefined the special group from "the whole" to "private industry." The practice is the same, where government takes property from one group and gives to another privileged group. Only, in America, we rob from the middle to give to the poor and super-rich.
How does a free market inevitably evolve into fascism? Mussolini had the only fascist government, and it formed in the wake of a ruinous world war, not capitalism.
@aldoreshgaramok couldn't those car companies simply buy politicians and lawmakers in order to have the government vote in their favor. As for bailouts. If you're an ultra wealthy corporation couldn't you bribe politicians to then work in your favor and have politicians use tax payer money to bail you out :)
@alvisc2002 Obviously, you can, in light of TARP. But that is not something that can be prevented by any different economic system. Massive bailouts are a political and leadership failure, not an economic one.
Dumb. No, the arguement is exactly the opposite. Ford does an NPV calculation and determines that only 100 people will burn to death it its cars each year costing them less in settlements then it would take to fix the car. Ford knows it is immune from criminal prosecution because it is a corporation and that it can cover any bad PR with a slight increase in paid advertising. So the free market allows Ford to murder customers and pay and increase profitability.
@dtorfleming As Friedman correctly stated, if the level of safety that Ford can offer for its cars while remaining profitable is not acceptable to the consumer, then the consumer can and should go elsewhere for a safer car to drive.
Immunity is not even applicable here, since Ford's actions are not criminal in designing the vehicle in the manner they wish.
You forget to adjust your assumption for the fact that Ford was forced to recall the Pinto and fix the cars. Another fine example of a corporation choosing an immoral and destructive business policy which needed the government to correct it.
@dtorfleming Ford was not forced to recall it. It was voluntary - though with some pressure from the government. But they did not have to. Why did they then?
Because their public relations, which you said were so-easily repaired, were going into the toilet, and they were getting reamed at civil trials.
You are technically correct. Ford did a voluntary recall before the NHTSA followed through on a threatened recall order.
But back to the point, you are on board with with the idea that corporations should be allowed to produce unsafe cars, foods, medicine and pollutions without any consequences aside from customer response?
@dtorfleming What is unsafe to one person, might be perfectly OK to someone else. I personally would never go skydiving - others think its good fun.
Furthermore, consumer response - that is, not buying bad products - the strongest possible weapon against companies that produce products that don't work.
So let's say in the case that US Steel was quietly pouring a million gallons of poison waste water into the Great Lakes every day, you personally would stop buying your coils of steel from US Steel.
Or that a company with poor safety standards produced baby food that killed your 6 month old child, then you would stop buying that brand.
Or a company that used asbestos in building materials would go bankrupt after the first 3 million deaths from cancer. Good Plan.
@dtorfleming You have gone off into several different directions. US Steel should be held liable for polluting, and not due strictly to environment laws. Millions of people rely on the Great Lakes, in one way or another, for their livelihood, and should be reimbursed if they find their livelihood destroyed.
With any food product, purchase involves risk. There is no law that says babies must be fed with commerical baby food. If the risk is unacceptable, don't buy it.
It doesnt matter what it costs! $1 or $1 billion dollars to fix, don't sell the fucking car if its fucked up and is gonna kill people because of a negligible design. Its so easy to get caught up in bull shit philosophical technical dialogue.
@Johnf85 the point was: the risk of dying can always be reduced by a cost. No car in the world is perfectly safe, but if you want a safer car, you'll have to pay more. you could probably make cars a lot safer by installing 10 million dollar brakes in each car. Does that mean we have to spend 10 million on every car? And 20 million could reduce the risk even further, but again, it's more costly.
@Johnf85 If they sold cars paying for the negligible design that costs billions, they would go out of business and nobody would be able to buy cars anymore and wouldn't be able to go to the store and feed their families anymore. It is because of the lack of resources that are out there that ford has to give consumers a choice of whether they want a car that is less safe but cheaper or safer and more expensive.
@Johnf85 There are tradeoffs to everything. There is a court system to deal with this. Either criminal (in the case of negligence) or civil (in the case of damages).
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. DRUG LORDS. UNEQUALITY. UNSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. LAWYERS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. MAGGOT SOCIALITES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
Capitalism is a terrible religion. It is an economic system and can be manipulated by criminals and reptile like humans. It is not the answer to every question. True capitalism will have failure and not be a never ending success story.
@tikiart1970 Capitalism is a terrible religion. It is, however, demonstrably the most successful creator of wealth and prosperity yet devised. It is virtually impossible to manipulate as such manipulations are punished in the marketplace (to the extent that manipulation does tale place, it is invariably anti-capitalistic (socialistic government intevention/favoritism). Capitalism is not the answer to every question, it is simply the most efficient and free economic alternative.
"Principles have to be balanced." What does that mean? Balanced for what? Why? What I think he means here is that one principle has to be balanced by another; meaning the profit-and-loss system has to be "balanced" by concerns for safety. But, that is a false premise; it presumes automatically that businesses that operate in the former principle have no concern about safety whatsoever. Certainly they do. Even the Zeppelin company did when they flew the Hindenburg around filled with H2.
MaxxTheMerciless 16 hours ago
the hypocrisy of the libertarians is that they advocate an unfettered free market system with no regulations, yet they don't want to work at Foxconn or apple over in china where workers are committing suicide, they don't want to work in a sweatshop with abysmal labor laws, no union, no worker rights, they love the idea of an unfettered free market, they just don't like the actual results of their ideology. Start putting your money where your mouth is libertarians and move to China or India.
DoneWithDogma 22 hours ago 2
@DoneWithDogma It's not hypocrisy because we don't advocate telling other people what they should do. Workers are best off when they are employed, and a free market is the best way to employ workers. The further that countries move away from free markets, the worse the conditions in the country. The hypocrisy with liberals is that they think that people are too stupid to solve their own problems so they need some elite person (which is deemed by them to be smart) that can solve all the problems.
kriskats19 20 hours ago
@kriskats19 that can hardly be deemed as a response to my comment, of course workers are best off when they are employed(they wouldn't be workers if they weren't would they?), and libertarians seem to think that once the free market is completely free of all government restraints that corporations will suddenly give a shit about their employees, bankers will magically become charitable samaritans, and air and water quality will be immaculate for no reason, it's childish and stupid.
DoneWithDogma 21 minutes ago
@DoneWithDogma To add what kriskats19 said, China and India are controlled economies with plenty of regulations; they just have fewer than America does, and they make deals with corporate interests that seek cheap labor. It's not as though you can go over to China right now and open up a store. You're going to pay some mean taxes unless you do what every company tries to do in America and abroad, negotiate with the politicians, both local and national, for breaks here and there.
MaxxTheMerciless 16 hours ago
Comment removed
MyMindTank 2 days ago
So what happens to the people who cant afford a decent product or service cause the prices are too high. You get what you pay for is just to fascist man. Somebody has to control the product and services.
Ares3ful 6 days ago
@Ares3ful The answer for a fully developed human being is to make more money, rearrange priorities or beg from charity. One has no moral claim on the production of others. Of course, that is why we have Democrats -- to conjure a legal claim on the production of others. Screw morality.
fzqlcs 6 days ago
@fzqlcs That's a disgusting comment life is not about making more money for good social treatment and that's where Friedman failed his view on humanity. we are not talking about middle classes a middle class has the privilege to rearrange priority's where the poor don't have any you know. Milton Friedman' view on monetary policy worked very well in Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Niger and Malawi.
Ares3ful 5 days ago
@Ares3ful
"Niger"
You racist!
LibertyRealm 3 days ago
@LibertyRealm Niger is a country!!!! I am not racist!!!!, hope your joking!!!!!!
Ares3ful 3 days ago
Does zeppelin 2224 really believe he wants women to conform to his notions of the sacred?
Should his sacred ideas be legally binding over their reproductive lives? Whose the idiot?
jeffmoore9487 6 days ago
Freidman cannot imagine a democratic economy. If I get the Pinto to save gas, am I ever gonna know it's missing this safety part without some institution that looks into these things. Am I suppose to know how a properly installed gas tank looks, Should I also know how my local nuclear plant works and go and inspect it myself.
We need to count on each other as our life systems become complex. A system built on greed may have worked in a limited way for the last few hundred years but that's over.
jeffmoore9487 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffmoore9487
"Freidman cannot imagine a democratic economy"
There is no such thing
"Am I suppose to know how a properly installed gas tank looks, Should I also know how my local nuclear plant works and go and inspect it myself."
So ignorant people cant make decisions for themselves but they can make them for everyone else? LOL
"We need to count on each other as our life systems become complex"
Thats capitalism.
LibertyRealm 3 days ago
did this kid just admit that abortion kills "unsacred human lives" ? wow.. idiot
zeppelin2224 1 week ago
so when your mother blows up in a ford pinto, I'll say it was a business idea
AmritSinghAuja 1 week ago
@AmritSinghAuja far more likely, her Chevy Volt will catch on fire. That would be a government idea.
fzqlcs 1 week ago
I luv this guy...he epitomizes the idiocy of the Left. He's a gem!
vince33x 1 week ago
I laugh at the people accusing capitalism of poor working conditions and child labor. If these people did any research, they would find that capitalism actually ended child labor!
boshembechle 1 week ago
@boshembechle You are a truly a fucking idiot, child labor is everywhere in India, China, and other third world countries. It just moved from America to another country where it cannot be seen. The shoes you are wearing are made from a child.
AmritSinghAuja 1 week ago
@AmritSinghAuja
Yes, Amrit, We should ban child labor in India. Because that will cause all legit establishments to stop employing children, leaving only the illegal ones to be the ONLY employers of children.. e.g. Child prostitution. The children will be so better off there. Right?
utubehayter 6 days ago
This whole case was one big smear campaign only 27 people died from rear end collision with this year and model. In total the Ford Pinto had one of the lowest casualty rates of compact cars for that year and it was ONLY in that year that this was a problem. Keep in mind the hundreds of deaths was NOT from REAR end collisions but from ALL collisions in general. I suggest everyone read "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case".
Xantheus07 1 week ago
6:54 nose picking and dropping bombs like a boss.
BilltheRedMufasa 1 week ago
Friedman very patient. Explains thoroughly because he wants to impart his knowledge onto others. and the last point so true. it is not the fault of the electric company. money would have to be taken from somewhere and that would ideally be from that persons family, associates, co-workers and neighbors.
UPutTheGayInGangster 1 week ago
Michael Moore is stupid.
PrivateAckbar 1 week ago
if he was still alive and a teacher, i would take his classes every chance i could get. imagine what you can learn from him. he's genius
chillaxer1993 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "trickle-down" Theory: The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
JoshMan522 1 week ago
I'm actually looking for some children to buy. Anyone want to sell me their child? I'll feed them They'll work hard, learn good work ethics, and above all, I will ADD VALUE to their now worthless lives being student leeches. If you really believe in big "C" Corporate Capitalism, let me buy your children, and I'll put them to work in my sweatshop. Long hours, no pay, let them sleep on the ground, JUST THINK, of the INCREASE to GDP!!! Oh, did I tell you I'll ship them all off to the 3rd world?!
JoshMan522 1 week ago
@JoshMan522 A idiot how is that free choice if the kids dont have a choice? I used to cut grass for 5 dollars was that slave labor? I had a paper route was that slave labor. Hell i lied to an employer to get my first job because i wanted to buy a NES and i was underage. I also suggest you read up on child labor its not a simple black and white issue.Often those kids are starving and if not for jobs would sell themselves to get food. I would bet any NorthK kid would love to have a job.
Xantheus07 1 week ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Milton is right on the money, and the student (Who some say is Michael Moore) can't grasp the concepts presented to him by Freidman. Following his principals which many still follow today, all auto manufacturers should install rear facing backup cameras to prevent running over children.
Right now auto manufacturers can produce safer, more efficient cars but the cost of them is very high. Why should the government dictate to the consumer what we should pay, or what it should cost to build a car
20YrBillionaire 2 weeks ago 3
Comment removed
20YrBillionaire 2 weeks ago
milton friedman is right, you can reduce your chance of getting killed at any time. it just depends on how much you're willing to give up for it. you could wear a helmet all day to prevent head trauma, you could avoid streets, not drive cars, eat healthy foods to minimize chance of disease, never smoke or drink alcohol, install alarm systems in case of fire, and so onwards..
ApocDevTeam 2 weeks ago 3
@ApocDevTeam That is absolutely right. And, let us not forget the mortality rate for those who do every damn thing right is 100 percent.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@ApocDevTeam Or you could just eat pacific salmon that were caught by Japanese trollers whose government didn't want to tell us about radiation from Fukashima contamination, nor did "our experts" want to warn us properly. Mmmmmmmmm... gotta love that FREE MARKET DEATH. Tastes like "home" doesn't it?! Better than mommy's cookin'!
JoshMan522 1 week ago
@JoshMan522 Thats funny why are people still getting sick and dieing from regulated foods here then?
Xantheus07 1 week ago
@ApocDevTeam In a system which requires giving up one thing for another, it most often comes down to, what one can afford to give up. With a rapidly disappearing middle class, it is getting to the point where an American can either afford anything they want... If they happen to be among the lucky 10 percent, or cannot even afford to survive, much less do so in comfort and safety. Step down from your ivory tower for just a little while.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
Free and efficient markets is a lovely concept except that it fails to acknowledge and adjust for the power difference betweent the participants that comes with capital. Wallmart is a great example: they move in, shut down local businesses through price competition, acheive monopolistic power in the community and then use that to drive up prices and drive down wages and benefits once competition is reduced. Unregulated markets provoke monopolies which kills competition. This is capitalism.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming wow really? First, no company can be a monopoly, it is against the law. Walmart have competition, have you heard of Target, Cosco, Ralphs and how about Amazon? If Walmart drive down wages and benefits, people can CHOOSE to not work for Walmart and work for other companies that pays them better wages and benefits. The fact that people are willing to work for Walmart with the wage that is offer, is because it is a fair market value for the worker.
dannyc525 2 weeks ago
@dannyc525
Excellent. I'm glad that you agree with me that capitalism is a flawed system and therefore requires government intervention and regulations as exampled by the anti-trust laws your mentioned.
Friedman however supported corporate monopolies because of the economies of scale they theoretically provide. Unlike you, he failed to recognize that monopolies lose their efficiency incentive once they dominate the market.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dannyc525 This whole comment is BS(Bad Science). In a market where the actual unemployment rate is above 19 percent, and the cost of an education is more than the resultant benefit, with no guarantee of finding work in the field studied, regardless of demand at the time of beginning those courses. Thus, the workers who are employed by Wal-Mart don't have the luxury of choice, especially in those smaller markets where they can, and often do, dominate. to be continued...
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@dannyc525 continued from previous post... One need not hold a monopoly, to control market pricing and wage indexing. dtorfleming never said Wal-Mart had a monopoly anywhere. They said they acted as though they had that level of power. They certainly have the buying power to pull off such tactics in smaller communities. As to whether or not they actually work by these ethics, or lack thereof, I cannot say. But, they do have the potential.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@dtorfleming if the market wasn't so regulated(tariffs mostly), wal mart would eventually lose ground as china's currency strenghtens, so their goods won't look so attractive to wal mart, and they'll lose big, all the governmetn has to do then is sit back and NOT bail them out
DREwestcoast 1 week ago
Milton Friedman: American Moron.
A small tribe in S.America depends on a forest for it's food and materials. Acme Inc buys the forest from the distant govt. Acme then fences off access to the forest and offers the tribal members jobs clear cutting it and minding cattle thereafter at starvation wages. If the tribe enters the land Acme guards shoot and kill them. The tribe now is owned by Acme. Acme fires all US labor & replicates the process. Milton says horray for the free market!
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming The tribe's problem is not the free market. It is the lack of property rights.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs
Oh, you must mean property rights provided for and enforced by big government. Milton would not agree. He would say that the most efficient use of the land resource and of the human capital is obviously as grazing land for cattle and cow hands. The market has moved capital and resources to where they can provide the best economic value.
Therein lies the flaw. If economic efficiency is the only value, then humanity and liberty have no value. He's a sick man.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming No, forget your twisted understanding. I mean property rights that are simply acknowledged by government and protected by law. You obviously know nothing of Milton. He understood that acknowledging property rights is the necessary understanding to base capitalism upon. Your judgment of Milton as a sick man is meaningless. The "evidence" you provided by commenting of this video indicates you are just blowing ignorance out your ass.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs
But there is no property rights problem here. The govenrment sold the unclaimed land to a corporation, which now has the property rights. The socialist tribesmen who used it before never laid a legal claim to it.
You simply fail to acknowledge that there are flaws to unregulated capitalism, and failing to evolve a logical argument you instead revert to person insults to avoid the topic. Well done.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming what you just said about government sold unclaimed land to a corporation have nothing to do with capitalism. If you are saying Government claimed property rights from the tribesmen that was living there, that's a whole separate issue and it has nothing to do with capitalism.
dannyc525 2 weeks ago
@dannyc525
Are you intentionally missing the point? Captilalism uses profitability as a solitary measure of success without consideration for lives destroyed, ecosystems poisoned and other externalities. You have failed to examine the example corporation's incentive model and resulting behavior which causes harm to society in order to increase net margins.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming Yes, to all of your post, and I will add: the trickle down obviously is a failed model. Look at the amount of money at the top of the pyramid these days relative to the peons down below!!! Holy hannah, you'd have to be blind or crazy not to see it all! Give me a break!
JoshMan522 1 week ago
@JoshMan522
Nice to find someone thoughtful here. Regarding trickle-down, when I was a young conservative at the UChicago Grad School of Business I asked my very esteemed conserative econ professor about it. He literally laughed and said, no, that's a political movement, not a legitimate economic theory. He instructed me to research it and write 40 pages for my team final project. It shattered my perspective to discover that no economist supported it unless they were working in politics.
dtorfleming 1 week ago
@dtorfleming Lives being destroyed, ecosystems being poisoned is inevitable regardless if it is through Capitalism or not. Let say car is made/invented without using Capitalism to achieve it, are you saying cars won't be destructive to the environment or job being replace anymore? Again, I do not see how tribesmen getting screwed by the Gov't have anything to do with Capitalism. Let say you bought a house and later find out someone is living in it, you blame this on Capitalism?
dannyc525 2 days ago
@dtorfleming Yeah, well done fzqlcs.... or whatever your name is. Way to insult your way out of a wet paper bag; too bad you haven't argued out of it.
JoshMan522 1 week ago
@dtorfleming Yes! Finally someone in this chat who cuts through all this asinine b.s.!
JoshMan522 1 week ago
@fzqlcs
He was a sick man.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming Right on, dtorfleming!!! That little smug bastard was a cold hearted shithead.
JoshMan522 1 week ago
@JoshMan522
And frankly I pity Friedman. His was and is a soul without love. He didn't seem able to care for anything to which he couldn't attached a dollar value. Rich and empty. Very sad.
Contrast him with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both of which are brilliant, successful and eventually learned the value of human beings and commited themselves to helping others. Friedman died without growing into a decent human.
dtorfleming 1 week ago
@dtorfleming That is a compassionate view, much more healthy than my venom towards the neo-cons. :)
JoshMan522 1 week ago
Comment removed
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dtorfleming
The laws of physics and economics may seem "sad", nevertheless they exist.
And note to that if you think about it none values more the life of other human beings than he that is prepared to respect their property and individuality.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
@JoshMan522
You two need to get a room.
LibertyRealm 1 week ago
Filthy tee-shirt wearing ignoramus. Love the confused look when he's confronted with logic... Dipshit...
MrPaevo 3 weeks ago
I read some of the comments here, and I have to wonder whether we've all seen the same video. I have to believe the comments critical of Friedman come from individuals who haven't seen his other speeches or talks. He was a very intelligent and well-spoken person with reasoned ideas.
At the heart of all his talks was the idea that individuals should be free to decide their own best interests. I find this difficult to disagree with, and his viewpoints all derived from there.
grantcivyt 3 weeks ago
@grantcivyt
I couldn't agree more. Friedman was an eloquent, logical speaker- not something Leftists are very fond of.
TheTollundWoman 3 weeks ago
Friedman is an asshole, he should have died in a fire trapped in a car
qtzlctl2012 4 weeks ago in playlist Economics
@qtzlctl2012
You disagree with Milton Friedman...so anyone with an opinion other than yours deserves to die?? I would be shocked, but thats what Communists have been saying for over 100 years. You don't like the Mensheviks? Don't argue with them, just shoot them.You have a dispute with your neighbors? Don't negotiate, just bomb Yeonpyeong island. Comments like yours are the best argument for capitalism.
TheTollundWoman 3 weeks ago
@TheTollundWoman "Hi, Mr. Strawman, how are you today?" "Don't call me fat!" "I didn't Mr Strawman, I asked how you're doing." "You're always calling me stupid!"
qtzlctl2012 3 weeks ago
@TheTollundWoman Not to mention, I love how you imply capitalists don't kill each other, especially over ideologies or material possessions i bet! YAY!
qtzlctl2012 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
G. A. Cohen - Against Capitalism - Part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=yA9WPQeow9c
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
This kid is a hero! He never backed down! Milton exposes what a cold blooded animal he was (and even picks his nose in this video). Yick -- the guy gives me the creeps!
JoshMan522 1 month ago
Perhaps you would prefer a statist psycopath?
LibertyRealm 2 weeks ago
If I was the kid, I would have asked Milton, "How much for your daughter?!"
JoshMan522 1 month ago
@JoshMan522 You have simply exposed your stupidity. Why would you assume his daughter is for sale?
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Oh, gee, you're absolutely right! I'm so stupid! I'm so glad you pointed this out to me, you brow-beater!
Do you really think that I thought his daughter was literally for sale with my comment? PfffffftttttttTTTTT!!!
JoshMan522 1 month ago
@JoshMan522
The kid was probably gay
LibertyRealm 2 weeks ago 7
@LibertyRealm Another version of this video said that this is actually Michael Moore (many pounds lighter).
ElizaGilkysonFan 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm That is an ad hominem attack on character, as if being gay automatically makes his position untenable.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@LibertyRealm Michael Moore he is (as I've understand).
xxxrrrxxxrrr 3 days ago
@JoshMan522 You clearly do not get Friedman's point. If you buy a smaller car, you know that it is more unsafe than a big car, yet you still do it because it is cheaper. So you sacrifice safety for money. It's the same thing with the plastic part, except that Ford did not inform you about it. And Friedman also says, that you should be able to sue companies that conceal such things. That makes it unprofitable to do. So where is the problem?
andentoren 2 weeks ago 30
@andentoren Having the right to sue a company for sneaking by some fatal flaws, is entirely dependent on court costs and amounts that are rewarded to the claimants. Your hypothesis that it will make it unprofitable for companies to be deceptive is entirely theoretical, yet you present it like it's fact.
JoshMan522 2 weeks ago
@JoshMan522 Indeed, it does not make it unprofitable in all cases, but that is desirable! I cannot tell you the right number for one human life, you could look into some court cases to get numbers. But i believe in the USA people often get millions "just" for disabilites that result from using a flawed prduct. Besides, it will also damage the companies image, imposing more costs.
What do you mean that the right to sue a company depends on court costs? Doesnt make sense to me.
andentoren 1 week ago 2
@andentoren
Where is the problem? Well, if me and my children die in a flaming care the lawsuit that comes later doesn't do me much good.
dtorfleming 1 week ago
@dtorfleming What if somebody murdered you, the following Lawsuit won't do you any good either. Tell me, where is the difference?
andentoren 1 week ago
@andentoren
Here's the difference professor: No one is claiming in the case of murder that customer demand and civil suits are sufficient to curb unethical behavior. But Friedman does claim that corporations should not be regulated since he says demand and civil suits would solve all problems.
Additionally, in the case of murder there are criminal penalties to punish the unethical, and so should there be for corporations.
You make my arguement for me. Thanks.
dtorfleming 1 week ago
@dtorfleming Imagine a world where there were laws that companies have to be transparent about such safety related issues and the companies would all stick to it. The customer could decide for himself the risks he wants to take. There is no Problem with that, is there? But since some people always brake the law, you need to be able to sue those people/companies for high sums of money as to prevent such behaviour. Friedman says that and aren't those criminal penalties?
andentoren 1 week ago
@andentoren
A couple of things:
Civil suits to recover damages are not criminal penalties. Additionally, these come after the damage has already taken place. For example, asbestos used in household materials may not be discovered by consumers until many years later when tens of thousands of people have the resulting cancers.
dtorfleming 1 week ago
@andentoren
Also, there exists something called the manager's time bias wherein the management may decide to maximize current personal income by doing wrong with knowledge that they won't be here when the information goes public several years later.
Without criminal penalties, the management have little concern for lawsuits that come later. A CEO can be in, make his millions on inflated stock prices and then get out before the shit hits the fan.
dtorfleming 1 week ago
@dtorfleming
Lastly,
The transparency you mention would be very helpful in driving consumer behavior to influence producers, but corporations won't do this willingly. Reference genetically modified food labeling where corporations are working together to ensure they don't have to reveal this information to consumers. Why? Because they specifically don't want consumers to be able to distinguish and make this choice.
dtorfleming 1 week ago
@dtorfleming I didn't say there should only be civil suits neither did i say that managers should get away unpunished.
I also only approve on the "forced" transparency on safety issues because that can seriously harm an individual long term. I can't see how genetically modified food harms you, but I didn't inform myself about it. But if there were a transparent company it would simply put all the intransparent ones out of the place if what you say is right.
andentoren 1 week ago 2
@andentoren Milton Friedman is/was an economist... his values had nothing to do with fundamental principles, or morality. He very well demonstrates that in this video. He also directed the arguments to his own advantage... Rather than addressing the question as stated, he redirects to pose a new question which is completely unrelated to that asked of him. Also, smaller cars are not inherently less safe than larger cars. to be continued.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@andentoren continued from previous post... The question is about whether or not Ford was moral in their actions to set an arbitrary price tag on human life, as opposed to including in initial construction, a 13 dollar part which would have saved lives, and would not have cost nearly as much as a recall years down the line. A re-design was in order as soon as the problem was known, which, as stated, was pre-release of the car in question. It would have saved lives and credibility.
frankleeseaux 1 week ago
@frankleeseaux Basically every company sets a price on human life. You could at a cost improve the safety of virtually any product. You're right, bigger cars are not always safer than smaller cars. But that's not the point. There are cars of different safety degrees and the customer can decide for himself which one he wants to take.
andentoren 1 week ago 2
@frankleeseaux About the recall: Who says that companies always have to make right decisions? Of course they do a lot of mistakes but far less than the government.
13 Dollars makes it sound so cheap, why don't you say 200000 Dollars per live saved?
andentoren 1 week ago 2
@andentoren The problem is if I die, I can't sue, but even if someone did on my behalf, and won, it's still not a fair trade from my point of view, I'm dead. So that's why everyone has to be telling the truth, so I make my own decisions, and decide my own level of risk. That's why we need government regulations, at least at some minimm.
TheGrayDwarf 1 week ago
@andentoren Unless it is that you buy a smaller car to lessen your impact on the environment. In which case your motivation is not saving money, but saving lives. Responsibilty should not be discarded in either case.
wcharles19 6 days ago
@andentoren interestingly enough, the internal memo on the Pinto's gas tank is not the full truth. In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, by Gary T. Schwartz said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut. Reasons: 1) The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation, 2) The Pinto's fuel tank location was commonplace at the time in American cars. (taken from Wikipedia and cited)
heavym3tal 5 days ago
Yes but this kid is polite...
lukawski100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I should be free to set up a factory to employ children. Yet, I am stuck in this country PAYING for the free education of children for families I don't even know! What B.S. What happened to MY liberties?!
JoshMan522 1 month ago
this man makes psychopathy look good lol.
i hope they build all cars like the ford pinto. and find a way to make money off people's deaths.
alvisc2002 1 month ago
@alvisc2002 Well, that wouldn't happen because nobody would buy them. You're free to choose what you want to buy.
freecannabisplease 1 month ago
@alvisc2002 Problem is, you think you need someone to make decisions for you.
freecannabisplease 1 month ago
1:30 "Nobody can take the principle that infinite value should be put on human life"...
I DO!!!! (I thought this was a Christian country)
lucatosatto 1 month ago in playlist Milton Friedman
@lucatosatto So ostensibly you think we should pay billions of dollars to save one life? In a world bound by scarcity how do you provide infinite resources?
terryshiavoftw 1 month ago
@lucatosatto It sounds altruistic, and is tempting to think that way, but its just not practical.
It is a fact of life that no one person is worth an infinite amount, and that indeed, some lives are worth more than others.
If society had a choice - would it pay for the health and welfare of a bum drinking away his liver, or a brain surgeon who was injured by a drunk driver in a car accident - or neither?
aldoreshgaramok 1 month ago
Freidman is a total fuckstick
1963danno 1 month ago
DICK
mrmaciejm 1 month ago
4:36 Milton's giving him the finger
redsox1006 2 months ago
Who is that kid? It's heresy to tell Milton Friedman to hold on "just a minute" whilst he speaketh, even when he is interrupting you.
Zimnyification 2 months ago
@Zimnyification For real, that is young Micheal Moore. Check out the google images for "young Michael Moore."
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@fzqlcs I heard it was, but I'm skeptical. Is there any solid proof of this?
Zimnyification 2 months ago
@Zimnyification I am not aware of the solid proof, but I do know Moore wasn't always a bloated fat ass like today and that there is some resemblance to other photos of him in his youth.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@fzqlcs It's not Moore. The google image comes from another video that propelled the myth.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual Thanks for clearing that up.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
fair enough for young people to ask such questions. Fair enough of a professor to teach them how to think and which thinking mistakes they are still commiting.
You're without a heart when you're 20 and not a "leftist". But you're stupid if you're 30 and still one though ;)
ArayCaramba 2 months ago
Just let him answer, Jesus.
ChrisC098 2 months ago
Silly question.
Silly answer.
liamjlhill 2 months ago
thanks to this dude's advice, the Reagan government handed a whopping 300 billion dollar deficit to the Clinton government (double what was initially thought - back in the day that sort of money was "substantial" to say the least). Milton, Thatcher and Reagan represent the extremely selfish "capitalism is great" 80s. Most of the arguments for capitalism here are pretty juvenile. Thanks to capatilism we have the freemarket and globalization.
mykebulvai 2 months ago
@mykebulvai oh for the days when deficits were in merely the billions. i didn't like Reagan back then, but relatively speaking, he looks like a penny-pincher now.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@mykebulvai
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaah
fishblades 2 months ago
@fishblades . hahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah
mykebulvai 2 months ago
@mykebulvai
Instead of just laughing at you here's this.
There was a President between Reagan and Clinton btw. We had George Sr. and a War that gave Clinton his deficit. Which a Republican House helped him fix into a surplus.
A deficit is only a yearly calculation and the average deficit overall Presidents is around 300bil a year. George W handed Obama a 300bil deficit in his final year in office afaik. Then Obama put everyone to shame and just went into the trillions like it was nothing.
fishblades 2 months ago
@fishblades . There was a group of true gentlemen who are today known as the "founding fathers of The American Republic" - and one thoroughly awesome dude in particular Dr Benjamin Franklin who said one of the main reasons for the declaration of independence is so that the Colonies in the Americas could escape the strangulation from the bank of England.
Skipping ahead to the 20th century the Federal Reserve was created. Hear the founding fathers are rolling in their graves?
mykebulvai 2 months ago
@mykebulvai
"Thanks to capatilism we have the freemarket and globalization. "
and your solution is what exactly?
fishblades 2 months ago
@fishblades Considering this,, blind Milton, & the current economic, political & social system where corporations truly rule America (this is not a conspiracy - corporate lobbyist anyone?). Where corporations can exercise "human rights" against the state and individuals. Through arm twisting for deregulation even after this recent financial meltdown. And a culture that is encouraged to be selfish and greedy.
If this is the highest plateau for capitalism. Give me back the bartering system.
mykebulvai 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read "The Banker Who Saved His Soul" - it'll open your eyes.
Bobzeedo 2 months ago
owned this leftist.
frankcharles511 3 months ago
@frankcharles511 not any leftist, its a young Michael Moore.
apknugget17 2 months ago
The free market handles exactly what Michael Moore is unhappy about.
If a car company makes cars that get their customers killed, they soon will find themselves out of business.
...unless of course, they get bailouts (which is, in effect... socialism! dun dun DUNNNN)
aldoreshgaramok 3 months ago 31
@aldoreshgaramok HAHAH oh so true!
tehatemachine 2 months ago
@aldoreshgaramok
Not necessarily,they could just pay off the grieving relatives.Some companies have indeed done just that.
This is sometimes refered to in the industry as risk assessment cost.In today's corrupt climate the car
manufacturers could just bribe government officials not to change anything and it would be business as usual.
ossiorn 2 months ago
@ossiorn I don't see how the free market is to blame if the relatives of the deceased are willing to engage in cash for blood - or how an alternate economic system would prevent such a thing. Furthermore, paying off the relatives is no guarantee that the car company's reputation will be protected.
If regulators are open to bribes, this merely backs Friedman's argument that the regulators should be disbanded. Regulation only works until regulatory capture (...inevitably...?) occurs.
aldoreshgaramok 2 months ago
@aldoreshgaramok . lol that's a funny comment. You'd be surprised to find socialist elements in todays America. Likewise in the "Socialist" regimes of the past where the people preaching "socialist" ideals preaching one thing and doing exactly the opposite like obliterating social security systems long in place.
mykebulvai 2 months ago
@mykebulvai I am not sure how the comment is "funny", since its true. And on the contrary, I am not surprised to see socialist ideas being implemented in America today, since they are obvious public knowledge.
What "socialist" regimes of the past are you speaking of? Russia? India? China? And furthermore, the hypocrisy of those regimes is obvious, since socialism/communism denies the intrinsic human desire for personal advancement and self-betterment.
aldoreshgaramok 2 months ago
@aldoreshgaramok Part 1, it's funny because peeps immediately associate fascist dictatorships as "socialism" and automatically associate "capitalism" with "democracy". Black and white. Take for example social security. It is an inconvienient characteristic of "socialism". The relatively functional "democracies" of the world all have element of "socialism" that people turn a blind eye on. They falsely attribute the relative balance and harmony of the classes to "capitalism" and "democracy".
mykebulvai 2 months ago
@aldoreshgaramok Part 2. And yet, as I mentioned, most uninformed peeps see the word "socialism" and think immediately Communist China (which ironically has more billionaires than the US and an ever widening gap between rich and poor). By the way, India isn't a "socialist" country.
When Josef Stalin rose to power, the people initially hailed it as a victory for the working class. First few years during his rule he removed social security systems put in place.
mykebulvai 2 months ago
@aldoreshgaramok Part 3. And coming back to another quasi characteristic of socialism - state regulation. Or in America's current predicament (thanks to the ongoing trend set by Reagan) - continuous deregulation, because as Reagan would put it "big government is the problem" - we have corporations that buy the loyalties of politicians like consumers buy products from a store. Crony capitalism. What might indeed save America may well infact be a characteristic of socialism. Inconvenient.
mykebulvai 2 months ago
@aldoreshgaramok Socialism refers to policies designed to benefit the collective whole, etc. healthcare for all.....it has nothing to do with the collusion between private industry and government....that is corporatism....that is fascism.....that is what the free-market economy inevitably evolves into.
jmintube 2 months ago
@jmintube This is just splitting hairs. Your definition of fascism has simply redefined the special group from "the whole" to "private industry." The practice is the same, where government takes property from one group and gives to another privileged group. Only, in America, we rob from the middle to give to the poor and super-rich.
How does a free market inevitably evolve into fascism? Mussolini had the only fascist government, and it formed in the wake of a ruinous world war, not capitalism.
aldoreshgaramok 2 months ago
@aldoreshgaramok couldn't those car companies simply buy politicians and lawmakers in order to have the government vote in their favor. As for bailouts. If you're an ultra wealthy corporation couldn't you bribe politicians to then work in your favor and have politicians use tax payer money to bail you out :)
alvisc2002 1 month ago
@alvisc2002 Obviously, you can, in light of TARP. But that is not something that can be prevented by any different economic system. Massive bailouts are a political and leadership failure, not an economic one.
aldoreshgaramok 1 month ago
@aldoreshgaramok Not really. the car company would simply purchase lawyers judges and politicians and have the system vote in their favor. :)
alvisc2002 1 month ago
@alvisc2002 What do you mean by "not really"?
aldoreshgaramok 1 month ago
@aldoreshgaramok
Actually, it's corporatism. But we get your point. ;)
hXcDiedWithHitler 3 weeks ago
@aldoreshgaramok
Dumb. No, the arguement is exactly the opposite. Ford does an NPV calculation and determines that only 100 people will burn to death it its cars each year costing them less in settlements then it would take to fix the car. Ford knows it is immune from criminal prosecution because it is a corporation and that it can cover any bad PR with a slight increase in paid advertising. So the free market allows Ford to murder customers and pay and increase profitability.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming As Friedman correctly stated, if the level of safety that Ford can offer for its cars while remaining profitable is not acceptable to the consumer, then the consumer can and should go elsewhere for a safer car to drive.
Immunity is not even applicable here, since Ford's actions are not criminal in designing the vehicle in the manner they wish.
aldoreshgaramok 2 weeks ago
@aldoreshgaramok
Remind me, when did Ford go out of business?
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming It did not. Which casts doubt on the assumption that Ford's cars are as unsafe as its detractors claim.
aldoreshgaramok 2 weeks ago
@aldoreshgaramok
You forget to adjust your assumption for the fact that Ford was forced to recall the Pinto and fix the cars. Another fine example of a corporation choosing an immoral and destructive business policy which needed the government to correct it.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming Ford was not forced to recall it. It was voluntary - though with some pressure from the government. But they did not have to. Why did they then?
Because their public relations, which you said were so-easily repaired, were going into the toilet, and they were getting reamed at civil trials.
aldoreshgaramok 2 weeks ago
@aldoreshgaramok
You are technically correct. Ford did a voluntary recall before the NHTSA followed through on a threatened recall order.
But back to the point, you are on board with with the idea that corporations should be allowed to produce unsafe cars, foods, medicine and pollutions without any consequences aside from customer response?
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming What is unsafe to one person, might be perfectly OK to someone else. I personally would never go skydiving - others think its good fun.
Furthermore, consumer response - that is, not buying bad products - the strongest possible weapon against companies that produce products that don't work.
What other consequences are you suggesting?
aldoreshgaramok 2 weeks ago
@aldoreshgaramok
So let's say in the case that US Steel was quietly pouring a million gallons of poison waste water into the Great Lakes every day, you personally would stop buying your coils of steel from US Steel.
Or that a company with poor safety standards produced baby food that killed your 6 month old child, then you would stop buying that brand.
Or a company that used asbestos in building materials would go bankrupt after the first 3 million deaths from cancer. Good Plan.
dtorfleming 2 weeks ago
@dtorfleming You have gone off into several different directions. US Steel should be held liable for polluting, and not due strictly to environment laws. Millions of people rely on the Great Lakes, in one way or another, for their livelihood, and should be reimbursed if they find their livelihood destroyed.
With any food product, purchase involves risk. There is no law that says babies must be fed with commerical baby food. If the risk is unacceptable, don't buy it.
aldoreshgaramok 2 weeks ago
Michael Moore is obnoxious and stupid here.
PrivateAckbar 3 months ago
The words 'morality' and 'capitalism' do not fit well in the same sentence.
visvaldisX 3 months ago
@visvaldisX Tell me why.
Bulldog22031 3 months ago
@visvaldisX Shut up.
PrivateAckbar 3 months ago
@visvaldisX Apparently they do.
runawaymotor 3 months ago
What song is in the beginning of this video?
radicalownership 3 months ago
It doesnt matter what it costs! $1 or $1 billion dollars to fix, don't sell the fucking car if its fucked up and is gonna kill people because of a negligible design. Its so easy to get caught up in bull shit philosophical technical dialogue.
Johnf85 3 months ago
@Johnf85 the point was: the risk of dying can always be reduced by a cost. No car in the world is perfectly safe, but if you want a safer car, you'll have to pay more. you could probably make cars a lot safer by installing 10 million dollar brakes in each car. Does that mean we have to spend 10 million on every car? And 20 million could reduce the risk even further, but again, it's more costly.
Chaaarge 3 months ago
@Johnf85 If they sold cars paying for the negligible design that costs billions, they would go out of business and nobody would be able to buy cars anymore and wouldn't be able to go to the store and feed their families anymore. It is because of the lack of resources that are out there that ford has to give consumers a choice of whether they want a car that is less safe but cheaper or safer and more expensive.
jimmyt3411 3 months ago
@Johnf85 except it matters when these companies are getting bailed out and forcing people to pay for their lack of competence....
MrGiggity890 1 month ago
@Johnf85 There are tradeoffs to everything. There is a court system to deal with this. Either criminal (in the case of negligence) or civil (in the case of damages).
testmark1 1 month ago
Everyone still votes for the free lunch
AroundSun 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It must be hard for Dr. Friedman to argue an army of Santa Clauses.
rolfalmao 3 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. DRUG LORDS. UNEQUALITY. UNSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. LAWYERS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. MAGGOT SOCIALITES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
kopellhinex 3 months ago
Capitalism is a terrible religion. It is an economic system and can be manipulated by criminals and reptile like humans. It is not the answer to every question. True capitalism will have failure and not be a never ending success story.
tikiart1970 3 months ago
@tikiart1970 Capitalism is a terrible religion. It is, however, demonstrably the most successful creator of wealth and prosperity yet devised. It is virtually impossible to manipulate as such manipulations are punished in the marketplace (to the extent that manipulation does tale place, it is invariably anti-capitalistic (socialistic government intevention/favoritism). Capitalism is not the answer to every question, it is simply the most efficient and free economic alternative.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago