Talking about who pays for the poor to go to school, he makes it sound like it's taken off the backs of other poor people. BULLSHIT! It's taken from the wealthy who pay the most in taxes. Also most people with high student loans go into bankruptcy despite the government offering loans at lower-than-market interest rates. This means that state scholarships do the OPPOSITE of what he claims!
Libertarians, is this man seriously supposed to be smart?
Lower income people who do not go to college and so do not take advantage of the benefits of the very Government subsidized programs (taxes) which make that education possible at a lower cost to all, in fact suffer under a tax which is not relevant to them. It's a total loss.
The rich don't mind the taxes, and the middle class doesn't mind paying them as they are the very people who eventually make use of the services the taxes provide.
@AllTehPrettyHorses The government runs a large number of programs toward poverty. Even if they pay for one program they don't use, they will still make use of vast amounts of public works and programs. Also those scholarships only lower the cost to people with low income and/or good grades, that is the exact opposite of "everyone".
Furthermore the rich DO mind the taxes, if they didn't, why would they be giving so much money to Romney and Obama?
@helios5868 Yes, the rich DO mind taxes. And, yes, the governmnet DOES run a large number of programs ostensibly aimed at poverty that show no signs of actually working. Finally, yes, those scholarships don't help everyone - exactly the opposite. By interfering with the interaction of supply and demand, government scholarships have vastly increased the cost of college by increasing the cash on the demand side - effectively a price subsidy.
@helios5868 Fire your fact checker. First taking money from the private sector mostly hurts the poor by reducing investment in employment. Also almost NO ONE with high student loan debt goes into bankruptcy in no small part because the government, which set up this system that massively drives up education costs, doesn't allow that debt to be included in the bankruptcy filing.
@FletchforFreedom When less money is taken from the private sector, that money is invested in the stock-market or oversees. Numerous studies have shown this, why you still believe contrary, I do not know.
Student loans do not disappear with bankruptcy, I was well aware of this. Here's some new information for you. YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THE LOAN! It's a loan. You have to pay it back. If you can't, you have to go bankrupt...but the loan still remains, you just don't pay for a while.
@helios5868 When less money is taken from the private sector, that money is primarily invested in the stock market or other investment vehicles (as most studies DO, in fcat, show). Investmets in stocks and investment vehicles go to entities THAT CREATE JOBS.
Student loans are almost NEVER a cause of bankruptcy (your original specious contention), the primarly causes being divorce and health issues that prevent the individual from working. Student loans are UNAFFECTED by bankruptcy.
It IS taken off the backs of poor people. The poor might not pay much in income taxes. However, they pay highly regressive tax rates with respect to sales taxes, excise taxes, and social insurance taxes. In fact, the progressive nature of the income tax is cancelled out by the regressive nature of the aforementioned taxes--leading up to an effective flat tax rate of about 30% on all of us. Now does it make sense, fuckface? Friedman is right, the rich are free loaders.
He kinda brushes over the fact that student should on average be earning more and thus paying higher social security contribution than a poorer person even though that poorer person started paying earlier.
the absolute amount paid by the college educated worker is higher, but the RATE is the same. And that's what really matters when it comes to debates concerning taxes and such.
The grass grows and dies to feed other life. Every industry has example of technology growing and dying and being replaced with new technology. That system becomes more and more labored the more socialism you get. Socialism has MANY MANY examples of lack of sustainability. And it is easy to see why and how every socialized system has and will fail. You can only tax so much, then you can only print so much, then it all comes crashing down.
I hear the argument that free market = constant growth and greed, and that it is unsustainable. What these folks fail to realize is the free market just is, and everything a government does to "fix" it, or "replace" it, just messes it up and makes it work at righting the wrongs. They don't ever give an example of the free market crashing down. Life is a cycle of growth and death, the growth of the free market is the same thing.
Socialism ONLY works if you have a good working class. The more you take from that working class they less they work, so then you have to have a fiat currency system, so you can pay for the entitlements. Fiat systems are a house of cards, and they always fail, just a matter of when. The real sad part about a fiat system is it takes even more from the poor and middle class without them even knowing about it.
capitalism gave us the ability to all be able to talk about capitalism right now... be grateful. Communism and any other governments in history could not compete with capitalism because of the sad fact that people are innately better at being greedy then being altruistic. People wanting to better themselves is what benefits society as a whole. Think about if you were in any other time in history you would probably be starving being in the "lower class."
Friedman misrepresents all the factual circumstances & instead poses all sorts of philosophical conjecture (based on nothing but flawed axioms, unsubstantiated claims, & flawed assumptions) as though it were some sort of substantive argument in favor of you're-on-your-own rugged "indidivualism"
The fact of the matter is that countries that do not force their worforce into crippling debt for daring to pursue higher education actually have stronger economies. Objectively speaking, it works well
@TheTerrorUforgot It is interesting that you POLITICIZE his opinions, when they are merely economic. It would seem that you don't understand the difference between economic data and political speech. His assertions are not political... rather they are economic.
Since when is greed asking someone to earn what they consume? Since when was it considered to not be greedy to assume that someone should get for free what others had to work for?
@fury661 Our entire political system is controlled and corrupted by corporations. It's sad you think politics and economics are separate. Friedman's ideals are designed to ease the bourgeois conscience. .
@TheTerrorUforgot Even in this statement you continue to miss the point.
If you would take the time to do casual reading or listen with an open mind to the many videos of Milt on YouTube, you'd find that one of Friedman's GOALS was to get corporations out of our political system! Milton would quickly say that corporatism and corruption is the ENEMY of freedom, so he had no use for it.
It's sad that people blame capitalism for the results of corruption. You truly don't see the difference.
@TheTerrorUforgot B.S. I'm not rich and I don't feel enslaved. I look at my Italian relatives who live in a socialist society and think I have a better life. They seem so entitlement minded that they never do as much to improve their situation.
@TheTerrorUforgot That is the hallmark of ever socialist. After the revolution, the tyrants are replaced by those who led the revolution. Lenin once said (and I'll paraphrase) " We will use peace when they have guns. Our strength comes from having the people on our side. Then when we have the guns, we will use strength not through peace but through the bullet". Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
@TheTerrorUforgot Socialism, in promoting the so-called "common interest' has only ever succeeded in making people commonly miserable. The USSR and Red china used to be hailed as utopias yet they murdered hundreds of millions of people. The so-called free states of western Europe can no longer afford their social programs and need the fiat-Euro currency in order to survive. Socialism only works when you have a benevolent country that owns massive resource rights like the Scandanaivan countries
@TheTerrorUforgot@TheTerrorUforgot socialism is based on force, -true free market capitalism, is voluntary. the only arguments against free markets use examples of what is actually collectivism, masquerading as free market capitialism. The free market WILL win in the long run, it ALWAYS does.
@avdok2002 Plutocracy is what anarcho-capitalism is. The free market will crash and burn and I pity those who think of a non-sustainable system of constant growth and rampant greed will work.
@Waydejack....aren't you then saying that corporate influence or manipulation happens as a result of the regulations government imposes on the free market system? If so, then that is a direct conflict of the meaning of free market system. I would argue that the crisis we are in is a direct correlation of government getting involved/ I would also argue that crisis as a TRUE result of a free market system aren't crises at all but rather natural corrections in the marketplace which is intended.
I love Milton Friedman! He is right on the money! Who ever it who said his policies have never worked is uninformed! Socialism is EVIL! Capitalism is better, because it works!!!
@7165mike i am more than willing to let you libertarians have a run at a free market and when another crisis hits i can just lay back and say i told you so. Markets are not an effective or stable economic structure, they are manipulated both by government regulations which are instituted for the benefit of the capitalist and by speculation which is conducted by the capitalist. And before you say i must be uninformed i have a two year degree in economics.
@Waydejack Our "run at a free market" will be sabotaged by "government regulations"? That's not a free market, by definition. You actually just proved yourself wrong. You might want to brush up on that degree, cause I can't believe someone with an Associate's Degree could use such fallacious reasoning!
@brianfagin no, you just didn't understand what i said. i was referring to the fact that the Market system of economics is not reliable regardless if there are regulations or not. Government regulations are band-aids to by pass the contradictions of the market, however they also invite corporate influence into government like we are seeing now and a "free" market leads to financial trusts and corporate syndicates which leads right back to where we are now if you understood history.
This does not make any sense. The middle class pays more into the tax system than the poor. They reap the benefits of state funded education. As per Austrian economics, those people who graduate will be the job creators of the lower class in the future. People pay into social security based on income and the poor will reap the benefits of social security as well as the middle class. Milton really needed a cause in ethics and morality to clarify his economic theorires.
@deltarising One of Friedman's weakness, never recognized by people who regard him as infallible, is that he tried to be a philosopher of ethics and morals and was no good at it.
Wasn't it the government that was corrupt? You're missing the point. The "Robin Hood" in socialism IS King John. And, by the way, Robin Hood was simply stealing the money BACK from the government and giving it back to the people.
@rehwr yes, according to the original story, but over time the robin hood figure has sort of evolved into "take from rich, give to poor". its not 100% percent accurate, but lots of things changed by popular usage arent.
Yes, he stole the taxes, and returned them to the taxed. But that's not how he is remembered. He's remembered as "stealing form the rich to give to the poor," which is a completely different message.
@rehwr Yes, but the story has turned into "stealing from the rich to feed the poor" without considering how the rich got their money. Actually, Robin Hood is a stereotype character for the Barons (rich) who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, so they didn't actually steal his money, but they put a check on his power and gave the people a house of the commons so their voices could be heard. The heart of the story is the defiance of tyranny, not the redistribution of wealth (communism).
But the people not going to universities, as shameful as that is, would still benefit from having educated individuals in society who would hopefully make society a better place for everyone.
Once that said, we don't need a reason to justify that one of the basic expectations that a citizen on such a rich nation as the US should expect to get education as long as he or she is willing to take it seriously.
@spirituelconnexion less than 2% of fed/state spending is for real education,(science technology,business,). if they stopped taking that money away from the poor we could all afford a real education. close the fed/state department of education, legalize the right to work for money, ban the property tax. and we will have the greatest education system in the world , and there will be more than enough to give all us poor people a free education.
@TheTerrorUforgot Our universities are actually very popular abroad - however, we're wasting money on people who are getting degrees just to get degrees, in gut majors, and they're raising the bar out of nothing but classism.
Wow. Ok, guys, please stop calling us British people 'commies' and 'marxists'. We pay £9000 per year for our University fees- plus interest.
There are NO state funded universities in the UK, unless you are training to be a Nurse or have done active military service, or been in a Police Armed Response Unit.
So, next time an American is ranting about UK 'socialism', I'll point him to the God of Capitalism admitting to having gone to Uni off the State.
@TheWhiteDevil1612 America has universities funded by States, not THE state. Each state has universities that are subsidized by tax payers for those that are residents of the state. If they aren't they pay out-of-state tuition and that is wholly more expensive. There is no god of capitalism, which is only a system of individuals voluntarily interacting with each other without violence or coercion.
@ARKfusion way wrong, people get federal grants to go to state and private colleges , and state and private colleges get grants and subsidies from both the federal and state government, tuition is paid on an "ability to pay" basis.capitalism works best. we need to go back to it and quit deluding ourselves.
@halloranedward I don't disagree with you. I'm a capitalist. At the moment though the U.S. isn't capitalist. I don't remember why I was posting any longer but it seems as though I was pointing out that the federal government isn't running institutions directly in an administrative sense.
@ARKfusion the federal government is running institutions in that they can withhold "tax incentives" to any companies that does not follow federal mandates, and in many cases they literally do get to micro-manage the business, can you imagine Detroit designing a vehicle and going into production without first getting approval from the government? and they will want some steal to make those cars, a market order controlled price, and they will want to hire labor, etc. etc. etc.
1) This video is very old. Back from a time when the student cohort was tiny.
2) UK universities ARE state funded. If you think tuition fees covers all the costs of running a University then you may need read up significantly on the subject.
@TheWhiteDevil1612 socialism means the government instead of the market, sets prices, it has nothing to do with whether or not the government owns corporations, however, you are correct that America has no right to finger pointing, we have been a socialist state for over 40 years, and telling ourselves we were still capitalist. liberate Airstrip One !
@oneki Don't really appreciate your tone mate. Just look up the OECD website and click on Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark and look at 'long term unemployment' while you're there look at how many people are 'self employed' etc. No need to personally attack mate. I haven't done that - ad homs don't cut it. I simply believe you can't create weatlh by taxing folks and you can't rely on the government to solve all your problems.
@MrMatstutorials what country has the least amount of homeless people? in finland its everybodys right to have a good living, e.g a good paying job, roof over your head, food etc.
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.
@elijah 108 why do people always cite Scandinavia as proof that Capitalist countries should adopt Socialism? Scandinavian countries have done very badly under Socialism. Since the introduction of their welfare state initiatives Sweden, Finland and Denmark have all fallen in the OECD prosperity index, they've also created a welfare-dependent underclass and have continue to punish productivity thus creating no new jobs in almost 25 years.
@MrMatstutorials I am not an expert on all Scandinavian countries. But Finland has the best educational system in Europe (and debateably one of the best in the world). And they have the most balanced wealth margin in the world. And one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And many people rate it overall as one of the best countries to live in. And their military has some of the most intense training in the world.
@LightoftheFather Your mistake is to think the US is the most capitalist. It's actually severely hampered by excessive spending like most European countries. Finland probably manages it's capital much better then the larger countries and doesn't have some key regulation that hurt other countries.
@LightoftheFather In what way does "Finland have the best educational system in Europe"? The best Finnish university is ranked 89th in the world. The UK has 4 in the top 10. There is no comparison.
@MrMatstutorials I rarely use this word but Mr Matstutorials .."Scandinavian countries have done very badly under Socialism. Since the introduction of their welfare state initiatives Sweden, Finland and Denmark have all fallen in the OECD prosperity index," is a LIE. I live in norway and you comment is bullshit
@MrMatstutorials Can you please show me the evidence that what you say is correct? you can't make up facts.What OECD index shows scandinavia's prosperity index dropped. and what are the criteria of your comparison. you are not entitled to your own facts. wikipedia may be in a blackout but please use that. it is free. don't come here and "make up facts".
@oneki I love Scandanvia. This is the goal, the model for the world. There needs to be a mxture of capitalism and socialism, capitalism being the man and socialism being the woman, correcting the man. Firedman is an Ayn Rand idiot. He says there is no benefit for the person who doesn't go to university being taxed for someone who does go to university. Does he not understand the the positive spillovers? This would be like saying Europe receives no benefit from the U.S. military.
how come all of Scandinavia is leading the world in freedom and education? Because they apply socialist ideals. Miltons policies have never worked, EVER. i can c by this video he is clearly a supporter of class warfare.
Scandinavian countries were historically laissez faire nations. Their wealth was built on free market capitalism. Only starting from the 70s did the Social Democrats take over. The United States leads in higher education. Look up the top 20 universities in the world: 18 of them are American. As for freedom, the United States--and trust me, I'm an immigrant--is indubitably the best nation for civil liberties in the world. As for economic freedom, it at least beats all Scandinavian nations.
@LogicalFlawDetector then that begs the question why did all 4 countries switch from "free market capitalism" to its more left leaning brotheren, all in the same decade? you can also get the same education in good university's in canada, uk, or scandinavia as you can in the US and you wouldn't be in debt coming out of it :). the colleges in the US just get a shit load of money from the shit load of debt they give to the students.
@LogicalFlawDetector First of all, US only leads in higher education because of the genius visa. Every genius person born is lured overseas to increase America's percieved notion of "good education". America has a shit education system. Harvard and Yale might be good universities, but that doesn't say shit about the general education or intelligence of the country. Truth be told, America today is probably the least intelligent country in the world. Lets not shit a shitter.
@LogicalFlawDetector I call bullshit. There are at least 4 UK universities in the top 20 whatever list you look at, 3 of which are always in the top 10 (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL). Not bad for a country with 1/5th of the US population.
@SuperThe86 Corporate welfare is the domain of those who want to centrally plan our economy. It has two possible motives: One, to co-opt business into doing what the bureaucrats and politicians says is for the greater good in exchange for sweetheart deals, or to keep a business that in a free market would fail, around. Either way, this central planning disrupts the natural flow of the free market system, and allocates economic resources into places they probably shouldn't go.
We need to make a cloning machine, time machine, or zombie potion, or even just dig this guy up put on some sunglasses and tape a recorder to his back. We need a Milton Friedman.
Here we see a difference between a libertarian and a socialist. A socialist would never tell his/her audience straight in their face. "You're a bunch of freaking parasites" haha Bravo MF
The people who are most effective at political activities are the people with enough money to buy the politicians. Don't believe me. Find a politician who will let the average voter in to their office and spend time with them talking about what matters to the average American. You won't find a politician who will do that. They might if they are running for office but not mid-term.
State-funded higher education has also encouraged ceritification of every form of work - instead of being judged on your skills by experience, you have to have a certificate to prove your competence. It has become a education racket and means in order to progress you have to be wealthy enough to afford the certificate, which often isn't worth the paper its written on.
@Sivels Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
btw keep in mind i meant suffieciently paying jobs...im aware that alot of college students have jobs...but their usually part time and cant fully support the individual...
keep in mind that alot of people would be able to afford college...but when oyur IN college its harder to work and do very involved and intellectually straining schooling aswell....so alot wouldnt be able to keep jobs...which i doubtanyone would give up EATING for a college education...it offers money in the fututre but poor people dont have the resources to invest large ammounts of their EATING AND LIVING MONEY for a potential job as a result of college......get real maan
in effect...your assuming that if people spend money on college then they will work harder in it...but that just leaves it open for rich brats to afford these things INSTEAD which wouldnt make them work any harder because the richer you are the less valuable money becomes to you....the only people that would work harder if they had to pay for college is people who are ALREADY POOR.....hence why they would work harder...but making college a payed endeavor is only going to CUT THEM OUT COMPLETELY
@TheGreatDeciever55 Tell me, if a person is not willing to take out a loan to invest in themselves, why should anyone else invest in them? A bad investment is a bad investment.
@fzqlcs well these people are investing in a COLLEGE EDUCATION...not typically themselves...and as a result people dont want to invest in something that doesnt guarentee them noey (as poor people cant afford such risks) so most would rather pull a loan for food or housing...maybe electircity...and if...say...they have bad credit and cant get a loan...THEIR FUCKED...and alot of people get bad credit not because their irresponsible...but because they have no money...its an idea wrought with chaos
@TheGreatDeciever55 If people do not feel that investing in education is an investment in themselves and their future, they should not go - period. People who are just given taxpayer money to go to college often major in useless or obscure subjects that will not help find employment just to rake in grants, party for a few years and delay the inevitable process of growing up. Those who invest in themselves have a very different purpose in mind.
I agree with most of what you say, but not the tone in which you say it. Only assholes dismiss people's passions and desires to immerse themselves in the study of some subject as useless. There is nothing wrong e.g. with studying literature or philosophy. It would be a sad day if the universities were reduced to mere factories churning out unthinking workers. However, I do agree that people should pay for their own educations by way of scholarships, private bank loans, donations, etc.
@Huesos138 You infer that which was not implied. I only condemned those that pursue economically useless subjects for the purpose of taking other people's money and delaying process of standing on one's own two feet. I myself pursue several subjects (philosophy included) that do not result in a tangible gain, but it is done out of a personal passion and requires no one else to assist me in doing so. To say I am dismissing anyone's passion is quite the stretch.
@fzqlcs you havent disagreed...i said impovershed people dont HAVE the money to invest in college because they have the age old problem of having to EAT..tell me this, what is TRUELY investing in YOURSELF..a college education that relies on proffessors and a relatively crudely constructed system to guarentee your future...or investing in FOOD and SHELTER to lets say...NOT DIE..do you not understand that people WOULD invest in college---BUT DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH.....it would make college elitist...
They can take out a loan if they think they can earn enough from their education to pay it back. You don't need large sums of liquid capital already in your posession in order to be able to make an investment.
Just the same as 99% of people will need a loan to buy (invest in) a house.
@TheGreatDeciever55 if the guy has the ability to get loans and eventually pay it back later on his own means, more power to him. If he doesn't have the will to do more effort to gain the skills to improve his standard of living, that is his choice to make.
@TheGreatDeciever55 College is ELITIST by its own nature.. college IS NOT for everyone... there are people who dont NEED, dont WANT and people who simply CANT based on their reality go to a college... my grandpa couldnt go to college, but he saved so my dad could go to a modest college and now I go to a top college here in Brazil.. a government program or law WILL NOT change that. what Friedman says is that it is NOT FAIR that people who cant go to college have to pay college for those who CAN.
@fzqlcs Privatized education will discourage liberty though. People will not chose a career they would actually like to do, they will chose the one that pays well. That means that they will shy from vitally important jobs, such as public school teachers(k-12), social work, nurses, hospitality, nutritionists, musicians and artists, and you cannot tell me these are not vital to our society and culture.
@GTdnrSTANG@fzqlcs GTdnrSTANG why are you deciding what careers other people would actually like to do? You know what careers they actually want to do better than they do? it's the arrogance of people like you that milton fought his whole life to expose and stomp out, you need to let other people pursue what they want to do and mind your own business and pursue what you want to do. if higher incomes make other people happy, so be it! you can take the other jobs that pay less.
@Welsh77 No I do not, but I do know many people who are, or want to get into, social work, teaching, nursing, and the only way they can is through the publicly funded education. Am I right?
@GTdnrSTANG first of all, no one is entitled to any of those jobs. if there's not enough demand for those services to employ some people who want to do those jobs, they need to find other jobs. that's why we have people making tires instead of horse shoes, there is no longer a demand for the latter. with that said, there'd be plenty of opportunity to get into those fields without public education if you got the tax dollars that you pay into the public system back and could use them elsewhere
@fzqlcs Yeah, but what about people who have no money? How is someone like myself who has three kids with three different women gonna afford a good education while working full time as a trash hauler?
@sigurjong you're going to have a tough life because of the decisions you made, that's how the real world worlds and its tough but its justified. it's not right to impose heavy costs on others to protect you from your own choices, and you're going to have to deal with them. however, you could certainly borrow some money to fund night school to get to a higher paying job. moving up's not easy, otherwise it wouldn't mean anything
@sigurjong The obvious question is: why did you make three different women pregnant when you have a low-paid job and a lousy education? What gives you the moral right to demand payment from other people to pay for your bad choices?
@prohexa Some of us aren't smart. Some of us are stupid and just can't help it. You are obviously very smart, but did you choose that? What gives you the moral right to overlook this fact?
@fzqlcs There is a problem with your logic however. If this system was in place, every university attendant would be studying something that would allow them to earn the most possible money when they graduate. Thus reducing your population to nothing more that dumb, grey minded, unintellectual money chasers. This is not a desireable situation.
"People who are just given taxpayer money to go to college often major in useless or obscure subjects"
I don't know where you get your information from, but I seriously doubt that this is the norm, although I don't doubt that it happens.
I can however tell you that here, in Sweden, we have free tuition to universities, and there has never been any question about it. You take the mistakes of some few to dismiss an entire system.
Also: I think your comment is a heap of propaganda.
@fzqlcs this is quite possible one of the wisest youtube comment's I've ever seen. I just recently graduated with a commerce and language dual degree (Finance and Arabic) and I have peers who major in Engineering, Marketing, Science, Entreprenuership, Computer Digital Media etc, and I can really see their drive and purpose. However at the liberal arts campus we have a lot of kids who major in things I really cant see as being useful, but our tuition is 30K+ per year.
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
Financing schools is regressive... well then tax the rich more to pay for it and make a law that makes the hight of tuition dependent on the wealth of the family. Again Dr Friedman is arguing the terrible state of the system, but not saying there can be no system that is better.
He may think the market should determine tuition prices, but I think he doesn't recognize the higher risks poor people make by taking up more debt for college relative to no debt by rich people.
Too bad the financial benefit for going through higher education is disappearing.
As to social security, consider this. The payroll tax is a percentage of your earnings. The majority of middle class jobs pay more than working class jobs so it is possible that the classes that earn more are contributing more to social security than the working class. Possible.
Before SS, Senior poverty hovered around 50%. Since SS, its been closer to 10%. Recent polling also shows SS's popularity.
@jslovin23 Be careful, the notion of letting 10% of people pay for everything is a self-correcting phenomenon. When people paying taxes no longer have a majority in a democracy, the rich's tax burden only goes up. Spending also goes up with no bounds, eventually leaving a society like South America 20 years ago with a small upper (political) class, a huge lower class and no middle class.
This is seriously flawed. Free higher education must be set in place so that every person has the freedom to knowledge. Social security is essential to help out people who cannot find work or unable to. Seems pretty simple and logical.
@Rasterius Social Security has been taken over by those who were previously on welfare. The idea that one cannot find work, is a fallacy under a free market system. The only problem is, that we have to many regulations to prevent one from starting work. For example, to sell door-to-door you are supposed to have licenses (a regulation) to do this.
@puntermaster and with good reason.The workplace must be regulated to ensure safety and in the case of door to door selling, people want to be guaranteed that the seller can be faced with the responsibility if the product or service is faulty or inadequate, so the business is registered and a receipt of transaction is made. The free market does not guarantee everyone work at all, only socialism does, not that I am in favor of socialism but that is simply not true. Remember the market can fail!!
@Rasterius Does registering the product help the populace or the government more? A person should be free to sue the person if warranty fails, or not buy the product. A companies reputation gives it more credit and value than anything else. This is why companies that have succeeded (based on stock price) have used a Corporate Social Responsibility mechanism. For example, Starbucks (SBUX), MCD, TGT, versus WMT, Burger King, etc. The consumers value CSR and therefore reflect it.
@Rasterius Again lawsuits are a great way to balance or regulate... The free market doesn't guarantee employment, but it promotes greater opportunities, based on lower obstacles (regulations and taxes). Socialism is an inefficiency that has been proven thru history. China is a social aristocracy (Maoist spinoff); it is hard to label, but I have a reviewed paper on it documenting this. The market can fail, due to government interference in currency and loans (e.g. Federal Reserve).
@puntermaster It can fail in the case of monopolies, negative externalities, and when a social loss becomes a private gain, like lower standards of work conditions. Full employment will never occur because of the business trade cycle!!!! This is economics 101, the defiinition of a boom, is near full employment and when all resources (including labour) are fully utilised, thus by definition you cannot have full employment in an economy.
@Rasterius I agree with case of Monopolies and Oligopolies, which employ public / environmental resources. Those should be regulated due to the principle of ownership. For example, the water under my house is not just mine, because it runs throughout Florida. You're correct on full employment, and currently it is being lowered in recovery due to the correlation of recession to recovery productivity. The higher productivity is during a recession, the higher in recovery leading to high unemplo
@Rasterius Siding with Chomsky, a General Strike could possibly work. The problem is Unions only work in that which must have workers in the US. Warehouses are now being done by computers (thanks IBM), anything that can be outsourced is (& TV sitcom). If you had greater US capital via a privatized soc. sec. into the market, you could gain w market. Also, allow human preservation to become a force against corporations (e.g. anarchy / revolt). Employee ownership works great!
@puntermaster It is necessary for the US to keep jobs in the US. If you want to outsource labour, why not outsource all labour? This is the problem of free trade in the market economy, trying to put scientific models on social constraints is impossible, it is a choice of self preservation and no wonder the EU and Japan especially protect their farmers and industries. Outsourcing must be limited to ensure money is reinvested back into the country not shipped off into China.
@Rasterius Tariffs did work to keep some countries out of the Depression, mainly Britain. When you take the monetary power out of the government and put it back into the people's hands, you exercise a better power struggle. Can you imagine what the market would be like, if people could manage the Social Security funds in a self direct?
@puntermaster Yes, even if people saved up a large amount of their income for their own health insurance in the event that they undergoe a serious accident ie. end up in a wheelchair needing help for the rest of their life, this cost will never be covered by the savings, it is impossible unless you area a millionare. This is the whole point of insurance and public health, working together as a society to fund those in need and when the situation should arise help will be given to you as well.
@puntermaster A few things. 1. China is one of the best examples of a free market as Friedman would of described it, not because government is not powerful but because companies have no moral obligations to the people and safety issues are of no concern. 2. Lawsuits are great in theory but only available to those who can afford it! Take a look at this paper ttp://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html tell me what you make of it and how the free market would solve this problem.
@puntermaster "The only problem is, that we have to many regulations to prevent one from starting work" This is not true. In 1953 unemployment was 2.5% the highest tax bracket was 92% now unemployment rate is well above 9.1% and the highest tax bracket is 35% most of which the wealthy don't even pay. Instead of reinvesting the money back into the economy the low tax rates have allowed the top few to sit on huge piles of cash giving the US a gini co-efficient worse than Russia Iran and Egypt.
@Rasterius I agree with your notion that trickle down is not working now, due to the uncertainty of the environment. Very few actually sit on cash rather than invest, but the question is where do they invest. With regards to GINI, it is due to are rich being SUPER RICH. The question for the middle class should not be of allowing this, but should be how can we learn or leverage this. I believe government emulate their tactics in certain categories, but strive not to interfere with CZARs.
No, it seems simplistic and illogical. "Free" higher education is just 100% third party payment for education. Friedman's observation is that the people who get into the institutions of higher education--which are paid for also by average tax payers who don't get to go to college--are highly disproportionately from the top quartile of income earners. 50% are from the top 25%. Only 5% are from the bottom quartile. This regressive system is what he is objecting to.
"I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom. Until we can reestablish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty." Calvin Coolidge
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of MASTERS. Ben Franklin There are two ways to conquer a Nation. One is by the sword, The other is by DEBT. John Adams
N330AA He doesn't brush over it. SS tax is regressive; the more you make the lower % you pay. So what he said is still true.
dmspilot 1 week ago
I don't know why I clicked on this - however is does seem to be the epitomy of intellectual onanism.
Could just one economist please tell us how to run an economy without recession and boom and bust economic models...
jagara1 1 week ago
@jagara1 simple - eliminate fiat money and the ability of the governmnet to manipulate the currency.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
Talking about who pays for the poor to go to school, he makes it sound like it's taken off the backs of other poor people. BULLSHIT! It's taken from the wealthy who pay the most in taxes. Also most people with high student loans go into bankruptcy despite the government offering loans at lower-than-market interest rates. This means that state scholarships do the OPPOSITE of what he claims!
Libertarians, is this man seriously supposed to be smart?
helios5868 1 week ago
@helios5868 You're not understanding:
Lower income people who do not go to college and so do not take advantage of the benefits of the very Government subsidized programs (taxes) which make that education possible at a lower cost to all, in fact suffer under a tax which is not relevant to them. It's a total loss.
The rich don't mind the taxes, and the middle class doesn't mind paying them as they are the very people who eventually make use of the services the taxes provide.
AllTehPrettyHorses 1 week ago
@AllTehPrettyHorses The government runs a large number of programs toward poverty. Even if they pay for one program they don't use, they will still make use of vast amounts of public works and programs. Also those scholarships only lower the cost to people with low income and/or good grades, that is the exact opposite of "everyone".
Furthermore the rich DO mind the taxes, if they didn't, why would they be giving so much money to Romney and Obama?
helios5868 2 days ago
@helios5868 Yes, the rich DO mind taxes. And, yes, the governmnet DOES run a large number of programs ostensibly aimed at poverty that show no signs of actually working. Finally, yes, those scholarships don't help everyone - exactly the opposite. By interfering with the interaction of supply and demand, government scholarships have vastly increased the cost of college by increasing the cash on the demand side - effectively a price subsidy.
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
@helios5868 Fire your fact checker. First taking money from the private sector mostly hurts the poor by reducing investment in employment. Also almost NO ONE with high student loan debt goes into bankruptcy in no small part because the government, which set up this system that massively drives up education costs, doesn't allow that debt to be included in the bankruptcy filing.
Nice try.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom When less money is taken from the private sector, that money is invested in the stock-market or oversees. Numerous studies have shown this, why you still believe contrary, I do not know.
Student loans do not disappear with bankruptcy, I was well aware of this. Here's some new information for you. YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THE LOAN! It's a loan. You have to pay it back. If you can't, you have to go bankrupt...but the loan still remains, you just don't pay for a while.
Nice try.
helios5868 2 days ago
@helios5868 When less money is taken from the private sector, that money is primarily invested in the stock market or other investment vehicles (as most studies DO, in fcat, show). Investmets in stocks and investment vehicles go to entities THAT CREATE JOBS.
Student loans are almost NEVER a cause of bankruptcy (your original specious contention), the primarly causes being divorce and health issues that prevent the individual from working. Student loans are UNAFFECTED by bankruptcy.
FletchforFreedom 2 days ago
Dear Fuckface,
It IS taken off the backs of poor people. The poor might not pay much in income taxes. However, they pay highly regressive tax rates with respect to sales taxes, excise taxes, and social insurance taxes. In fact, the progressive nature of the income tax is cancelled out by the regressive nature of the aforementioned taxes--leading up to an effective flat tax rate of about 30% on all of us. Now does it make sense, fuckface? Friedman is right, the rich are free loaders.
LogicalFlawDetector 5 days ago
He kinda brushes over the fact that student should on average be earning more and thus paying higher social security contribution than a poorer person even though that poorer person started paying earlier.
N330AA 1 week ago
@N330AA
the absolute amount paid by the college educated worker is higher, but the RATE is the same. And that's what really matters when it comes to debates concerning taxes and such.
tippingpts 5 days ago
The grass grows and dies to feed other life. Every industry has example of technology growing and dying and being replaced with new technology. That system becomes more and more labored the more socialism you get. Socialism has MANY MANY examples of lack of sustainability. And it is easy to see why and how every socialized system has and will fail. You can only tax so much, then you can only print so much, then it all comes crashing down.
avdok2002 2 weeks ago
I hear the argument that free market = constant growth and greed, and that it is unsustainable. What these folks fail to realize is the free market just is, and everything a government does to "fix" it, or "replace" it, just messes it up and makes it work at righting the wrongs. They don't ever give an example of the free market crashing down. Life is a cycle of growth and death, the growth of the free market is the same thing.
avdok2002 2 weeks ago
Socialism ONLY works if you have a good working class. The more you take from that working class they less they work, so then you have to have a fiat currency system, so you can pay for the entitlements. Fiat systems are a house of cards, and they always fail, just a matter of when. The real sad part about a fiat system is it takes even more from the poor and middle class without them even knowing about it.
avdok2002 2 weeks ago
"Government does not cause affluence. Citizens of totalitarian countries have plenty of government and nothing of anything else" - PJ O'Rourke
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
capitalism gave us the ability to all be able to talk about capitalism right now... be grateful. Communism and any other governments in history could not compete with capitalism because of the sad fact that people are innately better at being greedy then being altruistic. People wanting to better themselves is what benefits society as a whole. Think about if you were in any other time in history you would probably be starving being in the "lower class."
nflpro1790 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nflpro1790 Don't even think of it as people being better at being greedy or altruistic
Think of it as what produces more goods and services
When people are able to enjoy the fruits of their labor they work harder PERIOD!
Jamespot24 2 weeks ago 3
Friedman misrepresents all the factual circumstances & instead poses all sorts of philosophical conjecture (based on nothing but flawed axioms, unsubstantiated claims, & flawed assumptions) as though it were some sort of substantive argument in favor of you're-on-your-own rugged "indidivualism"
The fact of the matter is that countries that do not force their worforce into crippling debt for daring to pursue higher education actually have stronger economies. Objectively speaking, it works well
AugustoFriedman 2 weeks ago
Milton Friedman loves greed and corporations. He is like Ayn Rand's evil spawn.
TheTerrorUforgot 3 weeks ago
@TheTerrorUforgot It is interesting that you POLITICIZE his opinions, when they are merely economic. It would seem that you don't understand the difference between economic data and political speech. His assertions are not political... rather they are economic.
Since when is greed asking someone to earn what they consume? Since when was it considered to not be greedy to assume that someone should get for free what others had to work for?
Your opinions are completely backward.
fury661 2 weeks ago
@fury661 Our entire political system is controlled and corrupted by corporations. It's sad you think politics and economics are separate. Friedman's ideals are designed to ease the bourgeois conscience. .
TheTerrorUforgot 2 weeks ago
@TheTerrorUforgot Even in this statement you continue to miss the point.
If you would take the time to do casual reading or listen with an open mind to the many videos of Milt on YouTube, you'd find that one of Friedman's GOALS was to get corporations out of our political system! Milton would quickly say that corporatism and corruption is the ENEMY of freedom, so he had no use for it.
It's sad that people blame capitalism for the results of corruption. You truly don't see the difference.
fury661 2 weeks ago
@fury661 Capitalism celebrates the rich and enslaves the rest.
TheTerrorUforgot 2 weeks ago
@TheTerrorUforgot B.S. I'm not rich and I don't feel enslaved. I look at my Italian relatives who live in a socialist society and think I have a better life. They seem so entitlement minded that they never do as much to improve their situation.
XXXFirebird76XXX 2 weeks ago
@XXXFirebird76XXX Then your family is a bunch of lazy guidos.
TheTerrorUforgot 2 weeks ago
@TheTerrorUforgot Go ask the 150 million people who were murdered in the name of socialism how they would rather live....
o5iiawah 2 weeks ago
@o5iiawah Stalin wasn't a socialist in my mind. Neither was Mao. They were tyrants that took advantage of people.
TheTerrorUforgot 2 weeks ago
@TheTerrorUforgot That is the hallmark of ever socialist. After the revolution, the tyrants are replaced by those who led the revolution. Lenin once said (and I'll paraphrase) " We will use peace when they have guns. Our strength comes from having the people on our side. Then when we have the guns, we will use strength not through peace but through the bullet". Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
o5iiawah 2 weeks ago
@o5iiawah If you think capitalism is in the comm
on interest, I feel sorry for you.
TheTerrorUforgot 2 weeks ago
@TheTerrorUforgot Socialism, in promoting the so-called "common interest' has only ever succeeded in making people commonly miserable. The USSR and Red china used to be hailed as utopias yet they murdered hundreds of millions of people. The so-called free states of western Europe can no longer afford their social programs and need the fiat-Euro currency in order to survive. Socialism only works when you have a benevolent country that owns massive resource rights like the Scandanaivan countries
o5iiawah 2 weeks ago
@TheTerrorUforgot @TheTerrorUforgot socialism is based on force, -true free market capitalism, is voluntary. the only arguments against free markets use examples of what is actually collectivism, masquerading as free market capitialism. The free market WILL win in the long run, it ALWAYS does.
avdok2002 2 weeks ago
@avdok2002 Plutocracy is what anarcho-capitalism is. The free market will crash and burn and I pity those who think of a non-sustainable system of constant growth and rampant greed will work.
TheTerrorUforgot 2 weeks ago
@Waydejack....aren't you then saying that corporate influence or manipulation happens as a result of the regulations government imposes on the free market system? If so, then that is a direct conflict of the meaning of free market system. I would argue that the crisis we are in is a direct correlation of government getting involved/ I would also argue that crisis as a TRUE result of a free market system aren't crises at all but rather natural corrections in the marketplace which is intended.
Jonahsteeler 4 weeks ago
Very interesting.
brianpadrickdrake 4 weeks ago
I love Milton Friedman! He is right on the money! Who ever it who said his policies have never worked is uninformed! Socialism is EVIL! Capitalism is better, because it works!!!
7165mike 1 month ago
@7165mike i am more than willing to let you libertarians have a run at a free market and when another crisis hits i can just lay back and say i told you so. Markets are not an effective or stable economic structure, they are manipulated both by government regulations which are instituted for the benefit of the capitalist and by speculation which is conducted by the capitalist. And before you say i must be uninformed i have a two year degree in economics.
Waydejack 1 month ago
@Waydejack Our "run at a free market" will be sabotaged by "government regulations"? That's not a free market, by definition. You actually just proved yourself wrong. You might want to brush up on that degree, cause I can't believe someone with an Associate's Degree could use such fallacious reasoning!
brianfagin 4 weeks ago
@brianfagin no, you just didn't understand what i said. i was referring to the fact that the Market system of economics is not reliable regardless if there are regulations or not. Government regulations are band-aids to by pass the contradictions of the market, however they also invite corporate influence into government like we are seeing now and a "free" market leads to financial trusts and corporate syndicates which leads right back to where we are now if you understood history.
Waydejack 4 weeks ago
This does not make any sense. The middle class pays more into the tax system than the poor. They reap the benefits of state funded education. As per Austrian economics, those people who graduate will be the job creators of the lower class in the future. People pay into social security based on income and the poor will reap the benefits of social security as well as the middle class. Milton really needed a cause in ethics and morality to clarify his economic theorires.
deltarising 1 month ago
@deltarising One of Friedman's weakness, never recognized by people who regard him as infallible, is that he tried to be a philosopher of ethics and morals and was no good at it.
squamish4244 1 month ago
Didn't Robin Hood steal taxes from the corrupt government of King John?
rehwr 1 month ago 53
@rehwr
Wasn't it the government that was corrupt? You're missing the point. The "Robin Hood" in socialism IS King John. And, by the way, Robin Hood was simply stealing the money BACK from the government and giving it back to the people.
diskpanic 1 month ago
@diskpanic king had ultimate authority then!
rehwr 1 month ago
@rehwr yes, according to the original story, but over time the robin hood figure has sort of evolved into "take from rich, give to poor". its not 100% percent accurate, but lots of things changed by popular usage arent.
scottydu81 1 month ago
@rehwr we all know what it means today though.
TheChippyRick 1 month ago
@rehwr Not the point of the argument, the argument is just called "The Robin Hood Myth"
skillinp1388 3 weeks ago
@rehwr No because Robin Hood, or at least his legend, is fictional.
HoldingOnToLiberty 3 weeks ago
@HoldingOnToLiberty There's no proof or disproof of that! Friar Tuck, probably fictional.
rehwr 3 weeks ago
@rehwr
Yes, he stole the taxes, and returned them to the taxed. But that's not how he is remembered. He's remembered as "stealing form the rich to give to the poor," which is a completely different message.
jarvy251 3 weeks ago
@rehwr
Exactly. Too bad nobody understands the story contextually and for the period.
Smullet90 2 weeks ago
@rehwr Yes, but the story has turned into "stealing from the rich to feed the poor" without considering how the rich got their money. Actually, Robin Hood is a stereotype character for the Barons (rich) who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, so they didn't actually steal his money, but they put a check on his power and gave the people a house of the commons so their voices could be heard. The heart of the story is the defiance of tyranny, not the redistribution of wealth (communism).
Vindigary 2 weeks ago
@rehwr pretty sure he's refering to the idea of "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor."
Jok3r115 1 week ago
But the people not going to universities, as shameful as that is, would still benefit from having educated individuals in society who would hopefully make society a better place for everyone.
Once that said, we don't need a reason to justify that one of the basic expectations that a citizen on such a rich nation as the US should expect to get education as long as he or she is willing to take it seriously.
spirituelconnexion 1 month ago
@spirituelconnexion less than 2% of fed/state spending is for real education,(science technology,business,). if they stopped taking that money away from the poor we could all afford a real education. close the fed/state department of education, legalize the right to work for money, ban the property tax. and we will have the greatest education system in the world , and there will be more than enough to give all us poor people a free education.
halloranedward 1 month ago 12
@halloranedward wtf
ReeferTim 3 weeks ago
@ReeferTim yup.
halloranedward 3 weeks ago
@halloranedward I agree on most assertions except the absurd one that we have a good education system.
TheTerrorUforgot 3 weeks ago
@TheTerrorUforgot Our universities are actually very popular abroad - however, we're wasting money on people who are getting degrees just to get degrees, in gut majors, and they're raising the bar out of nothing but classism.
IoEstasCedonta 3 weeks ago
@IoEstasCedonta Nobody will be ready for our universities if you know how bad K-12 is.
TheTerrorUforgot 3 weeks ago
America has state funded universities?
Wow. Ok, guys, please stop calling us British people 'commies' and 'marxists'. We pay £9000 per year for our University fees- plus interest.
There are NO state funded universities in the UK, unless you are training to be a Nurse or have done active military service, or been in a Police Armed Response Unit.
So, next time an American is ranting about UK 'socialism', I'll point him to the God of Capitalism admitting to having gone to Uni off the State.
TheWhiteDevil1612 1 month ago
@TheWhiteDevil1612 America has universities funded by States, not THE state. Each state has universities that are subsidized by tax payers for those that are residents of the state. If they aren't they pay out-of-state tuition and that is wholly more expensive. There is no god of capitalism, which is only a system of individuals voluntarily interacting with each other without violence or coercion.
ARKfusion 1 month ago
@ARKfusion way wrong, people get federal grants to go to state and private colleges , and state and private colleges get grants and subsidies from both the federal and state government, tuition is paid on an "ability to pay" basis.capitalism works best. we need to go back to it and quit deluding ourselves.
halloranedward 3 weeks ago
@halloranedward I don't disagree with you. I'm a capitalist. At the moment though the U.S. isn't capitalist. I don't remember why I was posting any longer but it seems as though I was pointing out that the federal government isn't running institutions directly in an administrative sense.
ARKfusion 3 weeks ago
@ARKfusion the federal government is running institutions in that they can withhold "tax incentives" to any companies that does not follow federal mandates, and in many cases they literally do get to micro-manage the business, can you imagine Detroit designing a vehicle and going into production without first getting approval from the government? and they will want some steal to make those cars, a market order controlled price, and they will want to hire labor, etc. etc. etc.
halloranedward 3 weeks ago
@TheWhiteDevil1612
1) This video is very old. Back from a time when the student cohort was tiny.
2) UK universities ARE state funded. If you think tuition fees covers all the costs of running a University then you may need read up significantly on the subject.
Cheedillow 1 month ago
@TheWhiteDevil1612 socialism means the government instead of the market, sets prices, it has nothing to do with whether or not the government owns corporations, however, you are correct that America has no right to finger pointing, we have been a socialist state for over 40 years, and telling ourselves we were still capitalist. liberate Airstrip One !
halloranedward 3 weeks ago
I have nothing against Norway btw.
Google: The Myth of the Scandinavian Model
MrMatstutorials 1 month ago
@oneki Don't really appreciate your tone mate. Just look up the OECD website and click on Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark and look at 'long term unemployment' while you're there look at how many people are 'self employed' etc. No need to personally attack mate. I haven't done that - ad homs don't cut it. I simply believe you can't create weatlh by taxing folks and you can't rely on the government to solve all your problems.
peace.
MrMatstutorials 1 month ago
@MrMatstutorials what country has the least amount of homeless people? in finland its everybodys right to have a good living, e.g a good paying job, roof over your head, food etc.
peace.
elijah108 1 week ago
wow
bashbrannigan 1 month 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 month ago
@elijah 108 why do people always cite Scandinavia as proof that Capitalist countries should adopt Socialism? Scandinavian countries have done very badly under Socialism. Since the introduction of their welfare state initiatives Sweden, Finland and Denmark have all fallen in the OECD prosperity index, they've also created a welfare-dependent underclass and have continue to punish productivity thus creating no new jobs in almost 25 years.
MrMatstutorials 1 month ago
@MrMatstutorials I am not an expert on all Scandinavian countries. But Finland has the best educational system in Europe (and debateably one of the best in the world). And they have the most balanced wealth margin in the world. And one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And many people rate it overall as one of the best countries to live in. And their military has some of the most intense training in the world.
LightoftheFather 1 month ago
@LightoftheFather Your mistake is to think the US is the most capitalist. It's actually severely hampered by excessive spending like most European countries. Finland probably manages it's capital much better then the larger countries and doesn't have some key regulation that hurt other countries.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@LightoftheFather In what way does "Finland have the best educational system in Europe"? The best Finnish university is ranked 89th in the world. The UK has 4 in the top 10. There is no comparison.
basch2020 1 month ago
@basch2020 that was a reference to gen ed and oppose to higher ed.
LightoftheFather 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMatstutorials I rarely use this word but Mr Matstutorials .."Scandinavian countries have done very badly under Socialism. Since the introduction of their welfare state initiatives Sweden, Finland and Denmark have all fallen in the OECD prosperity index," is a LIE. I live in norway and you comment is bullshit
oneki 1 month ago
@MrMatstutorials Can you please show me the evidence that what you say is correct? you can't make up facts.What OECD index shows scandinavia's prosperity index dropped. and what are the criteria of your comparison. you are not entitled to your own facts. wikipedia may be in a blackout but please use that. it is free. don't come here and "make up facts".
oneki 1 month ago
@oneki I love Scandanvia. This is the goal, the model for the world. There needs to be a mxture of capitalism and socialism, capitalism being the man and socialism being the woman, correcting the man. Firedman is an Ayn Rand idiot. He says there is no benefit for the person who doesn't go to university being taxed for someone who does go to university. Does he not understand the the positive spillovers? This would be like saying Europe receives no benefit from the U.S. military.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 1 month ago
Comment removed
yetitracker 1 month ago
@MrMatstutorials r u retarded? sry for being a dick, but....
elijah108 1 week ago
how come all of Scandinavia is leading the world in freedom and education? Because they apply socialist ideals. Miltons policies have never worked, EVER. i can c by this video he is clearly a supporter of class warfare.
elijah108 1 month ago
Scandinavian countries were historically laissez faire nations. Their wealth was built on free market capitalism. Only starting from the 70s did the Social Democrats take over. The United States leads in higher education. Look up the top 20 universities in the world: 18 of them are American. As for freedom, the United States--and trust me, I'm an immigrant--is indubitably the best nation for civil liberties in the world. As for economic freedom, it at least beats all Scandinavian nations.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 week ago
@LogicalFlawDetector then that begs the question why did all 4 countries switch from "free market capitalism" to its more left leaning brotheren, all in the same decade? you can also get the same education in good university's in canada, uk, or scandinavia as you can in the US and you wouldn't be in debt coming out of it :). the colleges in the US just get a shit load of money from the shit load of debt they give to the students.
elijah108 1 week ago
@LogicalFlawDetector First of all, US only leads in higher education because of the genius visa. Every genius person born is lured overseas to increase America's percieved notion of "good education". America has a shit education system. Harvard and Yale might be good universities, but that doesn't say shit about the general education or intelligence of the country. Truth be told, America today is probably the least intelligent country in the world. Lets not shit a shitter.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@LogicalFlawDetector I call bullshit. There are at least 4 UK universities in the top 20 whatever list you look at, 3 of which are always in the top 10 (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL). Not bad for a country with 1/5th of the US population.
N330AA 1 week ago
This guy was a freedom lover. Liberals are scum
RRNYC1998 1 month ago
He seems to be missing the point as to why there isn't a more robust attendance among all socio-economic levels in society.
y0uthpr0ject 1 month ago
A perfect idiot ...
pallab1234 1 month ago
What about corporate welfare ?
SuperThe86 1 month ago
@SuperThe86 Corporate welfare is the domain of those who want to centrally plan our economy. It has two possible motives: One, to co-opt business into doing what the bureaucrats and politicians says is for the greater good in exchange for sweetheart deals, or to keep a business that in a free market would fail, around. Either way, this central planning disrupts the natural flow of the free market system, and allocates economic resources into places they probably shouldn't go.
EmpperorIng 1 month ago
@SuperThe86 he's strongly against those as well.
DREwestcoast 1 month ago
Comment removed
mickomoo 1 month ago
We need to make a cloning machine, time machine, or zombie potion, or even just dig this guy up put on some sunglasses and tape a recorder to his back. We need a Milton Friedman.
ShamanMcLamie 1 month ago
Here we see a difference between a libertarian and a socialist. A socialist would never tell his/her audience straight in their face. "You're a bunch of freaking parasites" haha Bravo MF
BandytaCzasu 1 month ago
Socialism is the same law of jungle as capitalism, just covered with a thick coat of hypocrisy.
BandytaCzasu 1 month ago
The people who are most effective at political activities are the people with enough money to buy the politicians. Don't believe me. Find a politician who will let the average voter in to their office and spend time with them talking about what matters to the average American. You won't find a politician who will do that. They might if they are running for office but not mid-term.
kingmike40 2 months ago
State-funded higher education has also encouraged ceritification of every form of work - instead of being judged on your skills by experience, you have to have a certificate to prove your competence. It has become a education racket and means in order to progress you have to be wealthy enough to afford the certificate, which often isn't worth the paper its written on.
viddid 2 months ago
Abolish the FED, and before we do that AUDIT the FED!!! to see how corrupt the monetary system really is!!!!
MrHendiesel 2 months ago
@TheNigerianTimes Thanks man I appreciate that
TheGreatDeciever55 2 months ago
I wouldn't of thought of that:
AFDC is hated...
But SSI and financial aid is loved because of the direction of gov't money.
papeluso 3 months ago
Good ol Milton, would still school any Keynesian today
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago 30
@Tracywithafacey friedman was in a lot of ways a keynesian
bobjimjones 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey what school of thought was he from?
KevinSheerin 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey or the other way round
dancthegr 1 month ago
@Tracywithafacey In 2006 he predicted prosperity into the foreseeable future for America. I guess that meant for the next 2 years.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@Sivels Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
logtype47 3 months ago
@logtype47 "Ayn Rand was a moron" Ad hom. I stopped reading your comment here. Go choke on a rotten dick and suffocate in your own vomit, bitch.
Sivels 3 months ago
btw keep in mind i meant suffieciently paying jobs...im aware that alot of college students have jobs...but their usually part time and cant fully support the individual...
TheGreatDeciever55 3 months ago
keep in mind that alot of people would be able to afford college...but when oyur IN college its harder to work and do very involved and intellectually straining schooling aswell....so alot wouldnt be able to keep jobs...which i doubtanyone would give up EATING for a college education...it offers money in the fututre but poor people dont have the resources to invest large ammounts of their EATING AND LIVING MONEY for a potential job as a result of college......get real maan
TheGreatDeciever55 3 months ago
in effect...your assuming that if people spend money on college then they will work harder in it...but that just leaves it open for rich brats to afford these things INSTEAD which wouldnt make them work any harder because the richer you are the less valuable money becomes to you....the only people that would work harder if they had to pay for college is people who are ALREADY POOR.....hence why they would work harder...but making college a payed endeavor is only going to CUT THEM OUT COMPLETELY
TheGreatDeciever55 3 months ago 2
@TheGreatDeciever55 Tell me, if a person is not willing to take out a loan to invest in themselves, why should anyone else invest in them? A bad investment is a bad investment.
fzqlcs 3 months ago
@fzqlcs well these people are investing in a COLLEGE EDUCATION...not typically themselves...and as a result people dont want to invest in something that doesnt guarentee them noey (as poor people cant afford such risks) so most would rather pull a loan for food or housing...maybe electircity...and if...say...they have bad credit and cant get a loan...THEIR FUCKED...and alot of people get bad credit not because their irresponsible...but because they have no money...its an idea wrought with chaos
TheGreatDeciever55 3 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 If people do not feel that investing in education is an investment in themselves and their future, they should not go - period. People who are just given taxpayer money to go to college often major in useless or obscure subjects that will not help find employment just to rake in grants, party for a few years and delay the inevitable process of growing up. Those who invest in themselves have a very different purpose in mind.
fzqlcs 3 months ago 46
@fzqlcs
I agree with most of what you say, but not the tone in which you say it. Only assholes dismiss people's passions and desires to immerse themselves in the study of some subject as useless. There is nothing wrong e.g. with studying literature or philosophy. It would be a sad day if the universities were reduced to mere factories churning out unthinking workers. However, I do agree that people should pay for their own educations by way of scholarships, private bank loans, donations, etc.
Huesos138 2 months ago
@Huesos138
I have to say that I'm often saddened by the kind of rhetoric that tends to be used by those who share my political beliefs. :/
Huesos138 2 months ago
@Huesos138 You infer that which was not implied. I only condemned those that pursue economically useless subjects for the purpose of taking other people's money and delaying process of standing on one's own two feet. I myself pursue several subjects (philosophy included) that do not result in a tangible gain, but it is done out of a personal passion and requires no one else to assist me in doing so. To say I am dismissing anyone's passion is quite the stretch.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@fzqlcs
Fair enough. Then I misunderstood you.
Huesos138 2 months ago
@fzqlcs you havent disagreed...i said impovershed people dont HAVE the money to invest in college because they have the age old problem of having to EAT..tell me this, what is TRUELY investing in YOURSELF..a college education that relies on proffessors and a relatively crudely constructed system to guarentee your future...or investing in FOOD and SHELTER to lets say...NOT DIE..do you not understand that people WOULD invest in college---BUT DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH.....it would make college elitist...
TheGreatDeciever55 2 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55
They can take out a loan if they think they can earn enough from their education to pay it back. You don't need large sums of liquid capital already in your posession in order to be able to make an investment.
Just the same as 99% of people will need a loan to buy (invest in) a house.
bombkangaroo 2 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 if the guy has the ability to get loans and eventually pay it back later on his own means, more power to him. If he doesn't have the will to do more effort to gain the skills to improve his standard of living, that is his choice to make.
kmelfina 2 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 College is ELITIST by its own nature.. college IS NOT for everyone... there are people who dont NEED, dont WANT and people who simply CANT based on their reality go to a college... my grandpa couldnt go to college, but he saved so my dad could go to a modest college and now I go to a top college here in Brazil.. a government program or law WILL NOT change that. what Friedman says is that it is NOT FAIR that people who cant go to college have to pay college for those who CAN.
KalilYiuTubiu 2 months ago
@fzqlcs Privatized education will discourage liberty though. People will not chose a career they would actually like to do, they will chose the one that pays well. That means that they will shy from vitally important jobs, such as public school teachers(k-12), social work, nurses, hospitality, nutritionists, musicians and artists, and you cannot tell me these are not vital to our society and culture.
GTdnrSTANG 2 months ago
@GTdnrSTANG @fzqlcs GTdnrSTANG why are you deciding what careers other people would actually like to do? You know what careers they actually want to do better than they do? it's the arrogance of people like you that milton fought his whole life to expose and stomp out, you need to let other people pursue what they want to do and mind your own business and pursue what you want to do. if higher incomes make other people happy, so be it! you can take the other jobs that pay less.
Welsh77 2 months ago
@Welsh77 No I do not, but I do know many people who are, or want to get into, social work, teaching, nursing, and the only way they can is through the publicly funded education. Am I right?
GTdnrSTANG 2 months ago
@GTdnrSTANG first of all, no one is entitled to any of those jobs. if there's not enough demand for those services to employ some people who want to do those jobs, they need to find other jobs. that's why we have people making tires instead of horse shoes, there is no longer a demand for the latter. with that said, there'd be plenty of opportunity to get into those fields without public education if you got the tax dollars that you pay into the public system back and could use them elsewhere
Welsh77 2 months ago
@fzqlcs Yeah, but what about people who have no money? How is someone like myself who has three kids with three different women gonna afford a good education while working full time as a trash hauler?
sigurjong 2 months ago
@sigurjong you're going to have a tough life because of the decisions you made, that's how the real world worlds and its tough but its justified. it's not right to impose heavy costs on others to protect you from your own choices, and you're going to have to deal with them. however, you could certainly borrow some money to fund night school to get to a higher paying job. moving up's not easy, otherwise it wouldn't mean anything
Welsh77 2 months ago
@Welsh77 You're probably right. I don't have much talent and it's just how it is. Life is not fair. I should smell the coffee.
sigurjong 2 months ago
@sigurjong The obvious question is: why did you make three different women pregnant when you have a low-paid job and a lousy education? What gives you the moral right to demand payment from other people to pay for your bad choices?
prohexa 2 months ago
@prohexa Some of us aren't smart. Some of us are stupid and just can't help it. You are obviously very smart, but did you choose that? What gives you the moral right to overlook this fact?
sigurjong 2 months ago
@fzqlcs There is a problem with your logic however. If this system was in place, every university attendant would be studying something that would allow them to earn the most possible money when they graduate. Thus reducing your population to nothing more that dumb, grey minded, unintellectual money chasers. This is not a desireable situation.
paddymourinho 2 months ago
@fzqlcs I have spent 10 years in the student loan industry and you cannot be more correct.
bkl139 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fzqlcs
"People who are just given taxpayer money to go to college often major in useless or obscure subjects"
I don't know where you get your information from, but I seriously doubt that this is the norm, although I don't doubt that it happens.
I can however tell you that here, in Sweden, we have free tuition to universities, and there has never been any question about it. You take the mistakes of some few to dismiss an entire system.
Also: I think your comment is a heap of propaganda.
founoe 1 month ago
@fzqlcs this is quite possible one of the wisest youtube comment's I've ever seen. I just recently graduated with a commerce and language dual degree (Finance and Arabic) and I have peers who major in Engineering, Marketing, Science, Entreprenuership, Computer Digital Media etc, and I can really see their drive and purpose. However at the liberal arts campus we have a lot of kids who major in things I really cant see as being useful, but our tuition is 30K+ per year.
mites7 1 month ago
@fzqlcs You can go to school to invest in yourself AND have a good time as well.
squamish4244 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
possumpistol 3 months ago
Financing schools is regressive... well then tax the rich more to pay for it and make a law that makes the hight of tuition dependent on the wealth of the family. Again Dr Friedman is arguing the terrible state of the system, but not saying there can be no system that is better.
He may think the market should determine tuition prices, but I think he doesn't recognize the higher risks poor people make by taking up more debt for college relative to no debt by rich people.
cizlerable 3 months ago
Too bad the financial benefit for going through higher education is disappearing.
As to social security, consider this. The payroll tax is a percentage of your earnings. The majority of middle class jobs pay more than working class jobs so it is possible that the classes that earn more are contributing more to social security than the working class. Possible.
Before SS, Senior poverty hovered around 50%. Since SS, its been closer to 10%. Recent polling also shows SS's popularity.
LancePoint9 3 months ago
one thing he is not saying, is that the bottom 25% doesnt pay nearly as much taxes as the rest, so having 5% going to college still makes it worth it
bajskorvaren 3 months ago
I am Robin Hood
jslovin23 4 months ago
@jslovin23 Be careful, the notion of letting 10% of people pay for everything is a self-correcting phenomenon. When people paying taxes no longer have a majority in a democracy, the rich's tax burden only goes up. Spending also goes up with no bounds, eventually leaving a society like South America 20 years ago with a small upper (political) class, a huge lower class and no middle class.
cdoftx 1 month ago
This is seriously flawed. Free higher education must be set in place so that every person has the freedom to knowledge. Social security is essential to help out people who cannot find work or unable to. Seems pretty simple and logical.
Rasterius 4 months ago
@Rasterius Social Security has been taken over by those who were previously on welfare. The idea that one cannot find work, is a fallacy under a free market system. The only problem is, that we have to many regulations to prevent one from starting work. For example, to sell door-to-door you are supposed to have licenses (a regulation) to do this.
puntermaster 4 months ago
@puntermaster and with good reason.The workplace must be regulated to ensure safety and in the case of door to door selling, people want to be guaranteed that the seller can be faced with the responsibility if the product or service is faulty or inadequate, so the business is registered and a receipt of transaction is made. The free market does not guarantee everyone work at all, only socialism does, not that I am in favor of socialism but that is simply not true. Remember the market can fail!!
Rasterius 4 months ago
@Rasterius Does registering the product help the populace or the government more? A person should be free to sue the person if warranty fails, or not buy the product. A companies reputation gives it more credit and value than anything else. This is why companies that have succeeded (based on stock price) have used a Corporate Social Responsibility mechanism. For example, Starbucks (SBUX), MCD, TGT, versus WMT, Burger King, etc. The consumers value CSR and therefore reflect it.
puntermaster 4 months ago
@Rasterius Again lawsuits are a great way to balance or regulate... The free market doesn't guarantee employment, but it promotes greater opportunities, based on lower obstacles (regulations and taxes). Socialism is an inefficiency that has been proven thru history. China is a social aristocracy (Maoist spinoff); it is hard to label, but I have a reviewed paper on it documenting this. The market can fail, due to government interference in currency and loans (e.g. Federal Reserve).
puntermaster 4 months ago
@puntermaster It can fail in the case of monopolies, negative externalities, and when a social loss becomes a private gain, like lower standards of work conditions. Full employment will never occur because of the business trade cycle!!!! This is economics 101, the defiinition of a boom, is near full employment and when all resources (including labour) are fully utilised, thus by definition you cannot have full employment in an economy.
Rasterius 4 months ago
@Rasterius I agree with case of Monopolies and Oligopolies, which employ public / environmental resources. Those should be regulated due to the principle of ownership. For example, the water under my house is not just mine, because it runs throughout Florida. You're correct on full employment, and currently it is being lowered in recovery due to the correlation of recession to recovery productivity. The higher productivity is during a recession, the higher in recovery leading to high unemplo
puntermaster 4 months ago
@Rasterius Siding with Chomsky, a General Strike could possibly work. The problem is Unions only work in that which must have workers in the US. Warehouses are now being done by computers (thanks IBM), anything that can be outsourced is (& TV sitcom). If you had greater US capital via a privatized soc. sec. into the market, you could gain w market. Also, allow human preservation to become a force against corporations (e.g. anarchy / revolt). Employee ownership works great!
puntermaster 4 months ago
@puntermaster It is necessary for the US to keep jobs in the US. If you want to outsource labour, why not outsource all labour? This is the problem of free trade in the market economy, trying to put scientific models on social constraints is impossible, it is a choice of self preservation and no wonder the EU and Japan especially protect their farmers and industries. Outsourcing must be limited to ensure money is reinvested back into the country not shipped off into China.
Rasterius 4 months ago
@Rasterius Tariffs did work to keep some countries out of the Depression, mainly Britain. When you take the monetary power out of the government and put it back into the people's hands, you exercise a better power struggle. Can you imagine what the market would be like, if people could manage the Social Security funds in a self direct?
puntermaster 4 months ago
@puntermaster Yes, even if people saved up a large amount of their income for their own health insurance in the event that they undergoe a serious accident ie. end up in a wheelchair needing help for the rest of their life, this cost will never be covered by the savings, it is impossible unless you area a millionare. This is the whole point of insurance and public health, working together as a society to fund those in need and when the situation should arise help will be given to you as well.
Rasterius 4 months ago
@puntermaster A few things. 1. China is one of the best examples of a free market as Friedman would of described it, not because government is not powerful but because companies have no moral obligations to the people and safety issues are of no concern. 2. Lawsuits are great in theory but only available to those who can afford it! Take a look at this paper ttp://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html tell me what you make of it and how the free market would solve this problem.
Rasterius 4 months ago
@puntermaster "The only problem is, that we have to many regulations to prevent one from starting work" This is not true. In 1953 unemployment was 2.5% the highest tax bracket was 92% now unemployment rate is well above 9.1% and the highest tax bracket is 35% most of which the wealthy don't even pay. Instead of reinvesting the money back into the economy the low tax rates have allowed the top few to sit on huge piles of cash giving the US a gini co-efficient worse than Russia Iran and Egypt.
Rasterius 4 months ago
@Rasterius I agree with your notion that trickle down is not working now, due to the uncertainty of the environment. Very few actually sit on cash rather than invest, but the question is where do they invest. With regards to GINI, it is due to are rich being SUPER RICH. The question for the middle class should not be of allowing this, but should be how can we learn or leverage this. I believe government emulate their tactics in certain categories, but strive not to interfere with CZARs.
puntermaster 4 months ago
@Rasterius
No, it seems simplistic and illogical. "Free" higher education is just 100% third party payment for education. Friedman's observation is that the people who get into the institutions of higher education--which are paid for also by average tax payers who don't get to go to college--are highly disproportionately from the top quartile of income earners. 50% are from the top 25%. Only 5% are from the bottom quartile. This regressive system is what he is objecting to.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 week ago
Great Economist amazing
Michaelscanada 4 months ago
"I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom. Until we can reestablish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty." Calvin Coolidge
Restore America 2012 Ron Paul
possumpistol 4 months ago
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of MASTERS. Ben Franklin There are two ways to conquer a Nation. One is by the sword, The other is by DEBT. John Adams
possumpistol 4 months ago