Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman

[toneeeeeee]

Hey who's that guy? Helen? Huh, they must have spelled Steve wrong, because that thing I'm looking at is no 'Helen'.

[edwardwills]

32 years later, the same thing is true.

[UltraProle21]

entitlements should be abolished, people on entitlements now should be cleansed from the earth. problem solved.

[AnubisEye009]

@UltraProle21 define entitlement

[UltraProle21]

@AnubisEye009 transfer payments.

[AnubisEye009]

@UltraProle21 :3

[hokieneer17]

"Separate the hopes from the reality" - exactly what I was thinking.

[ariuszarim]

Anyone notice how well that negative income tax worked for Greece?

[EchoMike03]

The trick of the liberal is sometimes hard to see, but is clearly visible in their rhetoric. The bottom 20%, the bottom 20%. If you extrapilate this rhetoric out, you see that the liberal will never be satisfied, and has programmed into the system it's own failure, which is to say that the system can never be gotten rid of. Even if the "botton 20%" were making 100K on average, these people would still be pissed if some guy was making 100 Bill.

[taratasarar]

@EchoMike03 Clever... but no, man, lets talk about real humans, blood and flesh, people who are stuck in a social strata, not because of inabilities but because of social structure, the percentage for social mobility in US is unusually low and has decreased since the 80s, after Reagon... Lets talk about the state of health... Lets talk about criminality... these are connected to poordom. If you don´t care, well all the best, but if you do, lets talk about how to solve these issues.

[EchoMike03]

@taratasarar The solution to all of your problems is simple. Reform the educational system so we actually teach kids how to think rather than program them to pass a test. Second, you unleash the private free market to generate a high employment rate so that anyone who wants a job can get a job. Smart people with jobs don't require welfare, can pay for their own health care, and don't commit crimes for the most part.

[taratasarar]

@EchoMike03 How would you reform the educational system? Doesnt that imply state involvement? Or elect a work government and create a work focused society as in Norway, where emplyment rate is 3.3 percent? (ssb.no/english/subjects/06/ar­beid_en/)

[EchoMike03]

@taratasarar This why liberals amuse me. Let's have an honest experiment. We both get 1 mill for "poordom" (as you call it). You give your money to the govt, and they funnel it thru the beuracracy, and then cut someone a check, and say see you next month. I, on the other hand, find a private charity with low overhead, and in exchange for the benefits they recieve the recipients are required to participate in work, or educational activities. Which option IMPROVES the recipients life overall?

[taratasarar]

@EchoMike03 The second of course, because the first one is a strawman. There is no problem combining a certain criteria for recieving money with government. Norway does exactly that. They have huge measures trying to help and encourage people to get back to work.

[EchoMike03]

@taratasarar Alos, the Fed Govt takes in more than 2 Trillion dollars currently in revenue, which BTW makes it the most "profitable" organization in the country and probably the world.If you break those revenues down that it takes from private entities, it equates out to 40 MILLION 50Ks. Now, would you say that 40 Mill people are getting their moneys worth for the govt, or could that money be better used in the private sector for jobs, and investments on expanding companies?

[taratasarar]

@EchoMike03 Are you saying that you wanna get rid of government because you don't like how the government runs in the US? I don't think the current US budget is the only one. I think there are many other budgets with other priorities. Like the scandinavian ones.

[EchoMike03]

@taratasarar

WHAT??? Where did you read that I want to "get rid of the US govt"? Answer... you didn't. I wouldn't get too close to that strawman with an open flame. The US Fed Govt has specific enumerarted powers. When it strays outside of tjhose powers it produces neither efficient, nor desired results. And for the record, i live in the US so what do I care about Scandinavia?

[EchoMike03]

So according to the gentelman in the video, 1/3 of benefit recipients leave their roles every year, and this is touted as a success? If I may be able to flip this coin and show you the other side. that means that 2/3 or 66% do not leave the roles, or possibly never leave the roles. I'd love for someone to do a study starting in the 60's and figure out how many people who are on welfare today had family members rec'ing benefits back in the day, and if there is not a way to do that there should be

[taratasarar]

@EchoMike03 would love to see that study as well. Remember though, that there are welfare systems in the world with higher scores.

[JoshMan522]

You can't sell me on greed.

[MrVanxarp]

13:50 almost applys to investment banks....

[THERepublic1971]

I wonder what the welfare worker at 42:00 says about the broken family rate of today?

[THERepublic1971]

Thomas Sowell putting on a clinic of economic freedom and common sense.

[THERepublic1971]

Dumpson lives with the color of his skin and will never reach full potential like Thomas Sowell has.

[ElJefer]

Does your program plan to eliminate the bottom 20%? A great attack on illogical thinking

[taratasarar]

"Welfare gives money to people for failing. And takes it away when they succeed."

Well, this has some point to it. people may misuse the system. However, the issue of poverty, sickness, disabled people etc.is not an issue of "failure" after equal opportunity, it is a structural issue were a lot of people are born into unequal opportunities. "Giving them money", helping them to work and live a good life is not subsudizing failure, it is institutionalizing justice. And we need that in a democracy

[CommonSenseCap]

@taratasarar Does such a system have to be administered federally? Can't such a system have greater success if implemtned locally or even privately?

[taratasarar]

@CommonSenseCap I'm open for suggestions. But remain sceptical. It seem to me that it has to have some fundamental connection to the government, because to privatize it completely would mean that the client would have to pay for it themselves, which wouldn't work when we're talking about people without money. Should they get money from the state for paying these private programs? Well, that is an alternative, but then the state will be involved again. So how do you mean?

[CommonSenseCap]

@taratasarar I mean having local governments administer these programs. They are easier to enforce and more difficult to commit fraud. Plus, if you have an issue, you can go to your local office, instead of some extension of DC.

[taratasarar]

@CommonSenseCap hey I'm all for local governence, to a degrea, I just can't see it happening without external stimulation. How do you solve the welfare puzzle with Friedmans theory though? Do you think that it would spontaniously emerge, or is it not important? Should the welfare system be replaced by the prisonfare system as one might suspect has happened in the US; 380 000 inmates in 1970 -> 2,4 million in 2009. 7 billion dollars in 80s -> 70 billion dollars in 07.

[beats299]

@CommonSenseCap I agree to some extent. But what about poor local governments? They don't have the resources to pay for the sick and disabled. Are you suggesting funding come from the federal government and granted to local governments?

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar CommonSenseCap means implementing localism to these "programs" rather working from a large top-down federal system that doesn't know the specific needs of the community and its people like a localistic system would. I would at first be skeptical that these programs are even needed and that by implementing them would cause more long-term harm than good.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 But what are we really getting at in terms of these "programs"? Welfare? universal health care? regulations? And why would you be sceptical?

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar I would be skeptical because not every solution to a problem is the creation of a bureaucratic program or policy. Are these programs sustaining a standard or raising the standard of the people/community. I side with Sowell that these programs have dramatically slowed the progress of people. The rate of growth before these programs was much higher than after.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 social mobility has decreased dramaticaly during t last 30 years in the US. For me this is a serious social problem. If you agree, then Norway would be an interesting society to turn to. They have managed to greatly increase social mobility. and what organisational tools to they use? Beurocracy, welfare, universal health care, good and free public schools up to the university level. And at the same time managed to become one of the driving economic forces in the world. point?

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar Apples and oranges. I say that because they are a culture that openly accepts a top-down system and has little resistance to redistributive welfare. They are a surface layer success. They buy into the public model completely. I do not believe their system will last forever built on a false premise. At some point they will run out of other peoples money. Its always the case. When the Norwegian is given freedom they will fail. No handle to rock the cradle.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 Apples and oranges? Other peoples money? Man, you better look into this gap in your position. Hey, lets be open. I'm not against capitalism a and Norway is a capitalist society. But their use of the state has managed to meet the needs of a lot of suffering people. Isn't this very interesting? Honestly? Can you realy sweep these examples away because you dont "believe" it will last? It is a prosperous fruitfull economy! Lets be frank about this my friend. Lets not be dogmatic.

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar You are asking me to accept their system when I believe their system operates on a false premise that cannot survive on redistributive property. I do not believe that is a society to emulate nor do I think it is stable. Rather looking at surface layer information you must think beyond what you see on top and look all aspects of the system. You are making a judgement based on the 20% of what you see rather the whole picture. Its a boat with a screen covered hole.

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar I was having this same conversation with people about Greece years ago. Entitlement nations are destined to fail not only because their nation is built on a false premise of redistributive property but because it also manipulates the culture. Once that public element is ripped away they have nothing left but bricks, signs, and fire bombs.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 I´m only asking you to take reality into account. Norway is a gap in your position my friend. And I hope you´re not being serious comparing them to Greece... You´re throwing a lot of metaphores my way, which is entertaining, but is it serious? "False premise"? It works! It flippin works, man, that´s what we should take into account; reality, not premisis.

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar I agree that Norway is doing well but the reality is they have a large amount of nationalized companies that are not free and by definition anti-free market/capitalism. They were facing a slump in economic growth but in 2005 allowed a greater amount of private business freedom and lowered government spending. Their corporate tax rate is below the global average making them competitive. To my credit they have done what I believe they should do to succeed.

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar They have kept their nationalized companies but government spending, trade, business, fiscal, and monetary freedom have gone up. In recent years they have been leaving much of the socialistic Euro economic model but what still bothers me is their redistributive policy. Their economic policies are business friendly but their social policy is not. Their nationalized companies and entitlement programs will be a burden once businesses find a new market.

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar Let's step back for a moment. We agree Norway is doing well. We agree they are becoming more economically free over the years. They are prospering as you say BUT I have doubts about their future. They have nationalized companies (energy mostly), large entitlements, and a creeping "bail out" mentality. They are certainly not the model as you suggest but they are doing well in their continent.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 Yes indeed, they have nationalized companies. I don´t see the problem with that. In fact, it opens the companies up to some democratic ethics. Isn´t this something to strive for, a healthy economy and a healthy people. Put the social reality back into the equation. Reagons trickle down theory has not worked. You say they are doing well, prosperous, economically free, I would add socially equal in opportunity and result. Why is this not a model? And merry christmas my friend!

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar When there is a nationalized system and forced social equality it's not free a nation. They are implementing part of Reagan's trickle down theory but it's done by the means of force. They bring down the top to raise the bottom of dependents. "Trickle up poverty." I will never understand the mentality of people who compromise living in a less free nation for social and economic security than in a free nation that honors our rights to succeed and fail. Merry Christmas.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 This is exactly what it all comes down to, no? The concept of freedom. But we´re talking about real people here, humans, blood and flesh. When the reagonomically "free" USA have an unusual low rate of social mobility this means that a significant part of the population are born into poordom with little chance of getting out. And they only failed in the choice of parents. Is this your freedom? I don´t think you´re taking the force and power of social structure into account.

[DREwestcoast]

@taratasarar reagan is no model of what a president should do... he tripled the public debt.

[taratasarar]

@DREwestcoast Do you have a source for that statement man? Would really like to check it out.

[TheJiggaNasty]

@DREwestcoast

Maybe, but Reagan tried remove the department of education and department of energy and other gov't agencies. Also, this debt was used to win the Cold War which is a huge benefit to the world.

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar People are born poor but have many chances and opportunities of getting out. To say otherwise is ignorance. Of course there are obstacles in that path to getting out but it never will or should be easy. You take a subsidized human, give him money, a job, benefits, and a retirement security and you see social mobility. I see nothing. You cannot place that person, the Nationalized Man, on a successful platform. He did nothing but exist, which is how the State likes it.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 Who said it should be easy. There are other ways of increasing social mobility than giving people money to fail. This is a fair point though, and is very important to have in mind when. On the other hand, it doesnt mean there are no alternatives. Lets be nuanced here, honest. Good public schools and universal health care for example are two good alternatives which helps to reduce systemic unequality and increase the freedom opportunity and result

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar In a system that gives the person the freedom to fail AND succeed there will be those who fail either by choice or not. You see those Nationalized people and see social mobility. I see dependents, no individualism, no success, no hard work. I see subsidized products of the State. There is nothing free about it. Its plastic freedom. They're free &mobile because their govt allows them to be not because they earned it or have that natural right. It's self imposed serfdom.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 I'm sorry but this is a poor concept of freedom which desperately needs to take foucauldian power into account. Nothing is as simple as just choosing this or that, the market knows this, they try to effect this to their advantage. Its called advertising.Billions of money is used to effect the unconscious of consumers, AND IT WORKS. Big time. There are social forces in culture keeping people from acheiving their potential. Poordom is one of them.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 You use a lot of metaphores "serfdom", "plastic" freedom, "dependents" etc... I'm not saying these words are without a point, lets take them into account, but lets not get trapped in the poor concept of freedom they imply, because that is to trap the world in a phrase, reduce beautiful freedom to some ideological static, lets not be dogmatic, lets take hayeks advice and remember that the world is complex, but lets not get trapped in reduction remembering it.

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar What is poordom? This has standards and various definitions as well depending on the opportunities and the social climate. I see a nationalized system and call foul on freedom and this is dogmatic? I'll take that just as long as that "open minded" view of liberty remains overseas. Of course there are forces keeping people from achieving but but there are just as many forces helping people succeed. One bureaucratic entity does not mean mobility.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 I think it's very easy for a discussion to evolve into polarized dogmas, I just want to incorporate this into the discussion to begin with in an attempt to keep the discussion from moving in that direction. I don't mean to call you dogmatic, i guess we're all in some degree though.

[THERepublic1971]

@taratasarar Well of course we are all dogmatic on certain issues. Its called having a principle and fighting for it. Now it comes with its complexities but overall when history has shown something time and time again, that a nationalized economy and culture will lead to despotism, you do what you can to stop it. Even having meaningless youtube conversations with people whom you will never meet nor change their mind b/c they're just as.... dogmatic, haha. Have a happy New Year.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 I don't think it is a question of totally nationalized economy or not, their are degrees in between, and it is certainly a mix I am arguing for; Social democracy. And the Scandinavian countries are far from despot countries my friend. Have a happy New Year!

[THERepublic1971]

@THERepublic1971 This conversation has reached its end. We simply have a difference in opinion of freedom and social mobility. I feel mobility should remain in the hands of the individual and not the State (not its function). Economic activity should be left with the free-market where it offers competitive prices and opp. without using redistributive property. The nationalized system is a danger to ALL liberties that creates a dependent and mindless class of people. Goodbye.

[taratasarar]

dependent and mindless class of people.... Please look into Foucault. Freedom can be seen as a vacum where a lot of forces are competing to leave it's impression. To fight for freedom is important of course, but a choice is never neutral, it's always effected. Thanks man, all the best!

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 I think the question of freedom is very important when talking about beurocracies and social democracies. It definitely has a point to it. This does not mean however that it is not the best system or that it doesn't acheive some great tendencies in society. So to dismiss social democracies because it puts a limit on some sort of freedom, is to put an ideal before the actual lived society in question. There are people suffering right now who need attention.

[taratasarar]

@THERepublic1971 I mean, do you think starving people in somalia will thank you if you tell them they are totally free. They cannot eat freedom. Freedom is illusory. It's a concept. And we are, and will always be entangled in forces greater than us effecting our moving in this or that direction. A democratic state is trying to consciously effect some of these forces so we'll be able to have a say in what to be effected by. This is closer to my concept of freedom.

[EchoMike03]

@taratasarar A "private" program does not mean that poor people with no money will pay a provate firm to access the benfits. It simply means that a non-govt agency collects funds from private citizens, and then designs it's own criteria for handing those benefits out. Provate entities, unlike govt ones, are BY NATURE more efficient, more cost effective, and have less fraud in them. The simple reason for this is that a provate organization relies on it's own to survive.

[taratasarar]

@EchoMike03 dunno what you´re getting at. i´m not saying that the market or NGOs should be left out. But that they should be held accountable to the people. I can grant you that priv orgs often are more efficient than gov orgs. As long as you have money. And often cost effective. Bureaucracy costs. Less fraud? than soviet? sure. Than scandinavian social democracies? no. And if we want democracy and ethics to be a part of our institutions, then the institutions should be accountable to the demos

[EchoMike03]

@taratasarar I have no idea what you just wrote. Maybe you can try to clarify.

[DREwestcoast]

@taratasarar I live in an place with rather lavish social sec. system which takes care of people to where they can pay their rent, buy food and most recipients manage to have cell phones (thanks to the oh evil capitalist system), and the best part, is the amount per month is about 1 third of that of a minimum wage job , yet unemployment is up, subsidizing gov dependence is devilish, there's usually no two ways about it.

[ariuszarim]

@taratasarar Alternatively, it's entirely possible for the government to drop welfare as a program and lower the income tax by an amount proportional to the cut in cost. That would give people more money for working across every tax bracket. Better yet, dumping to minimum wage would create substantially more jobs. Just think of the positive impact of eliminating the minimum wage and welfare while lowering the income tax across the bottom three brackets.

[taratasarar]

@ariuszarim I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you saying that one should stop welfare programs and give some money directly to the people through tax cuts?

I have problems with this. And that is that I think it would increase poverty, and decrease social mobility. By having and institution for welfare, you ensure that the money is going to impact these points, if you give the money directly to the people then commercialized commodities would suck them out for other purposes.

[ariuszarim]

@taratasarar Not give the people money, let the people keep their own money. We want people off welfare and working. The best way to accomplish that would be to make working more financially advantageous. As raising wages is a function of the market and taxing wages is a function of government, a logical course of action would be to lower taxes (though not below zero) on the lowest two tax brackets, either income or payroll taxes. Then, eliminate welfare to fund the tax cut.

[taratasarar]

@ariuszarim You have to remember that there are a lot of people who can't work, or wont make it in the market for jobs. People who are chronicly ill, who have serious dysfunctionalities.. There are also people who are in need of a push before they will be able to work. So I'm not sure If I agree with you're premise. We need a welfare system.

[ariuszarim]

@taratasarar On the job market side, I'd recommend eliminating the minimum wage. Then everyone could find employment at some level. As for the chronically ill, I'd recommend migrating most prescription drugs to over-the-counter (as part of a push to shrink the FDA). I see the role of a welfare system as the elimination of all the burdens of government on the poorest in society, not the socialization of their problems.

[taratasarar]

@ariuszarim "burdens of government on the poorest..." When you have a society like that in the US where after Reagon came in to office in the 80's then economic inequality has just increased and increased, social mobility has decreased and is unusualy low for a developing country. The scandinavian countries after social democracy and welfare have a very high social mobility and economic equality.. "The burdens of government on the poor.." It is actually working!

[beats299]

@ariuszarim In a global economy, it's a race to the bottom in terms of wages. If we eliminate the minimum wage, American workers will get paid the equivalent of Chinese sweatshop wages. I know the hot argument is that the unemployed are prevented from finding a job because they cannot justify a minimum wage. Everyone can find employment right now if they choose to hold a minimum wage job. Our unemployment is not due to lack of minimum wage jobs, but lack of "middle class" wage jobs.

[ariuszarim]

@beats299 In many cases, you are correct.  However, any job that can be done for less in another country is already gone. Think of call centers, assembly work, or even professional writing. All the wages are as low as possible and the jobs have left the country. If you combine the elimination of the minimum wage with removing all statutory burdens (taxes, govt fees, etc) on the bottom two tax brackets, you'll see the lower class of society vanish in less than a decade.

[beats299]

@ariuszarim Oh BTW I totally agree with making prescription drugs OTC. Fuck the FDA!

[cknwngonstrng]

@taratasarar You say "this has some point to it," but then that the system "is not subsudizing failure." So for consistency's sake, you have to note that at some level of income, a redistributive system flips incentives and makes unemployment rational. This can be based on the jobs/wages available to be sure, and doesnt deny inequalities of opportunity, and ethical, even economic rationales for such programs, but there WILL be a cost. Acknowledge that and you depolarize the debate and progress

[taratasarar]

@cknwngonstrng Acknowledge that there will be a cost? Not sure if I get what you are saying. However, a good redistributive system is supporting human beings who cannot work economically. These are people who would not be in a job, but need money to survive. And, it is supporting human beings who curently can't find a job, not naivly by just giving the money, but by training them and helping them find and apply for work.

[taratasarar]

@cknwngonstrng cont.: And a good redistributive system will also give good public schools up to the university level. Good health care, almost free without insurance.A doctor will only be a doctor and not a buisness man. Noncorrupt politicians. More or less economic equality (there will still be rich and poor). Integration centers, police etc. That is also part of it. It will decrease crime, increase illiteracy, social mobility, health, freedom of opportunity and hence democracy

[taratasarar]

@taratasarar *literacy

[emmit127]

@taratasarar

You seem to think that there is a "good" redistributive system, the facts say it simply does not exist. Taking from one man via a bureaucracy and giving it to another through a more complex bureaucracy is not efficient. More so, history has shown that redistribution of wealth creates a significantly larger gap between the rich and the poor, and creates an even more exclusive and elite upper class. I mean really, most of your arguments don't lie in facts, but naive assumption.

[taratasarar]

@emmit127 With all respect my friend, that is simply wrong. Look at the scandinavian countries. They have a redistributive system, healthy and efficiant economies, universal health care, universal education, low unemployment rate, low unequality, good rate of happiness, etc. They are not perfect, but they have acheived alot! Yes, beurocracy costs, money and efficiancy, but that does not mean that we don't need it if you look at the whole picture.

[taratasarar]

@emmit127 And you are refering to "facts" and "history" a lot... please elaborate... Because the history I have seen, and the facts I have looked at certainly do not say that there is no such thing as a "good" redistributive system. On the contrary. The scandinavian countries falsifies your statement about "history".. While USA and GB after cut in welfare + privatization have created an unusual high unequality on low social mobility after Thatcher and Reagon in the 80's..

[ketsan]

@taratasarar In the UK that was because a lot of industry that had been prevented from modernising by the unions went to the wall and then just as it was recovering Labour came in with massive tax and spend policies and welfare increases which damaged the economy and put us in the problems we have now.

[CheckyCPSO07]

Sowell was the junk!

[theAbeElement]

they all seem to agree on negative income tax. I still don't completely understand it

[zoozootaken]

@theAbeElement Basically you have to work to get assistance. If you do not work, you don't get help.

[mcufre]

Sowell was great indeed.

[393ani]

I don't think we need to have a negative income tax! That provides a disincentive to work! The more you work, the less you get from the government! In any case, it is taking money from somebody else and paying somebody else and it doesn't solve the problem of the government! I think we need to abolish the income tax and impose other punitive taxes like taxing tobacco, pollution and so on. Government can also tax gasoline and provide roads and so on!

[Freedomnotforced]

@Nihilarity - accumulation of wealth and power in the society that Milton suggests can only happen through voluntary co operation. If the people don't like what companies do they take there money elsewhere and put them out of business. But when the government has too much power it is almost impossible for the minority to have a choice. They are forced to co operate with the majority!!!!

[SkepticThink]

Sowell is a boss

[RoboSlater]

@SkepticThink YouTube has several interviews with Sowell available. Each one is riveting. "Uncommon Knowledge" has several interviews of Sowell on YouTube, each based on a different book Sowell has written. This week (11-7-11) with the publication of "The Thomas Sowell Reader" it's releasing a segment each day of their latest interview with him (he's 81 now - Happy Birthday, Dr. Sowell!) on the Human Events website.

[SkepticThink]

@RoboSlater Thanks, I'm watching them now

[9P9T6]

I should have said 30 years later...

[9P9T6]

amazing to watch this 40 years later. Some things have changed massively, particularly the welfare system in the US. Arguably the South Bronx has done better than Hulme, Manchester, particularly in the last 20 years. However, the US education problem seems to have barely changed. The vouchers Sowell raises at one point are still highly controversial.

[MrFoxfan67]

53:14... Says it all!!!! and this was predicted in the 1970's!!!! The man was a brilliant!

[MrFoxfan67]

12% are one parent families in the general public??? What is it now??/ Has it gone up or down! Its gone WAY up... thanks to Welfare!!

[revelationmd]

15:10

... and if anyone still doubts this they only need to look at the London riots.

Thanks for the great series upload. Milton Friedman must be spinning in his grave.

[RageagainstRacism]

Who is the younger black man that was right about everything he said in this video? The guy talking about the gov't paying people to fail?

I want to know what came of this brilliant man!

[ScionAscendant]

@RageagainstRacism His name is Thomas Sowell.

[revelationmd]

@RageagainstRacism I see Scion already answered, but I'll just add one thing. I can highly recommend you buy Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It's one of those books you will read and read again.

I like to refer to Thomas Sowell as the USA's first black president they should have had.

[fountainherz]

Hey didn't state it explicitly here, but I recall in his book and elsewhere he proposed the negative income tax as way to repeal the welfare state entirely. :P

NIT was also supposed to be a transition assister and would not remain a permanent solution.

[god0fgod]

How many times does that woman say "programe"?

[seppsters]

I think in the end the lady was kind of scared of Sowell.

[MrConservative608]

One of the evils of welfare (though I do agree with it to be a temporary safety net but ideally it should be from private charity) is that liberals have this these rose-colored glasses on about it because most liberals won't live off welfare. Welfare promises free, law abiding people nothing more than what the government promises rapists, murders & terrorists. They are not free to chase their dreams the way they would if they had a job. Liberals want to make such an existence tolerable. Why?

[jme6141994]

I wonder what percentage of welfare money is spent on lottery tickets?

[Lurker1979]

Thomas Sowell should also get the peace prize.

[Nihilarity]

So I'm guessing Friedman wanted prostitution and drug dealing to be legalised. He thinks there is always a job for a person to find to do, were welfare to be withdrawn - but his ideal of capitalism requires a reserve army of labour, he certainly knows this. There can never be enough legitimate jobs for everyone, so the remainder will presumably have to resort to these things to make a living. He'd probably think of this as 'taking initiative' or 'entrepreneurial spirit'.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@Nihilarity prostitution IS legal in places; so is "drug dealing"; i thought everyone, especially the collectivists, knew this already

[Nihilarity]

@2dum2getsocialism Congratulations for missing the point spectacularly. I was saying that in a system without welfare there still wouldn't be enough jobs (there'd probably be fewer since governments wouldn't have any incentive for keeping people employed & presumably wouldn't feel any responsibility for them). People would have to turn to things that were harmful or that they were morally opposed to. Friedman's pathetically naive attitude is 'people will always find something' - sure, crime.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@Nihilarity i understood you perfectly; you "guessed" that uncle miltie would want prostitution and drug dealing leagal; i simply pointed out it already is legal; in your delusional mind it is government's job to keep people employed? government's only proper function is to lay the groundwork for a competitive market to flourish--end of story; we all have seen what happens to people when you collectivists get a foothold in the system--- pain, suffering, and misery-- thanks for advocating this

[Nihilarity]

@2dum2getsocialism You are utterly deluded. Government existed long before the free market. Government exists to carry out the will of the people, and ensure that a country is a good place for all its citizens to live. If government doesn't care about the health, happiness, and life chances of its people then it has no consent and therefore no legitimacy to rule over them, or maintain systems that do. Friedman's sociopathic views are for those who see the world only as a source of income.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@Nihilarity so how does government do this?

how does government "ensure," as you put it?--- it coerces

coercion=force=epic fail

the notion of government being some benevolent being looking out for the best interests of the poor peons is the antithesis of a sane mind

[Nihilarity]

@2dum2getsocialism Hey don't get me wrong, I don't like strong central control, but that's exactly what happens when capitalists are allowed to play their games. I'd rather have power in the hands of democratically accountable people than whichever greedy, narcissistic sociopath happened to steal the most wealth from the people who produced it. State power is there to prevent capitalists from killing people. The universe does not exist to provide a fun game for amoral kleptomaniacs to play.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@Nihilarity it is the removal of proper competition that allows the capitalist to "play the games" encouraged by government subsidies and "cronyism"

[Nihilarity]

@2dum2getsocialism Yeah I've heard that myth, and I've never heard any justification for it. Governments prop up monopolistic businesses sometimes, like in the banking bailouts, but on the whole a competitive business environment is something governments actively maintain. There are more laws to encourage competition than to prevent it. We already have most aspects of a free market. If business can't keep everything going in its current state then it never will be able to.

[superlucci]

@Nihilarity Government does not help competition, it destroys it by forcing company through regulations and minimum wage and price controls. It hinders them greatly.

There are not more laws to encourage competition than to prevent it, what the hell are you talking about?

I want you to get a taxi license, tell me how much it costs. Oh wait, it costs you to get a license in the first place, therefore its restricting you.

We dont have most aspects of a free market.

Leave business alone

[HandyMan101]

@Nihilarity Talk to any business owner and ask him if he would like to be regulated at his current level or less. And then ask him what the net effect would be. More money for the business, to employ, to invest, to save...

regulation is just a tax. because to comply costs money. take more money from people and put it into unproductive use in government takes it away from productive use in the business.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity I want you to genuinly think about what i wrote. Its a human right to be free, who are you to say other wise, you think that because people are suffering for their mistakes that other people who didnt make those mistakes must pay for it? You speak of system which goes against freedom and freewill, what if i dont want to pay taxes that go towards welfare because i dont support, are you going to use extortion(prison) to get me to pay there for going against my human rights of freedom

[Nihilarity]

@wowzinger Are you really going to speak in absolutes? 'Free' can mean so many things - which of them is a right, and where does that right come from? You can claim your absolute freedom if you wish, there are many unoccupied areas in the world where you could go and live a 'free' life. When it comes to a system we all have to live in though, decisions are made collectively, and we all must cooperate and contribute. If you don't want to do that, you have no right to use the products of society.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity Part 1 So if 55% of the population wants 45% to be killed because they feel its best for society? is that right? You also fail to see the individual do they not matter? why should the majority of society reign over the minority. Also to ad Society has produced NOTHING, individuals produce things, the society didnt make bill gates improve the computer, it didnt make Mr ford mass produce the car. And of corse im not free to punch people because id be going against their rights.

[Nihilarity]

@wowzinger I never said anything of the sort. I believe strongly in the rights and freedoms of the individual, an equal stake in society is just such a right. Ford didn't make the car alone, he merely designed it and provided the capital. He drew on the manpower of his workers, social utilities like roads and the power grid, and the whole creative and scientific work of mankind up to that point. This is the really retarded thing about Friedman's zealots, they think only rich people can create.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity Part 2 So what your saying about living in a place if im born into slavery do i not have the human right to fight to be free? how about this if you want a collectavist society then how about you go live in North Korea were what ever one must contribute to the bettermint of the society? Should i not have the freedom to live were i wont as long as i dont muche of others? people have the right not to be mooched on by the bottem class of society.

[Nihilarity]

@wowzinger The bottom class of society are the ones who get their hands dirty, the ones who do all the work. What do they get in return? Nothing like what their efforts are worth. The labour market makes sure there's no link between their productivity and their rewards, and keeps them poor enough that they've no choice but to keep working for scraps. That's not freedom. The real moochers are the ones who take all the profits, the idlers with nothing to contribute but capital.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity When im born do i not have the right to be free? Colectivism has clearly failed when since the government is in debt that makes me in debt before i take my first breath. Is that right? Colectivism may seem good in theory but in reality it is a failer(soviet russia and so many other colectavist societys) and will always fail because every individual is different which makes it imposible for government laws to work well with everone. There for the governmnet shouldnt interfear

[Nihilarity]

@wowzinger Collectivism and individualism must coexist. People should always be protected from control and abuse of those with power, whether that power is government, a military force, a corporation, or a wealthy individual. The system that Friedman proposes ignores the power money gives people, the terrible potential of financial domination. Instead he wants to neuter government, the only thing that protects us from the abuses of a world where the rich only get richer, and control everything.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity HAHA the only way money gives people power is when they bribe people and so on wich is against the law, but colectivism and individualism cant work together because for colectivism to work you have to i repeat you have to ignore the individuals wants and needs, a libertarian system is designed to make it so no human can control another human, the only way a government works it through extortion.

[Nihilarity]

@wowzinger So without government to limit how people wield their financial power, what's to stop me from buying a slave? There will always be people desperate enough to sell their freedom, so it could be a consensual contract, isn't that all that's required for it to be valid? Thats an extreme example of course, but it scales. If a given amount of money is worth less to you than to me (because you can spare it and I can't), you have enormous power to compel me to do things. Denying this is dumb.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity :) oh you havnt listened to a word ive said have you, HUMAN rights and freedoms, slaves are human, you can not sell your freedom, because slavery is ilegal because it is against human rights. But you are right in secound part, that is ok, human rights and freedom. How ever a slave is not paid so if some one sold their freedoms then they would not be a slave becuase they also benifited. You do not acnotlidge charity at all, for people who fail they have charity to help them

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity Oh and btw the rich get richer in a socialist system not a freemarket system. The only instansis in the history of man were the masses quality of life was imporved was in a relativly freemarket. The facts are agaisnt you, this conversation is done the facts prove you wrong over and over again. and you ideal system has failed before and will always fail because it goes against human nature and human freedom

[Nihilarity]

@wowzinger That's bullpoop. It seems to me that the easiest way to ignore people's wants and needs is to let them starve and die if they fail. The freedom to do so doesn't represent to me any kind of universal right, and a right to every $ you can lay your hands on is ridiculous when not a cent of it could be made without the cooperation of all society. I haven't told you what my ideal system is, or if I even have one. All I've done here is demonstrate why the majority will never accept yours.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity people should support their own wants and needs, btw the majority of society has accepted far more radical things, example, Hitler, stalin, Robert mugabe, and so on. You did mention part of your ideal system witch is colectivism, society does not work together, mitlon proved it by shoulding us how self interest makes people do what they do, they do not work together on perpose, Society does not COOPERAT because the government tells them to, they do it for their own SELF interest

[Nihilarity]

@wowzinger You brought up charity yourself in that other post, you're accepting altruism as a part of the system. Self-interest isn't the only thing that motivates people, but it's the only thing that pure market capitalism takes into account. I said that collectivism and individualism must coexist in the system as they naturally do in human society. We don't just act in our own interest, you admit that yourself by bringing up charity. The whole premise of libertarianism is false.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity dont put words is my mouth, that kind of stuff just pissis me the fuck of, it was nice debate antill you put words in my mouth, good bye

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity In the end anyone who does anything does it for self interest, wealther, its financial, for power, to feel good, or to impress(celebs donating to charity and so on) The reason freedom works best is because it spreeds the power the most, socialism and comunism are the most elites systems in the world, more governmnet means less power to the individual. and thats a fact,

[Nihilarity]

@wowzinger What mechanism in capitalism prevents the accumulation of wealth and power? Can you tell me? It's true that governments sometimes shore up monopolies, and for what it's worth I think that markets should be free as possible, wherever it's appropriate. But I think you're deluded if you think that government protects business from the people more than it protects the people from business. At least people have an equal say in government, in business power is proportional to wealth.

[wowzinger]

@Nihilarity Im going to take a minite to discribe a government to you, it is a corporation that has products and services just like any corp, how ever the difference is extortion is used to force us to buy its products and services, even if we dont like them, support them, and are against them, we as individuals are still forced to buy them. We as individuals have very little power over governmnet because if we dont like what they do we CANT buy another corp services and products over the gov

[ScionAscendant]

@Nihilarity Is there anything wrong with removing the criminal element of these industries, which have and will exist regardless of whether they are legal or not? Legalizing prostitution and the sale of all controlled substances across the board would be a net gain for society in almost every regard I can think of. Less criminals, less prisons, less violence in these industries because of the vast reduction of the criminal element, much less cost in law enforcement, tax revenue that would more..

[ScionAscendant]

@ScionAscendant than cover the costs imposed by possibly higher rates of drug addiction, which has not been shown to be a certainty anyway, and productive members of society would not be thrown in jail for wanting to smoke a joint from time to time. The only real cost would be that all the control hungry collectivists would have to allow individuals to make decisions that affect only them as they please, and letting people make their own decisions is the bane of a collectivists existence.

[AroundSun]

I love 35:27 . As if the original funding isn't enough, the states add on their portion, and then the local governments do the same. This is why it is so easy for illegals to collect checks within the US when they aren't even citizens. This is why they can collect economic security checks in Texas. There is no oversight when you have tons of giveaways. Not to mention the ones who collect SS without having ever paid into the system.

[mposko1]

13:40 through 15:16 sums it all up. We cannot, no matter how well intended, make decisions for others in their best self interest. To think that the vast bureaucracy of the government has a chance of doing this remotely effective, is in itself an absurd notion. Yet it is this idea that our "greatest minds from academia" have come up with to protect us from ourselves. 14:38 explains the "godlike" power.

Milton Friedman was an amazing man. It is a shame I did not learn any of this in college.

[david4china]

Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman put on a clinic once again. Genius + Common Sense. Friedman and Sowell are two of the greatest minds of the last 100 years. Period. Razor sharp logic, wit and argument. I can listen to them all day. THANK YOU for uploading this amazing 10 part series.

[testmark1]

@david4china it's genius only. this was not a part of common sense always.

[annettecls]

thanks for uploading this series. I've just discovered Milton Friedman and I'm learning so much. thanks again!!!!!!

[mposko1]

@annettecls I'm in the exact same spot! I've been looking for someone who can explain, what I know to be true, in a clear and articulate way.

[BaptizedinFire]

40:35

Sowell to lady: It's incredible how you start your story in the middle, as if there was a predestined amount of poverty and unemployment.

Lady: There is a pre-destined 20% of the bottom half of the population!

Everyone else: ...umm yeah?

Priceless xD