It really saddens me that I didn't get to know about Friedman until after his death. Just to think... all that time spent in state-run school having Keynesianism rammed down my throat as the savior of humanity. If only I was allowed to know the truth when I was a kid.
the only problem with the economy is socialism. the only thing that will end the problem is the end of socialism. I am sick of hearing allegedly conservative Republicans proposing subsidies, incentives , tariffs and spending cuts to alleviate the damage done by socialist sabotage.
I never knew Friedman realized the error of his ways in supporting the Fed, which has long been my major issue with his theories. Wonderful to see he was intellectually honest enough to realize his mistakes, and to take his belief that gov't is inept one step further, to see that they can NEVER properly manage a currency better than the market.
@ronrutherford me too, I always thought of him as a pinko,hippie,communist,(I am resigned to being more conservative than average) You know ....oooooooo we are going to have a nice long slow gradual increase in the monetary supply, and then we can tighten our head bands for an extra rush during Jerry's guitar solo....gives me faith to hear him sound more Austrian.
@billingtonmarc25 This is likely a subjective and surface valuation, taken from a particular perspective. Many people approach economics from the perspective that we "must always" have money to operate. That trade markets are the only means of social interaction within a civilization. Very few people ever consider a world in which there is no monetary system, or system of trade markets.
@billingtonmarc25 The Khmer Rouge was not a moneyless society. Nor were they a global society. They became isolationists, and insisted on self sufficiency to the exclusion of all interaction within the international community. There are not enough resources in any region of the world for any one nation to stand entirely on its own, to the exclusion of all others. China, even as large and powerful as they've become, could not continue if they did not trade with other nations.
@jeffsandychelsea Really? If the Venus Project is so similar to communism that it can be so easily spotted in such a short and terse statement, then why even bother to call it the Venus Project at all? Why not simply refer to it as Communism? But one is also left wondering... To which form of communism are you referring? There have been several examples in existence... Not one of which has resembled the Venus Project, or Marxism in any way. To be continued...
@jeffsandychelsea Continued from previous post. Since Karl Marx was the original visionary behind communism, which was never implemented by his vision, and since the Venus Project was the brain child of Jacque Fresco, which has yet to be attempted, on any scale, or to any degree, one is left wondering how anyone can dismiss the ideas of either so flippantly. But, to answer your question... No, I am not referring to the Venus Project. I am referring to a Resource Based Economy.
Oh my God! I absolutely love Milton Friedman's work and I've read most of his work and watch much of his interviews. That being said, I'm stunned that he said Ben Bernanke looks good. Yikes! I don't know if Friedman became senile or not, but that shocked me. I'm going to pretend I never watched this interview. Please someone explain to me that he didn't mean it!
1:16 "Yes, [Mr. Bernanke] looks very good to me" Funny, if he were alive today, he would be kicking himself in the ass for saying that. But even geniuses can be wrong.
Mr. Freidman don't you have USA government bailing out the largest private financial institutions in USA ha ???? GM USA gov. owns GM what you say about that.
USA is moving towards government run factories and banks.
@DarthKrattus Yes, you are right. It was only near the end of his life that he came to realize that his vision of a proper Federal Reserve could never come to be. He proved educable until the end.
@Zimnyification "you must understand, that the fundamental problem is that you shouldn't have an institution which DEPENDS on whether he's good or not."
The problem is not that there is a state bank that can create the national currency, but that private banks have the right under law to counterfeit the national currency, every time they create money by making fractionally-backed loans.
Capitalism collapses without government playing a role. Let's examine why the FED came into existence to being with?
Crashes. Demoralizing crashes that seemed to be the garden variety.
After the 1907 crash, the government decided it needed a Independent Central bank, as did ALL modern economies. You can't BE a modern economy with a completely Free Market ideology, it's just impossible
If the FED wasn't here in 2008, propping our financial system up,our economy would be brain-dead.
@Seedofwinter : wrong, there was no real depression until AFTER the Fed Reserve and the progressive income taxes. The Fed and progressive Income tax have created the growing gap that grows between rich and poor. Yes the income gap has grown too since creation of Fed. Since Government has grown an intruded into every aspect of our lives, we have to pay for it in higher price, less choice and rationing. B4 Fed and Progressive income tax, inflation in America was next to nothing.
@pmango1000 But that kind of economy--Pre-FED-- wasn't very modern, and the average income was weak, plus it had a widespread lack of education. Do you really wish to go back to that?
The real depression had nothing to do with the federal reserve, though. That crisis would have happened regardless whether a Federal reserve existed
The crash of 1907 wiped out the half of the value of the stock market. And their were a series of crashes before it. The Stock market is vital for prosperity.
This is not the place for a full discussion, since messages are limited, and will not let me put links in them.
Research it yourself.
We The People, and our productive capacity, ARE the economy. OUR economy existed long before the Federal Reserve, or any other central banks took over. They hijacked the existing economy to serve them, not us. Whatever benefit the average person sees it is only residual. Banks are one product of an economy.
@MrAnomilus It is you that is proclaiming and new uncharted theory, thus it is you that the burden of proof falls unto, my vivified and feisty friend. You see, there is no way a government can make a bunch of Companies in the stock exchange crash their companies and wipe out the stock market, without it somehow leaking in some shape or form.
Those Central banks are essential for Capitalism to grow without crashing and creating Social instability.
The Manhattan Project that developed the first atomic bombs employed 130,000 people, and cost $2.2 BILLION, in 1940 dollars, and NEVER got "leaked". It was totally unknown to the general public, until the government dropped the bombs on Japan, and afterwards slowly released the details, on a limited basis.
This proves that there is much the government can do secretly, and keep it secret, by various means.
I did not say the government crashed the stock market. The bankers did.
@MrAnomilus you mean our economy before 1792 when Hamilton stabilized the financial system by making a central bank that stabilized our debt, and promoted growth.
Hamilton was a mole for the European bankers, who have sought to get their claws into America ever since we declared independence. There have been 3 Central Banks. The first two attempts were 20 year charters. Each time the bank's charters came up for renewal, they were soundly rejected, because in those 20 years, people could clearly see the damage that was being done. But Americans memories are short, so each time the bankers would lie low for a few years, and then try again,
@MrAnomilus every time they rejected it was followed by speculation bubble on land, bank runs, gold bubble and a huge recession. it wasn't soundly rejected the first time it lost by 1 vote the first time because their was a peak of anti federalist vigor after the war. the next time it was vetoed by the worst president in US history out of spite.
The fact that you call Hamilton a mole is laughable. he was the only self made man. If it were not for his policies the US would have had a civil war.
In 1907, an engineered banking and financial crisis led to the Corporate Tax Act of 1909, which was SAID to tax only CORPORATE "income", to reign in the so-called "Robber Barons", John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and others, by taxing their many large corporations.
The 1909 Corporate Tax Act was America's first national income tax. It was challenged and stuck down in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. This was followed by the ALLEGED passing of the 16th Amendment in 1913...
...this was in turn followed by the Crash of 1928. So in the 15 years since the Federal Reserve was established, the Corporate Income Tax, meant ONLY to tax CORPORATE "income", was created, and then perverted by being turned into the so-called "Income Tax" so as to apply to individuals, rather than corporations, turning the will and intent of the people on its head. Next thing we know, the stock market collapses and the Great Depression ensues
@MrAnomilus Correlation vs Causation again they have nothing to do with the crash of 1929 that like saying personal computers caused AIDS because they happened around the same time period.
@Seedofwinter : modern doesnt matter, there was very little poverty in the USA pre FED and pre-progressive tax, thats why EVERYONE was moving here remember, it was called "THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY" for a reason! In fact we had the smallest income gap then compared to today. Big government and centralized control has cased the gaps today. We have become the very system our founders RAN FROM. So the stock market CORRECTED a dew times prior to the FED, the ECONOMY didn't crash, what's your point?
The sole purpose of government is to defend the rights of every individual.
Handing over the power to control the nation's money supply to a private group of people, mostly foreigners, who have a total conflict of interest, is an act of TREASON.
Do you want me to take control over YOUR money? Well, the Federal Reserve has no more right to control our money supply, than I have to control yours. The Constitution does NOT give Congress the power to delegate it to private banks.
@MrAnomilus The FED is instrumental in safeguarding this economy. Without it, this system would have collapsed. You won't find one person that would dispute that.
I;m not advocating for the FED, I'm just saying that the FED saved Capitalism from suicide attempts many times.
@Seedofwinter That is a VERY stupid comment. I think you not only found "one person" who would dispute that, but actually DID dispute it in the very video you posted your retarded comment on.
@Seedofwinter Actually very much the opposite. The FED was instrumental in causing the Recession of 1921, the great depression, even the current recession we are experiencing now.
@Baccanaso Did it cause the depression of 1857-1861 as well? Nope.
The depression was caused by private interests, the same way the 1907 crash was caused by private interests and the same way crash of 1857 was caused by private interests.
Can the FED contribute to bubbles? Yes. But bubbles get formed with or without a FED. That has been true all through history, Central bank or not.
Ron Paul is silly and his crazed theories is why he never gets far in the Republican primaries.
@Seedofwinter You don't need a central bank for banks to inflate the money supply, but they do help the large banks get away with it. You just admitted that the FED can contribute to bubbles. The expansion of credit in the 1920s just like in the recent recession is what led to bad investments and the government distorting the market.The theories that you are talking about do not stem from Ron Paul, and it's pretty reasonable compared to the retarded demand side and supply side econ.
@Baccanaso I know they don't stem from Ron Paul, but he is the one spreading such quasi-virus economic philosophy. Crashes happen with or without a Fed. Yes, the FED does contribute to bubbles sometimes, as Greenspan did in the 90's, but that bubble would have grew and popped without the FED.
The FED didn't force Wells Fargo, Bank Of America, and Lehman to leverage their respective institutions to irresponsible levels, putting their companies and the world economy at risk.
@Seedofwinter these companies are criminal, and the fed backs them up 100%, and so does the federal government, it's funny that they install ex Goldman-Sachs in gov. money policy and play the victim after shit hits the fan, it's a well-orchastrated scheme, first time in history that the US gov gave blank checks to insider and/or foreign institutions.
@DREwestcoast I agree with you on some parts of your statement, but I don't think the problem lied with the FED as much as I think the problem lies with Congress and Presidents of the past.
@Seedofwinter Quasi virus economic philosophy? as if Keynesian economics has helped us so far -_-. They didn't force them but they gave them an incentive through the credit expansion under Greenspan.
@Seedofwinter Lots of austerity and rationing went on during WW2. Remember when the war ended and Truman let the people decide what they wanted to produce instead of tanks?
@TheVideo5094 No it is not a lie. It is actually a well-known fact. The Doctrinaires of the right are always trying to muddy the debate when their world view is threatened. They become like fanatics spewing any lie to cover the fact that the government salvaged the economy.
It went something like this. Government needed lots of ammo, vehicles, planes, guns.etc, so Businesses now had demand. Business needed workers to meet the demands, thus they hired folks. Now, the employed had money to spend
the question is, why is the Federal Reserve printing money, fiddling around with interest rates and doing bailouts & bonuses to their cronies the private banks if they don't know what they are dong?
if they don't know what they are doing, why are pretending to shepherd the economy as if they are all-knowing. I think its just a cover to practice croney capitalism since the large private banks set up the Federal Reserve to ensure their monopoly.
@orangedac The ultimate power to stop bailouts and too-big-to-fail lies with Congress, not the FED. The FED has a responsibility and mandate to protect the financial system of this Country, NO MATTER WHAT.
Congress has a responsibility to set the laws and legislation. The PEOPLE have a responsibility to pay attention to what their government is doing and especially what their representatives are doing. American people like to stiff Congress with the blame, when they are just as guilty.
@Seedofwinter I disagree, That what is what the "We the People" stand for in the Constitution. As we are the end all be all. And it is the fault of the people of today here in USA that we've allowed ourselves to be brainwashed/dupted and not take care of liberty/freedom. But we'll right the ship! Have faith. God Bless, Walk in the light!
@argenta86 He was bang on, a genius - as many have posted on his youtube clips :). Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson, JFK, all tried to StoP the FE@rD, if we didnt pay interest on the money Governments borrow from their FE.D's it would be a massive start. Passing the freakon US's Fe.deral r.eserve act 1913 on xmas when lots were away with thier families ffs in the US..stratch the surface.. fractional banking is all that needs to go
Wow, this is really out of context. I'm sure that after that, Friedman goes on to say what he would replace the Fed with, (unlike Ron Paul, who actually doesn't want a central monetary control) but the video just cuts off.
@RightLibertarian Friedman wrote as early as the 1960s that you could either have a full gold standard where gold coins etc. actually circulated in the economy, as they did in the 19th century or you could have a central bank operated system where they kept the money supply constant and did not use inflation for political purposes. He criticised the gold standard of the 1930s because it allowed for significant expansion of the monetary supply and then deflation.
@RightLibertarian He also criticised the federal reserve because he believed that it is inevitable that a fiat money system will be abused by central bankers and politicians. He acknowledged that if we had maintained the monetary system prior to WW1 we would never have had the problems of the 1930s. His main contention is and was that given the system we have, you must stabilise the money supply.
Ron Paul DOES want a central control over our money!
He wants CONGRESS to do what the Constitution says, to issue and regulate the value of the gold and silver coinage of America. That is ALL the "centralized control" of our money that the Constitution allows.
The Constitution STILL says that "Lawful money" shall be nothing but gold and silver coin.
"LEGAL" is not the same as "LAWFUL". Something can be "legal", being on the books, but not be constitutionally "lawful".
@stealthgerm it was. Now the people there make the same of less on a currency that has lost 75% of value compared to the US, compared to late 90's, when 1 $US was = 1 Peso. Now 1$US=4.25 Pesos.
no fed and politics will rule.the govt will control .lobbyists will rule.who will control ? tea baggers?less regulation republicans? selfish libertarians ,progressives? corporations as people? milton is nuts
@Nautilus1972 the numbnuts ask what would be a solution? would the capitilist stockmarket be happy? how? would the american market gain with all the gold going to china? explain how no fed reserve would be better numbnut wants to know .im willing to learn wise one.
@stealthgerm Have a look at the Bill Still channel. He argues (no fed / no fractional reserve banking / no debt backed money). Goverment could print its own debt free money (it currently borrows the excess it needs from banks) it could print enough to meet our needs and pay off all current debt, it would be kept inline by the requirement of our vote.
Currently we have no say in monetary policy, the banks run the show.
@mrblack61 the banks would still run the show.if the bank is tied to votes it woild be not near as stable as is now .i e.popular whim.why not an audit .reorganise control[ownership]to remove secret ownership' and make it govt ownereship....not perfect put i agree its needs regulation now or with change
@stealthgerm I dsagree.You miss the point that money is created as debt,by banks!They control the supply which could be argued as the greatest power in the world! What bill proposes is to take the banks out of the equation,they would be demoted to basic duty (deposit protection/full reserve lending).
If I had the tools to print my own money yet i chose to borrow at it interest instead,you would call me insane!
Yet that that is how the goverment currently does it.
@stealthgerm no no no.... the problem is the banks are already in bed with the government. We don't need the government running the banks or having anything to do with the banks. We need a gold standard and an abolition of fractional reserve banking.... where the bank can loan out more money than they actually have in deposits... it's a total scam. The fact that banks can even loan money is sort of laughable, none of it is theirs, so if everyone wants to withdraw their money, banks are fucked
@freezazoid gold (any commoditiy) can be manipulated by the holders in many ways (some of which i dont yet understand fully). The needs of an economy are elastic, it therefore makes sense to have a elastic money supply to maintain a value (buying power) of money. We should have control of that through government.
I agree with you on getting rid of fractional reserve lending. Your right imo, its a scam.
@Nautilus1972 its a secret who owns the fed ...wonder if osama bin ladins buddies do.bin ladin said they would bring down the us economy.do you think we the people deserve to know who really runs the fed??how many banks are radical arab owned?is citi bank ??just asking
In the 2008 meltdown, we see the same events unfolding. Bernanke has admitted that he is following Milton Friedman's theories in terms of administering quantitative easing - QE1, QE2, etc. Not to mention the re-inflating of the money supply in '08.
While the Austrians once again predicted the housing bubble (Peter Schiff & Ron Paul), and warned against re-inflating, now we see all of the Friedmanites all of a sudden turn against quantitative easing after 2 full rounds of it didn't work (Kudlow)!
Why did Friedman not understand this fact? Because if you research Friedman, you find out that his idol was Irving Fisher, the monetarist of the depression era, who didn't see the depression coming, while the Austrians including Ludwig von Mises did. This is because the Friedmans and Fishers don't understand that you can have an unsustainable boom and bubble WITHOUT prices rising per se, if productivity is driving down prices, which happened in the 20's. Hence, the Austrians were right.
Friedman was wrong on many things including the Great Depression. Sure, he was correct that the Federal Reserve caused it, but for the wrong reason. Friedman wanted the Fed to increase the money supply after the contraction, and claimed this to be the cause of depression.
The actual cause is the one recognized by Murray Rothbard and the Austrians. The Fed's expansion of the money supply throughout the 1920's, which created the bubble.
Bernanke "looks vary good?" This was at the exact same time Bernanke was saying we didn't have a housing bubble. It's not surprising Milton would agree with that, because both Bernanke and Greenspan are monetary policy disciple's of Friedman's. It was Greenspan's free credit that started the housing bubble as housing starts didn't fall in the 01 recession due to low interest rates. Bernanke kept rate low and worsened the problem. Friedman's always been for a big money supply, that's a fact.
@sintruder Ok lol. There's a big difference between building wealth and inflating money - both result in the "number of dollars" in circulation being increased, but the ramifications are very different. when I say "who isn't for a big money supply," I don't mean "who doesn't like inflation?" Rather, what I mean is: "Who doesn't like truly greater wealth?"
All I can really say is to read Friedman's work (particularly, Free to Choose where he establishes his theory of the business cycle and offers a solution) and compare the policies of Bernanke and Greenspan.They don't match.
I took AP Macro and AP Micro econ. Milton Friedman was left out. It was stupid. AT LEAST 7 of his quotes should have been included. Got 5's though. It's just a game.
His ideals and economic philosophy still lives on today in many current thinkers and circles around the world. Ron Paul running for president formed much of his thinking from Friedman and probably has the best economic foundation of any candidate. Everyone else in the GOP field has more of a demand side philosophy of economics. Friedman & Hayak were the best at cultivating and advocating the soundness of supply side economics.
@Aanthaf it's not a free market when the government has a monopoly on printable currency and legalizes presses to make money to spend when the value to back the currency doesn't exist.
I agree with you. We're not actually in a total free market, but if you look at the last thirty years, all the politician that were elected were for free market. The more they deregulate the banking system the more instable it became.
The occidental countries with the bests economies at the moment are country where the banking system is regulated(Canada and scandinavian country). The worst one are those who deregulated their system. Iceland is a very good exemple.
@Ravengaurd6 how well did the financial system work before we had one currency. we had so many bank failures and bubbles from over speculation on land it was to unstable for people to keep their money in one bank. leading to bank runs and more instability. stability in currency was preferable, too much choice can be bad too. even Jefferson and Madison coincided we need on currency.
the countries wealth and credit backs the dollar. there is not enough gold in the world to have a GS.
@sfafasfasfsa True,love, To eliminate instability through having too many banks would be competition. We can neither have a banking monopoly nor a perfectly uncertain market, I doubt we could achieve the right balance through force though.
The biggest failing that led to the depression was the FED's reluctance to fill it's role and act as lender of last resort, that caused widespread banking crashed and a shortage in the money supply.
@Ravengaurd6 we still have competition in the international markets in currencies.
True which is why they went to far this time. QE was necessary, QE 2 went way to far and indirectly caused the Arab spring because commodity speculators drove up food prices in response which lead to the starving of middle eastern nations, and "people rebel on their stomachs"
but the system we have right now relies to much on the right man, and their is no Hamilton in Europe right now.
@Aanthaf What one says and what one does are two very different things. Is it not possible for someone to say they are for the free market and commit actions that are inconsistent with a free market? We could review what they say, or we could critique their actual policies. Bernanke and Greenspan were chairmen of the Federal Reserve which had a public monopoly (a monopoly created by government) on the issuance of currency. The Federal Reserve in essence is antithetical to a free market.
so when the fed didn't want to lend out any money, the banks didn't have enough money on hand, thus causing them to fail.
Funny thing is that the banks ended up paying all of the of the money back to the people without a need of the fdic, they just had to callback monies they have loaned out to others.
Now, IF the fed didn't exist at that time, the banks would have had more money on hand to prevent a run OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE the they wouldn't have the fed to help them out in times like these.
@sniped101 "so when the fed didn't want to lend out any money, the banks didn't have enough money on hand, thus causing them to fail"
Sure, they were restricted by the gold standard. But bank-runs was not what caused the decade-long recession. Friedman argued that the Fed should have gotten out of the standard, and avoided the money contraction. It has to do with the argument made by Keynes that people don't handle well unexpected deflation: its easier to fire workers than to cut nominal wages
To all the people that think he is a flip flopper, on that video that you guys are talking about he gives a reason why the federal exists. He never said that is was better or needed to exist. The problem was the federal reserve DID NOT do what it was created it to do, thus causing the great depression. Basically, the FED was suppose to have the money on hand to to eliminate a great depression from even happening AND IT DID have enough money. The issue is that it didn't want to lend out any. cont
But in his 1980 series "Free to Choose" he talked about the reason for The Great Depression being lack of Government interference, now he wants to remove the FED?
@AlecTaylor6 You did not watch the entire series of "Fre to Choose". His view has not changes since then. What he said, and reiterated in his book, was that if the FED was run correctly, then it could do the same as the market more or less, but if run incorrectly, it can cause depressions. Since you can not gaurentee that it will always be run correctly by an individual, you must logically allow it to only be controlled by the market. Therefore, eliminate the FED. I hope this helps, cheers.
@daobagua I did watch the whole series (which BTW, is called "Free to Choose").
Yes, we must logically conclude that that inflation should be controlled by the market, however did Friedman come to the same conclusion in his series, or was it only much later (like in this video) that he did?
@AlecTaylor6 My appologies for the spelling error (I make many). Please read pages 86 to 90 of the paperback copy of Milton Freidman's book "Free to Choose" (yeah got it right this time). This is the last couple pages of his "personal statement" chapter, where he clearly points out that the federal reserve caused the great depression and promoted a myth that the free market failed,etc. The copyright of this book is 1980.
@AlecTaylor6 he always wanted to remove the fed. even in free to choose he wanted it gone. the reason why the reason the great depression happened because the FED wouldn't do its job and interfere. If the fed wasn't there in the first place then the depression wouldn't have existed. get it?
@mknomad5 I don't believe he was a flip flopper as much as he is just stating the way the system works and what they have to do to fix any problems that may arise. Just statements of facts in the old videos. Since that time all the wrong decisions by our politicians & the FED has led us to a broken economy and the system doesn't work anymore. Our monetary system is flawed by the way it's designed, so we are working with a crummy foundation to begin with. He was more opinionated later in life.
@mknomad5 Freidman did not defend keeping the FED, even in this video he is pointing out how the FED failed in its intended duty. If you watched the entire series, or read his book(s), you would have seen him point out how bank runs are handled in a free market, citing
greenspan also looked good in the sixties. he stood by the gold standard at the time.
power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
end the fucking fed now.
vjfperez 1 month ago 2
It really saddens me that I didn't get to know about Friedman until after his death. Just to think... all that time spent in state-run school having Keynesianism rammed down my throat as the savior of humanity. If only I was allowed to know the truth when I was a kid.
stebecool 1 month ago
the only problem with the economy is socialism. the only thing that will end the problem is the end of socialism. I am sick of hearing allegedly conservative Republicans proposing subsidies, incentives , tariffs and spending cuts to alleviate the damage done by socialist sabotage.
halloranedward 1 month ago 2
Shit - but he still thought Bernanke "looked good". Damn it Friedman, lol
ronrutherford 1 month ago
@ronrutherford
Bernake looked "good" to a lot of people before he exposed himself as being absolutely awful.
MrTurdFurgeson 1 month ago 2
I never knew Friedman realized the error of his ways in supporting the Fed, which has long been my major issue with his theories. Wonderful to see he was intellectually honest enough to realize his mistakes, and to take his belief that gov't is inept one step further, to see that they can NEVER properly manage a currency better than the market.
ronrutherford 1 month ago
@ronrutherford me too, I always thought of him as a pinko,hippie,communist,(I am resigned to being more conservative than average) You know ....oooooooo we are going to have a nice long slow gradual increase in the monetary supply, and then we can tighten our head bands for an extra rush during Jerry's guitar solo....gives me faith to hear him sound more Austrian.
halloranedward 1 month ago
Friedman was not a prophet or a genius, he was a crook with an agenda.
ImperialLegionTV 1 month ago
@moonraven3, I can assure you, he only means that strictly in a homo-erotic sense.
beerschoten 1 month ago
Milton endorsed Ben Bernanke in this film piece... As it turns out, Ben was a very bad choice.
frankleeseaux 1 month ago
@frankleeseaux In his early days Ben was saying all the right things, political pressure got him to "print" $.
billingtonmarc25 1 month ago
@billingtonmarc25 This is likely a subjective and surface valuation, taken from a particular perspective. Many people approach economics from the perspective that we "must always" have money to operate. That trade markets are the only means of social interaction within a civilization. Very few people ever consider a world in which there is no monetary system, or system of trade markets.
frankleeseaux 1 month ago
@frankleeseaux The Khmer Rouge did and it didn't turn out very well.
billingtonmarc25 1 month ago
@billingtonmarc25 The Khmer Rouge was not a moneyless society. Nor were they a global society. They became isolationists, and insisted on self sufficiency to the exclusion of all interaction within the international community. There are not enough resources in any region of the world for any one nation to stand entirely on its own, to the exclusion of all others. China, even as large and powerful as they've become, could not continue if they did not trade with other nations.
frankleeseaux 1 month ago
@frankleeseaux You mean the Venus Project? It's basically communism rewrapped in pretty, computerized packaging.
jeffsandychelsea 1 month ago
@jeffsandychelsea What evidence do you have that the Venus Project is communism wrapped in computerized packaging?
frankleeseaux 1 month ago
@jeffsandychelsea Really? If the Venus Project is so similar to communism that it can be so easily spotted in such a short and terse statement, then why even bother to call it the Venus Project at all? Why not simply refer to it as Communism? But one is also left wondering... To which form of communism are you referring? There have been several examples in existence... Not one of which has resembled the Venus Project, or Marxism in any way. To be continued...
frankleeseaux 1 month ago
@jeffsandychelsea Continued from previous post. Since Karl Marx was the original visionary behind communism, which was never implemented by his vision, and since the Venus Project was the brain child of Jacque Fresco, which has yet to be attempted, on any scale, or to any degree, one is left wondering how anyone can dismiss the ideas of either so flippantly. But, to answer your question... No, I am not referring to the Venus Project. I am referring to a Resource Based Economy.
frankleeseaux 1 month ago
Milton Friedmans ideas made the west to give up an advantage that it took 500 years to create.
And still theytreat him as a ridicilus semigood.
aon10003 1 month ago
Oh my God! I absolutely love Milton Friedman's work and I've read most of his work and watch much of his interviews. That being said, I'm stunned that he said Ben Bernanke looks good. Yikes! I don't know if Friedman became senile or not, but that shocked me. I'm going to pretend I never watched this interview. Please someone explain to me that he didn't mean it!
moonraven3 1 month ago
@moonraven3 Don't let your prejudice dictate reality for you.
frankleeseaux 1 month ago
@moonraven3 Remember, this was before bernanke fired up all the presses.
rb3264 1 month ago
Is it fair to say that Friedman became an austrian right before his death?
KyleSkullz 1 month ago
I LOVE that they so blatantly cut the clip right as he is about to explain what he means. I guess that tells us about everything we need to know.
greg55666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHANGE THE CONVERSATION !
Support Dr. 'Sir' RON PAUL 2012
Welfarism: Give Jack a fish and he wont go hungry today
Freedom: Teach Jack to fish, he will never go hungry!
*RON PAUL vs WRONG POLL* AMERICA vs MEDIA
FIGHT MEDIA BLACKOUT SPREAD RON'S 'WHAT IF' AND 'IMAGINE' SPEECH ON IPAD,IPOD
Check Nigel Farage vids taking EU govt. to task
Please vote on vids and comments, Your opinion matters!
Write on bills : IN RON WE TRUST ! END THE FED OR FEED THE END
Click like for ♥ RON PAUL ♥
ashwadhwani 2 months ago
Ron Paul 2012!!!End The Fed!!!
rogeralejandro2007 2 months ago 3
1:16 "Yes, [Mr. Bernanke] looks very good to me" Funny, if he were alive today, he would be kicking himself in the ass for saying that. But even geniuses can be wrong.
theyoungmrt 2 months ago 2
Milton Friedman was a genius...in ANY century.
Maxbps88 2 months ago
Where's the rest of his response?... It seemed to get cut off?!?! I want to see what else was said. =(
Ooftyman 2 months ago
Mr. Freidman don't you have USA government bailing out the largest private financial institutions in USA ha ???? GM USA gov. owns GM what you say about that.
USA is moving towards government run factories and banks.
What is That CALLED ???
aviomaster 3 months ago
@aviomaster This inteverview happened before all those bailouts.
UponInfinity 2 months ago
Man definitly got it!
tkd4zgqg 3 months ago
Wait, WHAT!? Didn't Friedman advocate active monetary policy throughout his life?
DarthKrattus 3 months ago
@DarthKrattus Yes, you are right. It was only near the end of his life that he came to realize that his vision of a proper Federal Reserve could never come to be. He proved educable until the end.
fzqlcs 3 months ago 9
@fzqlcs can you tell me what was the last stance Friedman took concerning Federal Reserve?
errrzarrr 1 month ago
@DarthKrattus
he seems to have retracted that idea on his death bed
orangedac 3 months ago
My joke's gone lol
seppsters 3 months ago
"I like Bernanke... abolish the Fed."
Uh...
Zimnyification 3 months ago
@Zimnyification "you must understand, that the fundamental problem is that you shouldn't have an institution which DEPENDS on whether he's good or not."
Bojji1 3 months ago
Friedman's one mistake "Bernacke looks good".
skydome29 4 months ago 2
This video was shot on May 22, 2006. Milton Friedman would die less than 6 months later. :(
itcanbecheezcaketime 4 months ago 25
@itcanbecheezcaketime if I dies at 94 and I spoke like that 6months before death.. I'd be :D
vijaymd44 2 months ago
@itcanbecheezcaketime its all your fault, you fucking jerk.
GDI109 2 months ago
@itcanbecheezcaketime
My best birthday gift that day.
flynn2008 1 month ago
Why aren't the American People "too big to fail"?
We The People existed before the banks and the bankers. We do not owe them our existence, they owe us theirs!
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
The problem is not that there is a state bank that can create the national currency, but that private banks have the right under law to counterfeit the national currency, every time they create money by making fractionally-backed loans.
atlasman55 4 months ago
Capitalism collapses without government playing a role. Let's examine why the FED came into existence to being with?
Crashes. Demoralizing crashes that seemed to be the garden variety.
After the 1907 crash, the government decided it needed a Independent Central bank, as did ALL modern economies. You can't BE a modern economy with a completely Free Market ideology, it's just impossible
If the FED wasn't here in 2008, propping our financial system up,our economy would be brain-dead.
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter : wrong, there was no real depression until AFTER the Fed Reserve and the progressive income taxes. The Fed and progressive Income tax have created the growing gap that grows between rich and poor. Yes the income gap has grown too since creation of Fed. Since Government has grown an intruded into every aspect of our lives, we have to pay for it in higher price, less choice and rationing. B4 Fed and Progressive income tax, inflation in America was next to nothing.
pmango1000 4 months ago
@pmango1000 But that kind of economy--Pre-FED-- wasn't very modern, and the average income was weak, plus it had a widespread lack of education. Do you really wish to go back to that?
The real depression had nothing to do with the federal reserve, though. That crisis would have happened regardless whether a Federal reserve existed
The crash of 1907 wiped out the half of the value of the stock market. And their were a series of crashes before it. The Stock market is vital for prosperity.
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter
The crash of 1907 was engineered, to justify the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the corporate income tax.
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
@MrAnomilus You have proof?
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter
It's history, it is public record.
This is not the place for a full discussion, since messages are limited, and will not let me put links in them.
Research it yourself.
We The People, and our productive capacity, ARE the economy. OUR economy existed long before the Federal Reserve, or any other central banks took over. They hijacked the existing economy to serve them, not us. Whatever benefit the average person sees it is only residual. Banks are one product of an economy.
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
@MrAnomilus It is you that is proclaiming and new uncharted theory, thus it is you that the burden of proof falls unto, my vivified and feisty friend. You see, there is no way a government can make a bunch of Companies in the stock exchange crash their companies and wipe out the stock market, without it somehow leaking in some shape or form.
Those Central banks are essential for Capitalism to grow without crashing and creating Social instability.
Sincerely, Seedofwinter
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter
The Manhattan Project that developed the first atomic bombs employed 130,000 people, and cost $2.2 BILLION, in 1940 dollars, and NEVER got "leaked". It was totally unknown to the general public, until the government dropped the bombs on Japan, and afterwards slowly released the details, on a limited basis.
This proves that there is much the government can do secretly, and keep it secret, by various means.
I did not say the government crashed the stock market. The bankers did.
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
@MrAnomilus you mean our economy before 1792 when Hamilton stabilized the financial system by making a central bank that stabilized our debt, and promoted growth.
sfafasfasfsa 4 months ago
@sfafasfasfsa
Hamilton was a mole for the European bankers, who have sought to get their claws into America ever since we declared independence. There have been 3 Central Banks. The first two attempts were 20 year charters. Each time the bank's charters came up for renewal, they were soundly rejected, because in those 20 years, people could clearly see the damage that was being done. But Americans memories are short, so each time the bankers would lie low for a few years, and then try again,
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
@MrAnomilus every time they rejected it was followed by speculation bubble on land, bank runs, gold bubble and a huge recession. it wasn't soundly rejected the first time it lost by 1 vote the first time because their was a peak of anti federalist vigor after the war. the next time it was vetoed by the worst president in US history out of spite.
The fact that you call Hamilton a mole is laughable. he was the only self made man. If it were not for his policies the US would have had a civil war.
sfafasfasfsa 4 months ago
In 1907, an engineered banking and financial crisis led to the Corporate Tax Act of 1909, which was SAID to tax only CORPORATE "income", to reign in the so-called "Robber Barons", John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and others, by taxing their many large corporations.
The 1909 Corporate Tax Act was America's first national income tax. It was challenged and stuck down in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. This was followed by the ALLEGED passing of the 16th Amendment in 1913...
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
...this was in turn followed by the Crash of 1928. So in the 15 years since the Federal Reserve was established, the Corporate Income Tax, meant ONLY to tax CORPORATE "income", was created, and then perverted by being turned into the so-called "Income Tax" so as to apply to individuals, rather than corporations, turning the will and intent of the people on its head. Next thing we know, the stock market collapses and the Great Depression ensues
The Federal Reserve hasn't "stabilized" anything!
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
@MrAnomilus Correlation vs Causation again they have nothing to do with the crash of 1929 that like saying personal computers caused AIDS because they happened around the same time period.
watch Friedman on the great depression.
sfafasfasfsa 4 months ago
@MrAnomilus wow after seeing your videos your insane so keep on rambling on because the CIA Mason and Aliens are right behind you
sfafasfasfsa 4 months ago
@sfafasfasfsa
"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to consider a thought, without accepting it."
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
@MrAnomilus it is important to keep an open mind but not open enough that your brain falls out.
sfafasfasfsa 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter : modern doesnt matter, there was very little poverty in the USA pre FED and pre-progressive tax, thats why EVERYONE was moving here remember, it was called "THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY" for a reason! In fact we had the smallest income gap then compared to today. Big government and centralized control has cased the gaps today. We have become the very system our founders RAN FROM. So the stock market CORRECTED a dew times prior to the FED, the ECONOMY didn't crash, what's your point?
pmango1000 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter
The sole purpose of government is to defend the rights of every individual.
Handing over the power to control the nation's money supply to a private group of people, mostly foreigners, who have a total conflict of interest, is an act of TREASON.
Do you want me to take control over YOUR money? Well, the Federal Reserve has no more right to control our money supply, than I have to control yours. The Constitution does NOT give Congress the power to delegate it to private banks.
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
@MrAnomilus The FED is instrumental in safeguarding this economy. Without it, this system would have collapsed. You won't find one person that would dispute that.
I;m not advocating for the FED, I'm just saying that the FED saved Capitalism from suicide attempts many times.
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter That is a VERY stupid comment. I think you not only found "one person" who would dispute that, but actually DID dispute it in the very video you posted your retarded comment on.
bohs1984 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter I dispute that!
clintcastle 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter Actually very much the opposite. The FED was instrumental in causing the Recession of 1921, the great depression, even the current recession we are experiencing now.
Baccanaso 4 months ago
@Baccanaso Did it cause the depression of 1857-1861 as well? Nope.
The depression was caused by private interests, the same way the 1907 crash was caused by private interests and the same way crash of 1857 was caused by private interests.
Can the FED contribute to bubbles? Yes. But bubbles get formed with or without a FED. That has been true all through history, Central bank or not.
Ron Paul is silly and his crazed theories is why he never gets far in the Republican primaries.
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter You don't need a central bank for banks to inflate the money supply, but they do help the large banks get away with it. You just admitted that the FED can contribute to bubbles. The expansion of credit in the 1920s just like in the recent recession is what led to bad investments and the government distorting the market.The theories that you are talking about do not stem from Ron Paul, and it's pretty reasonable compared to the retarded demand side and supply side econ.
Baccanaso 4 months ago
@Baccanaso I know they don't stem from Ron Paul, but he is the one spreading such quasi-virus economic philosophy. Crashes happen with or without a Fed. Yes, the FED does contribute to bubbles sometimes, as Greenspan did in the 90's, but that bubble would have grew and popped without the FED.
The FED didn't force Wells Fargo, Bank Of America, and Lehman to leverage their respective institutions to irresponsible levels, putting their companies and the world economy at risk.
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter these companies are criminal, and the fed backs them up 100%, and so does the federal government, it's funny that they install ex Goldman-Sachs in gov. money policy and play the victim after shit hits the fan, it's a well-orchastrated scheme, first time in history that the US gov gave blank checks to insider and/or foreign institutions.
DREwestcoast 4 months ago
@DREwestcoast I agree with you on some parts of your statement, but I don't think the problem lied with the FED as much as I think the problem lies with Congress and Presidents of the past.
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter Quasi virus economic philosophy? as if Keynesian economics has helped us so far -_-. They didn't force them but they gave them an incentive through the credit expansion under Greenspan.
Baccanaso 4 months ago
@Baccanaso Keynesian economics brought us out out of the great depression. Remember World war 2?
Seedofwinter 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter Lots of austerity and rationing went on during WW2. Remember when the war ended and Truman let the people decide what they wanted to produce instead of tanks?
Baccanaso 4 months ago
@Seedofwinter that is a lie
TheVideo5094 3 months ago
@TheVideo5094 No it is not a lie. It is actually a well-known fact. The Doctrinaires of the right are always trying to muddy the debate when their world view is threatened. They become like fanatics spewing any lie to cover the fact that the government salvaged the economy.
It went something like this. Government needed lots of ammo, vehicles, planes, guns.etc, so Businesses now had demand. Business needed workers to meet the demands, thus they hired folks. Now, the employed had money to spend
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter Only Austrian Works
TheVideo5094 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter
the question is, why is the Federal Reserve printing money, fiddling around with interest rates and doing bailouts & bonuses to their cronies the private banks if they don't know what they are dong?
if they don't know what they are doing, why are pretending to shepherd the economy as if they are all-knowing. I think its just a cover to practice croney capitalism since the large private banks set up the Federal Reserve to ensure their monopoly.
orangedac 3 months ago 2
@orangedac The ultimate power to stop bailouts and too-big-to-fail lies with Congress, not the FED. The FED has a responsibility and mandate to protect the financial system of this Country, NO MATTER WHAT.
Congress has a responsibility to set the laws and legislation. The PEOPLE have a responsibility to pay attention to what their government is doing and especially what their representatives are doing. American people like to stiff Congress with the blame, when they are just as guilty.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter I disagree, That what is what the "We the People" stand for in the Constitution. As we are the end all be all. And it is the fault of the people of today here in USA that we've allowed ourselves to be brainwashed/dupted and not take care of liberty/freedom. But we'll right the ship! Have faith. God Bless, Walk in the light!
tkd4zgqg 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter Sorry. The later part of your comments were off screen. Thanks
tkd4zgqg 3 months ago
@tkd4zgqg LOL It's chill, brother.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
Great advice, Uncle Miltie, and after that we can abolish the Chicago School of Economic Terrorism.
ChrisDutch 4 months ago
Why's he have to pass away b4 obama was elected and bailouts - he's rolling in his grave : (
CAinfowarrior 5 months ago
@CAinfowarrior
I know. We need him now more than ever.
pimpdalyrical 5 months ago
milton friedman was a great mind of the 20 century
argenta86 5 months ago 35
@argenta86 but he missed big time on Bernanke..
DREwestcoast 4 months ago 2
@argenta86 He was bang on, a genius - as many have posted on his youtube clips :). Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson, JFK, all tried to StoP the FE@rD, if we didnt pay interest on the money Governments borrow from their FE.D's it would be a massive start. Passing the freakon US's Fe.deral r.eserve act 1913 on xmas when lots were away with thier families ffs in the US..stratch the surface.. fractional banking is all that needs to go
sirtimbol 3 months ago
@sirtimbol Lincoln was tyrant. Search about that.
argenta86 3 months ago
Wow, this is really out of context. I'm sure that after that, Friedman goes on to say what he would replace the Fed with, (unlike Ron Paul, who actually doesn't want a central monetary control) but the video just cuts off.
RightLibertarian 5 months ago
@RightLibertarian Friedman wrote as early as the 1960s that you could either have a full gold standard where gold coins etc. actually circulated in the economy, as they did in the 19th century or you could have a central bank operated system where they kept the money supply constant and did not use inflation for political purposes. He criticised the gold standard of the 1930s because it allowed for significant expansion of the monetary supply and then deflation.
DukeofWellington91 4 months ago
@RightLibertarian He also criticised the federal reserve because he believed that it is inevitable that a fiat money system will be abused by central bankers and politicians. He acknowledged that if we had maintained the monetary system prior to WW1 we would never have had the problems of the 1930s. His main contention is and was that given the system we have, you must stabilise the money supply.
DukeofWellington91 4 months ago
@RightLibertarian
Ron Paul DOES want a central control over our money!
He wants CONGRESS to do what the Constitution says, to issue and regulate the value of the gold and silver coinage of America. That is ALL the "centralized control" of our money that the Constitution allows.
The Constitution STILL says that "Lawful money" shall be nothing but gold and silver coin.
"LEGAL" is not the same as "LAWFUL". Something can be "legal", being on the books, but not be constitutionally "lawful".
MrAnomilus 4 months ago
Bernankefuckmasterknucks prints money, then smokes it.
iluvpoliticzz 5 months ago
I've yet to hear were he talks about replacing the Fed with a computer. I know Ron Paul pointed that out about Milton Friedman.
AkoyPinoy2 5 months ago
@Epicnerdgasm Dr. Friedman was way too polite for that kind of language, but you are correct-Bernanke IS a fucking retard.
pretorious700 5 months ago
didnt argentina give the finger to thier debt? it i imagine was rough on argentina but it wasnt devestated.
stealthgerm 6 months ago
@stealthgerm it was. Now the people there make the same of less on a currency that has lost 75% of value compared to the US, compared to late 90's, when 1 $US was = 1 Peso. Now 1$US=4.25 Pesos.
ohidalgoe 5 months ago
no fed and politics will rule.the govt will control .lobbyists will rule.who will control ? tea baggers?less regulation republicans? selfish libertarians ,progressives? corporations as people? milton is nuts
stealthgerm 6 months ago
@stealthgerm Numbnuts. The Fed is a private cartel of sheister banks renting you your own money you idiots Research. Learn. Money as debt.
Nautilus1972 6 months ago
@Nautilus1972 the numbnuts ask what would be a solution? would the capitilist stockmarket be happy? how? would the american market gain with all the gold going to china? explain how no fed reserve would be better numbnut wants to know .im willing to learn wise one.
stealthgerm 6 months ago
@stealthgerm Have a look at the Bill Still channel. He argues (no fed / no fractional reserve banking / no debt backed money). Goverment could print its own debt free money (it currently borrows the excess it needs from banks) it could print enough to meet our needs and pay off all current debt, it would be kept inline by the requirement of our vote.
Currently we have no say in monetary policy, the banks run the show.
mrblack61 6 months ago
@mrblack61 the banks would still run the show.if the bank is tied to votes it woild be not near as stable as is now .i e.popular whim.why not an audit .reorganise control[ownership]to remove secret ownership' and make it govt ownereship....not perfect put i agree its needs regulation now or with change
stealthgerm 6 months ago
Comment removed
mrblack61 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stealthgerm I dsagree.You miss the point that money is created as debt,by banks!They control the supply which could be argued as the greatest power in the world! What bill proposes is to take the banks out of the equation,they would be demoted to basic duty (deposit protection/full reserve lending).
If I had the tools to print my own money yet i chose to borrow at it interest instead,you would call me insane!
Yet that that is how the goverment currently does it.
mrblack61 6 months ago
@stealthgerm no no no.... the problem is the banks are already in bed with the government. We don't need the government running the banks or having anything to do with the banks. We need a gold standard and an abolition of fractional reserve banking.... where the bank can loan out more money than they actually have in deposits... it's a total scam. The fact that banks can even loan money is sort of laughable, none of it is theirs, so if everyone wants to withdraw their money, banks are fucked
freezazoid 5 months ago
@freezazoid gold (any commoditiy) can be manipulated by the holders in many ways (some of which i dont yet understand fully). The needs of an economy are elastic, it therefore makes sense to have a elastic money supply to maintain a value (buying power) of money. We should have control of that through government.
I agree with you on getting rid of fractional reserve lending. Your right imo, its a scam.
Check out bill still's work here on youtube.
mrblack61 5 months ago
@mrblack61
stealthgerm 6 months ago
@Nautilus1972 its a secret who owns the fed ...wonder if osama bin ladins buddies do.bin ladin said they would bring down the us economy.do you think we the people deserve to know who really runs the fed??how many banks are radical arab owned?is citi bank ??just asking
stealthgerm 5 months ago
@stealthgerm are you seriously trying to imply that the FED might be owned by radical muslims? haha dude, you amuse me
274933259 5 months ago
In the 2008 meltdown, we see the same events unfolding. Bernanke has admitted that he is following Milton Friedman's theories in terms of administering quantitative easing - QE1, QE2, etc. Not to mention the re-inflating of the money supply in '08.
While the Austrians once again predicted the housing bubble (Peter Schiff & Ron Paul), and warned against re-inflating, now we see all of the Friedmanites all of a sudden turn against quantitative easing after 2 full rounds of it didn't work (Kudlow)!
OldRightPaleocon 6 months ago
Why did Friedman not understand this fact? Because if you research Friedman, you find out that his idol was Irving Fisher, the monetarist of the depression era, who didn't see the depression coming, while the Austrians including Ludwig von Mises did. This is because the Friedmans and Fishers don't understand that you can have an unsustainable boom and bubble WITHOUT prices rising per se, if productivity is driving down prices, which happened in the 20's. Hence, the Austrians were right.
OldRightPaleocon 6 months ago
Many of the people here are ignorant of history.
Friedman was wrong on many things including the Great Depression. Sure, he was correct that the Federal Reserve caused it, but for the wrong reason. Friedman wanted the Fed to increase the money supply after the contraction, and claimed this to be the cause of depression.
The actual cause is the one recognized by Murray Rothbard and the Austrians. The Fed's expansion of the money supply throughout the 1920's, which created the bubble.
OldRightPaleocon 6 months ago
Indeed.
It's surprising how few people actually understand this (on both points).
There is some general overlap between the two schools of thought, but many important differences, especially related to money and methodology.
PowerCoefficient 6 months ago
Bernanke "looks vary good?" This was at the exact same time Bernanke was saying we didn't have a housing bubble. It's not surprising Milton would agree with that, because both Bernanke and Greenspan are monetary policy disciple's of Friedman's. It was Greenspan's free credit that started the housing bubble as housing starts didn't fall in the 01 recession due to low interest rates. Bernanke kept rate low and worsened the problem. Friedman's always been for a big money supply, that's a fact.
WRCis 7 months ago
@WRCis Who *isn't* for a big money supply??
supahsekzy 6 months ago
@supahsekzy Germany had a big money supply when people were burning it to heat their houses
sintruder 6 months ago
@sintruder Not sure what that means
supahsekzy 6 months ago
@supahsekzy The money supply was so big the money was worthless.
sintruder 6 months ago
@sintruder Ok lol. There's a big difference between building wealth and inflating money - both result in the "number of dollars" in circulation being increased, but the ramifications are very different. when I say "who isn't for a big money supply," I don't mean "who doesn't like inflation?" Rather, what I mean is: "Who doesn't like truly greater wealth?"
supahsekzy 6 months ago
@WRCis friedman has been for low money suplly not exceeding more than 3 to 5 percent...
prateekm1 6 months ago
@WRCis
They aren't.
All I can really say is to read Friedman's work (particularly, Free to Choose where he establishes his theory of the business cycle and offers a solution) and compare the policies of Bernanke and Greenspan.They don't match.
fountainherz 6 months ago
Comment removed
chileunidoful 7 months ago
There is a video where he is in favor of the FED to be used as a spring to soften market falls.
Russia learned a lesson in 1989-1998 MILTON FREEDMAN 9 years of HELL.
Government went bankrupt there , you think they are going there again. YOU are wrong on that.
aviomaster 7 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
ecnerwal999 7 months ago
In Soviet America, Fed abolishes you.
seppsters 7 months ago 63
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012
mcsmith113 7 months ago
Friedman did not like the Fed...but he was still in favor of a central bank, just one that wasn't run by humans.
shutuprafa 7 months ago 2
I took AP Macro and AP Micro econ. Milton Friedman was left out. It was stupid. AT LEAST 7 of his quotes should have been included. Got 5's though. It's just a game.
Thatmakessense356 7 months ago
Rothbard was infinitely better than Friedman
peaceinliberty 7 months ago
His ideals and economic philosophy still lives on today in many current thinkers and circles around the world. Ron Paul running for president formed much of his thinking from Friedman and probably has the best economic foundation of any candidate. Everyone else in the GOP field has more of a demand side philosophy of economics. Friedman & Hayak were the best at cultivating and advocating the soundness of supply side economics.
bigtex1453 7 months ago
I wish he was around today to speak about the financial mess we are in. He was solution oriented and correct in his thinking and theories!
stephenabm 7 months ago
Greenspan and Bernanke are two advocates of free market and look where we are now.
Aanthaf 7 months ago
@Aanthaf it's not a free market when the government has a monopoly on printable currency and legalizes presses to make money to spend when the value to back the currency doesn't exist.
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago 6
@Ravengaurd6
I agree with you. We're not actually in a total free market, but if you look at the last thirty years, all the politician that were elected were for free market. The more they deregulate the banking system the more instable it became.
The occidental countries with the bests economies at the moment are country where the banking system is regulated(Canada and scandinavian country). The worst one are those who deregulated their system. Iceland is a very good exemple.
Aanthaf 7 months ago
Comment removed
Aanthaf 7 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 how well did the financial system work before we had one currency. we had so many bank failures and bubbles from over speculation on land it was to unstable for people to keep their money in one bank. leading to bank runs and more instability. stability in currency was preferable, too much choice can be bad too. even Jefferson and Madison coincided we need on currency.
the countries wealth and credit backs the dollar. there is not enough gold in the world to have a GS.
sfafasfasfsa 4 months ago
@sfafasfasfsa True,love, To eliminate instability through having too many banks would be competition. We can neither have a banking monopoly nor a perfectly uncertain market, I doubt we could achieve the right balance through force though.
The biggest failing that led to the depression was the FED's reluctance to fill it's role and act as lender of last resort, that caused widespread banking crashed and a shortage in the money supply.
Ravengaurd6 4 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 we still have competition in the international markets in currencies.
True which is why they went to far this time. QE was necessary, QE 2 went way to far and indirectly caused the Arab spring because commodity speculators drove up food prices in response which lead to the starving of middle eastern nations, and "people rebel on their stomachs"
but the system we have right now relies to much on the right man, and their is no Hamilton in Europe right now.
sfafasfasfsa 4 months ago
@sfafasfasfsa indeed
Ravengaurd6 4 months ago
@Aanthaf What one says and what one does are two very different things. Is it not possible for someone to say they are for the free market and commit actions that are inconsistent with a free market? We could review what they say, or we could critique their actual policies. Bernanke and Greenspan were chairmen of the Federal Reserve which had a public monopoly (a monopoly created by government) on the issuance of currency. The Federal Reserve in essence is antithetical to a free market.
seandub1027 7 months ago
so when the fed didn't want to lend out any money, the banks didn't have enough money on hand, thus causing them to fail.
Funny thing is that the banks ended up paying all of the of the money back to the people without a need of the fdic, they just had to callback monies they have loaned out to others.
Now, IF the fed didn't exist at that time, the banks would have had more money on hand to prevent a run OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE the they wouldn't have the fed to help them out in times like these.
sniped101 8 months ago
@sniped101 "so when the fed didn't want to lend out any money, the banks didn't have enough money on hand, thus causing them to fail"
Sure, they were restricted by the gold standard. But bank-runs was not what caused the decade-long recession. Friedman argued that the Fed should have gotten out of the standard, and avoided the money contraction. It has to do with the argument made by Keynes that people don't handle well unexpected deflation: its easier to fire workers than to cut nominal wages
UnconformistSheep 7 months ago
To all the people that think he is a flip flopper, on that video that you guys are talking about he gives a reason why the federal exists. He never said that is was better or needed to exist. The problem was the federal reserve DID NOT do what it was created it to do, thus causing the great depression. Basically, the FED was suppose to have the money on hand to to eliminate a great depression from even happening AND IT DID have enough money. The issue is that it didn't want to lend out any. cont
sniped101 8 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
TYRANNY IN ACTION - SPREAD THE WORD ! TIME FOR REVOLUTION ! /watch?v=E8hpliqTTnw
jeffy12 8 months ago
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT
jeffy12 8 months ago 3
Now the man has it right! At last...
jary1844 8 months ago 2
...and two months later he dies.
jjenson2006 8 months ago
Friedman is good but not as good as Hayek.
force3264 9 months ago
@force3264 Yep or Rothbard and Von Mises.
jbrack 8 months ago
@force3264 possibly, but I don't understand hayek as his accent is too heavy.
sniped101 8 months ago
this video is too chopped up to be valid
edwardzacharyy 9 months ago
Wow, Milton Friedman against the FED?
But in his 1980 series "Free to Choose" he talked about the reason for The Great Depression being lack of Government interference, now he wants to remove the FED?
Suddenly Friedman's looking good =P
AlecTaylor6 9 months ago
@AlecTaylor6 You did not watch the entire series of "Fre to Choose". His view has not changes since then. What he said, and reiterated in his book, was that if the FED was run correctly, then it could do the same as the market more or less, but if run incorrectly, it can cause depressions. Since you can not gaurentee that it will always be run correctly by an individual, you must logically allow it to only be controlled by the market. Therefore, eliminate the FED. I hope this helps, cheers.
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua I did watch the whole series (which BTW, is called "Free to Choose").
Yes, we must logically conclude that that inflation should be controlled by the market, however did Friedman come to the same conclusion in his series, or was it only much later (like in this video) that he did?
AlecTaylor6 9 months ago
@AlecTaylor6 My appologies for the spelling error (I make many). Please read pages 86 to 90 of the paperback copy of Milton Freidman's book "Free to Choose" (yeah got it right this time). This is the last couple pages of his "personal statement" chapter, where he clearly points out that the federal reserve caused the great depression and promoted a myth that the free market failed,etc. The copyright of this book is 1980.
Cheers.
daobagua 9 months ago
@daobagua I haven't taken a look at the book yet... I'll go to my University library and have a read of those pages in the next week or so.
AlecTaylor6 9 months ago
@AlecTaylor6 Ausome, let me know what you think when your done.
Cheers.
daobagua 9 months ago
@AlecTaylor6 he always wanted to remove the fed. even in free to choose he wanted it gone. the reason why the reason the great depression happened because the FED wouldn't do its job and interfere. If the fed wasn't there in the first place then the depression wouldn't have existed. get it?
sniped101 8 months ago
Flip flop, flip flop, just like a nobel prize FISH.
See Mr. Friedman DEFEND the FED, HERE:
watch?v=9V5OP-VmXgE&feature=related
All you need to do is follow the money... it's all in CHINA. And the owners of the FED made off with the rest!
mknomad5 9 months ago
@mknomad5 I don't believe he was a flip flopper as much as he is just stating the way the system works and what they have to do to fix any problems that may arise. Just statements of facts in the old videos. Since that time all the wrong decisions by our politicians & the FED has led us to a broken economy and the system doesn't work anymore. Our monetary system is flawed by the way it's designed, so we are working with a crummy foundation to begin with. He was more opinionated later in life.
markocarter 9 months ago
@mknomad5 Freidman did not defend keeping the FED, even in this video he is pointing out how the FED failed in its intended duty. If you watched the entire series, or read his book(s), you would have seen him point out how bank runs are handled in a free market, citing