Friedman makes everything sound so simple and logical, which it really is. He just follows the laws of the market and draws his conclusions, without trying to impose his morality on others.
Can someone explain to me how libertarians deal with things like child labour? I'm pretty sure Friedman would deny that governments in Third World countries like India and Bangladesh should interfere with private businesses in their country, yet doing what is profitable for those businessmen means putting children to work in horrible conditions.
(I'm not for or against libertarianism; I don't understand it sufficiently yet. Just looking for an answer to this.)
the growing of tobacco may create undo pollution and burden on the environment due to pesticides. I agree with Friedman that justice dictates that we have a free market; but in the final analysis, that freedom is more far reaching than meets the eye.
What Friedman does not take into consideration is that there is never a neutral third party in economic transactions. With tobacco, it would be great if the farmer grows his tobacco, sells it to me and no one gets involved. But there are third party consideration such as the dangers of second hand smoke, the fact that land that goes to the growing of tobacco is land that may not be used for growing of products that human sustenance depends on,
@deltarising What you aren't taking into consideration, is that if there's demand for more food, somebody will supply it. That's the great thing about laissez faire. We don't have to worry about what resources should be used for what purpose.. the market sorts that out. To the contrary, any attempt to use non-market forces to divy up resources will end in misallocation of those resources. You'll produce too much or too little in your attempt to micro manage the economy.
@TheGamerJoseph I don't have a fanaticism for the market that LF Capitlists have. There has to be absolute liberty for it to work. LF capitalism does not create justice or liberty. It exist when justice and liberty are absolutely apparent. That is a big distinction that many don't make. Friedman did but he still had Chile. As we see with Crony Capitalism, It's not only the state that functions as a coercive power. Corporations do as well, which was Adam Smith's contention.
@TheGamerJoseph Also Joseph, if you take Friedman's Pinto example into consideration you'll see the limits ofn his morality. By making a car that is not as safe to make money, Ford is taking market considerations into account over moral ones. People die. And I think care safety is a good example of where state mandates have worked.
@deltarising What you are attributing to Friedman is simply not true. What he said was that Ford should have been sued for fraud and misrepresentation, since they didn't release the pertinent data. His principle is simple, "preventive regulative justice" through the executive does more harm than good, and the greatest side effect has been subsidies and special priviliges given to certain groups. You are simply wrong on what Friedman said.
@NoProbaloAmigo If you view the video where the question is asked you will see what he said. The mentality that Ford could or should be sued is questionable as well, as though you can put a price on human life and it is okay now that you've gotten you're settlement. Safety regulations through federal mandates have certainly done more good than harm in the US.
I love Milton Friedman, but this is another example of why his moral compass is essentially flawed. If you sell cigarettes in NY, abide by the state law or sell them elsewhere. What about the huge bill associated with health issues from tobacco? Who pays that? I know Friedman wouldn't expect the government to do that.
@deltarising Obviously if the tobacco company didn't provide information about the health risks then those suffering should be compensated, but if adequate warning (according to the consumer) is given, then it would be the consumers responsibility to make the decision to smoke or not. By the way, with Japanese men they have some of the longest life spans in the world but 1 out of 3 of them smoke.
It's amazing to me that people have twisted their minds to the point where they don't see how obviously right Friedman is. They've become so invested in grotesque political philosophies that they can't fathom the notion of individuals being responsible for themselves.
@WalterLiddy So you are saying you aren't responsible for yourself today? Just because the gov has social security? That's ridiculous. Just because the gov has a safety net for people who are worse off, does not mean people can absolve themselves of personal responsibility. If you think that social security is a government charity, that says something about you and not the gov. I'm on social security now, and if i didn't I'd lose my house and my car, why is that wrong to you?
Apparently, the government's force of tax, and laws, is not justifiable and legitimate. I tend to agree with that. But a corporations renting of your manpower is ? I don't understand this reasoning. If you absolve the government and let things be governed by private companies, you are in fact just transfering power from the gov, to private people. The eventual outcome of this canard, is that huge multinational,multibillionaire corporations will own the percieved "free market". Freedom my ass.
@Faerlon123 The difference is, those companies can't force you to work there or buy anything from them, while the government can at gunpoint. The Internet is a good example of a mostly free market working very well. Sure, Google is a huge multi billion $ company, but do they force you to use their websites? No, it's just better than Bing, or Yahoo. How about Facebook . I'm willing to bet you have one of those...They made $3.5+ billion last year, How much of that did they force out of you?
@BDBK666 So in a hypothetical world, where a corporation makes, lets say 500 billion a year in pure profit, and they decide, they want more power. So they buy weapons(Because you have that cool law you know, the 2nd amendment), to build an army, and overthrow everything and assume governmental power. Who would stop them? The gov? The gov would be shit poor, and basicly only able to sustain a police force, because nobody pays taxes, IF that. Libertarianism = Ultra-capitalism powerplay.
@Faerlon123 Funny thing is, this actually happened. A fruit company had a small army that fought along side the American army in the civil war. The problem is if this super company acts tyrannical then it loses power, who would buy their fruit? How many soldiers will support this? Many individuals will own guns and unite against them. War is expensive, there's no way a private company could foot the bill. Oh, unless if you're a government, then you can just tax and conscript.
@DMAN123223 No. the thing I talked about has not happened. What I was talking about was a hypothetical mass corporation with money beyond comprehension, finally deciding a fascist coup d'etat of the government. And seriously, don't say: "How many soldiers would support this?". It could potentially seeing as nobody is taxed, a government army would be shit, unless they of course, stopped being the government and turned into a corporation themselves.
@Faerlon123 Why shouldn't I say "How many soldiers would support this?" and might you respond to my other points? I explained it's impossible for a private company to achieve this, companies have had similar powers before and never have abused them.
@BDBK666 And furthermore, my government has never forced me to buy anything, for my own money, and I live in a pretty social democratic country. However, I am forced to work for shit pay, for some random corporation, and I have to obey their every law, because if I don't I won't get payed, and then I lose everything I own. It seems to me, that in order for libertarians to be taken seriously imo, you guys really got to examine what kind of liberty you guys mean, with Ultra-capitalism.
@Faerlon123 "never forced me to buy anything" Wait, you live in a country that isn't taxed? My advice to you, if you think your work is worth something more than you're paid ask for a raise, if they say no you can take your work elsewhere where it'd be more appreciated. Because after all, the only reason you should get "shit" pay is if you do "shit" work. I doubt you're very organised with work if you work for "random incorporated".
@DMAN123223 Right now i'm on welfare, because I don't have a job. The welfare I get, is money I have been taxed for while working. Basicly anyway. If there were no welfare in my country(What you guys presumably want) everything I own would be seized by the bank. My house, my car, every possession I own, would be seized because I couldn't pay for them. But since I have welfare that is not a problem. I will find another job, but untill then, i'm glad i'm not turned into a hobo.
@Faerlon123 Your situation is a shame and I'm sorry for your job loss. But think about the facts. If you were not able to hold your mortgage and create a savings safety net to sustain you if you go jobless you've borrowed way too much. But what can help you save is a lack of taxation, you'd be much richer if the economy isn't taxed so highly. Take Hong Kong, the most free economy in the world, unemployment is 4% which those are sustained by savings and private charity, that is the system I want.
@DMAN123223 Hong Kong is a very free market yes. But according to Wiki they also have welfare. They just get the tax to have it from taxation of land instead of taxation of individuals. Contrary to libertarian belief it is possible to live a good,free and prosperous life, even if things like welfare exists.
@Faerlon123 Libertarian doesn't mean no government it means limited government. Some welfare is possible to ease living but it needs to be low enough to give incentive for the unemployed to be employed. Compare their unemployment to your country, then your welfare compared to theirs.
@DMAN123223 Yes, but can't you see the hypothetical eventual capitulation of that "Limited government"? If government has no power to intervene where it matters to intervene(I.e the market), they are essentially powerless to stop any "immoral" or "unaccountable" behavior that a corporation might do. If a huge corporation is allowed to constantly buy off their competitors, so that they are the sole owners of a portion of the market, then I personally think that is wrong.
@Faerlon123 What is morality? Who defines it? None of us have the same values or the same attached value to each object. Government itself is a monopoly, not only that but a purchasable one. As seen from the American government, bank executives were literally their ear piece. Former CEO of Goldman sachs was a treasury secretary significantly responsible for the corporate bailouts. There is only one regulator who can give the right incentives to busyness including not monopolising: the consumer.
@Faerlon123 You are forced to buy things by your government. Where do you think your tax money goes? Someone else chooses what to spend your money on. If you don't pay then they will use force to take the money from you. On the other hand you have a choice of which company to work for. If the government didn't set so many hurdles in place then you would even be able to work for yourself...
He may have changed his views late in life, but he has a terribly stained legacy: he recommended tax withholding to the people who call themselves "federal government".
I was hoping the top 2 comments would have something to do with the content of the video rather than the general vague idea of what Friedman believed in summed up in a single meaningless word.
This is kinda ridiculous. Free market economies have nothing to do with crime. Crime occurs because of social injustices, and we all know that opposition to capitalism has not come about just because the government is involved. Opposition to capitalism happened because it is inherently unfair and hierarchical. Social problems and crime happen, because in a capitalist society, someone has to have shit jobs, and shit pay, in order for some people to get rich. Get real Friedman.
@Faerlon123 Bullshit, economics is seldom a zero sum game. The notion that someone has to be the loser is Capitalism is a myth. It's quite the opposite. When two people make a trade, that's because both parties value what they receive more than what they give. Yes some people will have to do more menial jobs in society, but can they expect to earn 80k a year instantly? No, but they may in fact earn that much later in life. It's far better than Communism where everyone is dirt poor.
@PkayerZxz2 I never said Communism is better you idiot. I'm not a communist, but settling for a system that obivously has flaws out of it's ass is just plain idiotic. You are talking about egalitarian trade, which is over. Capitalism today doesn't work that way. Capitalism today is about Wall Street power control. The one with the most money controls the market. 1% of the world's pop owns 80% of the wealth, do you really think that is fair and just? Even in a Friedman world?
@Faerlon123 Nonsense. The Capitalist system is not inherently flawed like the way left wing socioeconomic systems are. The Capitalist system requires minimal government intervention and regulation to function. The problem is, government policy has facilitated the creation of Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism. Friedman would be rolling in his grave if he saw what was happening today. If the world was practicing proper Neoliberal Capitalist Free Trade we'd be living in paradise.
@PkayerZxz2 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@PkayerZxz2 You say Neoliberal Capitalist free trade, I say Anarcho-capitalism. If you have a society where the only norm is individualism, money, and profit, that is what you will get. You will get a society where, the profitchase is all that matters in an individual's life. The notion that someone is the loser in Capitalism can be seen every day, on every street in every city in the world. Blaming the gov, for the obvious flaws of the capitalist system is a strawman argument.
@PkayerZxz2 America could have been be an agricultural society exporting farm produce if it hadn't used tariffs to increase its industrial competitiveness. The US imposed high tariffs from the civil war period right through to WWII. After that it switched to subsidies for high end technology.
@gwangjuboy1 So blocking out foreign competitors from the market makes the US industry more competitive? Wow, you're really economically illiterate. Read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell kthxbai.
@PkayerZxz2 Mexico's per captia GDP growth fell after it liberalised trade. The US, the UK, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all used subsidies and/or tariffs (and continue to do so to varying degrees) extensively to increase their industrial capacity. The US only started practising freer trade after WWII (it switched to subsidies). So for the vast majority of its history, from Lincoln to Reagan, the US has been 'anti-free market'. I may add that I don't need to read basic economics.
@astro7894 So what's your point? Is it not immoral to kill someone while driving slow? The person is just as dead. And, if lowering the number of traffic deaths is the motive, why not reduce the speed limit to 10 mph everywhere? The problem is not people that drive fast. It is people that do not drive safely. And BTW, just because someone may have a more sophisticated understanding of something than you do does not make them an arrogant dick.
@fzqlcs This guy argued for free markets for years and that was the main impetus behind deregulation of banking, and look where that has got the world.. a massive collapse and taxpayer bailouts. If his theories had have been followed then the world financial system would have completely collapsed. He is far to simplistic and puts forward arguments that are only correct inside an economics department.
@astro7894 Ok. I can (and do) completely disagree with your analysis, but at least it was put forward in a coherent way. Milton did argue nonstop for free markets, but sadly, he never saw them in his lifetime. It wasn't banking deregulation that brought about the crisis, but rather government incentives to banks to make housing loans to those who would not otherwise be approved. That caused housing to be bid up artificially. In a free market, no incentive for such loans would exist.
@fzqlcs I agree with you, but unless you wish to have many competing free currencies then you will always have a monopoly supply of money and this is backed by the us fed reserve which controls this centrally. So if he wished to promote free markets then perhaps he should have thought about making money a free market first. And if this is not a practical option then his free market ideology becomes much less clear cut.
@fzqlcs I have heard it explained that there were numerous wealth funds (world wide) that bought the MB securities, pumping the real estate bubble and providing the main "incentive". Europe also saw a bubble during this time. Government incentives/intervention were a part, no doubt, but I hardly see that as the main cause. We live in a global economy, there were some big forces at play there.
It's still being debated, and either way, there were numerous causes.
@38dragoon38 What you say is true, except for child porn. You cannot legalize the violation of someone else's rights. Before the age of consent, a child cannot legally volunteer for such an activity. Therefore, any use of children would have to continue being illegal.
Uncle Milty has nailed it again, kids. Just look at Somalia. With government out of the way and the people free to pursue their own self interest the amount of immoral behavior among Somalis is minimal. (I'm not counting the pirates.)
Friedman sounds like a lightweight here. Why is he talking about morality? It's irrelevant. Some laws are of course more readily supported than others (like laws regarding theft for example). We regulate theft because failure to do so would compromise the individual and collective good. It has nothing to do with what Freidman describes as 'morality'. By the same token, the repeal of Glass-steigal severely hurt the individual and collective good (unless you earned millions selling toxic MBSs).
@gwangjuboy1 I dont think its irrelevent.Today,liberal media etc continuously draw a paralell between poverty(sic) and crime.Poverty is an economic condition.We cant have it both ways.Personally,i think its an excuse for immoral behavior.As he puts it pert.to greed:Is political self preservation more noble than financial self preservation?I think not.Compare the crime statistics of the "impoverished" today to the impoverished during the great depression.
@fpopee Poverty is not an exclusively economic phenomenon. Poor parental education or childhood abuse can have a much more devastating impact on life outcomes than low incomes.
@fpopee liberal is where you believe people should be able to do what the want individually. he is a right wing liberal. most socialists, are left wing liberals.
@fpopee I guess you could call him a liberal if you are refereeing to the original variety, but libertarian would be a better definition. Funny how you call liberals of today socialist/communist elitists which is very ironic considering the ones in politics are all far more right wing then they used to be. Farley typical of libertarians because they say and think everything completely opposite from the truth when it comes to economics.
@bboschboi i didnt mean :classic liberal" in the perjorative.I meant he was a liberal before it was hijacked by hardcore marxists.However ,i digress,for by todays standards,you are right.libertarian would be more accurate,even though he defined himself otherwise.Butttt,i would be hard pressed to call cass sunstein,van jones,debbie shultz,maxine waters,madea benjamin,eric holder,micjell obama,napolitano,susan rice,elena kagen et al right wing by any stretch.tom hayden etc were considered fringe,
@jaymoremusic im just saying what he claims many times during his lectures.Many times Mr Friedman claims to be a liberal.But i do agree..that listening to his lectures,he is in line with modern day libertarians.his story of the pencil is by far the most understandable explaination of economics for young people.
@rodrigodet What a crock of shit. R-tards use 'liberalism' as an expletive for the left. Are you saying they took a known expletive and self-labeled themselves with it?
I don't believe that if you remove the restrictions, you remove the corruption. US companies were free to do as they wish, and so were workers. The workers strike in the early 20th century, and the mining company coerced the Colorado NG to fire on said miners, this was the Ludlow Massacre. This is an example of coercion of the government by intervening with private enterprise. The miners would have gotten their way, and gotten better working conditions sooner, if not for the government.
stupidest thing ever. in order to stop killings, legalize murder.. Wow Mr Friedman. Is that why you used dictators in Latin America to test your theories???\
stupidest thing ever. in order to stop killings, legalize murder.. Wow mr Friedman. Is that why you used dictators in Latin America to test your theories???\
@powdermonkey01 he's absolutely right when you think about drugs and prostitution, prohibition has not stopped people from doing those things at all so whats the pont? to make money filling prisons and enforcing laws. he isn't saying legalize murder he's saying government can't impose morals upon people.
@LibertyPen Please normalize the audio on these clips. I can't tell you how annoying it is to continually adjust the volume on these clips because the intro and closing segments (which you add) are at a different volume than the rest of the video.
Also, a less-startling closing sound effect would be welcome.
I do thank you for providing these great clips of Milton Friedman's various talks.
I agree with what he says upto a point. Government should not make laws that prevent people from getting on with business, but what about unfair monopolies and corporatism that have caused the banking collapse and economic crisis that we are seeing today, without regulation and law. Without law/regulation, you also have to hope and trust that people will do the right thing and most of the time, this just is not possible.
@AEF091 The most power-hungry people among do not take on the competitive arena of business, but rather gravitate toward politics. When you put these power-hungry types in a position to regulate, you do not get fairness, you get crony capitalism. The ability to regulate is the genesis of corporatism not the remedy. The market takes care of monopolies. It always has. Only when government eliminates competition can there be a monopoly. Fear of monopoly is the groundwork for corporatism.
@Unkn0wnGuy History doesn't PROVE anything, it may only ENDORSE a particular economic, political or scientific idea on the basis of it's failures and succeses in the interests of mankind. There are no propositions of general character that can be uniquely and unequivocally stated as facts by historic observation alone; people who think they can do so, are dogmatic. The successes of capitalism in the past are not a guarantee for it to be successful in the future (hell, not even in the present).
@FumTech I agree that his generalization of people with certain character is dogmatic, however, I was referring to his correlation between monopolies and government interference. Let me rephrase the question: do you disagree with him on the topic of how monopolies are created?
@Unkn0wnGuy First of all, I disagree on his statement that causes of monopoly are unique (which, again, I think it's dogmatic). Second, I disagree on the absolute power of markets to make monopolies vanish (or even prevent them, as I think he suggests). In my country Chile, most commercial areas (retail, communications, food production) are fairly deregulated and in control of no more than 3 big companies, and news of overprice collusion, workers abuse, etc. appear constantly on the media. (...)
@Unkn0wnGuy (...) And even though we are an open economy and our taxes are a dream to forgein competition, even the biggest companies have trouble inserting themselves because the local ones (which are even bigger) attack swiftly to keep their market share. Fusions and company purchases are very common in my country. Our attempt to become a free market society made us an oligarchy with almost no social mobility, and at the top the same old retrograde people that only look after themselves.
@fzqlcs Well said. Obama is so bent on the destruction and remaking of this nation in the alinski template that it is imperative to slide his racist ass out of office.
@fzqlcs Actually, that is incorrect. They will go wherever they can get the most money, and at the moment they have managed to corrupt the boards of most of the biggest financial institutions and big businesses, where they are sacrificing the long term viability of the businesses in order to boost their own bonuses.
@fzqlcs you probably have never heard of a term called market failure. and i think you need to audit a serious econ101 course before talking about economics
What if I want to set up a drug company and sell drugs that I claim will cure you from whatever ailment you have. Do you think I shouldn't be regulated? Do you think the drugs I sell should be free from any testing of any sort? Anyone who thinks we need to live in a world free from regulation is a fucking idiot who will swallow up any shit that cunts like Friedman feeds them. Friedman is the sort of person that will be your friend but will shoot you dead if the shit hits the fan
@turlough06 The difference between you and I is basic common sense. You need an agency to protect you from life's risks and I do not. A drug company may make a claim, but it is I who must decide if the claim is valid. I will require evidence. If the evidence is insufficient I will not choose the drug unless the risk-reward indicates no downside.
What position are you in to decide if a claim is valid or not? If you want a good, healthy society to function you need a mix of economic systems, public and private working together with checks and balances. The extreme unfettered laissez-faire capitalism that Friedman espouses is every bit as dangerous as the totalitarianism of Stalin or any other dictator. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Take care anyway.
@fzqlcs I agree with the crony capitalism part. But saying capitalism left by itself to shift, will solve all problems and make the world a better place, is simply not true. We live in a global economy now, and whenever someone fails in capitalism you say they should be left to fail. But it can't work that way anymore, because if someone fails, it sends ripple effects throughout the whole world, and may destroy the world economy. It's not black and white.
@Faerlon123 Let's be clear. No, laissez-faire capitalism will not solve all problems. Yes, it will make the world a better place. Your ripple scenario is fallacious unless your system is based on credit rather than wealth. Resources are always absorbed by those who use them more efficiently. But once you construct an economic house of cards, you cannot make it continue to stand by government edict. You can do so no easier than for Congress to mandate our round world be flattened.
@fzqlcs Letting an economy fall, just by the mere essence of "economic freedom" is ridiculous by itself. The economy could fall every 20 years, and then we would have to rebuild it all again, seems to be a pretty bogus standpoint. I agree that reducing government regulation in many sectors would help, but abolishing every aspect of it, sounds to me to be a pipe-dream equally and equivalent to a true communist utopia.
@Faerlon123 "The economy" is the totality of everyone's financial activity. Individual entities who make bad risks with their assets and fail should not be bailed out. The assets of those entities will be absorbed by others and economic activity will evolve in another direction. It is not utopia. It is a profit and loss system. Reality must be correctly perceived in order to succeed. Those who do so correctly profit and those who do not lose. Blessed be the name of the game.
@fzqlcs Don't you see that it doesn't work that way anymore? Wall Street brokers trading hundreds of millions of dollars every second, one slip, and all hell breaks loose. I lost my job because of the fucking financial crisis caused by Wall Street, and I live across the fucking atlantic ocean. That is not the American gov's fault. The fault you could say, came after when the gov bailed them out. Presumably actions like their's are allowed under a laissez faire system? Irresponsible imo.
@Faerlon123 You'd be wrong. Go pick up a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Or are books written by people who have brains banned by Norway's idiot Social Democratic leaders?
@PkayerZxz2 Sorry, I don't live in a country were things are banned, and people get beaten by cops, and where people get shot even by cops, for stealing shit. I mean, your country is turning more and more shit everyday. And blaming it entirely on the gov, is bogus. "America, land of the free", yes of course, untill something goes wrong and it's the gov's fault.
@piemonkey321 Yep. A sovereign state that is located south of Canada, another sovereign state, both of which are located on the continent of North America.
@PkayerZxz2 Very, VERY wrong. The U.S.A. is a sovereign state located south of Canada. America is the Supercontinent, a combination of the two, more popular, North and South American continents. If you live in Canada, you live in America, making you American.
@piemonkey321 When have you ever heard of someone living in Brazil, Chile,Colombia, El Salvador, etc, describing themselves as an American? How is this even relevant?
@PkayerZxz2 The problem is that there are so many people like you who fail to even comprehend simple words and terms. And also, the theory of the American super continent is more popular in South America, so I fail to see your first claim as anything but prejudice (the real meaning behind the word, not the "racist" term as used today)
@piemonkey321 The problem is you seem to think the continent in which I live in more important than the state in which I live. It's not. You're just blabbering on about stupid BS because you need to feel smart. Get a life.
@PkayerZxz2 The problem, as stated, is that you fail to properly use simple terms, and instead of comprehending this, you commit to personal attacks, for shame.
@Faerlon123 If you are talking about Wall Street packaging bundling bad loans into marketable securities you have to ask why those bad loans existed in the first place. The finger points back to government.
@fzqlcs You say that it's a realm of volutary action. But what exactly does that mean? If I have made a drug I can sell to anyone I want, surely that is freedom. But if the gov is totally powerless, does that not inevitably transfer power to the largest corporations? Surely you can imagine a scenario where the corporation is the force in a supposedly free market, where it initializes force also.Limiting government might be the answer, but who will hold the unaccountible corp accountable?
@Faerlon123 Sure you can sell anything to whoever you want, but buyers are not guaranteed. That is because buying is a voluntary action. The proper role of government is the protection of individual rights. Therefore, providing the courts to settle disputes is fundamental. Give me an example of where a corporation can force you to do something, I submit that the major problem we are dealing with today is the unaccountability of government.
@fzqlcs Legitimate power, is also found in the employer over the employee. This is also force, but in your eyes justifiable, because it's you renting out yourself. In my eyes that's the same as wage slavery. Wage slavery is also a way to have legitimate power over a whole market, under the guise of "laissez-faire". Sure you can start a company yourself, but if everyone does that nothing will work.
@sunnyvegas702 No I am not, I am simply saying that there is always going to be some people that take advantage of others misfortunes and having no regulation, is the main reason why normal people end up losing substantial amounts to corrupt bankers who know the system. These same bankers are the ones who are pushing for even further deregulation.
@AEF091 Laws7regulations cause monopolies. Dodd/Frank will eliminate small community banks by requiring a huge capital reserve that only the big boys can afford alla the federal reserve stuffing their virtual vaults with cash @ 25 basis points. Corporatism is the result of private business having politicians pass taxes & regulations that put an unfair advantage against its small business competitors. This is why meat/farming/bank are 80% owned by a few big companies now,regulation nation
@quinnrasta A great proposal to counter that from happening is a hands off policy. but there is a problem with that. Who will pass it? How will politicians approve? Especially in this day and age when everyone believes myths about economics and that regulations and uncle sam will protect them.
@AEF091 Corporatism is caused by regulation. It is ridiculous to say that we need govt to remove corporatism, since it is govt that creates corporatism. Second, you assert that monopolies caused the crisis and that there is no regulation and law. Are you aware that banking/finance/housing are the most regulated industries in America & the world? The housing/credit bubble, that engulfed the financial system, was caused by pro housing govt policies and low govt determined interest rates.
I should be free to set up a factory to employ children. Yet, I am stuck in this country PAYING for the free education of children for families I don't even know! What B.S. What happened to MY liberties?!
@onetwofun "ive never heard of a pirates charging for their services". say it's a downloading site, that's because there is no guarantee their services do not contain viruses, bugged programs that might crash, or that they do not offer the full version
@MrBigEnchilada true, but that doesnt mean that u can never find peer reviews of the site. ppl rnt isolated from each other on the internet. its like u think that most ppl dont know what they want and r too stupid to think on their own, and you know what is best for them. i just think that individuals should have the final word what is best for each of them. what is the point of having unalienable rights to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness if ur just guna dictate things?
@MrBigEnchilada "i think its hard for individuals to have the final word though."
so u come into conclusion that ppl should have rulers telling them what to do and providing them instant solutions to their problems? i prefer public peer reviews on most services. how does a more populous group of ppl taking bad decisions stop the minority from having a better ones? winners win, losers lose. as long as there rnt any "cheaters"
@onetwofun i think walmart engage in immoral behavior by operating almost like a manopsony, and Amazon competes with department stores by letting people scan the stores' product to check prices.
When netflix raised prices, its customers choose to all unsubscribed, but this doesnt always work.
@MrBigEnchilada monopsony = 1 buyer & multiple sellers; monopoly = 1 seller & multiple buyers. r u referring to monopoly? i primarily purchase crap from amzn, and they dont compete that way imo. amzn currently has 0 tax on stuff they "handle" (almost all items r). they also have free shipping if ur order is $25+. not to mention that they almost always have price cuts and discounts. as for boycotts, ppl wouldnt stop buying from "evil" companies if deals r "worthy" enough
@onetwofun walmart operates as a monopsony. if something is profitable, it's not always a good thing since they could be competing unfairly due to their size and consumers dont always act rationally when considering what their buying, and it's not as easy as "if people just stop buying it, then it will go broke and we can all get (more expensive but probably better) goods in the future".
@onetwofun one government intervention failure on the part of amazon is that they defined the tax loophole that amazon gets for free as a special case and they dont have to pay sales taxes.
@MrBigEnchilada and in the end, doesnt the consumer benifit from all this? even if they, or us actually, "dont always act rationally," dont we get a second chance to avoid those in the future? and its not about the elimination of evil company x, its not forcing, but convincing ppl to not support that company. and stop equating ppl trying to earn higher profit with evil. trying to be better in a competition is fair. dumbing down the winner to simulate more winners, isnt.
@MrBigEnchilada morality is best judged by individuals. forcing morality on ppl is immoral itself. as long as these companies dont violate human rights, then they should be free to be as greedy or immoral as they wish. the only way to defeat these evil companies is to compete with them in a fair ground. if u want walmart reduced, u can compete with it by showing ppl that u (ur company) do things morally better, and provide services just as good, if not better.
I dont know why anybody is hating on Amazon. my favorite website, and currently walmarts closest competitor. in fact no one else is even remotely close. the closer Amazon competes with Walmart the better walmart is going to have to be to maintain its position. its better for all of us.
@Ulrna we prosecute the small guys, you know, LTCM, and Madoff, and let bear sterns die. The too big to fails cannot be prosecuted though, they must be bailed out to keep the system intact.
@Ulrna we prosecute the small guys, you know, LTCM, and Madoff, and let bear sterns die. The too big to fails cannot be prosecuted though, they must be bailed out to keep the system intact.
those people who want to break laws will always find some way to break them.
While ending prohibition also ended some of the biggest mobs, they didnt dissappear, they simply adapted and transformed to operate other illegal and profitable activities.
@MrBigEnchilada I agree with you in a very bottom line sense, criminals will be criminals so to speak....however prohibition ignores that logic, and assumes that criminals will respond to legal changes, ceasing their activity. We know this to be false, in fact prohibition clearly creates the black markets that we associate with violence, theft, and general malaise. It is rarely the drug or product itself that causes said problems, generally it is the short sighted public policy. my 2c
@MrBigEnchilada "they simply adapted and transformed to operate other illegal and profitable activities." r u saying that criminals r committing crime for the sake of doing a crime? ur saying something completely different here. if one day, youtube "illegalizes" posting unapproved (by channel or yt itself) comments for w/e reason, do u really think all comment posters like us would do something else that is "illegal" in yt, just for the sake of breaking rules?
@onetwofun im saying if you're going to legalize drugs then you're going to have to legalize all drugs and maybe even activities not even related to drugs. This is because mobs/organizations are going to always find illegal but profitable activities.
@MrBigEnchilada u really should read what u just posted. it doesnt have any relation to what friedman argued. what ur basically saying is that criminals will do w/e crime there is. what friedman argued was that stupid laws sometimes make criminals out of law abiding citizens.
@onetwofun "what ur basically saying is that criminals will do w/e crime there is." does organized crime not do whatever crime there is?
"stupid laws sometimes make criminals out of law abiding citizens." so should we legalize other drugs too since we're creating a market incentive to smuggle illegal drugs for profit?
@MrBigEnchilada what we r talking about, at least what i keep saying, has nothing to do with any kind of criminal. u just keep saying that all labeled criminals or "wrong doers" r evil and they r compelled to doing bad things, which is obviously false. most of the time, ppl with good intentions do bad things. "does organized crime not do whatever crime there is?" <-read what u just said and think how simplistic this view is.
@MrBigEnchilada and yes, i am in favor of legalizing all current illegal drugs, regardless of my dislike of them. i suggest that u look up the failures of prohibition in the us.
Friedman makes everything sound so simple and logical, which it really is. He just follows the laws of the market and draws his conclusions, without trying to impose his morality on others.
026SH 15 minutes ago
Intentions have become more important to people than results. If the result is horrible it is still ok because the intention was good.
Butmunch666 2 days ago
Can someone explain to me how libertarians deal with things like child labour? I'm pretty sure Friedman would deny that governments in Third World countries like India and Bangladesh should interfere with private businesses in their country, yet doing what is profitable for those businessmen means putting children to work in horrible conditions.
(I'm not for or against libertarianism; I don't understand it sufficiently yet. Just looking for an answer to this.)
Bangell99 3 days ago
@Bangell99 The video "Tom Woods - Child Labor" is very explanatory in this regard.
fzqlcs 3 days ago
the growing of tobacco may create undo pollution and burden on the environment due to pesticides. I agree with Friedman that justice dictates that we have a free market; but in the final analysis, that freedom is more far reaching than meets the eye.
deltarising 4 days ago
What Friedman does not take into consideration is that there is never a neutral third party in economic transactions. With tobacco, it would be great if the farmer grows his tobacco, sells it to me and no one gets involved. But there are third party consideration such as the dangers of second hand smoke, the fact that land that goes to the growing of tobacco is land that may not be used for growing of products that human sustenance depends on,
deltarising 4 days ago
@deltarising What you aren't taking into consideration, is that if there's demand for more food, somebody will supply it. That's the great thing about laissez faire. We don't have to worry about what resources should be used for what purpose.. the market sorts that out. To the contrary, any attempt to use non-market forces to divy up resources will end in misallocation of those resources. You'll produce too much or too little in your attempt to micro manage the economy.
TheGamerJoseph 3 days ago
@TheGamerJoseph I don't have a fanaticism for the market that LF Capitlists have. There has to be absolute liberty for it to work. LF capitalism does not create justice or liberty. It exist when justice and liberty are absolutely apparent. That is a big distinction that many don't make. Friedman did but he still had Chile. As we see with Crony Capitalism, It's not only the state that functions as a coercive power. Corporations do as well, which was Adam Smith's contention.
deltarising 3 days ago
@TheGamerJoseph Also Joseph, if you take Friedman's Pinto example into consideration you'll see the limits ofn his morality. By making a car that is not as safe to make money, Ford is taking market considerations into account over moral ones. People die. And I think care safety is a good example of where state mandates have worked.
deltarising 3 days ago
@deltarising What you are attributing to Friedman is simply not true. What he said was that Ford should have been sued for fraud and misrepresentation, since they didn't release the pertinent data. His principle is simple, "preventive regulative justice" through the executive does more harm than good, and the greatest side effect has been subsidies and special priviliges given to certain groups. You are simply wrong on what Friedman said.
NoProbaloAmigo 14 hours ago
@NoProbaloAmigo If you view the video where the question is asked you will see what he said. The mentality that Ford could or should be sued is questionable as well, as though you can put a price on human life and it is okay now that you've gotten you're settlement. Safety regulations through federal mandates have certainly done more good than harm in the US.
deltarising 3 hours ago
I love Milton Friedman, but this is another example of why his moral compass is essentially flawed. If you sell cigarettes in NY, abide by the state law or sell them elsewhere. What about the huge bill associated with health issues from tobacco? Who pays that? I know Friedman wouldn't expect the government to do that.
deltarising 6 days ago
@deltarising Obviously if the tobacco company didn't provide information about the health risks then those suffering should be compensated, but if adequate warning (according to the consumer) is given, then it would be the consumers responsibility to make the decision to smoke or not. By the way, with Japanese men they have some of the longest life spans in the world but 1 out of 3 of them smoke.
DMAN123223 4 days ago
Let me get this straight: If there were no laws on insider trading, then it wouldn't happen? Another Friedman FAIL.
agentssith 1 week ago
It's amazing to me that people have twisted their minds to the point where they don't see how obviously right Friedman is. They've become so invested in grotesque political philosophies that they can't fathom the notion of individuals being responsible for themselves.
WalterLiddy 1 week ago 7
@WalterLiddy So you are saying you aren't responsible for yourself today? Just because the gov has social security? That's ridiculous. Just because the gov has a safety net for people who are worse off, does not mean people can absolve themselves of personal responsibility. If you think that social security is a government charity, that says something about you and not the gov. I'm on social security now, and if i didn't I'd lose my house and my car, why is that wrong to you?
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@WalterLiddy On both sides of the political spectrum!
heavym3tal 23 hours ago
stunningly retarded arguments
Everett345 1 week ago
Apparently, the government's force of tax, and laws, is not justifiable and legitimate. I tend to agree with that. But a corporations renting of your manpower is ? I don't understand this reasoning. If you absolve the government and let things be governed by private companies, you are in fact just transfering power from the gov, to private people. The eventual outcome of this canard, is that huge multinational,multibillionaire corporations will own the percieved "free market". Freedom my ass.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 The difference is, those companies can't force you to work there or buy anything from them, while the government can at gunpoint. The Internet is a good example of a mostly free market working very well. Sure, Google is a huge multi billion $ company, but do they force you to use their websites? No, it's just better than Bing, or Yahoo. How about Facebook . I'm willing to bet you have one of those...They made $3.5+ billion last year, How much of that did they force out of you?
BDBK666 1 week ago
@BDBK666 So in a hypothetical world, where a corporation makes, lets say 500 billion a year in pure profit, and they decide, they want more power. So they buy weapons(Because you have that cool law you know, the 2nd amendment), to build an army, and overthrow everything and assume governmental power. Who would stop them? The gov? The gov would be shit poor, and basicly only able to sustain a police force, because nobody pays taxes, IF that. Libertarianism = Ultra-capitalism powerplay.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 Funny thing is, this actually happened. A fruit company had a small army that fought along side the American army in the civil war. The problem is if this super company acts tyrannical then it loses power, who would buy their fruit? How many soldiers will support this? Many individuals will own guns and unite against them. War is expensive, there's no way a private company could foot the bill. Oh, unless if you're a government, then you can just tax and conscript.
DMAN123223 6 days ago
@DMAN123223 No. the thing I talked about has not happened. What I was talking about was a hypothetical mass corporation with money beyond comprehension, finally deciding a fascist coup d'etat of the government. And seriously, don't say: "How many soldiers would support this?". It could potentially seeing as nobody is taxed, a government army would be shit, unless they of course, stopped being the government and turned into a corporation themselves.
Faerlon123 5 days ago
@Faerlon123 Why shouldn't I say "How many soldiers would support this?" and might you respond to my other points? I explained it's impossible for a private company to achieve this, companies have had similar powers before and never have abused them.
DMAN123223 5 days ago
@BDBK666 And furthermore, my government has never forced me to buy anything, for my own money, and I live in a pretty social democratic country. However, I am forced to work for shit pay, for some random corporation, and I have to obey their every law, because if I don't I won't get payed, and then I lose everything I own. It seems to me, that in order for libertarians to be taken seriously imo, you guys really got to examine what kind of liberty you guys mean, with Ultra-capitalism.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 "never forced me to buy anything" Wait, you live in a country that isn't taxed? My advice to you, if you think your work is worth something more than you're paid ask for a raise, if they say no you can take your work elsewhere where it'd be more appreciated. Because after all, the only reason you should get "shit" pay is if you do "shit" work. I doubt you're very organised with work if you work for "random incorporated".
DMAN123223 6 days ago
@DMAN123223 Right now i'm on welfare, because I don't have a job. The welfare I get, is money I have been taxed for while working. Basicly anyway. If there were no welfare in my country(What you guys presumably want) everything I own would be seized by the bank. My house, my car, every possession I own, would be seized because I couldn't pay for them. But since I have welfare that is not a problem. I will find another job, but untill then, i'm glad i'm not turned into a hobo.
Faerlon123 5 days ago
@Faerlon123 Your situation is a shame and I'm sorry for your job loss. But think about the facts. If you were not able to hold your mortgage and create a savings safety net to sustain you if you go jobless you've borrowed way too much. But what can help you save is a lack of taxation, you'd be much richer if the economy isn't taxed so highly. Take Hong Kong, the most free economy in the world, unemployment is 4% which those are sustained by savings and private charity, that is the system I want.
DMAN123223 5 days ago
@DMAN123223 Hong Kong is a very free market yes. But according to Wiki they also have welfare. They just get the tax to have it from taxation of land instead of taxation of individuals. Contrary to libertarian belief it is possible to live a good,free and prosperous life, even if things like welfare exists.
Faerlon123 5 days ago
@Faerlon123 Libertarian doesn't mean no government it means limited government. Some welfare is possible to ease living but it needs to be low enough to give incentive for the unemployed to be employed. Compare their unemployment to your country, then your welfare compared to theirs.
DMAN123223 4 days ago
@DMAN123223 Yes, but can't you see the hypothetical eventual capitulation of that "Limited government"? If government has no power to intervene where it matters to intervene(I.e the market), they are essentially powerless to stop any "immoral" or "unaccountable" behavior that a corporation might do. If a huge corporation is allowed to constantly buy off their competitors, so that they are the sole owners of a portion of the market, then I personally think that is wrong.
Faerlon123 4 days ago
@Faerlon123 What is morality? Who defines it? None of us have the same values or the same attached value to each object. Government itself is a monopoly, not only that but a purchasable one. As seen from the American government, bank executives were literally their ear piece. Former CEO of Goldman sachs was a treasury secretary significantly responsible for the corporate bailouts. There is only one regulator who can give the right incentives to busyness including not monopolising: the consumer.
DMAN123223 3 days ago
@Faerlon123 You are forced to buy things by your government. Where do you think your tax money goes? Someone else chooses what to spend your money on. If you don't pay then they will use force to take the money from you. On the other hand you have a choice of which company to work for. If the government didn't set so many hurdles in place then you would even be able to work for yourself...
Uruz2012 3 days ago
He may have changed his views late in life, but he has a terribly stained legacy: he recommended tax withholding to the people who call themselves "federal government".
furyofbongos 2 weeks ago
Waldo is like WTF!?! @1:41
rgruesbeck 2 weeks ago
I was hoping the top 2 comments would have something to do with the content of the video rather than the general vague idea of what Friedman believed in summed up in a single meaningless word.
ipwnallnubscuzirock 2 weeks ago
This is kinda ridiculous. Free market economies have nothing to do with crime. Crime occurs because of social injustices, and we all know that opposition to capitalism has not come about just because the government is involved. Opposition to capitalism happened because it is inherently unfair and hierarchical. Social problems and crime happen, because in a capitalist society, someone has to have shit jobs, and shit pay, in order for some people to get rich. Get real Friedman.
Faerlon123 3 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 Bullshit, economics is seldom a zero sum game. The notion that someone has to be the loser is Capitalism is a myth. It's quite the opposite. When two people make a trade, that's because both parties value what they receive more than what they give. Yes some people will have to do more menial jobs in society, but can they expect to earn 80k a year instantly? No, but they may in fact earn that much later in life. It's far better than Communism where everyone is dirt poor.
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 I never said Communism is better you idiot. I'm not a communist, but settling for a system that obivously has flaws out of it's ass is just plain idiotic. You are talking about egalitarian trade, which is over. Capitalism today doesn't work that way. Capitalism today is about Wall Street power control. The one with the most money controls the market. 1% of the world's pop owns 80% of the wealth, do you really think that is fair and just? Even in a Friedman world?
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 Nonsense. The Capitalist system is not inherently flawed like the way left wing socioeconomic systems are. The Capitalist system requires minimal government intervention and regulation to function. The problem is, government policy has facilitated the creation of Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism. Friedman would be rolling in his grave if he saw what was happening today. If the world was practicing proper Neoliberal Capitalist Free Trade we'd be living in paradise.
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@PkayerZxz2 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 You say Neoliberal Capitalist free trade, I say Anarcho-capitalism. If you have a society where the only norm is individualism, money, and profit, that is what you will get. You will get a society where, the profitchase is all that matters in an individual's life. The notion that someone is the loser in Capitalism can be seen every day, on every street in every city in the world. Blaming the gov, for the obvious flaws of the capitalist system is a strawman argument.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 Neoliberalism =/= Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism. But you're an uneducated liberal fuckhead so why do I even bother?
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 I tend to accept attacks on my person as a symbol that I won the argument. Have a nice day.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 America could have been be an agricultural society exporting farm produce if it hadn't used tariffs to increase its industrial competitiveness. The US imposed high tariffs from the civil war period right through to WWII. After that it switched to subsidies for high end technology.
gwangjuboy1 1 week ago
@gwangjuboy1 So blocking out foreign competitors from the market makes the US industry more competitive? Wow, you're really economically illiterate. Read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell kthxbai.
PkayerZxz2 1 week ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PkayerZxz2 Mexico's per captia GDP growth fell after it liberalised trade. The US, the UK, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all used subsidies and/or tariffs (and continue to do so to varying degrees) extensively to increase their industrial capacity. The US only started practising freer trade after WWII (it switched to subsidies). So for the vast majority of its history, from Lincoln to Reagan, the US has been 'anti-free market'. I may add that I don't need to read basic economics.
gwangjuboy1 1 week ago
It may not be immoral to speed but it is immoral to speed and kill someone. Friedman is an arrogant dick whose arguments are far too simplistic.
astro7894 3 weeks ago
@astro7894 So what's your point? Is it not immoral to kill someone while driving slow? The person is just as dead. And, if lowering the number of traffic deaths is the motive, why not reduce the speed limit to 10 mph everywhere? The problem is not people that drive fast. It is people that do not drive safely. And BTW, just because someone may have a more sophisticated understanding of something than you do does not make them an arrogant dick.
fzqlcs 3 weeks ago
@fzqlcs This guy argued for free markets for years and that was the main impetus behind deregulation of banking, and look where that has got the world.. a massive collapse and taxpayer bailouts. If his theories had have been followed then the world financial system would have completely collapsed. He is far to simplistic and puts forward arguments that are only correct inside an economics department.
astro7894 3 weeks ago
@astro7894 Ok. I can (and do) completely disagree with your analysis, but at least it was put forward in a coherent way. Milton did argue nonstop for free markets, but sadly, he never saw them in his lifetime. It wasn't banking deregulation that brought about the crisis, but rather government incentives to banks to make housing loans to those who would not otherwise be approved. That caused housing to be bid up artificially. In a free market, no incentive for such loans would exist.
fzqlcs 3 weeks ago
@fzqlcs I agree with you, but unless you wish to have many competing free currencies then you will always have a monopoly supply of money and this is backed by the us fed reserve which controls this centrally. So if he wished to promote free markets then perhaps he should have thought about making money a free market first. And if this is not a practical option then his free market ideology becomes much less clear cut.
astro7894 3 weeks ago
@fzqlcs I have heard it explained that there were numerous wealth funds (world wide) that bought the MB securities, pumping the real estate bubble and providing the main "incentive". Europe also saw a bubble during this time. Government incentives/intervention were a part, no doubt, but I hardly see that as the main cause. We live in a global economy, there were some big forces at play there.
It's still being debated, and either way, there were numerous causes.
itsthekush 3 weeks ago
Great argument for the legalisation of all recreational drugs, prostitution and child pornography! If there's a market then what is your problem?
38dragoon38 3 weeks ago
@38dragoon38 What you say is true, except for child porn. You cannot legalize the violation of someone else's rights. Before the age of consent, a child cannot legally volunteer for such an activity. Therefore, any use of children would have to continue being illegal.
fzqlcs 3 weeks ago
Milty says LEGALIZE IT!
deprogramr 3 weeks ago
This guy is a fucking genius.
52000rightwing 3 weeks ago
This guy is a fucking genius.
52000rightwing 3 weeks ago
Uncle Milty has nailed it again, kids. Just look at Somalia. With government out of the way and the people free to pursue their own self interest the amount of immoral behavior among Somalis is minimal. (I'm not counting the pirates.)
termsofusepolice 3 weeks ago
If only we can get another like him!!!!!!!
planomax 3 weeks ago
Just get rid of all laws and no crime will occur
jk jk :P
piecharthosen 3 weeks ago
but seriously gaise - get rid of non-violent drug offender laws
piecharthosen 3 weeks ago
until we address the fact that we are a socialist country, and end it, The economy will continue to get worse.
halloranedward 3 weeks ago
Friedman sounds like a lightweight here. Why is he talking about morality? It's irrelevant. Some laws are of course more readily supported than others (like laws regarding theft for example). We regulate theft because failure to do so would compromise the individual and collective good. It has nothing to do with what Freidman describes as 'morality'. By the same token, the repeal of Glass-steigal severely hurt the individual and collective good (unless you earned millions selling toxic MBSs).
gwangjuboy1 3 weeks ago
@gwangjuboy1 I dont think its irrelevent.Today,liberal media etc continuously draw a paralell between poverty(sic) and crime.Poverty is an economic condition.We cant have it both ways.Personally,i think its an excuse for immoral behavior.As he puts it pert.to greed:Is political self preservation more noble than financial self preservation?I think not.Compare the crime statistics of the "impoverished" today to the impoverished during the great depression.
fpopee 1 week ago
@fpopee Poverty is not an exclusively economic phenomenon. Poor parental education or childhood abuse can have a much more devastating impact on life outcomes than low incomes.
gwangjuboy1 1 week ago
actually ,friedman was a liberal...a real liberal,not some hijacked communist/socialist elitist of todays definition.
fpopee 3 weeks ago 18
@fpopee Classical liberal.
williamjpiano 3 weeks ago
@fpopee liberal is where you believe people should be able to do what the want individually. he is a right wing liberal. most socialists, are left wing liberals.
Deltrix4762 2 weeks ago
@fpopee I guess you could call him a liberal if you are refereeing to the original variety, but libertarian would be a better definition. Funny how you call liberals of today socialist/communist elitists which is very ironic considering the ones in politics are all far more right wing then they used to be. Farley typical of libertarians because they say and think everything completely opposite from the truth when it comes to economics.
bboschboi 2 weeks ago
@bboschboi i didnt mean :classic liberal" in the perjorative.I meant he was a liberal before it was hijacked by hardcore marxists.However ,i digress,for by todays standards,you are right.libertarian would be more accurate,even though he defined himself otherwise.Butttt,i would be hard pressed to call cass sunstein,van jones,debbie shultz,maxine waters,madea benjamin,eric holder,micjell obama,napolitano,susan rice,elena kagen et al right wing by any stretch.tom hayden etc were considered fringe,
fpopee 2 weeks ago
@fpopee That's absolutely false!!! Milton was not a liberal, he was libertarian, they are opposing ideas in many ways.
jaymoremusic 2 weeks ago
@jaymoremusic im just saying what he claims many times during his lectures.Many times Mr Friedman claims to be a liberal.But i do agree..that listening to his lectures,he is in line with modern day libertarians.his story of the pencil is by far the most understandable explaination of economics for young people.
fpopee 2 weeks ago
@fpopee Classical liberal is the term we have to use now, because people on the left just took the name without knowing what it means.
rodrigodet 1 week ago
@rodrigodet What a crock of shit. R-tards use 'liberalism' as an expletive for the left. Are you saying they took a known expletive and self-labeled themselves with it?
agentssith 1 week ago
@fpopee A Classical Liberal ;^)
heavym3tal 1 week ago 6
I don't believe that if you remove the restrictions, you remove the corruption. US companies were free to do as they wish, and so were workers. The workers strike in the early 20th century, and the mining company coerced the Colorado NG to fire on said miners, this was the Ludlow Massacre. This is an example of coercion of the government by intervening with private enterprise. The miners would have gotten their way, and gotten better working conditions sooner, if not for the government.
Muslim91 1 month ago
@LIVINGONTHEDOLE: Haha, it is. Damn government, you can't even sell ass anymore.
andyissemicool 1 month ago
Such a smart man.
uriituw 1 month ago
Buttlegging.
andyissemicool 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stupidest thing ever. in order to stop killings, legalize murder.. Wow Mr Friedman. Is that why you used dictators in Latin America to test your theories???\
barasko 1 month ago
stupidest thing ever. in order to stop killings, legalize murder.. Wow mr Friedman. Is that why you used dictators in Latin America to test your theories???\
barasko 1 month ago
Shocking, another conservative that wants to take us back to the 19th century.
Saebeck32 1 month ago
@Saebeck32 Friedman did not consider himself a Conservative. He was a Libertarian. Get it right.
18chigirl 1 month ago 20
so friedman has basically told us that if you don't want people to break the law, you should get rid of the law so it's no longer illegal. great.
powdermonkey01 1 month ago
@powdermonkey01 he's absolutely right when you think about drugs and prostitution, prohibition has not stopped people from doing those things at all so whats the pont? to make money filling prisons and enforcing laws. he isn't saying legalize murder he's saying government can't impose morals upon people.
MrROTD 1 month ago
@powdermonkey01 I have to wonder what your moral principles are. Do you have any, sir? What are they?
slaughtz 1 month ago
@LibertyPen Please normalize the audio on these clips. I can't tell you how annoying it is to continually adjust the volume on these clips because the intro and closing segments (which you add) are at a different volume than the rest of the video.
Also, a less-startling closing sound effect would be welcome.
I do thank you for providing these great clips of Milton Friedman's various talks.
grantcivyt 1 month ago
I agree with what he says upto a point. Government should not make laws that prevent people from getting on with business, but what about unfair monopolies and corporatism that have caused the banking collapse and economic crisis that we are seeing today, without regulation and law. Without law/regulation, you also have to hope and trust that people will do the right thing and most of the time, this just is not possible.
AEF091 2 months ago
@AEF091 The most power-hungry people among do not take on the competitive arena of business, but rather gravitate toward politics. When you put these power-hungry types in a position to regulate, you do not get fairness, you get crony capitalism. The ability to regulate is the genesis of corporatism not the remedy. The market takes care of monopolies. It always has. Only when government eliminates competition can there be a monopoly. Fear of monopoly is the groundwork for corporatism.
fzqlcs 2 months ago 43
@fzqlcs Wow, that's the most dogmatic comment i've ever seen in a while...
FumTech 1 month ago
@FumTech Why do you say it's dogmatic when history proves it true?
Unkn0wnGuy 1 month ago
@Unkn0wnGuy History doesn't PROVE anything, it may only ENDORSE a particular economic, political or scientific idea on the basis of it's failures and succeses in the interests of mankind. There are no propositions of general character that can be uniquely and unequivocally stated as facts by historic observation alone; people who think they can do so, are dogmatic. The successes of capitalism in the past are not a guarantee for it to be successful in the future (hell, not even in the present).
FumTech 1 month ago
@FumTech I agree that his generalization of people with certain character is dogmatic, however, I was referring to his correlation between monopolies and government interference. Let me rephrase the question: do you disagree with him on the topic of how monopolies are created?
Unkn0wnGuy 1 month ago
@Unkn0wnGuy First of all, I disagree on his statement that causes of monopoly are unique (which, again, I think it's dogmatic). Second, I disagree on the absolute power of markets to make monopolies vanish (or even prevent them, as I think he suggests). In my country Chile, most commercial areas (retail, communications, food production) are fairly deregulated and in control of no more than 3 big companies, and news of overprice collusion, workers abuse, etc. appear constantly on the media. (...)
FumTech 1 month ago
@Unkn0wnGuy (...) And even though we are an open economy and our taxes are a dream to forgein competition, even the biggest companies have trouble inserting themselves because the local ones (which are even bigger) attack swiftly to keep their market share. Fusions and company purchases are very common in my country. Our attempt to become a free market society made us an oligarchy with almost no social mobility, and at the top the same old retrograde people that only look after themselves.
FumTech 1 month ago
@FumTech Excellent insight!!! As even capitalism states itself: THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES.
salahudeenabduladl 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Well said. Obama is so bent on the destruction and remaking of this nation in the alinski template that it is imperative to slide his racist ass out of office.
ravenofno 1 month ago
@fzqlcs great comment, and well thought out. Damn you and your life truths *liked*
mites7 1 month ago
@fzqlcs politics is business
midgetman8888 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Actually, that is incorrect. They will go wherever they can get the most money, and at the moment they have managed to corrupt the boards of most of the biggest financial institutions and big businesses, where they are sacrificing the long term viability of the businesses in order to boost their own bonuses.
dangerouslytalented 3 weeks ago
@fzqlcs you probably have never heard of a term called market failure. and i think you need to audit a serious econ101 course before talking about economics
BlueJellyzhn 3 weeks ago
@fzqlcs
What if I want to set up a drug company and sell drugs that I claim will cure you from whatever ailment you have. Do you think I shouldn't be regulated? Do you think the drugs I sell should be free from any testing of any sort? Anyone who thinks we need to live in a world free from regulation is a fucking idiot who will swallow up any shit that cunts like Friedman feeds them. Friedman is the sort of person that will be your friend but will shoot you dead if the shit hits the fan
turlough06 2 weeks ago
@turlough06 The difference between you and I is basic common sense. You need an agency to protect you from life's risks and I do not. A drug company may make a claim, but it is I who must decide if the claim is valid. I will require evidence. If the evidence is insufficient I will not choose the drug unless the risk-reward indicates no downside.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs
What position are you in to decide if a claim is valid or not? If you want a good, healthy society to function you need a mix of economic systems, public and private working together with checks and balances. The extreme unfettered laissez-faire capitalism that Friedman espouses is every bit as dangerous as the totalitarianism of Stalin or any other dictator. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Take care anyway.
turlough06 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs I agree with the crony capitalism part. But saying capitalism left by itself to shift, will solve all problems and make the world a better place, is simply not true. We live in a global economy now, and whenever someone fails in capitalism you say they should be left to fail. But it can't work that way anymore, because if someone fails, it sends ripple effects throughout the whole world, and may destroy the world economy. It's not black and white.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 Let's be clear. No, laissez-faire capitalism will not solve all problems. Yes, it will make the world a better place. Your ripple scenario is fallacious unless your system is based on credit rather than wealth. Resources are always absorbed by those who use them more efficiently. But once you construct an economic house of cards, you cannot make it continue to stand by government edict. You can do so no easier than for Congress to mandate our round world be flattened.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs Letting an economy fall, just by the mere essence of "economic freedom" is ridiculous by itself. The economy could fall every 20 years, and then we would have to rebuild it all again, seems to be a pretty bogus standpoint. I agree that reducing government regulation in many sectors would help, but abolishing every aspect of it, sounds to me to be a pipe-dream equally and equivalent to a true communist utopia.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 "The economy" is the totality of everyone's financial activity. Individual entities who make bad risks with their assets and fail should not be bailed out. The assets of those entities will be absorbed by others and economic activity will evolve in another direction. It is not utopia. It is a profit and loss system. Reality must be correctly perceived in order to succeed. Those who do so correctly profit and those who do not lose. Blessed be the name of the game.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs Don't you see that it doesn't work that way anymore? Wall Street brokers trading hundreds of millions of dollars every second, one slip, and all hell breaks loose. I lost my job because of the fucking financial crisis caused by Wall Street, and I live across the fucking atlantic ocean. That is not the American gov's fault. The fault you could say, came after when the gov bailed them out. Presumably actions like their's are allowed under a laissez faire system? Irresponsible imo.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 You'd be wrong. Go pick up a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Or are books written by people who have brains banned by Norway's idiot Social Democratic leaders?
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 Sorry, I don't live in a country were things are banned, and people get beaten by cops, and where people get shot even by cops, for stealing shit. I mean, your country is turning more and more shit everyday. And blaming it entirely on the gov, is bogus. "America, land of the free", yes of course, untill something goes wrong and it's the gov's fault.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 Aww how cute. You think I'm American. I'm Canadian, dumb ass.
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 Lol, that's funny. Our countries are almost identical. What's the problem with Canada? I'm actually a canadian citizen, living in Norway.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 There is no problem with Canada. If we could kill off all the left wing idiots we'd almost be a Utopia.
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 Canada is still within the super-continent of "America", thus you ARE American.
piemonkey321 2 weeks ago
@piemonkey321 That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Do you listen to yourself?
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 I thing you are the one who is stupid, do you know what America is?
piemonkey321 2 weeks ago
@piemonkey321 Yep. A sovereign state that is located south of Canada, another sovereign state, both of which are located on the continent of North America.
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 Very, VERY wrong. The U.S.A. is a sovereign state located south of Canada. America is the Supercontinent, a combination of the two, more popular, North and South American continents. If you live in Canada, you live in America, making you American.
piemonkey321 2 weeks ago
@piemonkey321 When have you ever heard of someone living in Brazil, Chile,Colombia, El Salvador, etc, describing themselves as an American? How is this even relevant?
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 The problem is that there are so many people like you who fail to even comprehend simple words and terms. And also, the theory of the American super continent is more popular in South America, so I fail to see your first claim as anything but prejudice (the real meaning behind the word, not the "racist" term as used today)
piemonkey321 2 weeks ago
@piemonkey321 The problem is you seem to think the continent in which I live in more important than the state in which I live. It's not. You're just blabbering on about stupid BS because you need to feel smart. Get a life.
PkayerZxz2 2 weeks ago
@PkayerZxz2 The problem, as stated, is that you fail to properly use simple terms, and instead of comprehending this, you commit to personal attacks, for shame.
piemonkey321 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 If you are talking about Wall Street packaging bundling bad loans into marketable securities you have to ask why those bad loans existed in the first place. The finger points back to government.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs Okay, so everything that turns shit is the gov's fault? Every economic retardation is the gov's fault? I mean, you can't even believe that.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 not everything, but many things. remember, the free market is realm of voluntary action. government is the realm of force.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs You say that it's a realm of volutary action. But what exactly does that mean? If I have made a drug I can sell to anyone I want, surely that is freedom. But if the gov is totally powerless, does that not inevitably transfer power to the largest corporations? Surely you can imagine a scenario where the corporation is the force in a supposedly free market, where it initializes force also.Limiting government might be the answer, but who will hold the unaccountible corp accountable?
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 Sure you can sell anything to whoever you want, but buyers are not guaranteed. That is because buying is a voluntary action. The proper role of government is the protection of individual rights. Therefore, providing the courts to settle disputes is fundamental. Give me an example of where a corporation can force you to do something, I submit that the major problem we are dealing with today is the unaccountability of government.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs Legitimate power, is also found in the employer over the employee. This is also force, but in your eyes justifiable, because it's you renting out yourself. In my eyes that's the same as wage slavery. Wage slavery is also a way to have legitimate power over a whole market, under the guise of "laissez-faire". Sure you can start a company yourself, but if everyone does that nothing will work.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@AEF091 you are assuming its regulatable. You are also assuming that its always preventable.
sunnyvegas702 1 month ago
@sunnyvegas702 No I am not, I am simply saying that there is always going to be some people that take advantage of others misfortunes and having no regulation, is the main reason why normal people end up losing substantial amounts to corrupt bankers who know the system. These same bankers are the ones who are pushing for even further deregulation.
AEF091 1 month ago
@AEF091 Laws7regulations cause monopolies. Dodd/Frank will eliminate small community banks by requiring a huge capital reserve that only the big boys can afford alla the federal reserve stuffing their virtual vaults with cash @ 25 basis points. Corporatism is the result of private business having politicians pass taxes & regulations that put an unfair advantage against its small business competitors. This is why meat/farming/bank are 80% owned by a few big companies now,regulation nation
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@quinnrasta A great proposal to counter that from happening is a hands off policy. but there is a problem with that. Who will pass it? How will politicians approve? Especially in this day and age when everyone believes myths about economics and that regulations and uncle sam will protect them.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@AEF091 Corporatism is caused by regulation. It is ridiculous to say that we need govt to remove corporatism, since it is govt that creates corporatism. Second, you assert that monopolies caused the crisis and that there is no regulation and law. Are you aware that banking/finance/housing are the most regulated industries in America & the world? The housing/credit bubble, that engulfed the financial system, was caused by pro housing govt policies and low govt determined interest rates.
mason72518 1 month ago
@1963danno Do you have a question?
Mauhadeeb28 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I should be free to set up a factory to employ children. Yet, I am stuck in this country PAYING for the free education of children for families I don't even know! What B.S. What happened to MY liberties?!
JoshMan522 2 months ago
@onetwofun "ive never heard of a pirates charging for their services". say it's a downloading site, that's because there is no guarantee their services do not contain viruses, bugged programs that might crash, or that they do not offer the full version
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada true, but that doesnt mean that u can never find peer reviews of the site. ppl rnt isolated from each other on the internet. its like u think that most ppl dont know what they want and r too stupid to think on their own, and you know what is best for them. i just think that individuals should have the final word what is best for each of them. what is the point of having unalienable rights to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness if ur just guna dictate things?
onetwofun 2 months ago
@onetwofun i think its hard for individuals to have the final word though. Like, should we allow Walmart to build a store everywhere?
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada "i think its hard for individuals to have the final word though."
so u come into conclusion that ppl should have rulers telling them what to do and providing them instant solutions to their problems? i prefer public peer reviews on most services. how does a more populous group of ppl taking bad decisions stop the minority from having a better ones? winners win, losers lose. as long as there rnt any "cheaters"
onetwofun 2 months ago
@onetwofun i think walmart engage in immoral behavior by operating almost like a manopsony, and Amazon competes with department stores by letting people scan the stores' product to check prices.
When netflix raised prices, its customers choose to all unsubscribed, but this doesnt always work.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada monopsony = 1 buyer & multiple sellers; monopoly = 1 seller & multiple buyers. r u referring to monopoly? i primarily purchase crap from amzn, and they dont compete that way imo. amzn currently has 0 tax on stuff they "handle" (almost all items r). they also have free shipping if ur order is $25+. not to mention that they almost always have price cuts and discounts. as for boycotts, ppl wouldnt stop buying from "evil" companies if deals r "worthy" enough
onetwofun 2 months ago
@onetwofun walmart operates as a monopsony. if something is profitable, it's not always a good thing since they could be competing unfairly due to their size and consumers dont always act rationally when considering what their buying, and it's not as easy as "if people just stop buying it, then it will go broke and we can all get (more expensive but probably better) goods in the future".
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@onetwofun one government intervention failure on the part of amazon is that they defined the tax loophole that amazon gets for free as a special case and they dont have to pay sales taxes.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada and in the end, doesnt the consumer benifit from all this? even if they, or us actually, "dont always act rationally," dont we get a second chance to avoid those in the future? and its not about the elimination of evil company x, its not forcing, but convincing ppl to not support that company. and stop equating ppl trying to earn higher profit with evil. trying to be better in a competition is fair. dumbing down the winner to simulate more winners, isnt.
onetwofun 2 months ago
@onetwofun "equating ppl trying to earn higher profit with evil", how about those who earn profits through immoral behavior?
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada morality is best judged by individuals. forcing morality on ppl is immoral itself. as long as these companies dont violate human rights, then they should be free to be as greedy or immoral as they wish. the only way to defeat these evil companies is to compete with them in a fair ground. if u want walmart reduced, u can compete with it by showing ppl that u (ur company) do things morally better, and provide services just as good, if not better.
onetwofun 2 months ago
I dont know why anybody is hating on Amazon. my favorite website, and currently walmarts closest competitor. in fact no one else is even remotely close. the closer Amazon competes with Walmart the better walmart is going to have to be to maintain its position. its better for all of us.
elwoodwinn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ulrna we prosecute the small guys, you know, LTCM, and Madoff, and let bear sterns die. The too big to fails cannot be prosecuted though, they must be bailed out to keep the system intact.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ulrna we prosecute the small guys, you know, LTCM, and Madoff, and let bear sterns die. The too big to fails cannot be prosecuted though, they must be bailed out to keep the system intact.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
those people who want to break laws will always find some way to break them.
While ending prohibition also ended some of the biggest mobs, they didnt dissappear, they simply adapted and transformed to operate other illegal and profitable activities.
this is where friedman's reasoning fall apart.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada I agree with you in a very bottom line sense, criminals will be criminals so to speak....however prohibition ignores that logic, and assumes that criminals will respond to legal changes, ceasing their activity. We know this to be false, in fact prohibition clearly creates the black markets that we associate with violence, theft, and general malaise. It is rarely the drug or product itself that causes said problems, generally it is the short sighted public policy. my 2c
asianpsuation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@asianpsuation "however prohibition ignores that logic, and criminals will respond to legal changes, ceasing their activity",
so say if we legalized marijuana, won't criminals still make money off cocaine and meth...
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada "they simply adapted and transformed to operate other illegal and profitable activities." r u saying that criminals r committing crime for the sake of doing a crime? ur saying something completely different here. if one day, youtube "illegalizes" posting unapproved (by channel or yt itself) comments for w/e reason, do u really think all comment posters like us would do something else that is "illegal" in yt, just for the sake of breaking rules?
onetwofun 2 months ago
@onetwofun im saying if you're going to legalize drugs then you're going to have to legalize all drugs and maybe even activities not even related to drugs. This is because mobs/organizations are going to always find illegal but profitable activities.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada u really should read what u just posted. it doesnt have any relation to what friedman argued. what ur basically saying is that criminals will do w/e crime there is. what friedman argued was that stupid laws sometimes make criminals out of law abiding citizens.
onetwofun 2 months ago
@onetwofun "what ur basically saying is that criminals will do w/e crime there is." does organized crime not do whatever crime there is?
"stupid laws sometimes make criminals out of law abiding citizens." so should we legalize other drugs too since we're creating a market incentive to smuggle illegal drugs for profit?
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada what we r talking about, at least what i keep saying, has nothing to do with any kind of criminal. u just keep saying that all labeled criminals or "wrong doers" r evil and they r compelled to doing bad things, which is obviously false. most of the time, ppl with good intentions do bad things. "does organized crime not do whatever crime there is?" <-read what u just said and think how simplistic this view is.
onetwofun 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada and yes, i am in favor of legalizing all current illegal drugs, regardless of my dislike of them. i suggest that u look up the failures of prohibition in the us.
onetwofun 2 months ago
@onetwofun then are we going to have the 18 yr old limit or the you cant make this stuff on your own you have to buy it rule?
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago