I just flew first class and had cutlery, china, and stemware. There are how many airlines now? Lots, donahue is a memory of why rich leftard liberals will always be wrong.
"The best protection for the consumer, the best offense against monopoly... the most effective anti-monopoly legislation you could possibly have would be free trade."
I was born in 1980 and he's warning that the Government will take us over if we don't do something, but I see that the government has taken over the people. Noone listened now we are servants of the Government. The people are now here for the Government. it's time to take our country back.
ffs-- Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot-- you dont think this was expensive? we were able to simultaneously exert stress on our economies to force the commies into total collapse while extracting us from the malaise courtesy of johnson through carter
everyone accepts that: under reagan = totally unregulated economy
this is totally false; reagan was only able to implement a few "free market tactics"
in a "tinkering" fashion; again the lesser of evils-- not a true free market
Phil does a great job being devil's advocate. He makes statements that the uninformed make every day and sets fried man up to give his brilliant responses. Great interview to get average people interested in economics.
@sellsjeeps you are right about that; the reason is simple though; if friedman was on oprah, for example, there would be no way she would let him explain himself and it is also the reason why the statists make a ruckus whenever opposition to their world utopia is presented---> presented with the facts, ordinary people would choose for themselves how to spend their money and the socialists would need to find another host to leech off of
Dont hate on Donahue too much its a reporters job to argue the other side sometimes as to give a chance for reclamation by the guest. Donahue did a good job by giving points from the other side and sounding a bit dull at some points because it gave Friedman a great chance to show how smart he really was. Milton was such a intellectual i hope more people are enlightened by his views.
Is no one else troubled by his preference to only punish the parent after the child is hurt or killed? I'm not in favour of wrapping kids in cotton wool but surely this is taking things a bit too far.
@kaptainkarnage69 I believe what Milton Friedman is saying is that by just having the threat of punishment, however extreme that may be, on any parent whose child or infant dies as a result of their choice of not securing the safety of their children, that is better and just as effective as having a law forcing parents to secure their child's safety. This is better because government should not make laws that impose force even-though the resulting penalty would make people come to the same end.
there is a huge inmense difference between what the consumer wants and what he is really willing to pay for, do you know tha most of the automobiles operating in america today are used cars
I remember watching Donahue. He confused good diction with intellect. Whomever he interviewed, Noble Prize winner or teen idol of the day always kicked his ass all over the tube. And he always looked confused. Well, Phil you sounded great; you really did. That does not mean there was ever any content to what was happening inside that sad little cranium. The guy was just stupid.
I remember watching Donahue. He confused good diction with intellect. Whomever he interviewed, Noble Prize winner or teen idol of the day always kicked his ass all over the tube. And he always looked confused. Well, Phil you sounded great; you really did. That does not mean there was ever any content to what was happening inside that sad little cranium
@rmccay88 It's a shame that videos like these get so few views that I can return to your comment two weeks later and you're still the last to comment. I looked up Woods (never heard of him) and man he's one helluva speaker! He's able to engage high school kids with this stuff and even make them laugh. Napolitano, Paul are good as well I know who they are.
@Goodatconnect4 I agree too re: amount of viewers. I suppose it;s one person at a time, passed on to another...I know Milton Friedman impacted my mind powerfully....Breath of FRESH AIR OF TRUTH! Remarkable man.
@fischerpilne Indeed; the last comment on this video is my own on this very subject! If you haven't read it already, I would recommend Free to Choose by Friedman. It covers things in such depth, and in remarkably simple terms as well, the topics that just don't fit in a 50 minute video.
@rmccay88 Schiff's cool, but he congratulates himself a little too much on his radio show for my taste. Still, I was disappointed when he didn't get nominated in the GOP primary.
Yeah I couldn't agree more about the amount of viewers part. It's sad how Lady Gaga videos gets ten million hits, but jack shit views for some of the greatest minds that ever walked this planet. Yeah, Woods is actually the least I know about between those four that I named, I need to watch more of him because he works at the Mises Institute not to far from where I live in Alabama. They have great Libertarians and Austrian economists speak there often!
@rmccay88 It would seem that Woods knows how to write a book! I'm looking for Meltdown, 33 questions, as well as others & I'm watching speeches that he makes. That's cool that you have the opportunity to visit Mises, I'm glad for you. Unfortunately, New England is not so accommodating to those conditions. Pop culture does seem to hold the public interest more than politics relative to the situation. I bet polls would suggest that Lohan's arrests seem more interesting than Dodd or Franks exploits
when the liberals here counter they do not counter friedman.... they use this fog tactic ... why is friedman not debating another economist...... not much of a counter...why not apply what they've "learned" from their brilliant economists? mmhhmm
Speaking of frontmen, who was Friedman a frontman for? Donahue was certainly not up to the task of interviewing him competently, intellectually overchallenged. Where is a debate with a brilliant economist with opposing views; one where Friedman's flawed purist ideas are torn apart. If viewers worship him, they should ask why the financial system, a monopoly, was bailed out, caused an economic catastrophy, flatlined wages, caused 19%+ unemployment, allowed huge bonuses & rampant fraud...
"Where is a debate with a brilliant economist with opposing views"
I agree SIMKINETICS. I can't figure out why this video, entitled "Milton Friedman on Donahue," consists of Milton Friedman being interviewed Donahue and not Milton Friedman debating another economist! I've been told videos of these debates exist, but until someone invents a way to search for other videos, we'll be stuck watching this. Keep your fingers crossed!
@SIMKINETICS You need to keep watching Friedman videos if you think he is why we are in the state we are in now. Friedman was for legalized drugs. He was for letting business who make poor decisions fail. He was for freedom to choose but you had to pay for your choices good or bad. He would not nor did he support governments bailing out private industry.
@Xantheus07 Friedman was a major architect of Reaganomics. His theories about deregulation turned a blind eye to the Federal Reserve, the greatest fraud in US history. The adulation of him here is sickening. Capitalism is great, but it cannot persist without some neutral referee to assure a level playing field for competitors. The Great Depression taught important lessons that Friedman cherry-picked. Read about Brooksley Born & the CFTC. Watch 'Inside Job'. Scratch below the surface.
@SIMKINETICS Reagan did not put Friedman's theories into practice properly. He actually increased public spending and financed tax cuts with borrowing. The result was that inflation, unemployment and inequality rose significantly and the US become the world'd biggest debtor nation. Friedman may have been the architect but unfortunately Reagan was a terrible foreman.
@redxenos Our economic collapse was the result of many factors, but the main factor was deregulation. This had the most significant effect on our economy by unleashing immense leverage in investment on investment. The Graham-Leech-Bliley Act was a travesty propagated by the very few poised to rob us blind from the top, using money that they did not truly possess. Friedman was a tool of oligarchs who control economics through university grants & subsequent propaganda via economics 'education'.
@SIMKINETICS Your economy did not collapse. That is an exaggeration. On the contrary the US economy experienced a long period of sustained growth under the Reagan administration which continued under George Bush Snr well into the 1990's. Also, your economy, like many others, was struggling in the 1970's before Reagan became president.
@redxenos First off, the US economy was paying for the idiotic V.N. war for long afterwards; hence our struggling economy in the '70's. Reagan's policies enriched a few only. If you think the US economy hasn't collapsed, you should see how degraded our infrastructure has become, and how our states are mostly in fiscal crisis. Real unemployment is at 19% or more. I know few people who are not struggling now more than ever. Wall Street & big banks took a crap on us. Such is their legacy.
@redxenos Please check your fax. Inflation and unemployed both went WAY down under Reagan. Carter invented the "misery" index (Unemploymenet rate and inflation rate added togateher) . The Reagan tax cuts paid for themselves. What I mean that when he reduced the tax RATE, the total revenue INCREASED. A simple but mind numbing concept to any in government. Hint this is why retails have sales (they mark down the price to .......yes, increase sales!) go check any stats.
@mrfancyboy1 Price cutting prevents total loss. If I have a product sitting on the shelves that is not moving(lack of demand for whatever reason), I cut the price (usually somewhere near the actual wholesale value) in order to get something instead of nothing. If I cut too low( below wholesale), I take a loss financially because my investment is not returned. People are likely to buy cheap and "marked down" items when times are tough. If you could sell at the original mark-up, who wouldn't?
I worked in the trucking industry during my teens, and I have to say.. deregulation was the best thing that ever happened. I've read argument and argument about how it didn't work and the flaws, and I can't wrap my head around what these people must be thinking? The prices are cheaper, there's more competition, we got the union carriers out of the way who were being unfairly advantaged.. most of them are out of business due to bad business models.
Anybody interested in this should watch Donahue's interview with Ayn Rand. Concerning economics he more or less asks the same questions and it's pretty interesting to note the similarities between their responses.
This is a fascinating process: Donahue asks Friedman a question, presuming an answer one way or another; Friedman confounds him every time, and a fuse pops somewhere in Donahue's head. And then Friedman smiles.
Let me rephrase that, to help you understand my question: "Didn't certain business interests 'cherry pick' Miltons theories to install politicians to make laws that maximized their returns?" eg Why didn't Reagan OR Thatcher follow (or even mention) Milton's theories on legalizing drugs?
It's too bad Friedman isin't here to see the disasters caused by the deregulation of the broadcasting industry, and lack of regulation in the financial industry among others.
Really, TheTrueLiberal? Tell me where I'm wrong about deregulation destroying the broadcasting business. Since I've been working in broadcasting for my entire career, and have watched the product of Clinton era media deregulation personally, I'm very inetersted to hear how my 15 years of experience is negated.
TheTrueLiberal, that's not an answer either. I stated that Clinton era deregulation (including the 1996 telecom act) has destroyed the broadcasting industry. You said I was wrong. When I ask you to support your claim, you slink away like a coward. You are not fooling anyone.
TheTrueLiberal: Lay out my entire argument? I made a statement. You said THAT statement is wrong. I'm now asking you for the fourth time to tell me how my statement is wrong. Or are you now going to admit the obvious: you have not ida what you are talking about.
Take one more step to freedom and you get anarchy. It's a pity Milton Friedman seemed to think that only a government could perform functions of the law.
Very revealing here that Donahue's prediction about "there will be 3 airlines" could not have turned out more wrong. Friedman is quite correct that competition in increased with deregulation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why is he constantly grinning and using this schoolboy humor. I just guess he stopped develop at an early childhood stage emotionally due to severe trauma.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm not "trolling" I was simply making a comment about how Milton Friedman made it okay to foster the worst in human in human tendencies and make "greed" a concept that many people today now consider a virtue in and of itself.
If I'm being completely serious, sure I exaggerated a little bit, but the main point is that Friedman's ideas have been responsible for human misery all throughout the world.
Friedman comes off disturbingly charming. It's well known that the Free Market is a failure.
Free markets are a rational measure, that's all: as to them failing, the answer is no; freedom just means getting rid of the controls that cause the bubbles.
Rationalism or logicism is different to psychologism.
I have no idea what system to implement when people say that the "free market" doesn't work.
All I can say is that the ideas this man puts forward haven't been given anything resembling a chance. Unlike marxism etc.
no, the "free market" is simply a theoretical construct. Due to the existential reality of the state (and many other values & allegiances important to human culture & civil society), the free-market is something that can never be realized outside of the halls of academia.
Applying theories to human society for real-life appication, whether free-market fundamentalism or orthodox Marxism, will always fail the theoretical construct as humans are more unpredictable than theories!
I'm not sure why you demonize greed? Do you not have a certain level of personal greed? How do we regulate what's greedy and what is not? We have laws against fraudulent behavior, why do we need government to enforce a moral stance on greed?
@VictoryCough Demonizing greed is haute coutre. Too bad few people these days, like yourself, have gotten a good education about the nature of economics and of humanity.
I think libertarianism is becoming generally more accepted as I found his comment about car dealers caring more about selling cars more than they care about servicing cars rather disturbing. I think most Americans would recognize that its not an auto dealers job to service a car.
So Friedman doesn't want a law forcing someone to restrain their baby in a car but he does want a parent to go to jail if their baby gets hurt because it wasn't restrained? How is someone going to go to jail if there isn't a law in place preventing that?
No. Friedman doesn't want a law forcing the ADULT (= not the baby) to use restraints on himself. Because the adult can decide on his own as a free person how much safety he / she wants.
The responsibility for a baby that cannot assess the risk on its own is a completely different matter and a liability question as well as a moral question. Any parent should value the safety of the baby enough to use a safe car or leave the baby at home under supervision while using an unsafe car.
It would probably be counted as negligence, so there would already be a law preventing it. I would disagree with Friedman though and support a law for restraining the baby itself, not just penalizing the consequences of not doing so after* an accident.
It would fall under manslaughter, just because there is no law specifically stating it is illegal to run a man over, doesn't mean it wasnt your fault through negligence.
Well, there's no law, of which I am aware, that forbids parents from allowing their children to play atop skyscrapers; however, if a parent allowed his/her child to do so and the child fell to his/her death, I imagine he'd (Mr. Friedman) would also want the parents prosecuted for child endangerment. Imagine that, it is possible for someone to go to jail "for a law that doesn't exist." Thats because there are laws covering what Mr. Friedman was suggesting.
You really think a parent would be prosecuted for allowing a child to fall from a high place? What about a baby that gets into a medicine cabinet and dies from swallowing pills. Would the parents be prosecuted for not putting locks on all the cabinets? And if a child gets sick and dies because the parent's don't go to the hospital in time should they be prosecuted for that too? How broadly are we supposed to interpret the law anyway?
Do I really think parents would be prosecuted for allowing their child to play atop a skyscraper, if their child fell to his/her death? Yes, of course. Look, the point you were intimating with your initial question was a poor one. Face facts, there does not have to be a law against not restraining a child in a car for a parent or guardian to be guilty of child endangerment in the case of a unrestrained child being killed in auto accident; Mr. Friendman's comments were not contradictory.
Why? Would that would help you understand the point you intimated was a bad one, and speaks to your lack of understanding of basic reasoning and not to any contradiction on the part of Mr. Friedman?
He seemed so unpretentious; I doubt he would have considered be referred to as Mr. Friedman a slight of any kind. But yes, the late Dr. Friedman is due proper respect.
I'm not anti-Seimitic but has anyone noticed that Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and Bernake are all American Jews? Just like Hollyood: Bette Midler, Steven Spielberg, Woody Allen, etc
There actually is another video on U Tube where milton talks about the great depression and the fed. reserve's mistakes. He mentions the federal reserve should've stepped in during the depression rather than do nothing....
It means they're smart. Read Thomas Sowell's "Conquest and Culture." The culture is great and they've been highly educated people for centuries. So, therefore, they deserve it!
Man, the audience is just completely silent whenever Friedman gives an answer, and they applaud every question from Donahue. That's not how a talk show is supposed to work. lol
Milton Friedman > Albert Einstein
RocknRollaRevolution 2 weeks ago
asset backed securities and the mortgage crises is an outcomes of banking deregulations of the 1980s.
rdiaz921 3 months ago
I just flew first class and had cutlery, china, and stemware. There are how many airlines now? Lots, donahue is a memory of why rich leftard liberals will always be wrong.
cdw100 5 months ago
"The best protection for the consumer, the best offense against monopoly... the most effective anti-monopoly legislation you could possibly have would be free trade."
MickeyDee0341 7 months ago
I was born in 1980 and he's warning that the Government will take us over if we don't do something, but I see that the government has taken over the people. Noone listened now we are servants of the Government. The people are now here for the Government. it's time to take our country back.
kydenj28 7 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman vs. Phil Donahue 10
When does Donahue come out with the DNA test?
joojoo1234 8 months ago 3
ffs-- Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot-- you dont think this was expensive? we were able to simultaneously exert stress on our economies to force the commies into total collapse while extracting us from the malaise courtesy of johnson through carter
everyone accepts that: under reagan = totally unregulated economy
this is totally false; reagan was only able to implement a few "free market tactics"
in a "tinkering" fashion; again the lesser of evils-- not a true free market
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
Phil does a great job being devil's advocate. He makes statements that the uninformed make every day and sets fried man up to give his brilliant responses. Great interview to get average people interested in economics.
batgirl791 9 months ago
There is something so warm about Milton Friedman. It's like he is at mine having lunch and we're chatting ... :)
lector0003 9 months ago
@lector0003 There couldn't be a more interesting person to have for lunch!
ChristopherAdderley 9 months ago
@lector0003
i know what you mean. i get the same feeling from him. he says everything with such ease and so warmly. he's a great speaker and great intellect.
LadyScorpio39 7 months ago
I really respect Donahue. I don't think you'd find a contemporary television host capable of sparing with a guest like Milton Friedman.
sellsjeeps 11 months ago
@sellsjeeps you are right about that; the reason is simple though; if friedman was on oprah, for example, there would be no way she would let him explain himself and it is also the reason why the statists make a ruckus whenever opposition to their world utopia is presented---> presented with the facts, ordinary people would choose for themselves how to spend their money and the socialists would need to find another host to leech off of
2dum2getsocialism 10 months ago
Back then it was the Superba. Now, the government wants us to buy something called a Leaf. Ick!
miazagora 11 months ago
@SonnyTheWhiteDwarf
I agree, he was very intelligent
suchafool990 1 year ago
Dont hate on Donahue too much its a reporters job to argue the other side sometimes as to give a chance for reclamation by the guest. Donahue did a good job by giving points from the other side and sounding a bit dull at some points because it gave Friedman a great chance to show how smart he really was. Milton was such a intellectual i hope more people are enlightened by his views.
adulby 1 year ago
This is a conversation between an intellectual giant and a buffoon. You decide which is which (hint hint, Donahue is hopeless)
Valentinegirl73 1 year ago
"Let me give you a very simple example..."
I love you Dr. Friedman. You're awesome in so many ways.
Dirge987 1 year ago
Is no one else troubled by his preference to only punish the parent after the child is hurt or killed? I'm not in favour of wrapping kids in cotton wool but surely this is taking things a bit too far.
kaptainkarnage69 1 year ago
@kaptainkarnage69 I believe what Milton Friedman is saying is that by just having the threat of punishment, however extreme that may be, on any parent whose child or infant dies as a result of their choice of not securing the safety of their children, that is better and just as effective as having a law forcing parents to secure their child's safety. This is better because government should not make laws that impose force even-though the resulting penalty would make people come to the same end.
howya111 11 months ago
there is a huge inmense difference between what the consumer wants and what he is really willing to pay for, do you know tha most of the automobiles operating in america today are used cars
rodycohen 1 year ago
I remember watching Donahue. He confused good diction with intellect. Whomever he interviewed, Noble Prize winner or teen idol of the day always kicked his ass all over the tube. And he always looked confused. Well, Phil you sounded great; you really did. That does not mean there was ever any content to what was happening inside that sad little cranium. The guy was just stupid.
noooddle 1 year ago
@noooddle At least he takes it like a man. That earns him some respect from me.
Atreus21 1 year ago
I remember watching Donahue. He confused good diction with intellect. Whomever he interviewed, Noble Prize winner or teen idol of the day always kicked his ass all over the tube. And he always looked confused. Well, Phil you sounded great; you really did. That does not mean there was ever any content to what was happening inside that sad little cranium
noooddle 1 year ago
PanAM had HUGE government support at this time btw, both in subsidies and restricting of barriers to entry.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
This man's like an encyclopedia. I wish we had someone who could hold a candle to Milton Friedman.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
@Goodatconnect4 Thomas Sowell is not bad
rakuck 1 year ago
@rakuck I'm not familiar with him, but I'll get back to you.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
@Goodatconnect4
Judge Napolitano, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and Thomas Woods are four others.
rmccay88 1 year ago
@rmccay88 It's a shame that videos like these get so few views that I can return to your comment two weeks later and you're still the last to comment. I looked up Woods (never heard of him) and man he's one helluva speaker! He's able to engage high school kids with this stuff and even make them laugh. Napolitano, Paul are good as well I know who they are.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
@Goodatconnect4 I agree too re: amount of viewers. I suppose it;s one person at a time, passed on to another...I know Milton Friedman impacted my mind powerfully....Breath of FRESH AIR OF TRUTH! Remarkable man.
God bless, Martha
fischerpilne 1 year ago
@fischerpilne Indeed; the last comment on this video is my own on this very subject! If you haven't read it already, I would recommend Free to Choose by Friedman. It covers things in such depth, and in remarkably simple terms as well, the topics that just don't fit in a 50 minute video.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
@rmccay88 Schiff's cool, but he congratulates himself a little too much on his radio show for my taste. Still, I was disappointed when he didn't get nominated in the GOP primary.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
@Goodatconnect4
Yeah I couldn't agree more about the amount of viewers part. It's sad how Lady Gaga videos gets ten million hits, but jack shit views for some of the greatest minds that ever walked this planet. Yeah, Woods is actually the least I know about between those four that I named, I need to watch more of him because he works at the Mises Institute not to far from where I live in Alabama. They have great Libertarians and Austrian economists speak there often!
rmccay88 1 year ago
@rmccay88 It would seem that Woods knows how to write a book! I'm looking for Meltdown, 33 questions, as well as others & I'm watching speeches that he makes. That's cool that you have the opportunity to visit Mises, I'm glad for you. Unfortunately, New England is not so accommodating to those conditions. Pop culture does seem to hold the public interest more than politics relative to the situation. I bet polls would suggest that Lohan's arrests seem more interesting than Dodd or Franks exploits
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
when the liberals here counter they do not counter friedman.... they use this fog tactic ... why is friedman not debating another economist...... not much of a counter...why not apply what they've "learned" from their brilliant economists? mmhhmm
chriswhited71 1 year ago
buy foreign cars like toyota that for the vast majority of time has had ledendary endurance.
chriswhited71 1 year ago
liberals always forgo the reality of net balance when they chase ambulances.....symptoms.
chriswhited71 1 year ago
then do not fly first class.
chriswhited71 1 year ago
Speaking of frontmen, who was Friedman a frontman for? Donahue was certainly not up to the task of interviewing him competently, intellectually overchallenged. Where is a debate with a brilliant economist with opposing views; one where Friedman's flawed purist ideas are torn apart. If viewers worship him, they should ask why the financial system, a monopoly, was bailed out, caused an economic catastrophy, flatlined wages, caused 19%+ unemployment, allowed huge bonuses & rampant fraud...
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@SIMKINETICS
"Where is a debate with a brilliant economist with opposing views"
I agree SIMKINETICS. I can't figure out why this video, entitled "Milton Friedman on Donahue," consists of Milton Friedman being interviewed Donahue and not Milton Friedman debating another economist! I've been told videos of these debates exist, but until someone invents a way to search for other videos, we'll be stuck watching this. Keep your fingers crossed!
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Propaganda technique makes Friedman look smart! Let's keep searching. Thanx.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Go to Friedman's Free to Choose series--it's here on youtube. He is surrounded by economists during the conversation segments.
dedbusted 3 months ago
@SIMKINETICS You need to keep watching Friedman videos if you think he is why we are in the state we are in now. Friedman was for legalized drugs. He was for letting business who make poor decisions fail. He was for freedom to choose but you had to pay for your choices good or bad. He would not nor did he support governments bailing out private industry.
Xantheus07 9 months ago
@Xantheus07 Friedman was a major architect of Reaganomics. His theories about deregulation turned a blind eye to the Federal Reserve, the greatest fraud in US history. The adulation of him here is sickening. Capitalism is great, but it cannot persist without some neutral referee to assure a level playing field for competitors. The Great Depression taught important lessons that Friedman cherry-picked. Read about Brooksley Born & the CFTC. Watch 'Inside Job'. Scratch below the surface.
SIMKINETICS 9 months ago
@SIMKINETICS Reagan did not put Friedman's theories into practice properly. He actually increased public spending and financed tax cuts with borrowing. The result was that inflation, unemployment and inequality rose significantly and the US become the world'd biggest debtor nation. Friedman may have been the architect but unfortunately Reagan was a terrible foreman.
redxenos 9 months ago
@redxenos Our economic collapse was the result of many factors, but the main factor was deregulation. This had the most significant effect on our economy by unleashing immense leverage in investment on investment. The Graham-Leech-Bliley Act was a travesty propagated by the very few poised to rob us blind from the top, using money that they did not truly possess. Friedman was a tool of oligarchs who control economics through university grants & subsequent propaganda via economics 'education'.
SIMKINETICS 9 months ago
@SIMKINETICS Your economy did not collapse. That is an exaggeration. On the contrary the US economy experienced a long period of sustained growth under the Reagan administration which continued under George Bush Snr well into the 1990's. Also, your economy, like many others, was struggling in the 1970's before Reagan became president.
redxenos 9 months ago
@redxenos First off, the US economy was paying for the idiotic V.N. war for long afterwards; hence our struggling economy in the '70's. Reagan's policies enriched a few only. If you think the US economy hasn't collapsed, you should see how degraded our infrastructure has become, and how our states are mostly in fiscal crisis. Real unemployment is at 19% or more. I know few people who are not struggling now more than ever. Wall Street & big banks took a crap on us. Such is their legacy.
SIMKINETICS 9 months ago
@redxenos Please check your fax. Inflation and unemployed both went WAY down under Reagan. Carter invented the "misery" index (Unemploymenet rate and inflation rate added togateher) . The Reagan tax cuts paid for themselves. What I mean that when he reduced the tax RATE, the total revenue INCREASED. A simple but mind numbing concept to any in government. Hint this is why retails have sales (they mark down the price to .......yes, increase sales!) go check any stats.
mrfancyboy1 9 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman vs. Phil Donahue
@mrfancyboy1 Price cutting prevents total loss. If I have a product sitting on the shelves that is not moving(lack of demand for whatever reason), I cut the price (usually somewhere near the actual wholesale value) in order to get something instead of nothing. If I cut too low( below wholesale), I take a loss financially because my investment is not returned. People are likely to buy cheap and "marked down" items when times are tough. If you could sell at the original mark-up, who wouldn't?
SirManUp 5 months ago
Genius!!!! I love this guy!!!!! Wow!!!
drkmagneto 1 year ago
I worked in the trucking industry during my teens, and I have to say.. deregulation was the best thing that ever happened. I've read argument and argument about how it didn't work and the flaws, and I can't wrap my head around what these people must be thinking? The prices are cheaper, there's more competition, we got the union carriers out of the way who were being unfairly advantaged.. most of them are out of business due to bad business models.
hnsnfrk1 1 year ago
Anybody interested in this should watch Donahue's interview with Ayn Rand. Concerning economics he more or less asks the same questions and it's pretty interesting to note the similarities between their responses.
ace625 1 year ago
This is a fascinating process: Donahue asks Friedman a question, presuming an answer one way or another; Friedman confounds him every time, and a fuse pops somewhere in Donahue's head. And then Friedman smiles.
Drchainsaw77 1 year ago
Every stupid argument Phil makes is torn down without hesitation. Does that matter to Phil, nope, on to the next stupid argument for more Government.
IlovemyGlock21 1 year ago
wasn't Milton himself a frontman for greedy capitalists who cherry picked his theories in the 80's?
Andybaby 1 year ago
@Andybaby No, he was not...
DomusModern 1 year ago
@Andybaby
Look on the right -- in related videos -- and click on the video "Milton Friedman -- Greed." You will get schooled and save us time.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
Let me rephrase that, to help you understand my question: "Didn't certain business interests 'cherry pick' Miltons theories to install politicians to make laws that maximized their returns?" eg Why didn't Reagan OR Thatcher follow (or even mention) Milton's theories on legalizing drugs?
Andybaby 1 year ago
It's too bad Friedman isin't here to see the disasters caused by the deregulation of the broadcasting industry, and lack of regulation in the financial industry among others.
chansetwo 1 year ago
@chansetwo
I'd point out where you're wrong, but it has
already been done at least a million times
in these comments!
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
Really, TheTrueLiberal? Tell me where I'm wrong about deregulation destroying the broadcasting business. Since I've been working in broadcasting for my entire career, and have watched the product of Clinton era media deregulation personally, I'm very inetersted to hear how my 15 years of experience is negated.
chansetwo 1 year ago
@chansetwo
Read my post again.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
TheTrueLiberal, thats not an answer. Have the guts to say you don't have one.
chansetwo 1 year ago
@chansetwo
I can see why most people just give up
responding to ignorant critics. Everyday
you have to re-invent the wheel. It's
extremely taxing.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
TheTrueLiberal, that's not an answer either. I stated that Clinton era deregulation (including the 1996 telecom act) has destroyed the broadcasting industry. You said I was wrong. When I ask you to support your claim, you slink away like a coward. You are not fooling anyone.
chansetwo 1 year ago
@chansetwo
With each subsequent post you add more
things that you say you originally said, but
didn't. Please lay out your ENTIRE
argument now.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
TheTrueLiberal: Lay out my entire argument? I made a statement. You said THAT statement is wrong. I'm now asking you for the fourth time to tell me how my statement is wrong. Or are you now going to admit the obvious: you have not ida what you are talking about.
chansetwo 1 year ago
@chansetwo
...
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
TheTrueLiberal ,
Exactly.
chansetwo 1 year ago
@chansetwo Deregulation of the financial system? The regulations set up by the government gave us the current crisis.
dcs672001 1 year ago
Take one more step to freedom and you get anarchy. It's a pity Milton Friedman seemed to think that only a government could perform functions of the law.
Esoparagon 2 years ago
@Esoparagon well...at least we have David D. friedman, an Anarcho-capitalist, his son.
Conneisseur2 1 year ago
Very revealing here that Donahue's prediction about "there will be 3 airlines" could not have turned out more wrong. Friedman is quite correct that competition in increased with deregulation.
biffster68 2 years ago 45
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is he constantly grinning and using this schoolboy humor. I just guess he stopped develop at an early childhood stage emotionally due to severe trauma.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
A wild Milton Friedman appears!
Ad-hominem is ineffective!
Greg343 2 years ago
@hyperseauton Argumentum Ad Hominem and irrelevant
abrimestome 2 years ago
@SonnyTheWhiteDwarf
Can you believe he is 70 years old in this video!
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TimeWarp66, actually I CAN believe he is 70 years old in this video...
Evil is a timeless reality in human nature.
Milton Friedman is pure evil disguised as charming old man.
CapitalistCanibalism 2 years ago
Horrible attempt at trolling. Not even worth a score, you get an incomplete.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm not "trolling" I was simply making a comment about how Milton Friedman made it okay to foster the worst in human in human tendencies and make "greed" a concept that many people today now consider a virtue in and of itself.
If I'm being completely serious, sure I exaggerated a little bit, but the main point is that Friedman's ideas have been responsible for human misery all throughout the world.
Friedman comes off disturbingly charming. It's well known that the Free Market is a failure.
CapitalistCanibalism 2 years ago
Free markets are a rational measure, that's all: as to them failing, the answer is no; freedom just means getting rid of the controls that cause the bubbles.
Rationalism or logicism is different to psychologism.
I have no idea what system to implement when people say that the "free market" doesn't work.
All I can say is that the ideas this man puts forward haven't been given anything resembling a chance. Unlike marxism etc.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago 2
no, the "free market" is simply a theoretical construct. Due to the existential reality of the state (and many other values & allegiances important to human culture & civil society), the free-market is something that can never be realized outside of the halls of academia.
Applying theories to human society for real-life appication, whether free-market fundamentalism or orthodox Marxism, will always fail the theoretical construct as humans are more unpredictable than theories!
CapitalistCanibalism 2 years ago
@CapitalistCanibalism
I'm not sure why you demonize greed? Do you not have a certain level of personal greed? How do we regulate what's greedy and what is not? We have laws against fraudulent behavior, why do we need government to enforce a moral stance on greed?
VictoryCough 2 years ago
@VictoryCough Demonizing greed is haute coutre. Too bad few people these days, like yourself, have gotten a good education about the nature of economics and of humanity.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
Why come over to the Friedman board and voice a negative comment?
Why not outdo Friedman by developing a more complex mathematical system of the economy which is even closer to reality. Then I'll listen to you.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
@CapitalistCanibalism
I would think he was evil too if I hated
freedom and peace.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
I think libertarianism is becoming generally more accepted as I found his comment about car dealers caring more about selling cars more than they care about servicing cars rather disturbing. I think most Americans would recognize that its not an auto dealers job to service a car.
VictoryCough 2 years ago 4
the point was the car dealer selling you junk, when he is passing it off as the perfect automobile
killwhitey88d 2 years ago
Now adays Saftey is the most important feature in car sales, market. Car comericals always show moms obsessing over their babies in some dumb minivan
RobertGuido 2 years ago
Love Friedman's retort at around 7:43.
Slapinions 2 years ago
So Friedman doesn't want a law forcing someone to restrain their baby in a car but he does want a parent to go to jail if their baby gets hurt because it wasn't restrained? How is someone going to go to jail if there isn't a law in place preventing that?
thomasw78 2 years ago
No. Friedman doesn't want a law forcing the ADULT (= not the baby) to use restraints on himself. Because the adult can decide on his own as a free person how much safety he / she wants.
The responsibility for a baby that cannot assess the risk on its own is a completely different matter and a liability question as well as a moral question. Any parent should value the safety of the baby enough to use a safe car or leave the baby at home under supervision while using an unsafe car.
nomoreumma 2 years ago
It would probably be counted as negligence, so there would already be a law preventing it. I would disagree with Friedman though and support a law for restraining the baby itself, not just penalizing the consequences of not doing so after* an accident.
Shadyhunter04 2 years ago
You can't penalize someone for something if there's no law against it.
thomasw78 2 years ago
It would fall under manslaughter, just because there is no law specifically stating it is illegal to run a man over, doesn't mean it wasnt your fault through negligence.
keymaker2112 2 years ago
Well, there's no law, of which I am aware, that forbids parents from allowing their children to play atop skyscrapers; however, if a parent allowed his/her child to do so and the child fell to his/her death, I imagine he'd (Mr. Friedman) would also want the parents prosecuted for child endangerment. Imagine that, it is possible for someone to go to jail "for a law that doesn't exist." Thats because there are laws covering what Mr. Friedman was suggesting.
ObsieWobsie 2 years ago 2
You really think a parent would be prosecuted for allowing a child to fall from a high place? What about a baby that gets into a medicine cabinet and dies from swallowing pills. Would the parents be prosecuted for not putting locks on all the cabinets? And if a child gets sick and dies because the parent's don't go to the hospital in time should they be prosecuted for that too? How broadly are we supposed to interpret the law anyway?
thomasw78 2 years ago 2
Do I really think parents would be prosecuted for allowing their child to play atop a skyscraper, if their child fell to his/her death? Yes, of course. Look, the point you were intimating with your initial question was a poor one. Face facts, there does not have to be a law against not restraining a child in a car for a parent or guardian to be guilty of child endangerment in the case of a unrestrained child being killed in auto accident; Mr. Friendman's comments were not contradictory.
ObsieWobsie 2 years ago 2
I guess we should throw Eric Clapton in jail for allowing his kid to fall out the window.
thomasw78 2 years ago
Why? Would that would help you understand the point you intimated was a bad one, and speaks to your lack of understanding of basic reasoning and not to any contradiction on the part of Mr. Friedman?
ObsieWobsie 2 years ago
So now you don't want to throw someone in jail for neglect? You're really confusing.
thomasw78 2 years ago
You're really obtuse.
ObsieWobsie 2 years ago
I guess it would seem that way to a imbecile.
thomasw78 2 years ago
Your mom?
Idiot. lol
ObsieWobsie 2 years ago
That the best you can do. GOOD ONE DUMBASS
thomasw78 2 years ago
It was a good one, shit-for-brains. =)
ObsieWobsie 2 years ago
It was? lol you ARE an idiot
thomasw78 2 years ago
Just how do you manage to breathe with your head so far up your ass?
ObsieWobsie 2 years ago
@ObsieWobsie
*Dr. Friedman
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
He seemed so unpretentious; I doubt he would have considered be referred to as Mr. Friedman a slight of any kind. But yes, the late Dr. Friedman is due proper respect.
ObsieWobsie 2 years ago
I believe that we should sue gravity instead.
D0g63rt 2 years ago
I'm not anti-Seimitic but has anyone noticed that Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and Bernake are all American Jews? Just like Hollyood: Bette Midler, Steven Spielberg, Woody Allen, etc
Just an observation...
all028 2 years ago
wouldn't you consider friedman on the "outside" of the little washington circle
FCmagic01 2 years ago
I don't understand your comment...
all028 2 years ago
greenspan and bernacke were all about federal intervention. Friedman would do the opposite, that is why he worked in Chicago and not DC.
FCmagic01 2 years ago
There actually is another video on U Tube where milton talks about the great depression and the fed. reserve's mistakes. He mentions the federal reserve should've stepped in during the depression rather than do nothing....
all028 2 years ago
It means they're smart. Read Thomas Sowell's "Conquest and Culture." The culture is great and they've been highly educated people for centuries. So, therefore, they deserve it!
ZDWmiamicane 2 years ago
Jews are smart just like Chinese and Japanese.
all028 2 years ago
Man, the audience is just completely silent whenever Friedman gives an answer, and they applaud every question from Donahue. That's not how a talk show is supposed to work. lol
cataphracts123 2 years ago 10