Wow. I am always amazed by Milton Friedman's ability to make simple, cogent rejoinders that destroy such commonly held fallacies. "It [Medicare] is not a free good. It doesn't come from nowhere." That is something everyone forgets in debates about entitlements.
I'd go even further than Friedman and suggest that many of the direct recipients of medicare are worse off too. They are lured into dependency and laziness, which makes the quality of their life much worse.
In Japan for instance, old people work till a much older age and are also much happier. Insted of watching soap operas all day and developing alzheimer's, they have little shops and market stalls. They also look much younger than us in the west.
@LibertyDownUnder Japan has a culture of providing and caring for their parents at old age. We in the US basically abandon our parents. Its not a necessary good thing for old people to work at a very old age.
@cesar333, people in the US abandoning their parents is the result of the welfare state. It's just too tempting the refer your sick folks to the multi million dollar aged care industry than to do it yourself.
I haven't researched this too much, but I do believe families looked after their elders pre 1930.
But Roosevelt was a traitor. His NRA, pooled all big business together which in the end helped destroy the smaller businesses, created more inflation and more unemployement.
uncle miltie could handle 3 statists simultaneously, remember everything everyone has said previously, speak in simple, concise sentences and paragraphs.... a dynamo
the socialist, michael harrington, freely admits his socialism (more guts than today's socialists in dem clothing) raises his points and uncle miltie calmly points out the key : INDUSTRIALISTS AND GOVERNMENTS working in cooperation are the problem
there needs to be competition between the industrialists to keep them in check
2 people with 2 very different ideas being civil to one another. You just don't see that anymore these days. Now when 2 disagree they tend to get personal and just plain nasty that goes for both sides. Whether you agree with them or not you have to admit that they are civil to each other and allow each side to present their idea to the table .
It's fun and highly constructive to defend and attack ideas, even your own ideas, but to attack egos, people, or their credibility, says absolutely nothing about the validity of their ideas or agendas. That is the type of forum we need, because it is productive.
Just listen to the last 10 seconds of the clip and it's as relevant as ever. The entitlement programs are great but eventually at the rate they are going right now there are going to bankrupt the country. You either have to up the contribution rate, give less services, means test or some combination of the three.
@riser185 Isn't the fact that the current economic system, or more specifically the monetary system, can't sustain such a program as medicare long term simply an argument for economic reform so that a form of currency that truly serves the interests of its population can be created? Isn't that what this problem is really saying? One way or another we will eventually see a collapse from greed alone in some form regardless, so why not consider changing it before that happens?
Note the word that the first speaker uses: "use freedom positively", The Constitution establishes a negative or absence of Govt. interference. The term positive is the same word used by Obama and Totalists everywhere to mean active government interference in the private sector or in other words Totalism. Totalism is the umbrella descriptor for all the power addicted, slave mongering, death eating philosophies that have plagued mankind since time began. It is the creed of the thug.
Why is Milton Friedman always introduced as "controversial"? The last 100 years of U.S.' economic expansion owe entirely to America's full-scale embrace of his economic philosophy! ow ****ing polluted has our academic discourse become to where society regards voices of limited government and capitalism as "controversial"?
I think this "mainstream" view originates inside the detached, marxist academic establishment, where they feed off the hot air inside their ivory-tower echo chambers...
@PenguinProseMedia I don't think you know anything about economic history. During the 19th century and up to the second world war, the United States had in fact the highest tariffs in the world. That's the way it developed, by using large scale protectionism. In the same way as South-Korea, Singapore, Japan, England, France, Belgium etc. developed. For Friedman's achievements just look at Chile during the Pinochet years, when he basically managed the economy which turned out to be a disaster.
Wow. Ironic...it appears it is YOU who knows nothing of history:
Tariffs were barely there in early 19th century, & 1)late century growth hinged more on population expansion and capital accumulation than on productivity growth; 2) tariffs may have discouraged capital accumulation by raising the price of imported capital goods; and 3) productivity growth was most rapid in non-traded sectors (such as utilities and services) whose performance was not directly related to the tariffs...
...And 20th century? Wilson cut rates up until after the FIRST world war, and then during the Depression, Smoot-Hawley strangled the economy.
And Friedman did NOT manage the economy of Chile. He spent exactly 7 days there giving a series of lectures..one of which was entitled "The Fragility of Freedom," which precisely dealt with the threat to freedom from a centralized military government. After that, he had no connection with Chile government..and was never an adviser of any kind for it.
Just to state the facts. There were tariffs in the 19th century, in fact the history is interesting. In 1820 the UK had tariffs in the 45-55% range, at this time the US had tariffs between 35-45%. In 1875 the UK had abandoned protectionism having aquired hegemony in trade and lowered tariffs to 0%. The US had at this time highered tariffs to 40-50% to protect itself agains superior British goods. It was at this time that Friedrich List, the famous economist, condemned the British for kicking
away the ladder", with which it climbed up to the top. "Any nation" he proclaimed "which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths
of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering truth." We might think of some contemporary analogues to this condemnation. All of the developed countries developed trough using protectionism. Not just 19th century US, but also more recent examples, take say Japan which had a state-directed economy. Toyota for example was nurtured by the state for 3 decades before it finally became a internationally competitive manufacturer(now the biggest car maker in the world).
I was commenting on PenguinProseMedia's suggestion that the US developed trough monetaristic policies. I don't know every aspect of US development during the 19th century. I do know they had regulations on foreign investment, ownership requirements and high tariffs, which in my book is protectionism. I furthermore know that loads of other countries(in fact all of them) that are now rich did the same thing. One has to explain why they developed despite their wrong "economic philosophy".
And why India which was a victim of British free trade imperialism doesn't look anything like the US(despite it having a economy larger then Europe in 1700). We know why it happened, their industry was destroyed by British protectionism. Then as List described they kicked away the ladder forcing free-trade on them, which forced Indians into agriculture. The effects were horific with terrible famines and an even worse economy.
@Cosbibi Wait a second Chile's economic policies are a disaster? They are the healthiest and one of the wealthiest countries in Latin American and they have one of the lowest tariffs %2.5. While the rest of the continent has adopted the depedency theory and have adopted a lower standard of living. Argentina was once one of the 5-8 richest countries in the world then they adopted socialism.
@davidmesaaz I was mainly talking about the Pinochet era, which is highly relevant to this video because of Friedman's disciples role in wrecking the economy. From 1973 till 1982, they followed one of the most harsh neo-liberal programs ever tried. In 1982 the economy finally collapsed, GDP shrank 13% while unemployment reached 33%. Pinochet was forced to nationalise the banks and the economy managed to pull out of recession. Also note that even during Pinochet's privatization spree it's
@mikerotcherson I don't see how anything he said was relevant to the facts that I cited. I wasn't even talking about Pinochet's abyssmal human rights record, I was merely talking about Chile's economic policies.
@Cosbibi "For Friedman's achievements just look at Chile during the Pinochet years, when he basically managed the economy which turned out to be a disaster."
That is what you said. Which is complete bullshit.
@Cosbibi If it was such a disaster why has every Socialist President followed Pinochet's economic policies? That is an endorsement of his economic policies. The fact of the matter is that Chile has very low tariffs compared to the rest of Latin America and a higher standard of living. The most Neo-liberal policies ever tried are in Hong Kong not Chile. Hong Kong with no natural resources living in a very hostile climate they have a very high standard of living.
@davidmesaaz most efficient enterprise was the state-owned copper company CODELCO. After 1982 Chile reinstated capital controls and the era had better ecomic growth. However after the whole Pinochet era growth was worse then the preceding decades. Wages declined by 8% in real terms. hence inequality grew. Government debt grew by 300%. Corrupt privatization schemes prevaled. To sum up, it was a disaster.
@Cosbibi The US did have tariffs but 19th century protectionism would now be considered free trade. It was London that financed the rail roads and the internal improvements. But if higher tariffs equals higher standard of living. Why are the countries the most free market economies also the richest? When we raised tariffs during the 1930's the quality of life fell. When the Mashall Plan cut tariffs between the US and between European countries post war boom occurred.
It took Americans with jobs that were able to pay into Medicare but now where are the jobs, they went overseas. America is reaping what it sowed, no job no work, no work no paying into the Medicare. Part time jobs do not give health coverages. Yet they too pay into Medicare and Social Security. Until industries return or created America will keeps on sinking. Just create industries and no more taxes.
Wow. I am always amazed by Milton Friedman's ability to make simple, cogent rejoinders that destroy such commonly held fallacies. "It [Medicare] is not a free good. It doesn't come from nowhere." That is something everyone forgets in debates about entitlements.
SirTenenbaum 1 month ago
I would like dare anyone to try to get rid of medicare.
cesar333 2 months ago
Michael Harrington 'People over 65 today are freer because of Medicare'?
That is an oxymoron. You are FORCED to participate, and as Milton points out WHO PAYS?
EndTheFedRes 3 months ago
As a young man milton was a sharp dude
marquisevirginie 4 months ago
@marquisevirginie
You do realize he was almost 70 when this video was filmed...
WideWorldOfWisdom 4 months ago
@marquisevirginie
You do realize he was almost 70 when this video was filmed...
WideWorldOfWisdom 4 months ago
@WideWorldOfWisdom Yes I guess you are right, too much whisky , but a sharp dude nonetheless
marquisevirginie 4 months ago
Socialist dupes are always condescending assholes.
pretorious700 5 months ago
He was so right then. We are exactly where he said we would be.
socalmx18 6 months ago
Of course they'll get a raw deal. It's a Ponzi scheme. The people who get in sooner do better, people like me in their 20s will lose out big time.
s0beit 7 months ago
@s0beit We will loose big time because the people our parents age are quick to run off into wars without paying for it.
cesar333 2 months ago
I'd go even further than Friedman and suggest that many of the direct recipients of medicare are worse off too. They are lured into dependency and laziness, which makes the quality of their life much worse.
In Japan for instance, old people work till a much older age and are also much happier. Insted of watching soap operas all day and developing alzheimer's, they have little shops and market stalls. They also look much younger than us in the west.
LibertyDownUnder 7 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder Japan has a culture of providing and caring for their parents at old age. We in the US basically abandon our parents. Its not a necessary good thing for old people to work at a very old age.
cesar333 2 months ago
@cesar333, people in the US abandoning their parents is the result of the welfare state. It's just too tempting the refer your sick folks to the multi million dollar aged care industry than to do it yourself.
I haven't researched this too much, but I do believe families looked after their elders pre 1930.
LibertyDownUnder 2 months ago
But Roosevelt was a traitor. His NRA, pooled all big business together which in the end helped destroy the smaller businesses, created more inflation and more unemployement.
GProduct 7 months ago
pwned
mikeeatfood 8 months ago
uncle miltie could handle 3 statists simultaneously, remember everything everyone has said previously, speak in simple, concise sentences and paragraphs.... a dynamo
the socialist, michael harrington, freely admits his socialism (more guts than today's socialists in dem clothing) raises his points and uncle miltie calmly points out the key : INDUSTRIALISTS AND GOVERNMENTS working in cooperation are the problem
there needs to be competition between the industrialists to keep them in check
2dum2getsocialism 10 months ago
Wow this guy knew his stuff every prediction this guy made is coming true
cucucachu0000 10 months ago
pwnage in it's purest form
WiltTheStiltThirteen 11 months ago
Milton Friedman just shredded anyone who tried to debate him
jtizz711 1 year ago 14
2 people with 2 very different ideas being civil to one another. You just don't see that anymore these days. Now when 2 disagree they tend to get personal and just plain nasty that goes for both sides. Whether you agree with them or not you have to admit that they are civil to each other and allow each side to present their idea to the table .
ocpud2999 1 year ago
@ocpud2999 excellent observation.
It's fun and highly constructive to defend and attack ideas, even your own ideas, but to attack egos, people, or their credibility, says absolutely nothing about the validity of their ideas or agendas. That is the type of forum we need, because it is productive.
killer3596 10 months ago
Just listen to the last 10 seconds of the clip and it's as relevant as ever. The entitlement programs are great but eventually at the rate they are going right now there are going to bankrupt the country. You either have to up the contribution rate, give less services, means test or some combination of the three.
riser185 1 year ago 10
@riser185 Yes, you are exactly correct. People need to listen to people who were right then and in the past about now in the future.
GodandLiberty 1 year ago
@riser185 $50 tril+ in unfunded liabilities for SS/Medicare/Medicaid DAMN
Trimbler00 10 months ago
@riser185 Isn't the fact that the current economic system, or more specifically the monetary system, can't sustain such a program as medicare long term simply an argument for economic reform so that a form of currency that truly serves the interests of its population can be created? Isn't that what this problem is really saying? One way or another we will eventually see a collapse from greed alone in some form regardless, so why not consider changing it before that happens?
rhth79 5 months ago
@riser185 Entitlement programs are not great. It's no different than mugging for charity.
jaybreak 3 days ago
Note the word that the first speaker uses: "use freedom positively", The Constitution establishes a negative or absence of Govt. interference. The term positive is the same word used by Obama and Totalists everywhere to mean active government interference in the private sector or in other words Totalism. Totalism is the umbrella descriptor for all the power addicted, slave mongering, death eating philosophies that have plagued mankind since time began. It is the creed of the thug.
Leftfootleeds 2 years ago
Why is Milton Friedman always introduced as "controversial"? The last 100 years of U.S.' economic expansion owe entirely to America's full-scale embrace of his economic philosophy! ow ****ing polluted has our academic discourse become to where society regards voices of limited government and capitalism as "controversial"?
I think this "mainstream" view originates inside the detached, marxist academic establishment, where they feed off the hot air inside their ivory-tower echo chambers...
PenguinProseMedia 2 years ago
They call it controversial when it makes perfectly good sence. It is communist double speak
daizee106 2 years ago
@PenguinProseMedia I don't think you know anything about economic history. During the 19th century and up to the second world war, the United States had in fact the highest tariffs in the world. That's the way it developed, by using large scale protectionism. In the same way as South-Korea, Singapore, Japan, England, France, Belgium etc. developed. For Friedman's achievements just look at Chile during the Pinochet years, when he basically managed the economy which turned out to be a disaster.
Cosbibi 2 years ago
Wow. Ironic...it appears it is YOU who knows nothing of history:
Tariffs were barely there in early 19th century, & 1)late century growth hinged more on population expansion and capital accumulation than on productivity growth; 2) tariffs may have discouraged capital accumulation by raising the price of imported capital goods; and 3) productivity growth was most rapid in non-traded sectors (such as utilities and services) whose performance was not directly related to the tariffs...
mikerotcherson 2 years ago
...And 20th century? Wilson cut rates up until after the FIRST world war, and then during the Depression, Smoot-Hawley strangled the economy.
And Friedman did NOT manage the economy of Chile. He spent exactly 7 days there giving a series of lectures..one of which was entitled "The Fragility of Freedom," which precisely dealt with the threat to freedom from a centralized military government. After that, he had no connection with Chile government..and was never an adviser of any kind for it.
mikerotcherson 2 years ago
Just to state the facts. There were tariffs in the 19th century, in fact the history is interesting. In 1820 the UK had tariffs in the 45-55% range, at this time the US had tariffs between 35-45%. In 1875 the UK had abandoned protectionism having aquired hegemony in trade and lowered tariffs to 0%. The US had at this time highered tariffs to 40-50% to protect itself agains superior British goods. It was at this time that Friedrich List, the famous economist, condemned the British for kicking
Cosbibi 2 years ago
away the ladder", with which it climbed up to the top. "Any nation" he proclaimed "which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths
Cosbibi 2 years ago
of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering truth." We might think of some contemporary analogues to this condemnation. All of the developed countries developed trough using protectionism. Not just 19th century US, but also more recent examples, take say Japan which had a state-directed economy. Toyota for example was nurtured by the state for 3 decades before it finally became a internationally competitive manufacturer(now the biggest car maker in the world).
Cosbibi 2 years ago
Way to not address even half of what I said.
*eyeroll*
mikerotcherson 2 years ago
I was commenting on PenguinProseMedia's suggestion that the US developed trough monetaristic policies. I don't know every aspect of US development during the 19th century. I do know they had regulations on foreign investment, ownership requirements and high tariffs, which in my book is protectionism. I furthermore know that loads of other countries(in fact all of them) that are now rich did the same thing. One has to explain why they developed despite their wrong "economic philosophy".
Cosbibi 2 years ago
And why India which was a victim of British free trade imperialism doesn't look anything like the US(despite it having a economy larger then Europe in 1700). We know why it happened, their industry was destroyed by British protectionism. Then as List described they kicked away the ladder forcing free-trade on them, which forced Indians into agriculture. The effects were horific with terrible famines and an even worse economy.
Cosbibi 2 years ago
@Cosbibi Wait a second Chile's economic policies are a disaster? They are the healthiest and one of the wealthiest countries in Latin American and they have one of the lowest tariffs %2.5. While the rest of the continent has adopted the depedency theory and have adopted a lower standard of living. Argentina was once one of the 5-8 richest countries in the world then they adopted socialism.
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
@davidmesaaz I was mainly talking about the Pinochet era, which is highly relevant to this video because of Friedman's disciples role in wrecking the economy. From 1973 till 1982, they followed one of the most harsh neo-liberal programs ever tried. In 1982 the economy finally collapsed, GDP shrank 13% while unemployment reached 33%. Pinochet was forced to nationalise the banks and the economy managed to pull out of recession. Also note that even during Pinochet's privatization spree it's
Cosbibi 1 year ago
@Cosbibi Let's hear what Friedman himself has to say about Chile shall we?
watch?v=oJNxg3ZhXf8#t=7m25s
mikerotcherson 1 year ago
@mikerotcherson I don't see how anything he said was relevant to the facts that I cited. I wasn't even talking about Pinochet's abyssmal human rights record, I was merely talking about Chile's economic policies.
Cosbibi 1 year ago
@Cosbibi "For Friedman's achievements just look at Chile during the Pinochet years, when he basically managed the economy which turned out to be a disaster."
That is what you said. Which is complete bullshit.
mikerotcherson 1 year ago
@Cosbibi If it was such a disaster why has every Socialist President followed Pinochet's economic policies? That is an endorsement of his economic policies. The fact of the matter is that Chile has very low tariffs compared to the rest of Latin America and a higher standard of living. The most Neo-liberal policies ever tried are in Hong Kong not Chile. Hong Kong with no natural resources living in a very hostile climate they have a very high standard of living.
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
@davidmesaaz and singapore and new zealand.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@davidmesaaz most efficient enterprise was the state-owned copper company CODELCO. After 1982 Chile reinstated capital controls and the era had better ecomic growth. However after the whole Pinochet era growth was worse then the preceding decades. Wages declined by 8% in real terms. hence inequality grew. Government debt grew by 300%. Corrupt privatization schemes prevaled. To sum up, it was a disaster.
Cosbibi 1 year ago
@Cosbibi The US did have tariffs but 19th century protectionism would now be considered free trade. It was London that financed the rail roads and the internal improvements. But if higher tariffs equals higher standard of living. Why are the countries the most free market economies also the richest? When we raised tariffs during the 1930's the quality of life fell. When the Mashall Plan cut tariffs between the US and between European countries post war boom occurred.
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
It took Americans with jobs that were able to pay into Medicare but now where are the jobs, they went overseas. America is reaping what it sowed, no job no work, no work no paying into the Medicare. Part time jobs do not give health coverages. Yet they too pay into Medicare and Social Security. Until industries return or created America will keeps on sinking. Just create industries and no more taxes.
starlight1946 2 years ago