The problem most commentators here make is that they neglect the fact that companies which commit crimes will be brought to justice like anyone else. Moreover they neglect the fact that it is nearly impossible for new companies to enter the pharma market because government sets so high entry barriers. Furthermore current pharma companies have no incentives to cure diseases bur rather prefer milking the taxpayer and government.
@GerhardSchroeder Companies who commit crimes will be brought to justice just like everyone else? Are you serious? Companies who commit serious crimes aren't even being brought to justice today, let alone under a anarcho-capitalist society. Furthermore, you are seriously saying that private companies have no incentive to cure diseases since the government is regulating? Like they would care more if the gov hadn't butted in? They only care about proft, just like all companies.
Infuriating. The GOVERNMENT was responsible for segregation rather than the petty cruelty of a culture that demanded that the laws for segregation be created in the first place. ARGH how can any self-respecting Conservative listen to this drivel and not see the utter LACK of humanity in his words?
people should be held responsible for the wrong that they do' what a STUPID concept. If thalidomide had been legal in the states tens of thousands of children would have died, too deformed to survive outside the womb, not to mention the tens of thousands more who would have lived lives of pain. What a corporate schill this little dick is.
@TheThissalantine If someone tells you to drink battery acid because it's good for your health, would you drink it? You are responsible for yourself. If government tells you that horse shit is good for your headache you probably would eat it. In a free society people don't believe every crap they are told and in a free society people are much more careful about what they take. In case someone makes wrong claims, it's governments role to bring him to justice, like it does with other crimes.
And what is the alternative to the government taking action here? That a board of directors only interested in the profit margin of their company, actually IGNORING certain health damaging effects of a drug, so they can make more money? This is double sided issue. The only reason this is "government forcing themselves on free people" for Friedman, is because he is one of the people who has reaped the benefits of capitalism, he wouldn't have been saying this if he was born in a 3rd world country.
@Faerlon123 I hope you are moved to a third world country in order to understand that it was free market and not government like in the Soviet Union which brought about wealth.
@GerhardSchroeder There is a difference between regulating the market and a Soviet style command economy dipshit. It's not black and white. The reason why people regulate the market is because they know, like most people (Not you obviously) that capitalism if left to work alone, totally unhinged will just develop into a capitalist facist society. If governments have no say or law in the market, the law will be the corporations and markets. Not exactly a better place to live.
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?!
The choice is not between regulation and non regulation. The choice is between public regulation and private regulation. Movies, music, books, and videogames are all regulated by PRIVATE companies. And since it is well known that the public sector is less efficient than the private sector the clear choice is private regulation.
yeah the government sanctioned segregation. but when african-americans protested those laws WHITE ppl who WERE NOT even IN THE GOVERNMENT retaliated. so even though the gov sanctioned it, It was not the only entity that supported it. racism in the u.s. was not just a political issue, it was a social issue bc that was just the general nature of whites (especially in the south). & that emphasis insinuates that the gov was the ONLY entity that would sanction those conditions when it WASN'T.
"a gradual development" hell naw. all this hypothetical reasoning is a joke and that's easy for him to say as a white male and the very reason so many libertarians are just that. as an african-american i appreciate the laws that were passed in the 60's because had it not "gradually declined" by the time i got here i would have lived under those conditions myself. if he were not caucasian and male he would not be talking like that and it's almost disgusting.
Just being the devil's advocate here: Prejudices aside, which is unavoidable even in this "once free" country, do you believe in capitalism? Where no government intervention helping big companies to club small businesses?
@DivinelyMochaDipped They were talking about Jim Crow, which were government policies. Friedman is saying the government should not have provided for segregation, if you disagree with him you're agreeing that it's ok to segregate, right?
As usual Friedman's logic is faulty. He's arguing from the other position of "think of all the good things held up"(Not often statistically), but he totally ignores all the bad deadly ones(more often statistically). He wants almost NO regulation.
@GoblinKnightLeo death, paralysis, loss of vision/hair/motor control, impotence, cancer, or generally any rationally life altering negative health condition solely caused by untested, unsafe, or unregulated drugs
@Bolgernow Errr... no one is supposing that either the pharmaceutical industry or the doctors will be giving their patients drugs, telling them they are safe when they are in reality untested. That would be fraud. What will it take for you people to realize that "unregulated" does not mean "anarchy"? Fraud is a crime and would continue to be even in an unregulated economy.
@GoblinKnightLeo you asked a question. I answered. You said "you people", "fraud is a crime". It is if you prove it. What about deaths until you do? Causalities of a drug war? No thanks. Thoughtful regulation works fine!
what will it take for "you people" to understand that just because the ppl can do what they want, when they want, because they want does not mean they will choose what's right? i don't think government should be allowed in every aspect of our lives but u can not just say "well because of regulations, companies do this" and ignore the fact that they are regulated bc if they aren't the people are unprotected and vulnerable to exploitation
You don't think the FDA Talks about these issues? Of course they do, milton doesn't really know what the FDA does, all he does is assume and give hypotheticals, but the real world isn't so black and white as Milton would like you to believe.
We've all been raised to believe that this country is free.... How do you define free? Like this? We are not free at all, we've just been domesticated. Were too comfortable. Its up to the young people to get involved and read the CONSTITUTION so that they KNOW how this country SHOULD be run!
@ftpwh33 Even if we get back to the constitution, it'll be back like this in another twenty or thirty years. The institution of government is the most dangerous and violent cancer mankind has ever known. It must be completely eliminated if we are to be truly free.
@jeffsandychelsea I couldn't agree more but im not sure humanity is ready for such a thing just yet. The way i see it is if we are going to have a government we need to make it the best we can and getting back to respecting the constitution is a good place to start.
I am a libertarian, but can someone explain to me cases where, like in China, they create products and do not do rigorous testing? E.g.,The product/drug may be "alright," but the testing wasn't extensive enough, and ends up hurting people, but there are people who will benefit hugely in the short run, but can get away with it in the long run when problems slowly start coming up?
Even if it the drug injures you and you can class action, those people have already, let's say, gone blind. Help!
@onixz100 the people here in the Western world are not communist. We interact like never before with technology that allows us to communicate at light speed. You can either accept that the government do it for you.... or trust in yourself to trust other peoples shared experience. The choice is yours. It's all of ours. To be free in a free society one must alway understand that they must LEARN to take care of themselves.
I guess the people who hype the whole thalidomide issue would rather ignore the nearly hundred thousand or so who died because the FDA delayed the entry of timolol.
When the interviewer at like 2:40 was saying if a pharmacy produced a bad drug or something that got you ill or something....you could actually sue the pharmacy?
I thought if you took a drug that wasnt regulated by the FSA, in this hypothetical situation, you could only blame yourself.
Well Im more for the abolishment of FDA than ever, especially if pharmacies can be held accountable
If not the FDA then we would need some other sort of 3rd party testing company.
Who would buy untested drugs? The desperate and the silly...
The market would get flooded with placebos that don't hurt or benefit people, just waste their time and money..It would be very hard to tell the good drugs from the placebos...
there isn't an economist out there who will argue that the FDA hasn't had a net negative impact on the welfare of the people. no one ever listens to economists though.
@Welsh77 That is my point as well. The FDA makes it so un-doable to innovate that the only companies willing to do it are large and amoral institutions that are connected enough to get through the regulations and trials. Before the FDA, there were dozens of small to large vaccine companies, now there are only 2 or 3 large ones. Why did they stay in the business while the others abandoned it? They can whether the storm through money and political connections. FDA breeds corruption and scarcity.
thats just a statement based on ideology/faith. You can't test it. It might have a net positive effect, we can't know. It's better to play on the safe side and have some sort of regulation and testing procedure instead of nothing at all, and ppl selling snake oil to make a profit.
If we eliminate regulations for oil companies here in the U.S., prices will go down at the pump. Allow companies to dump toxic oil waste into open pits (or) shoot it into the water table and the cost of disposal will be dramatically reduced.
And finally after years of experimentation with free-market capitalism that Friedman swore by, where are the corporations and companies running to? Who needed bailouts? Who said there is too little regulation?
Look at the facts, do your own research and don't believe in every word that every geezer who has ulterior motives would say.
When was that? The US has a mixed economy of Capitalism, Mercantilism, and Socialism. The fact that the banks needed bailouts is a perfect example of why we need to get rid of the government created monopoly of "money creation" through the Federal Reserve Act.
I suggest you do some research, and look at the facts, and try reading The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 for starters. The government created the "banking cartel" through national charters.
@mikemat3307 And who do you think would want the "banking cartel"? The government? It is in the interest of a few bankers who wants to profit from the nation's hard-earned money. The government is a mere puppet, a facade. I know full well that the government and businesses are on the same side. This however, is not the end of the story, in the 70s, another round of misinformation, repackaged as Neoliberalism, ensued, tightening further the belts of the poor, while loosening the rich's.
@alfredo11 There are other, more efficient and effective ways to "regulate" business than through government decree. Every law created by the government is a use of, or threat of physical force, or coercion. Capitalism is naturally regulated by the lure of wealth tempered with the fear of bankruptcy. If you continue to allow the government to "regulate" business, who is going to regulate the government? Democracy? Democracy is a failure. Government, is a failure.
@mikemat3307 Exactly, the government is a failure. Why? Because they, too, are controlled by big and powerful corporations. Governments and laws are not voted in by us, they're voted in, or rather chosen, by influential businesses whose power goes way beyond ours. Today's democracy does not hear the pleas of the people, but listens to the orders of the rich and powerful. Governments give to the rich not to the poor, exactly because it is the rich.
@alfredo11 - Yes, look at the facts, and figure out that it was government involvement in the economy that caused the banking crisis. Barney Frank and the whole idea that "everyone deserves to own a home" that led to people getting money they couldn't and wouldn't repay.
It was government interference that caused the Great Depression.
The free market is self-correcting, unless government interferes.
@mpc91 Yes true, the gov't is partially to blame. But what is really to blame is the belief that markets are rational and self-correcting, a belief that BOTH the businesses and gov't are heavily invested in. when most, if not all, evidence says it's not! The gov't and the businesses are in fact in this together, colluding, hence the minimal gov't regulation. The gov't should not serve only the needs of reificated individuals, companies and the like, but of the people, the nation as a whole.
@alfredo11 - Minimal government regulation? Where?
We have millions, literally millions of pages of government regulation. Our government and its agencies have regulations after regulations. We are overregulated.
Crony capitalism is a problem, but that caused by regulation that limits new competition.
And the market works, because it reacts naturally and organically to what people want. It does so far better than central planners and bureaucrats could ever do.
@mpc91 Those millions of pages worth of regulation is made "of the businesses, by the businesses, for the businesses". What I want are regulations that are in the interest of the nation, not a few select businesses. It is innocent people who are hurt in this great ponzi scheme that is Free-market capitalism.
@alfredo11 Again, there is no "free market Capitalism" here. Don't believe me? Try starting your own business. Try building something, somewhere. See how many fucking government agencies want to control what you do. Especially in a state like NJ. And please spare me the "I want to help the poor" crap. If you really want to help the poor, and Middle Class, you'll learn how monetary inflation is a redistribution of wealth from the poor and MC to the rich. Read "An Inflation Primer" by Palyi.
@mikemat3307 Yes, I want to help the poor! And I don't think its crap. True, inflation does serve to siphon money to the rich. But to focus on this, would be ignoring the bigger picture. What I mean is that this is a systemic problem of capitalism as a whole. I think its about time we move on. But move on to what? I don't know. But what I know is that we have suffered enough in this unfair system. What we have today can be improved, if we are not complacent nor lazy.
@alfredo11 Everything the government does helps some people, and hurts others. Who decides what is in the "best interest of the nation"? Politicians? Are you fucking kidding? People decide what is in their own best interests by the products and services that they buy. Do you want to regulate what people can have, and what they can't have? Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can, or can not have. Fuck you. How do you feel when someone tells you that you can not have something that you want?
@mikemat3307 Free-market capitalism, as a whole, is construed in the interest of powerful businesses, not in people like you and me. Just because a few listed companies are free to do what they want, doesn't imply that people like us have freedom. Indeed, the freedom of these big corporations trumps our freedom. Free-markets maybe necessary for the freedom and democracy, but it is not sufficient.
@alfredo11 This is the dumbest post I've ever seen. Businesses derive profits from its consumers. If it produces a product consumers don't want, no-one will buy it and they will lose money.
You are not talking about free-market capitalism. You are talking about corporatism, where government is in bed with corporations. In a free market, government has no influence over the market like they do today.
I love how the interviewer built up the drama with his "take a deep breath" line before asking about civil rights and the Jim Crow south -- Of course, Friedman destroys the entire line of reasoning within 60 seconds. --- "Those were all government laws!" What clarity.
@ConquerorWorm2012 Actually, that's the best point. No bus company wanted to exclude a major market like blacks. That was the local law, not anything they had a choice in.
Where do I sign up to be guinea pig for mass drug test, dying before a drug is tested, and have my children sue when I am dead. Sounds really logical. Lets get rid of the police.
It a drug is beneficial, there is a fast track clinical system at the FDA.
Milton, go learn something beyond some voodoo economics before you open your mouth.
We should not stop someone like Hitler, because we can later on join a class action law suit!!!
BTW, the pilots are nearly powerless in face of airlines.
Drug companies have a huge incentive (and a good track record) to preserve the safety of the public and do a vastly greater job accomplishing the task than the FDA that has something like an average 12 year apoproval process and admits to killing more than a million people every time they approve a drug that will "save 100,000 lives a year" after that process. Hitler was from another country, pilots have as much market power as they need and Milton's free market economics has been vindicated.
1) Companies don't have incentive to put bad drugs on the market. Even though the FDA is a noble cause, there is plenty of evidence that they've done harm by delaying the approval of good drugs. Most pharm companies have a very good track record as well.
2) Nazi reference, you lose the game.
3) That can be attributed to the unions and their gross regulations against new entrants into the profession. Look it up.
Where do I sign up to be guinea pig for mass drug test, dying before a drug is tested, and have my children sue when I am dead. Sounds really logical. Lets get rid of the police.
It a drug is beneficial, there is a fast track clinical system at the FDA.
Milton, go learn something beyond some voodoo economics before you open your mouth.
We should not stop someone like Hitler, because we can later on join a class action law suit!!!
Where do I sign up to be guinea pig for mass drug test, dying before a drug is tested, and have my children sue when I am dead. Sounds really logical. Lets get rid of the police.
It a drug is beneficial, there is a fast track clinical system at the FDA.
Milton, go learn something beyond some vodoo economics before you open your mouth.
We should not stop someone like Hitler, because we can later on join a class action law suit!!!
@Edgiebyte "Sounds really logical. Lets get rid of the police."
perfect example... ppl are accustomed to having the police protect them. BUT the sad fact is that the VAST majority of hte time police are too late & the 911 caller ends up dead.
u can't become dependant on the police for your safety. they're not your body guard. u have the 2nd amendment for that, and should protect YOURSELF.
they don't ned the FDA, if a drug is experimental then its made known to the patient to avoid a lawsuit
@Edgiebyte to create a parallel example of his argument on "no body hears about the lives lost becuz of delay"...
ppl are anti-gun becuz they believe the police r their only source of protection. but u never hear about the amount of crimes PREVENTED simply by showing a gun or shooting 1 round. why? becuz they go unreported.
same holds true with medicine.
& to add to that...cops are more likely to shoot & KILL the wrong person than an armed citizen.
self-interest won't work in the case of big pharma companies, if they produce a bad product and are about to go bankrupt they'll just get their friends in washington to create a bailout package. no?
@warwize That is a great argument for allowing companies to take loss. Friedman is talking about a Profit and Loss free market system. When you take away the power of politicians to grant favors, you allow the Loss part of that equation. The flip side of the argument that big pharma will get favors from politicians is that those same politicians will do the regulating. You have just established that we neither trust big pharma or their friends in WA DC so why give them more regulatory authority?
id rather they do real clinical trials and have very strict regulation before they use the general population as guinea pigs
I don't like the idea that a business can do a cost-benefit analysis based on expected legal costs. If they make enough profit, then they can factor in paying victim's settlements. It's happened before. Specially if a company produces multiple successful drugs, it can afford a few crappy ones. If the side effects appear years later, then it's even easier.
@warwize We already have that. Do strict trials already do what you say they would do, prevent the general public from being tested on and prevent large companies from doing cost/benefit analysis? Nope. So your answer, I suspect, is that the trials should be more strict. That is the problem with all regulation, they shrink the number of companies willing to go through them and they prevent innovation. If you let companies suffer the consequences of their own failures, than you do a lot more good
If a company isn't willing to freaken test their drugs before releasing them on the public they don't deserve to have a business. This is medicine, it should be regulated. Just like how doctors should have degrees and licenses and go through various tests so should pharmacologists and their drugs.
The 'market' can't regulate this through supply and demand. Nature isn't inherently fair. We have to regulate ourselves.
@warwize You are simply not getting what I am saying. We already have regulation, very heavy regulation. Yet, the goals of the regulation are not met. So your answer is more regulation, more effective regulation. I used to think as you do, but I came to the realization that the very regulation that you want to fairness and safety is neither fair nor safe.
I am not talking about supply and demand. I am talking about profit and loss. In thalidomide, the german makers took a loss, decimating them.
with worse regulation there would be more instances of thalidomide-style cases.
plus without proper testing, you force the victim to have to prove the drug is harmful instead of making the drug company prove it isn't. Which can be very tricky, costly, and time inefficient, specially if the victim is dying lol. Or if the side-effects aren't obvious and happen randomly...it puts the onus on the victims to hire lawyers and scientists to do the testing once they get sick,lol absurd
@warwize In the case of thalidomide, the 7 years of FDA forced testing never found the harmful effects. The only reason why we were supposedly saved by the FDA was that it was still being held up by the FDA by the time the Europeans were experiencing the harmful effect of the production of the drug. If the effects of thalidomide had been less obvious in Europe, the FDA would have approved it since it never uncovered those effects in its forced testing.
@warwize I can tell, from your generous use of the LOL abbreviation, that you think your points are so obvious that they are indisputable. Still, you keep giving examples of bad effects that regulation is supposed to fix, when we have those bad effects with regulation. Your argument is the absurd one. If a drug is good and it will save 1,000 people a year, then you 7-12 year FDA approvals process killed 7-12K people. Show drug that has harmed more people than helped.
@warwize You act as though prior to 1964, when the FDA got its testing authority, no drugs were ever tested. That is Absurd. Drug companies, small and large, have been testing in trials for as long as there have been drug companies. But, trials of a drug that only effect 10 people a year are going to be less rigorous than trials for 10,000 sufferers. The FDA mandates that you test on the 10,000 scale model, thus preventing drugs for the 10 people a year from ever even being pursued.
are we sure this guy wasnt an austrian? he sure sounds like one....either way i really enjoy listening to him on youtube he makes a lot of sense. i just found out about him, im a mises and rothbard austrian but this guy shares a lot of my views.
I absolutely revere the brain and the sprirt of Friedman. Truly a first class mind. He used reason and demonstrable logic as his sword and shield against well meant, mislead emotional knee-jerkers.. The master of clarity & insight.
on the civil rights thing wasnt it the states officials/people not the federal gov that imposed those laws.also wasnt the federal gov under lyndon jhonson i think that ended the jim crow laws and helped to end its way of life.
Seems to me that this line of reasoning leaves open the door for companies which would be willing to take the risk by not using all safety measures. Some of them might go under after some time, others might survive, because certain safety regulations might indeed be excessive and unnecessary. Who is willing to take that risk?
right i already new this. there should be private airports. The airline will do a much better job in protect the people than the government they have much more at stack.
If a planes goes down there is lawsuits and loss billions.
@SuperGuitarman69 Friedman is brilliant, indeed. And much like communists and marxists, is right most of time. In theory. He, does, however, much as most extreme of his opponents, does not account for realities of this worlds workings.
Both, the right and the left are always right in theory, but then... then USSR and the USA happen.
Anyone who believes that Friedman's philosophy does not favor Corporations over labor is blind. Hard to believe working folks support his corporate sponsered rhetoric.
i love Friedman. Liberals do their hardest to cherry pick the worst situations in order to slip him up (nevermind their own philosophy stands on a muddy swiss-cheese foundation), but the man's brillance and logic just shine even brighter.
Milton Friedman? The name should make those Democrats out there cringe. He is 100% right 100% of the time. You cannot debate him, you cannot win. He is simply pure common sense and logic. PERIOD! We need leaders who start each sentence when asked a question. "Well, Milton Friedmans says" , and if they did that. They'd have my vote forever!
@SuperGuitarman69 Friedman is brilliant, indeed. And much like communists and marxists, is right most of time. In theory. He, does, however, much as most extreme of his opponents, does not account for realities of this worlds workings.
Both, the right and the left are always right in theory, but then... then USSR and the USA happen.
Q: Aren't the executives running these companies *employees*, NOT capitalists? Don't their paypackets depend purely on short term profits? They can always move from company to company, and not care if (eg) their companys products result in death for customers.
@Andybaby A. Double negatives make you look like a dumbass. they're actually corporatist. And you're close to right if you had said corporatist.... they do depend on short term.. In a Capitalist system, they would be given incentive to stay with the same place, and none to move from one place to the other. Also long term would be the only way to think of profits.... It's ok, most socialists get the two confused.
I fully support the abuse of any and every single thing loophole in the law to gain 110% profit in ANYWAY you can manage. If would be selling you poison and using the money to sue and spread total disinformation about what was happening. You sheeple don't even understand how quickly you'd die in your paradise. I hope the people who support this at least acknowledge they aren't attempting to be progressive or socially responsible instead they want easy MONEY.
This guy is a nut case. People would be selling you toxic coke cola, meat that has rats shitting all over the place and sewage refined as cooking oil. Just like in another country which doesn't have a FDA. CHINA! Free? Only until people get enough money to start pulling the strings which they gain by killing you to hire lobbyist/pay off and spread disinformation through the media.
They figured out 30% of all cooking oil in china is refined sewage. Enjoy your FREEDOM to DIE my libertarian friend
@stylistic101 Tell me why any business that is trying to stay in business (let alone make a profit) wouldn't do everything in their power to make a product safe and effective? Why the hell do we need some bloated bureaucracy which has no clue what the consumer wants to impose restrictions on what we can or cannot obtain?
I think at the very least, it should be legal to market drugs not approved by the FDA, provided that the labels indicate that they have not been approved by the FDA and that the buyer uses the drug at his own risk.
To me it seems fairly obvious. As long as people are informed that a drug has not been approved by the FDA, it should be their own choice whether the risks outweigh the possible benefits. I personally would be leery of such a drug (unless it was endorsed by another ratings agency that I trusted), but a patient with aggressive cancer for whom it's their only chance of survival may have different priorities than mine.
people never seem to realize that we lose tons of lives when a great drug gets held up for 5 years and tons of people die when it could've saved tens of thousands of people. but nobody ever knows how many people would've been saved so its best for the FDA guys to be overly cautious. its opportunity cost but with lives being lost. Great job MF
There are drugs that have been allowed for years in foreign countries (including Europe) for years but are still being held up by the FDA. How many people have died, or are paying a fortune for less effective drugs thanks to the protection they get from competition by more effective drugs, simply because the FDA is nervous about approving them?
Other perverse incentives of an agency like FDA would include conflict of interest where officials are either former or future employees of the companies they "regulate," and the fact that even if an official fears a big stink over a mistake they have no legal liability for their decisions.
If there were a free market drug tester/regulator hired by either consumers or drug producers they would have contractual liability for their performance.
@kakahass yeah like hyperinflation; or that all people are perfectly rational; or recessions are self-correcting all the time; and the government shouldn't increase the money supply; deregulation doesn't cause booms and busts; I could go on and on go buy some gold
@girardbcp i did buy gold a few years back and now its double what I got it for...austrians don't say that people are perfectly rational...you are obviously misunderstanding austrian economic theory- they don't have to be perfectly rational, they just have to make decisions for themselves- the market rewards and punishes good and bad decisions accordingly. go read.
@kakahass I have read, and they do assume that. You obviously realize it's not true and silly to believe but they don't. You should read professional economists instead of the amateur, I mean austrian school
@girardbcp hahha "professional economists" I graduated with a degree in economics- do you know how many assumptions Keynesian economists make? go read some micro and macro economics and look at keynes and his theories before just rooting for a 'side'- the assumption that austrians make is not that everyone is rational but that everyone can make better choices for themselves- and if people were left to make their own choices the market is the best regulator. I'm not going to repeat this again.
@kakahass Right, like the big banks made the correct self-regulating choices. People reading this: do you believe that? You have to be unbelievably ignorant to be believe what you do. Way to have the blinders on. You're view that all people are angels is NOT true. Austrian economics are for suckers. I'm not going to repeat that again.
@girardbcp you obviously have no understanding of how the government created the housing bubble in the 1st place....talking to someone with your lack of knowledge is obviously futile.
@kakahass I know the myths your side has created: The gov't gave top-down directions to all banks to give loans to poor people, most of the subprime loans came from Fannie/Freddie mac and it this was assisted by the low central interest rate from the fed. It's flawed because the gov't didn't direct banks, they just didn't enforce regs; fannie came late (but still a factor); the fed rate did contribute; but then you leave out derivatives, CMBS, MBS, etc & the unreg. greed of the bankers.
Well that is comforting. I think the Austrians are the ones who are most down to earth, but also the doomsayers. I dont really know where the neoclassicals and the austrians disagree. I imagine it has to do with the gold standard.
no, he didn't explicitly state, that, but if you look at the charlie rose interview, he said US assets abroad could be offset by printing, which he warned would wipe out those gains, and he was right.
Completely regulated market= totalitarianism
Completely deregulated market = JUNGLE LAW
SuperThe86 14 hours ago
what about the EPA?
i mean, I would rather not take something proven to be bad, than take something that has not even been tested.
Deltrix4762 3 weeks ago
The problem most commentators here make is that they neglect the fact that companies which commit crimes will be brought to justice like anyone else. Moreover they neglect the fact that it is nearly impossible for new companies to enter the pharma market because government sets so high entry barriers. Furthermore current pharma companies have no incentives to cure diseases bur rather prefer milking the taxpayer and government.
GerhardSchroeder 3 weeks ago
@GerhardSchroeder Companies who commit crimes will be brought to justice just like everyone else? Are you serious? Companies who commit serious crimes aren't even being brought to justice today, let alone under a anarcho-capitalist society. Furthermore, you are seriously saying that private companies have no incentive to cure diseases since the government is regulating? Like they would care more if the gov hadn't butted in? They only care about proft, just like all companies.
Faerlon123 3 weeks ago
Infuriating. The GOVERNMENT was responsible for segregation rather than the petty cruelty of a culture that demanded that the laws for segregation be created in the first place. ARGH how can any self-respecting Conservative listen to this drivel and not see the utter LACK of humanity in his words?
TheThissalantine 4 weeks ago
@TheThissalantine OF COURSE government was responsible for segregation. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Jim Crow laws?
fzqlcs 4 weeks ago
people should be held responsible for the wrong that they do' what a STUPID concept. If thalidomide had been legal in the states tens of thousands of children would have died, too deformed to survive outside the womb, not to mention the tens of thousands more who would have lived lives of pain. What a corporate schill this little dick is.
TheThissalantine 4 weeks ago
@TheThissalantine If someone tells you to drink battery acid because it's good for your health, would you drink it? You are responsible for yourself. If government tells you that horse shit is good for your headache you probably would eat it. In a free society people don't believe every crap they are told and in a free society people are much more careful about what they take. In case someone makes wrong claims, it's governments role to bring him to justice, like it does with other crimes.
GerhardSchroeder 3 weeks ago
And what is the alternative to the government taking action here? That a board of directors only interested in the profit margin of their company, actually IGNORING certain health damaging effects of a drug, so they can make more money? This is double sided issue. The only reason this is "government forcing themselves on free people" for Friedman, is because he is one of the people who has reaped the benefits of capitalism, he wouldn't have been saying this if he was born in a 3rd world country.
Faerlon123 1 month ago
@Faerlon123 I hope you are moved to a third world country in order to understand that it was free market and not government like in the Soviet Union which brought about wealth.
GerhardSchroeder 3 weeks ago
@GerhardSchroeder There is a difference between regulating the market and a Soviet style command economy dipshit. It's not black and white. The reason why people regulate the market is because they know, like most people (Not you obviously) that capitalism if left to work alone, totally unhinged will just develop into a capitalist facist society. If governments have no say or law in the market, the law will be the corporations and markets. Not exactly a better place to live.
Faerlon123 3 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 "will just develop into a capitalist facist society." That's where I stopped reading.
GerhardSchroeder 3 weeks 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
The choice is not between regulation and non regulation. The choice is between public regulation and private regulation. Movies, music, books, and videogames are all regulated by PRIVATE companies. And since it is well known that the public sector is less efficient than the private sector the clear choice is private regulation.
mjmayerjr 3 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman - Understanding Economics
yeah the government sanctioned segregation. but when african-americans protested those laws WHITE ppl who WERE NOT even IN THE GOVERNMENT retaliated. so even though the gov sanctioned it, It was not the only entity that supported it. racism in the u.s. was not just a political issue, it was a social issue bc that was just the general nature of whites (especially in the south). & that emphasis insinuates that the gov was the ONLY entity that would sanction those conditions when it WASN'T.
DivinelyMochaDipped 3 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped
"a gradual development" hell naw. all this hypothetical reasoning is a joke and that's easy for him to say as a white male and the very reason so many libertarians are just that. as an african-american i appreciate the laws that were passed in the 60's because had it not "gradually declined" by the time i got here i would have lived under those conditions myself. if he were not caucasian and male he would not be talking like that and it's almost disgusting.
DivinelyMochaDipped 3 months ago
Just being the devil's advocate here: Prejudices aside, which is unavoidable even in this "once free" country, do you believe in capitalism? Where no government intervention helping big companies to club small businesses?
freecannabisplease 3 months ago
@freecannabisplease I believe that the free market and personal freedom are the path to prosperity.
ElJefer 2 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped They were talking about Jim Crow, which were government policies. Friedman is saying the government should not have provided for segregation, if you disagree with him you're agreeing that it's ok to segregate, right?
ElJefer 2 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped Friedman has never said the government caused racism
ElJefer 2 months ago
As usual Friedman's logic is faulty. He's arguing from the other position of "think of all the good things held up"(Not often statistically), but he totally ignores all the bad deadly ones(more often statistically). He wants almost NO regulation.
Bolgernow 3 months ago
@Bolgernow What are the bad things?
GoblinKnightLeo 3 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo death, paralysis, loss of vision/hair/motor control, impotence, cancer, or generally any rationally life altering negative health condition solely caused by untested, unsafe, or unregulated drugs
Bolgernow 3 months ago
@Bolgernow Errr... no one is supposing that either the pharmaceutical industry or the doctors will be giving their patients drugs, telling them they are safe when they are in reality untested. That would be fraud. What will it take for you people to realize that "unregulated" does not mean "anarchy"? Fraud is a crime and would continue to be even in an unregulated economy.
GoblinKnightLeo 3 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo you asked a question. I answered. You said "you people", "fraud is a crime". It is if you prove it. What about deaths until you do? Causalities of a drug war? No thanks. Thoughtful regulation works fine!
Bolgernow 3 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo
what will it take for "you people" to understand that just because the ppl can do what they want, when they want, because they want does not mean they will choose what's right? i don't think government should be allowed in every aspect of our lives but u can not just say "well because of regulations, companies do this" and ignore the fact that they are regulated bc if they aren't the people are unprotected and vulnerable to exploitation
DivinelyMochaDipped 3 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped Nobody claims they will do what's right, only that the government should not do what is not right
ElJefer 2 months ago
You don't think the FDA Talks about these issues? Of course they do, milton doesn't really know what the FDA does, all he does is assume and give hypotheticals, but the real world isn't so black and white as Milton would like you to believe.
wisebbq1 4 months ago
I have a sign in my front yard: "BEWARE OF FRIEDMAN!"
iluvpoliticzz 5 months ago 4
@iluvpoliticzz More like: "Beware of free men!"
freecannabisplease 2 months ago 7
We've all been raised to believe that this country is free.... How do you define free? Like this? We are not free at all, we've just been domesticated. Were too comfortable. Its up to the young people to get involved and read the CONSTITUTION so that they KNOW how this country SHOULD be run!
ftpwh33 5 months ago in playlist More videos from LibertyPen
@ftpwh33 Even if we get back to the constitution, it'll be back like this in another twenty or thirty years. The institution of government is the most dangerous and violent cancer mankind has ever known. It must be completely eliminated if we are to be truly free.
jeffsandychelsea 4 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea I couldn't agree more but im not sure humanity is ready for such a thing just yet. The way i see it is if we are going to have a government we need to make it the best we can and getting back to respecting the constitution is a good place to start.
ftpwh33 4 months ago
I am a libertarian, but can someone explain to me cases where, like in China, they create products and do not do rigorous testing? E.g.,The product/drug may be "alright," but the testing wasn't extensive enough, and ends up hurting people, but there are people who will benefit hugely in the short run, but can get away with it in the long run when problems slowly start coming up?
Even if it the drug injures you and you can class action, those people have already, let's say, gone blind. Help!
onixz100 5 months ago
@onixz100 the people here in the Western world are not communist. We interact like never before with technology that allows us to communicate at light speed. You can either accept that the government do it for you.... or trust in yourself to trust other peoples shared experience. The choice is yours. It's all of ours. To be free in a free society one must alway understand that they must LEARN to take care of themselves.
acidhead43 5 months ago
@acidhead43 Wow, clearly stated.. Happen to read your post while commenting on another.. I could not agree more..
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
I guess the people who hype the whole thalidomide issue would rather ignore the nearly hundred thousand or so who died because the FDA delayed the entry of timolol.
StateExempt 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
— Milton Friedman
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
Question.
When the interviewer at like 2:40 was saying if a pharmacy produced a bad drug or something that got you ill or something....you could actually sue the pharmacy?
I thought if you took a drug that wasnt regulated by the FSA, in this hypothetical situation, you could only blame yourself.
Well Im more for the abolishment of FDA than ever, especially if pharmacies can be held accountable
superlucci 7 months ago
If not the FDA then we would need some other sort of 3rd party testing company.
Who would buy untested drugs? The desperate and the silly...
The market would get flooded with placebos that don't hurt or benefit people, just waste their time and money..It would be very hard to tell the good drugs from the placebos...
warwize 7 months ago
there isn't an economist out there who will argue that the FDA hasn't had a net negative impact on the welfare of the people. no one ever listens to economists though.
Welsh77 7 months ago
@Welsh77 That is my point as well. The FDA makes it so un-doable to innovate that the only companies willing to do it are large and amoral institutions that are connected enough to get through the regulations and trials. Before the FDA, there were dozens of small to large vaccine companies, now there are only 2 or 3 large ones. Why did they stay in the business while the others abandoned it? They can whether the storm through money and political connections. FDA breeds corruption and scarcity.
gmillerguy 7 months ago
@Welsh77
thats just a statement based on ideology/faith. You can't test it. It might have a net positive effect, we can't know. It's better to play on the safe side and have some sort of regulation and testing procedure instead of nothing at all, and ppl selling snake oil to make a profit.
warwize 7 months ago
If we eliminate regulations for oil companies here in the U.S., prices will go down at the pump. Allow companies to dump toxic oil waste into open pits (or) shoot it into the water table and the cost of disposal will be dramatically reduced.
teapartyxpress 9 months ago
@teapartyxpress that is completely nuts
TheCrappyaccount 8 months ago
@teapartyxpress They wouldn't do that because the consumer would never buy from an oil company that used such measures.
ak47523 7 months ago
Government. Keep your dirty hands off Dark Pool Investing.
teapartyxpress 9 months ago
Are you fucking kidding me???? Milton Friedman is a joke!!!!! That is his argument??? Are you serious???
Healing6arts9 10 months ago
@Healing6arts9
You're so right. Your assertion based on 0 fact trumps that of a nobel prize winning economist.
TheShaniqua1992 10 months ago
@Healing6arts9 try to take some econ courses. o nevermind. you're gonna say that economics is the propaganda of the corporate pigs.
selymak 10 months ago
@selymak So an econ course at Berckly would be the same as at Hilsdale? or only state schools could educate us on economics?
davetileguy 10 months ago
And finally after years of experimentation with free-market capitalism that Friedman swore by, where are the corporations and companies running to? Who needed bailouts? Who said there is too little regulation?
Look at the facts, do your own research and don't believe in every word that every geezer who has ulterior motives would say.
alfredo11 11 months ago
@alfredo11
When was that? The US has a mixed economy of Capitalism, Mercantilism, and Socialism. The fact that the banks needed bailouts is a perfect example of why we need to get rid of the government created monopoly of "money creation" through the Federal Reserve Act.
I suggest you do some research, and look at the facts, and try reading The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 for starters. The government created the "banking cartel" through national charters.
mikemat3307 11 months ago
@mikemat3307 And who do you think would want the "banking cartel"? The government? It is in the interest of a few bankers who wants to profit from the nation's hard-earned money. The government is a mere puppet, a facade. I know full well that the government and businesses are on the same side. This however, is not the end of the story, in the 70s, another round of misinformation, repackaged as Neoliberalism, ensued, tightening further the belts of the poor, while loosening the rich's.
alfredo11 10 months ago
@alfredo11 There are other, more efficient and effective ways to "regulate" business than through government decree. Every law created by the government is a use of, or threat of physical force, or coercion. Capitalism is naturally regulated by the lure of wealth tempered with the fear of bankruptcy. If you continue to allow the government to "regulate" business, who is going to regulate the government? Democracy? Democracy is a failure. Government, is a failure.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
Comment removed
alfredo11 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 Exactly, the government is a failure. Why? Because they, too, are controlled by big and powerful corporations. Governments and laws are not voted in by us, they're voted in, or rather chosen, by influential businesses whose power goes way beyond ours. Today's democracy does not hear the pleas of the people, but listens to the orders of the rich and powerful. Governments give to the rich not to the poor, exactly because it is the rich.
alfredo11 10 months ago
@alfredo11 - Yes, look at the facts, and figure out that it was government involvement in the economy that caused the banking crisis. Barney Frank and the whole idea that "everyone deserves to own a home" that led to people getting money they couldn't and wouldn't repay.
It was government interference that caused the Great Depression.
The free market is self-correcting, unless government interferes.
mpc91 10 months ago
@mpc91 Yes true, the gov't is partially to blame. But what is really to blame is the belief that markets are rational and self-correcting, a belief that BOTH the businesses and gov't are heavily invested in. when most, if not all, evidence says it's not! The gov't and the businesses are in fact in this together, colluding, hence the minimal gov't regulation. The gov't should not serve only the needs of reificated individuals, companies and the like, but of the people, the nation as a whole.
alfredo11 10 months ago
@alfredo11 - Minimal government regulation? Where?
We have millions, literally millions of pages of government regulation. Our government and its agencies have regulations after regulations. We are overregulated.
Crony capitalism is a problem, but that caused by regulation that limits new competition.
And the market works, because it reacts naturally and organically to what people want. It does so far better than central planners and bureaucrats could ever do.
mpc91 10 months ago
@mpc91 Those millions of pages worth of regulation is made "of the businesses, by the businesses, for the businesses". What I want are regulations that are in the interest of the nation, not a few select businesses. It is innocent people who are hurt in this great ponzi scheme that is Free-market capitalism.
alfredo11 10 months ago
@alfredo11 Again, there is no "free market Capitalism" here. Don't believe me? Try starting your own business. Try building something, somewhere. See how many fucking government agencies want to control what you do. Especially in a state like NJ. And please spare me the "I want to help the poor" crap. If you really want to help the poor, and Middle Class, you'll learn how monetary inflation is a redistribution of wealth from the poor and MC to the rich. Read "An Inflation Primer" by Palyi.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 Yes, I want to help the poor! And I don't think its crap. True, inflation does serve to siphon money to the rich. But to focus on this, would be ignoring the bigger picture. What I mean is that this is a systemic problem of capitalism as a whole. I think its about time we move on. But move on to what? I don't know. But what I know is that we have suffered enough in this unfair system. What we have today can be improved, if we are not complacent nor lazy.
alfredo11 10 months ago
Comment removed
alfredo11 10 months ago
@alfredo11
Corporations have freedom, and so do you. Would you enter into any contract if you feel you will be worse off if you do? Obviously not.
TheShaniqua1992 10 months ago
@alfredo11 Everything the government does helps some people, and hurts others. Who decides what is in the "best interest of the nation"? Politicians? Are you fucking kidding? People decide what is in their own best interests by the products and services that they buy. Do you want to regulate what people can have, and what they can't have? Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can, or can not have. Fuck you. How do you feel when someone tells you that you can not have something that you want?
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 Free-market capitalism, as a whole, is construed in the interest of powerful businesses, not in people like you and me. Just because a few listed companies are free to do what they want, doesn't imply that people like us have freedom. Indeed, the freedom of these big corporations trumps our freedom. Free-markets maybe necessary for the freedom and democracy, but it is not sufficient.
alfredo11 10 months ago
@alfredo11 This is the dumbest post I've ever seen. Businesses derive profits from its consumers. If it produces a product consumers don't want, no-one will buy it and they will lose money.
You are not talking about free-market capitalism. You are talking about corporatism, where government is in bed with corporations. In a free market, government has no influence over the market like they do today.
TheShaniqua1992 10 months ago
Comment removed
alfredo11 10 months ago
I love how the interviewer built up the drama with his "take a deep breath" line before asking about civil rights and the Jim Crow south -- Of course, Friedman destroys the entire line of reasoning within 60 seconds. --- "Those were all government laws!" What clarity.
ConquerorWorm2012 11 months ago 9
@ConquerorWorm2012 Actually, that's the best point. No bus company wanted to exclude a major market like blacks. That was the local law, not anything they had a choice in.
GoblinKnightLeo 3 months ago
Where do I sign up to be guinea pig for mass drug test, dying before a drug is tested, and have my children sue when I am dead. Sounds really logical. Lets get rid of the police.
It a drug is beneficial, there is a fast track clinical system at the FDA.
Milton, go learn something beyond some voodoo economics before you open your mouth.
We should not stop someone like Hitler, because we can later on join a class action law suit!!!
BTW, the pilots are nearly powerless in face of airlines.
Edgiebyte 1 year ago
Drug companies have a huge incentive (and a good track record) to preserve the safety of the public and do a vastly greater job accomplishing the task than the FDA that has something like an average 12 year apoproval process and admits to killing more than a million people every time they approve a drug that will "save 100,000 lives a year" after that process. Hitler was from another country, pilots have as much market power as they need and Milton's free market economics has been vindicated.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Edgiebyte Oh where to begin.
1) Companies don't have incentive to put bad drugs on the market. Even though the FDA is a noble cause, there is plenty of evidence that they've done harm by delaying the approval of good drugs. Most pharm companies have a very good track record as well.
2) Nazi reference, you lose the game.
3) That can be attributed to the unions and their gross regulations against new entrants into the profession. Look it up.
jrsub3 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Where do I sign up to be guinea pig for mass drug test, dying before a drug is tested, and have my children sue when I am dead. Sounds really logical. Lets get rid of the police.
It a drug is beneficial, there is a fast track clinical system at the FDA.
Milton, go learn something beyond some voodoo economics before you open your mouth.
We should not stop someone like Hitler, because we can later on join a class action law suit!!!
Edgiebyte 1 year ago
Where do I sign up to be guinea pig for mass drug test, dying before a drug is tested, and have my children sue when I am dead. Sounds really logical. Lets get rid of the police.
It a drug is beneficial, there is a fast track clinical system at the FDA.
Milton, go learn something beyond some vodoo economics before you open your mouth.
We should not stop someone like Hitler, because we can later on join a class action law suit!!!
Edgiebyte 1 year ago
@Edgiebyte "Sounds really logical. Lets get rid of the police."
perfect example... ppl are accustomed to having the police protect them. BUT the sad fact is that the VAST majority of hte time police are too late & the 911 caller ends up dead.
u can't become dependant on the police for your safety. they're not your body guard. u have the 2nd amendment for that, and should protect YOURSELF.
they don't ned the FDA, if a drug is experimental then its made known to the patient to avoid a lawsuit
baezalejandro 11 months ago
@Edgiebyte to create a parallel example of his argument on "no body hears about the lives lost becuz of delay"...
ppl are anti-gun becuz they believe the police r their only source of protection. but u never hear about the amount of crimes PREVENTED simply by showing a gun or shooting 1 round. why? becuz they go unreported.
same holds true with medicine.
& to add to that...cops are more likely to shoot & KILL the wrong person than an armed citizen.
baezalejandro 11 months ago
"take an aspirin every other day to reduce the danger of heart attacks", i had no idea. is this true? does anyone practice this?
halladaylover 1 year ago
@halladaylover yep, its a blood thinner. take low dose for that purpose.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
self-interest won't work in the case of big pharma companies, if they produce a bad product and are about to go bankrupt they'll just get their friends in washington to create a bailout package. no?
warwize 1 year ago
@warwize That is a great argument for allowing companies to take loss. Friedman is talking about a Profit and Loss free market system. When you take away the power of politicians to grant favors, you allow the Loss part of that equation. The flip side of the argument that big pharma will get favors from politicians is that those same politicians will do the regulating. You have just established that we neither trust big pharma or their friends in WA DC so why give them more regulatory authority?
gmillerguy 1 year ago
@gmillerguy
id rather they do real clinical trials and have very strict regulation before they use the general population as guinea pigs
I don't like the idea that a business can do a cost-benefit analysis based on expected legal costs. If they make enough profit, then they can factor in paying victim's settlements. It's happened before. Specially if a company produces multiple successful drugs, it can afford a few crappy ones. If the side effects appear years later, then it's even easier.
warwize 1 year ago
@warwize We already have that. Do strict trials already do what you say they would do, prevent the general public from being tested on and prevent large companies from doing cost/benefit analysis? Nope. So your answer, I suspect, is that the trials should be more strict. That is the problem with all regulation, they shrink the number of companies willing to go through them and they prevent innovation. If you let companies suffer the consequences of their own failures, than you do a lot more good
gmillerguy 7 months ago
@gmillerguy
If a company isn't willing to freaken test their drugs before releasing them on the public they don't deserve to have a business. This is medicine, it should be regulated. Just like how doctors should have degrees and licenses and go through various tests so should pharmacologists and their drugs.
The 'market' can't regulate this through supply and demand. Nature isn't inherently fair. We have to regulate ourselves.
warwize 7 months ago
@warwize You are simply not getting what I am saying. We already have regulation, very heavy regulation. Yet, the goals of the regulation are not met. So your answer is more regulation, more effective regulation. I used to think as you do, but I came to the realization that the very regulation that you want to fairness and safety is neither fair nor safe.
I am not talking about supply and demand. I am talking about profit and loss. In thalidomide, the german makers took a loss, decimating them.
gmillerguy 7 months ago
@gmillerguy
How is regulation not safe in principle?
How is no-regulation more safe?
How is it better to take untested drugs that could be totally useless (waste of consumer money) or potentially toxic.
warwize 7 months ago
@gmillerguy
with worse regulation there would be more instances of thalidomide-style cases.
plus without proper testing, you force the victim to have to prove the drug is harmful instead of making the drug company prove it isn't. Which can be very tricky, costly, and time inefficient, specially if the victim is dying lol. Or if the side-effects aren't obvious and happen randomly...it puts the onus on the victims to hire lawyers and scientists to do the testing once they get sick,lol absurd
warwize 7 months ago
@warwize In the case of thalidomide, the 7 years of FDA forced testing never found the harmful effects. The only reason why we were supposedly saved by the FDA was that it was still being held up by the FDA by the time the Europeans were experiencing the harmful effect of the production of the drug. If the effects of thalidomide had been less obvious in Europe, the FDA would have approved it since it never uncovered those effects in its forced testing.
gmillerguy 7 months ago
@warwize I can tell, from your generous use of the LOL abbreviation, that you think your points are so obvious that they are indisputable. Still, you keep giving examples of bad effects that regulation is supposed to fix, when we have those bad effects with regulation. Your argument is the absurd one. If a drug is good and it will save 1,000 people a year, then you 7-12 year FDA approvals process killed 7-12K people. Show drug that has harmed more people than helped.
gmillerguy 7 months ago
@warwize You act as though prior to 1964, when the FDA got its testing authority, no drugs were ever tested. That is Absurd. Drug companies, small and large, have been testing in trials for as long as there have been drug companies. But, trials of a drug that only effect 10 people a year are going to be less rigorous than trials for 10,000 sufferers. The FDA mandates that you test on the 10,000 scale model, thus preventing drugs for the 10 people a year from ever even being pursued.
gmillerguy 7 months ago
@shadowgeyser Austrian Economics = Evolution ....Keynesian = Creationism... lol
ORACLE063 1 year ago
he is a jew thaths why he knows economics so well :P jk
unfad1ng 1 year ago
gives me the sensation that he is acting. he does not belive on what he is saying. really bad man
fedepistero06 1 year ago
@fedepistero06 I don't get that impression at all. Strange.
TheFerruccio 1 year ago
are we sure this guy wasnt an austrian? he sure sounds like one....either way i really enjoy listening to him on youtube he makes a lot of sense. i just found out about him, im a mises and rothbard austrian but this guy shares a lot of my views.
GreaselessAnkle 1 year ago
There was a smile on my face when Friedman pwned the last question.
Shimdidly 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser Doomsayers as in the lunatics on the street screaming how the end is nigh all the time...
i'm not here to defend the economic schools...
i just stated how ridiculous it sounds when one is praised to the sky,
Darusdei 1 year ago
Oh yes, the Austrian school of doomsayers. example? Peter Schiff, wrong more then once...
So there goes the accuracy for that... "proven right again and again" give me a break...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei my bad, we are right 90 % of the time, you are right 10% of the time.
sniped101 1 year ago
I absolutely revere the brain and the sprirt of Friedman. Truly a first class mind. He used reason and demonstrable logic as his sword and shield against well meant, mislead emotional knee-jerkers.. The master of clarity & insight.
OCDdetox 1 year ago
on the civil rights thing wasnt it the states officials/people not the federal gov that imposed those laws.also wasnt the federal gov under lyndon jhonson i think that ended the jim crow laws and helped to end its way of life.
cooks1234 1 year ago
What about gov't regulation when it comes to marriage? Why the hell is the gov't getting involved in that? Shouldn't that be left up to the churches?
The only reason I can think of is for tax reasons but that's about it.
all028 1 year ago
I can't believe he told Milton to take a breath after that last question. A middle schooler even knows that those were LAWS.
AroundSun 1 year ago
Seems to me that this line of reasoning leaves open the door for companies which would be willing to take the risk by not using all safety measures. Some of them might go under after some time, others might survive, because certain safety regulations might indeed be excessive and unnecessary. Who is willing to take that risk?
djbanizza 1 year ago
right i already new this. there should be private airports. The airline will do a much better job in protect the people than the government they have much more at stack.
If a planes goes down there is lawsuits and loss billions.
"Privatize airports" period.
andrewrosso 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Friedman is brilliant, indeed. And much like communists and marxists, is right most of time. In theory. He, does, however, much as most extreme of his opponents, does not account for realities of this worlds workings.
Both, the right and the left are always right in theory, but then... then USSR and the USA happen.
greenvertical 1 year ago
i need to find out where friedman is burried, and go shake his hand
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
Anyone who believes that Friedman's philosophy does not favor Corporations over labor is blind. Hard to believe working folks support his corporate sponsered rhetoric.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
This is the one time I disagree with Friedman. FDA must exist.
b1gr1g 1 year ago
i love Friedman. Liberals do their hardest to cherry pick the worst situations in order to slip him up (nevermind their own philosophy stands on a muddy swiss-cheese foundation), but the man's brillance and logic just shine even brighter.
tflst5 1 year ago
Milton Friedman? The name should make those Democrats out there cringe. He is 100% right 100% of the time. You cannot debate him, you cannot win. He is simply pure common sense and logic. PERIOD! We need leaders who start each sentence when asked a question. "Well, Milton Friedmans says" , and if they did that. They'd have my vote forever!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago 18
@SuperGuitarman69 Friedman is brilliant, indeed. And much like communists and marxists, is right most of time. In theory. He, does, however, much as most extreme of his opponents, does not account for realities of this worlds workings.
Both, the right and the left are always right in theory, but then... then USSR and the USA happen.
greenvertical 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I want to make that my facebook status or something!
phil8888 5 months ago
@phil8888 Lol, which part?
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
@phil8888 Lol, which part?
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phil8888 Lol, which part?
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
FRIEDMAN APPLIES TOO MUCH LOGIC, THE CLARITY OF HIS THOUGHT IS SO IMMENSE. BRILLIANT. AND HE SPOKE THIS WAY FOR DECADES.
pureaggression 1 year ago
friedman has an answer for everything
phrimburger 1 year ago
While I agree with Friedman, that people should be held responsible, that would never happen.
locomoncayo 1 year ago
This host is an idiot. Milton Friedman is great.
scott04la 1 year ago 2
Q: Aren't the executives running these companies *employees*, NOT capitalists? Don't their paypackets depend purely on short term profits? They can always move from company to company, and not care if (eg) their companys products result in death for customers.
Andybaby 1 year ago
@Andybaby A. Double negatives make you look like a dumbass. they're actually corporatist. And you're close to right if you had said corporatist.... they do depend on short term.. In a Capitalist system, they would be given incentive to stay with the same place, and none to move from one place to the other. Also long term would be the only way to think of profits.... It's ok, most socialists get the two confused.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
I fully support the abuse of any and every single thing loophole in the law to gain 110% profit in ANYWAY you can manage. If would be selling you poison and using the money to sue and spread total disinformation about what was happening. You sheeple don't even understand how quickly you'd die in your paradise. I hope the people who support this at least acknowledge they aren't attempting to be progressive or socially responsible instead they want easy MONEY.
stylistic101 1 year ago
This guy is a nut case. People would be selling you toxic coke cola, meat that has rats shitting all over the place and sewage refined as cooking oil. Just like in another country which doesn't have a FDA. CHINA! Free? Only until people get enough money to start pulling the strings which they gain by killing you to hire lobbyist/pay off and spread disinformation through the media.
They figured out 30% of all cooking oil in china is refined sewage. Enjoy your FREEDOM to DIE my libertarian friend
stylistic101 1 year ago
@stylistic101 Tell me why any business that is trying to stay in business (let alone make a profit) wouldn't do everything in their power to make a product safe and effective? Why the hell do we need some bloated bureaucracy which has no clue what the consumer wants to impose restrictions on what we can or cannot obtain?
Dabba23 1 year ago
@stylistic101 95% of city water is refined sewage, _dumb_ _ass_ lol
WickerVideos 1 year ago
that is pure genius right there. respect.
Kettyqi 1 year ago 7
I think at the very least, it should be legal to market drugs not approved by the FDA, provided that the labels indicate that they have not been approved by the FDA and that the buyer uses the drug at his own risk.
WAMill3R 2 years ago 21
@WAMill3R excellent point my friend
SuperGuitarman69 2 years ago
To me it seems fairly obvious. As long as people are informed that a drug has not been approved by the FDA, it should be their own choice whether the risks outweigh the possible benefits. I personally would be leery of such a drug (unless it was endorsed by another ratings agency that I trusted), but a patient with aggressive cancer for whom it's their only chance of survival may have different priorities than mine.
WAMill3R 2 years ago 16
@WAMill3R
The freedom of choise! :)
Gichnni 1 year ago
people never seem to realize that we lose tons of lives when a great drug gets held up for 5 years and tons of people die when it could've saved tens of thousands of people. but nobody ever knows how many people would've been saved so its best for the FDA guys to be overly cautious. its opportunity cost but with lives being lost. Great job MF
umrmecheman 2 years ago 6
There are drugs that have been allowed for years in foreign countries (including Europe) for years but are still being held up by the FDA. How many people have died, or are paying a fortune for less effective drugs thanks to the protection they get from competition by more effective drugs, simply because the FDA is nervous about approving them?
WAMill3R 2 years ago
I suppose you didn't listen to Friedman's explanation.
I would respond to you, but you clearly prefer to be angry and self-righteous then to arrive at the best answer for society.
gregvs3 2 years ago
Other perverse incentives of an agency like FDA would include conflict of interest where officials are either former or future employees of the companies they "regulate," and the fact that even if an official fears a big stink over a mistake they have no legal liability for their decisions.
If there were a free market drug tester/regulator hired by either consumers or drug producers they would have contractual liability for their performance.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
may i interprete Friedman's idea of no government regulation as
the market (society) is able to regulate themselves.
as Friedman said, if a pharmacy company screws up, they will be the one taking responsibility.
Personally, I think Friedman's idea's bottom line is that government is doing more harm than good.
rainzoro 2 years ago 2
Chicago School of Economics FTW
wohs145 2 years ago 2
Milton Friedman---the Hero Of Freedom.
northduc 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Milton the Monster of Chile.
StonewallDVGM 2 years ago
russia, el salvador, thailand...
mikezephyr 2 years ago
simple fact- austrians have been right again and again while everyone else have been always surprised with the consequences of their policies
kakahass 2 years ago 47
Correct.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
@kakahass yeah, that went great in World War I
imstillalive0331 1 year ago
@imstillalive0331 noob i was talking about austrian economics
kakahass 1 year ago
@kakahass remember, friedman wasn't an austrian. but nearly. lol
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@kakahass Friedman wasn't an Austrian. He was a school of Chicago supporter and supported a fiat currency.
airfalcon 11 months ago
@airfalcon Yeah, I believe the austrian economists were for the gold standard. But on a lot of economic issues, they are very similar
Chaaarge 11 months ago
@kakahass yeah like hyperinflation; or that all people are perfectly rational; or recessions are self-correcting all the time; and the government shouldn't increase the money supply; deregulation doesn't cause booms and busts; I could go on and on go buy some gold
girardbcp 9 months ago
@girardbcp i did buy gold a few years back and now its double what I got it for...austrians don't say that people are perfectly rational...you are obviously misunderstanding austrian economic theory- they don't have to be perfectly rational, they just have to make decisions for themselves- the market rewards and punishes good and bad decisions accordingly. go read.
kakahass 9 months ago
@kakahass I have read, and they do assume that. You obviously realize it's not true and silly to believe but they don't. You should read professional economists instead of the amateur, I mean austrian school
girardbcp 9 months ago
@girardbcp hahha "professional economists" I graduated with a degree in economics- do you know how many assumptions Keynesian economists make? go read some micro and macro economics and look at keynes and his theories before just rooting for a 'side'- the assumption that austrians make is not that everyone is rational but that everyone can make better choices for themselves- and if people were left to make their own choices the market is the best regulator. I'm not going to repeat this again.
kakahass 9 months ago
@kakahass Right, like the big banks made the correct self-regulating choices. People reading this: do you believe that? You have to be unbelievably ignorant to be believe what you do. Way to have the blinders on. You're view that all people are angels is NOT true. Austrian economics are for suckers. I'm not going to repeat that again.
girardbcp 9 months ago
@girardbcp you obviously have no understanding of how the government created the housing bubble in the 1st place....talking to someone with your lack of knowledge is obviously futile.
kakahass 9 months ago
@kakahass I know the myths your side has created: The gov't gave top-down directions to all banks to give loans to poor people, most of the subprime loans came from Fannie/Freddie mac and it this was assisted by the low central interest rate from the fed. It's flawed because the gov't didn't direct banks, they just didn't enforce regs; fannie came late (but still a factor); the fed rate did contribute; but then you leave out derivatives, CMBS, MBS, etc & the unreg. greed of the bankers.
girardbcp 9 months ago
@girardbcp love the way you call facts myths-- typical
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism whatever you say, lemming.
girardbcp 9 months ago
I love Milton Friedman, but I must disagree with his praises of Greenspan's Federal Reserve.
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago 6
Toward the end of his life, Friedman acknowledged he had been wrong about the Fed and essentially agreed with the Austrians.
fzqlcs 2 years ago 13
Well that is comforting. I think the Austrians are the ones who are most down to earth, but also the doomsayers. I dont really know where the neoclassicals and the austrians disagree. I imagine it has to do with the gold standard.
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
no, he didn't explicitly state, that, but if you look at the charlie rose interview, he said US assets abroad could be offset by printing, which he warned would wipe out those gains, and he was right.
quittingtomorrow 2 years ago
He would not praise him now if he were still alive.
aadov 2 years ago
so much wisdom.
mekaview 2 years ago
I always love your vids, LP, and this is no exception.
dudemanbearpig 2 years ago