This whole case was one big smear campaign only 27 people died from rear end collision with this year and model. In total the Ford Pinto had one of the lowest casualty rates of compact cars for that year and it was ONLY in that year that this was a problem. Keep in mind the hundreds of deaths was NOT from REAR end collisions but from ALL collisions in general. I suggest everyone read "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case".
Could somebody explain what the difference is between Thoreau's quote and charity? Is Friedman trying to imply that even charity originates from the desire to fulfill one's self-interest?
@mikek241 The Thoreau quote only means that you should be skeptical about the intentions of people who claim to be doing something in the sole interest of others. It mostly refers to how certain lobbyists will try to implement government policies under the guise that it will be best for the nation when in reality it's only best for themselves. I don't really think it's referencing charity in the sense of donating to the Red Cross
@mikek241 My opinion is that Thoreau quote emphasizes not the homeowner's own morals on what is good (i.e.- donation to charity), but the man who comes to the house with his own design of doing good. That to me seems like the distinction.
What Friedman's generation of intellectuals lacked was the ability to apply discernment and wisdom within the context of a scientifically delineated system. And honestly, I can understand the impetus for his generation's worldview. Mankind had seen tremendous advancements in technology and quality of life since the industrial revolution. As a result, they venerated the scientific process above all else. Notice how he's willing to accept the virtues of freedom at the cost of mercy and humanity?
Lectures like this are funny, OF COURSE Friedman spanks this kid. The kid, is just a kid and enjoys the gifts of having an open mind and is willing to stand up and say something and learn. Friedman enjoys having the experience and education and knowledge to get his point across. No surprise how it turns out...
I think "Self-Interest and the Profit Motive" need to be seriously re-evaluated. The reality is that not every person works for themselves and for profit. Personally, I think the "profit motive" is what's destroying economies right now.. Working for profit is very specific. It's not for a common good, it's not for progress, it's not working to be responsible, it's not working for mankind. Profit is an excess of resources. They are working for excess. All excess taken to an extreme is bad.
Milton Freedman should be locked up and the key thrown away.....he is nothing but EVIL! He speaks utter tosh. The electric compnay is to blame for selling to the consumer at ridiculously high prices. We all own the electricity....damn Margaret Thatcher and damn Milton ugly mush.
No it doesnt belong to everyone, it belongs to those who have participated in making the electricity available.
The people who made investments in it, the architecht who decided how the power plant was to be built, the supervisor, the workers who built it, all the people who work with supervising the plant and creating electricity, the boss who supervises the workers, the economists who calculate the cost-effectivness, the lawyers for the firm and so on.
Where was "the invisible hand" when our economy went south? Years of Friedman-inspired deregulation, executed by father and son Bush, left financial markets in the hands of -- well -- invisible hands. Now off their regulatory leashes, financial institutions could create, invest in, and manipulate new, exotic, unstable, ungrounded, risky, but highly profitable, financial products -- mainly derivatives and securitization devices, such as subprime mortgage packages.
@rockyqw12 According to another video where this same kid and Milton talk about the Ford Pinto, yes it is Michael Moore. As you can see, he is now three times the man he was in his youth.
A classless, moneyless,STATELESS communities of humanity sharing the EARTH in cooperation for our common needs and well being . This world social harmony within and without can only come about through a democratic majority movement of NO LEADERS AND NO FOLLOWERS only consciousness of our common interest can shatter the false limits, the structrual exploitation and the dehumanisation of minority class rule. Monetary serfdom of humanity is evil
@FletchforFreedom ... NO it has not ... Fact: socialism is the most just system ... STOP using dictatorships connect by the exploiters to justify oppression. Distribution of profit among the workers is the best fair system.
@mba2ceo I am not responsible for your ignorance. Marxian exploitation theory is based on the labor theory of value which was obliterated 100 years before Marx penned his thesis and then by Bohm-Bawerk and Hayek and Mises and countless other economists (as opposed to Marx - a failed journalist). Fact: capitalism has raised the living standards of literally the entire planet while socialism has NEVER worked (hybrid economies leach off the working market parts). Do some actual research!
@mba2ceo Ypu are also old enough that you should know the difference between baseless emotional assertions (like "socialism is the most just system") and ACTUAL facts (which, apparently, you would not recognize). The fact is workers have benefited tremendously from the opportunities created by capitalists (who get faor remuneration for providing capital, tools, etc, and for assuming the risks), raising wages and living standards far beyond the hope of your "more just" pipe dream.
"Distribution of profit among the workers is the best fair system."
but the ppl wont work to the best of their abilities if they realize that the fruits of their labour will be distributed....it will lower their morale to work..
the guy in the orange has a lot of misdirected, buried rage, Friedman becomes his target. (Outrage = I must be in the right) In the face of rage, truth and reason are most often lost. Not here. Friedman is such a zen master to never fall in that pit with the kid and just stay focused and uneffected, ever congenial. He's old school civility - ability to not make everything personal, emotional where there's got to be a villian to crucify, someone to blame and punish to get justice.
What a projection on the kid? Are you sure about that? Milton Friedman, is from the Chicago school of economics; he's a wall streets darling, the pentagon love him too. Milton Friedman is like a Alan Greenspan, or a Paul Rubin type, or perhaps even a Clarence Thomas -weak social climbers -a compromised pawn to be played.
@bluegalactic I'm not projecting rage onto the kid. It's perception not projection. He genuinely is angry at the results of free trade, capitalism which Milton promotes. I've read Milton's books. He's not as much politcal as he's for personal freedom as long as pursuit does not harm anyone. Milton is anti any person or group taking away another's personal freedom. That's a good thing. Milton was against regulation. Greenspan was in the business of regulating. How could they be on the same page?
However, they don't see themselves that way because they are terribly delusional. If you wish to learn more of Milton freedman's work look at Pinochet's chile, or all of south America during the 70's and 80's. It's a disaster.
Chile was not a disaster during the reign of Pinochet..
Never before in the history of Chile have they had as high an amount of economic growth and reduction in poverty as during that period of time. Chile is now one of the richest countries in South America, is this really that much of a failure?
You must distinguish sharply beetween the murders commited by Pinochet and his economic policies
@ItsDonaldSutherland Are you f***ing kidding me? this man's answer to the electric bill case was that "other people" was to be blamed rather than the electricity providers finding an alternate solution. He is obviously a profit based individual (worst scum of the earth) like everyone else on wall street.
@TheOnlyFIshy Why is profit wrong in your view? Profits-what's left after expenses (rent, insurance, utility). Profits used to pay employees, invest in new equipment, research and development. If your business only breaks even then you don't eat, you don't progress and there is no incentive. Profit motive is why you have an X-box or I-pad to enjoy this Christmas or a car to go to Grandma's house (Ford perfected the unit & made it affordable). Non profits wouldn't do it. No incentive to do it.
@ItsDonaldSutherland Okay I think I made a typical outburst comment there. Recently I've changed my view on how every country in the world is run, this is because I watched Zeitgeist movies, which constantly backs up all the information it gives and from that point of view it's safe for me say that I don't support any major corporation/business in its aims for 'profit'.
And to be honest there isn't any point of debating about this as it's one of those topics that's too deep.
I loved the Zeitgeists, but why do you think that they never actually try to put in place their system? Why could a system that supposedly would work for 7 billion people not work for a hundred thousand?
The reason is simple. Individuals have information that society is not privy to. You cannot run things top down. The answer they always give is "computers" as if that is an answer. Profit represents value you have given to society (so long as it is gained by free exchange).
@Hayleyfire929 No it's not Michael Moore. That video was just giving the kid a derisive nickname. Like if I see a kid running around ordering the other kids to give him their toys I might joke he is a "young hitler"
@ItsDonaldSutherland totally agree. its just obnoxious when someone interprets disagreement as a personal insult. You just can't be Socratic with someone who thinks they belong to The Great and the Good, who must vanquish the Evil and Malevolent in order to further Progress.
@ItsDonaldSutherland Lots of people have rage over the profit system. It's destructive and harmful. If Friedman zealots were actually interested in seeking knowledge and not blindly following their leader they would see something very interesting in this debate. Friedman never refutes the kids point, he attempts to obfuscate the issue, and then finally concedes that Ford should have been liable to the courts and had a legal obligation to inform people it built a death car
@nerfmyaccount what Friedman does is try to understand the principles behind orange kid's argument... In this debate Ford responsability is irrelevant. Friedman says that there will always be a tradeoff between quality (risk) and price, and its the costumer responsability to know what he is buying. Every car is a death car, every car can be made a little safer but theres always a cost, and its your responsability to bear that cost.
@KalilYiuTubiu No Friedman very clearly (or perhaps not so clearly since his fans don't see it) concedes that Ford has a responsibility to inform people that they have decreased the safety of the car in order to increase their profits, and that the government has an obligation to enforce that condition. I understand that Friedman attempts a deflection with a philosophical question of mortal risk in daily life, but he ultimately has to agree with the kid and does, albeit sneakily
@nerfmyaccount He said what he said so quit interpreting information. He was clearly stating that people within themselves have a responsibility to choose. If a company makes a death trap, That's their loss because nobody will buy that car after that incident, and likely since that car will not sell they will remove it all together. Do you think people working in that company really benefit fully if their customers are dead and cannot buy anymore from them?
@tehatemachine did you watch the video? Ford had an internal memo where they calculated that they could save money in the long run by releasing a death trap car because the money from the lawsuits would be less than the money changing the car. And then Friedman says that the government HAS THE OBLIGATION AND IN FACT MUST ENFORCE a private business providing all important safety information about the car so the consumer can make an informed choice, and consequences if they dont!
@nerfmyaccount Of course I have, This was after the incident started though. And they really did mess up on their calculations because in the End they'd be loosing far more money than what they would be saving by being greedy assholes. Same thing happened to microsoft and their red ring of death. People where pissed and the people in charge of that area weren't being accountable so they started to loose customers. Then they HAD to recall all of them which cost them even more.
@nerfmyaccount they would of saved alot more money if they spent a little more in bette throughout or made components. Because cutting to many corners in the end does cost you far more than you initially planned to save by being to cheap. So the only way to not loose as much customers is to do the right damn thing in designing well engineered products that don't kill or crap out on the consumer.
@nerfmyaccount "because the money from the lawsuits would be less than the money changing the car" But again I mentioned that you'd still not be saving any money in the end by paying for lawsuits. You'd garnish a bad reputation for your business and people would spread the truth by word of mouth. Then afterwords you'd have a big decline in customers. That's what happened to General Motors and Chrysler. They made alot of cheap crap cars that nobody wanted to buy.
@tehatemachine I agree that capitalism would have punished Ford for making a death car, but this kid, and Milton Friedman, both agreed, even if they wouldn't want to admit it, and even if most people watching the video don't want to admit it, that Ford should never have been given the chance to kill, the government has a duty to force Ford to reveal the safety of their car to all potential customers, and if they do not, they are in violation of law and must face consequences.
@nerfmyaccount But even before the incident started, There was almost no way to tell if this could of happened or not. the engineers at ford that designed the components where not aware that their faulty design ended up turning cars into fireballs until after the even, In which people within the company have failed to take care of on their own. which is incidentally their loss to in recognition and in it's name.
@nerfmyaccount To me it really depends which law you violate, Personal liberty Definatly, But many other laws hidden in the books We could be breaking on a daily basis without knowing. but to the whole point like Milton said. You could be reducing your chances of death by simply not walking across the street. Anything really can kill us. An asteroid could smash right through my roof killing me and everyone else in my house. Life isn't fair.
@nerfmyaccount The only problem with those companies is if their execs are able to grab hold of and influence government decisions with tariffs and interfering with foreign competition. Which stumbles growth. Friedman in his others vids couldn't stress that enough to his viewers. So far nobody has listen TO THIS DAY. and alot of jobs are now shipped out of the U.S due to growing regulations and heavy city ordinances which burdens Even local businesses.
@nerfmyaccount if my customers would be dieing i would be loosing money and market fast as hell. People pullout whenever shit like that happens. But for the first exploding pinto. There was no way for us consumers to see that coming, Neither was it for the engineers who designed it wrong, Faults happen and bad things as a result contribute. it's like trying to predict an earthquake. but the aftershock makes people more aware and prepared next time in choosing their methods.
@aviwolfowitz10 No, that guy in the orange being Michael Moore is a big misnomer on the internet. Look at a picture of Moore in college and he doesn't look much like Moore in College. You'll also note this guy looks quite a bit better than Moore in college.
The NFL is a perfect example of socialism working. The Green Bay Packers, a team from the smallest market in the league were able to become World Champions via salary caps and revenue sharing.
Major League Baseball, however, is more comparable to what we have in America. The smaller market teams don't stand a chance, so it's usually the bigger market teams like the Boston Red Sox, the New York Yankees, and the Philadelphia Phillies who are perennial contenders.
The NFL is actually a great example of capitalism. It just shows you, a private organization in the pursuit of maximizing profits will do noble things if that noble act is efficient and effective. Notice the government did not mandate any salary cap and/or revenue sharing nor did the NFL mandate it for some altruistic reason. It did so to maintain the competitive nature of the league which will attract high ratings.
@stickyickyicky1203 There's a very great distinction. In sports the success of your franchise financially is not JUST based on the performance of your team. It's also based on the culture that you've created for the people that financially support you. Yankees fans will be Yankees fans no matter HOW poorly they do, because of that tradition. So to even think about comparing the internal workings of a sports league to a free market is fallacious to begin with.
@stickyickyicky1203 Strangely enough...the BoSox, Yankees and Phillies all never made or are out of the playoffs already. The Marlins have more World Series wins in the last two decades than the Phillies, Mets, and Cubs put together.
5:00 did he just say that the death of a man, is not a fault of the electric company which turned off the power to his house leading to his death, but its the fault of the mans neighbours and friends and in effect charity?
@DrIScream Not exactly. He is saying that blaming a large, non-human entity that cannot possibly know the circumstances for each and every customer shouldn't be blamed considering actual people; neighbors, friends and family can know and respond much better.
As far as being "obsessed" with money, well he was an economist after all and, strange as it may seem, money is an important part of commerce.
Is a utility company responsible for personally checking on the welfare of each and every customer who doesn't pay a bill? What would that cost, and how much would it add to everyone else's bill? Most utility companies now have a voluntary means, a form enclosed with the bill, for customers to provide them with a name of someone to contact before power is cut off. Most customers who suffer this fate have not told anyone; some are found with cash. Sad, but not unlike a suicide.
It reminds me of some college buddies who hate capitalism because it exploits the poor Chinese factory workers. But where were they before the factories came to China and the people were even poorer. And if the factories r shut down it they would go right back to the where they were. Yet China is transforming for the better as they open up to Capital. Chinese people fighting over limited amount of iPads. Who would of dreamed of that even 15 years ago. Libs have small brains big hearts.
this kids question (or lack of), is an exellent example or youthful arrogant ignorance. someone who would ruin everything for the sake of .?????????............. his youthful arrogant ignorance.
Come on man.. give him a chance.. How else is he gonna learn? I think its pretty ironic that you judge a person by only one dialogue and then call HIM arrogant. What if he was a planted question? If think its pretty arrogant to imply judgement here, so be the bigger man, and be patient. :)
You take away Self Interest and Profit Motive from an economy, you take away the incentive for people to go out and earn a living on their own so they can be independent as possible. Making them more dependent on government. The question is not whether there should be Self Interest and Profit Motive in an economy. But how it should be regulated and taxed.
..Continued....And what if I wanted to trade with my neighbor? would that be o.k? And what if we agreed on a indirect method of exchange such as gold or silver so as to further facilitate trade? What if 51% of the people in your " democratically run world society" vote to exterminate the other 48%? Or what if 99% vote to murder the remaining 1%? It is likely that a government which is willing to forcibly redistribute wealth would not have the morality necessary for perfect egalitarianism.
I don't think we can align with the absolute statement that everyone IS equal. One who wishes for murder is a psychopath. One who wishes for the treatment of everyone AS equal is a humanitarian. We cannot accept the principle that everyone is outright equal, We do accept that they do deserve equal treatment (Certain rights) under the conditions of promoting welfare. They do not however deserve an easy life at the cost of a stagnant society. So I believe you are partially right. :)
@andycox11 If socialism is a "moneyless, propertyless, democratically run world society", how do you compel those who might wish the retain their belongs, wealth, and means of production, to relinquish these without the use of government intervention (force)? Could a libertarian society call itself such without allowing a group residing therein to disavow private property, currency etc.? Could a socialist utopia remain so if it allowed me to keep my donkey and plow? ..........continued.....
Socialism is a moneyless, propertyless, democratically run world society in which there would be free access to all goods and services. It has NOTHING to do with state intervention in commodity production, the production of goods and services for sale (which exists in so-called communist countries (sic)). For more on this see andycox1953.webs.com) For more on socialism in the USA, look up WSPUS
We should have never borrowed from a bank. As a matter of fact, we don't need banks. We can print our own fucking money, interest free. See, the only thing backing money is the human condition. period. End of.
Anyone else think that Friedman dodges the bullet at 5:05 by blaming the man's neighbours and friends, rather than the man himself? According to Friedman's principles it is only the man who can be responsible. If the responsibility lay with the neighbours and friends, that too would encourage someone to not pay their bills as they will always be bailed out, same as if the Elec Co. paid for you. And if they are in a poor area, no one can help you pay your bills. Friedman ignores this too, no?
What kind of a sentimental moron do you have to be to believe that a corporation is responsible for charity? Charity should be the calling of his neighbors, friends and family. There's also a thin line between being charitable and being an enabler.
if the man is not paying his bill that's not only NOT PROFITABLE..................THAT'S OPERATING AT A LOSS.................no entity whether government or private CAN SURVIVE THAT WAY.......................this is not calculus.
This impudent arrogant little Bolshevik. This is the reason this country is in the shape it is in now. These people and their ilk are on Wall Street and in government. Even his shirt is red.................
@voiceofreason467 you're missing the point! indeed there are creative non-profit ways to provide services that are useful. However, you've been ignoring the improvements/benefits to society that profit-driven activities have brought us. You've to uds that charitable non-profit projects cannot carry the full burden of helping us decide how it is most efficient to use our resources: profit-motives inspire competition=greater efficiency+less wastage
@voiceofreason467 you define success merely as the initial public-funded/developed phases, e.g. small towns using tax money to set up internet access- at the end of the day sustainability of both the service and also the continual research and development has to be funded by someone, some person or group and that money is not going to drop from the sky! Take even Henry Ford's lowering of prices of cars, had it not been for profit innovations that build upon previously avail. tech'd not appear.
@voiceofreason467 Revision of my earlier comment: look inventions can be highly spontaneous and be of all sorts of motives NO ONE CLAIMS IT HAS TO BE ONLY PROFIT-DRIVEN MOTIVES WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING INVENTIONS! What we are saying but you can't seem to understand is that profit motive helps make such technologies accessible, more useful, more developed for the consumption and benefit of general population. Without profit motives u'd have no affordable internet access to type your shit. OWNED!
Profit does not only come in the shape of money. The open source developers you refer to would have gained huge satisfaction from their work, representing a net gain for them. The internet is an inevitable result of the interconnection of computers, themselves driven by the profit motive in companies like IBM.
Can you honestly say that you have taken a single action that did not benefit you in some way?
@voiceofreason467 Your example of the genetic weapon does not apply, as that is an instance of one party directly causing harm to another - the role of government is to prevent such instances from occuring. Thus, the government instigates laws and respective punishments for crimes such as murder, and also funds the police system, in order to catch people before they commit such horrible crimes.
The profit motive, when guided properly by effective regulation, is beneficial to everyone.
The 'old man in Ohio' in question should not have been so reliant on electricity for the susteinance of his life. He should have understood whether he could have afforded the bills and then made a decision. It seems he made the decision without the relevant considerations.
Thus it is not the responsibility of private enterprise to subsidise what is in this case, the foolishness of its clientele.
This man irons his underpants (or gets someone else to do it). Its people like him that should die a slow painful death to make up for the sins they have made throughout their life. GREEDY ignorant pig.
@vandentr, the theortical and philosophical justifications function best under the assumption of anarchy. Freidman's theories work just fine if they exist in a vaccum or on paper.
However, when you do apply his philosophy to the real world, you don't get such a nice outcome. Sure, you might get macroeconmic data that shows tons of "growth," however, there's also a myriad of other economic & social indiciators demonstrating many failures of the philosophy
@XXSY5XX@XXSY5XX in what way are his theories incorrect? Most of the empirical evidence has shown that government involvement in industries has inevitably led to a decrease in quality and an increase in cost. His so called philosophies have become the doctrine that the central bank has been following since the 1980s. And btw, friedman acknowledged there were market failures and government was necessary in certain areas so its wrong to consider him an anarchist.
@XXSY5XX what a idiot. He believe in the Profit and LOSS system. Which means your free to do what u want but then ONLY you should pay for your choices.
20 seconds into this video and I find myself calling bullshat on the questioner. He states "capitalism has treated you well," which is sort of like saying, "you don't have a sunburn, therefore the sun has treated you well," which simply defies logic and casts the subject as a hapless pawn of a financial system that operates on it's own, completely detached from the subject's own ability to make decisions for himself ("it's sunny today, I think I'll sit in the shade").
is it wrong to want to better life for yourself and your family?
and how does making a life better for yourself hurt someone else?
one of the mysteries of capitalism is the impossibility to ascertain all the reactions from a single action made in the interest of a single individual
and it is competition that provides the checks and counterpoints infinitely more effective than any regulation /mandate
People are naturally self interested and capitalism is a system in which the best way to serve yourself is to provide a product that other people want.
Capitalism is simply a system of economic freedom, and the actions of people under capitalism reflects their own morality.
Self-interest is the main motivation and aim of individuals, and capitalism simply allows people to pursue their individual interests without coercion.
"Capitalism" doesn't see people as anything. It doesn't "see" at all. People selling a product see people as buyers, people buying a product see people as sellers. Politicians see people as pawns.
Capitalism recognizes that health care is a service provided by free people, and you cannot be entitled to the work of other people without compensation. That would be slavery by definition.
I live in America and am happy, peaceful, and prosperous.
@atimetowork I guess without capitalism you would be able to rant your idiotic ideas on the youtube platform...Thats the only thing I see wrong with it.
@Nerfball6 oh really?? So, do you know that companies like Cargill, Monsanto, etc change the seeds of the plants?? They produce new types of seeds which you can use ONLY ONCE. The next harvest season, farmers should PURCHASE seeds again from them. I can't believe that governments allow this madness while 1 billion people were starving. And what's the next? Will they own our clean water?? Then air?? Greedy companies are turning world into hell and people like you call this as a freedom!!!
@atimetowork People are free to buy from seed from other companies, companies that supply seeds that you can use again and again. You mention gov, gov is trying to own the water and air with cap and trade regulations that will give more power to companies like GE. At this very moment gov cronies are putting small companies out of business through regulation, the regulations have a cost that only the multi-billion $ corps can afford. Through FREE MARKETS cargill/monosanto would have competition!
@quinnrasta You're right. The system is eliminating the smalls, it's only free for the strongers. And the motto of wild capitalism is "only the strong survive!" look, i defend free market too. it should be that way. but it is clear that there is something wrong when you take this freedom to the extreme level.
@atimetowork It is not freedom! When someone is "FORCED" to do something while another is not, that is not freedom. When "JOE'S A/C SUPPLY CO" is forced to contribute 35% of his earnings or have his business shut down and have Joe go to jail, while GE is not made to pay the same tax, that is not freedom.That is cronyism or corporate welfare. I would encourage congress to eliminate all business tax and make it an equal playing field for all, then small business could compete on the same level
@quinnrasta You pointed problem correctly but offered a ridiculous solution. If you eliminate all business tax, how will governments get revenue? how will they fund the infrastructure investments? how will they balance the budget? how will they pay the cheques of public servants? Don't you see what is going on in Greece? They were not paying business tax, too. The country is bankrupt.
@atimetowork Ridiculous solution?A business cannot pay taxes,only people can pay taxes,a business is a nonhuman entity. If Exxon is taxed who pays the tax? The shareholder(teachers pension fund) pays it, the employee pays it or the consumer pays it. Greece is a totally different , they evade taxes all together because they are so high.The Fair tax would work or just tax on an individual basis,not business.This would bring in more revenue,GE didnt pay corp taxes at all but their CEO payed taxes
is it wrong to want to better life for yourself and your family?
and how does making a life better for yourself hurt someone else?
one of the mysteries of capitalism is the impossibility to ascertain all the reactions from a single action made in the interest of a single individual
and it is competition that provides the checks and counterpoints infinitely more effective than any regulation or mandate
The monetary serfdom of immnese humanity shackled in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being expressing our creative energies in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF HUMNAITY
There's an interview in a "documentary" called the One Percent, and Milton Friedman is interviewed. The ONE time that Friedman FINALLY loses his patience in public, and self righteous luddites call him and "asshole," classy.
@gutterflood "Capitalism can and will only reward you for the work you do."
The bonus the Board of Directors gave themselves this year certainly reflects the proportion of work they did for the company, dontyathink? Individuals in third world countries working 14 hour days for survival wages, they clearly get payed equal to the value of their labor by our big friendly corporations, wouldn't you say? The stock market isn't rewarding people for just having lots of money in the first place, is it?
@InvertedFox What you are describing did not result due to capitalism but because of socialism. If the corps knew they wouldn't just get a bail-out for "the good of the workers" then they wouldn't give themselves huge raises because of how badly that hurts the business. People in the third world countries you describe are oppressed by there governments and there cohorts into working in those horrible conditions. What you described is very heart-touching, but you aren't describing capitalism.
@gutterflood You and I clearly have very different definitions of the global capitalist/corporatist system, and socialism. There really is no point in continuing at this point...
@gutterflood "If the corps knew they wouldn't just get a bail-out for "the good of the workers" then they wouldn't give themselves huge raises because of how badly that hurts the business"
This is possibly the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. By what magic were you able to dive into the minds of the "corp"? The blame socialism argument is old, man. Have you even researched what socialism is? It has nothing to do with the state, or welfare, or any of that shit...
@InvertedFox Lol you don't know what socialism is.
Also to say that all corporate heads WILL give themselves raises if we were fully capitalist is also "diving into the minds of them." You're a hypocrite who can't even see the irony of everything he says.
@gutterflood A hypocrite? How so? I have made an argument based on observation of current corporate institutions, not future "free market" ones. I am not against free markets, but I am also not against cooperatively structured businesses all functioning independent to the state. Personally I choose to work in a cooperative environment... I work better that way, with no boss to dictate how I do it. State and corporate institutions should be dismantled as are counter to our liberties.
@dirtypimpbird "Dumb, young, unproductive... etc." - You may disagree with his opinion, but his argument, in terms of logic, was nevertheless sound. His age has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You have no way to know how productive or unproductive he is. You have made no contribution to any sort to this discussion. Congratulations, you have successfully shown that you are incapable of evaluating multiple points of view without becoming childish, adhominem and prejudiced.
@InvertedFox---Please explain to me in specificity how his logic is sound. I want you to wow me with your critical thinking skills, but i bet you become a mute now.
@dirtypimpbird Jesus Christ man, seriously? You don't have to agree with him to see that he presents his argument logically. Logic in argument is definable as thus "a set of propositions (or premises), followed by a subsequent proposition (conclusion) which is implied by the rest".
He gives examples of corporations prioritizing profit over the safety/health of others (premise), he then proposes that this raises an issues of morality in respect to institutionalized profit mechanisms (conclusion).
@InvertedFox ---His "premise" is in fact a fallacy.. In Rhetoric always remember that HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE" .....You suffer from a serious case of Confirmation Bias, which is why you believe this kid's nonsense. Open your mind, and learn to think for yourself....
@dirtypimpbird Like I said, you may disagree with his argument...but the logic is nevertheless sound. I am really not interested in this "kid" or his "nonsense"; I am interested in the discussion. There are plenty of examples of corporate institutions acting callously in the name of profit. It is wrong to single Ford out, since it is just following the standard in corporate practice. True Ford helped the Nazi war effort, but so did MG and General Motors, so its not like you can single out Ford.,
@InvertedFox We finally agree. US companies should never have sold goods to the socialist scum - the Nazi. Good thing for all of us that capitalism killed these socialist scum. InvertedFox, you should spend more time learning, instead of making inane comments on you tube all day. You really are an ignorant loser with too much time on your hands. Learn to think before you type!!!!!!!
@dirtypimpbird Dude, you are an absolute simpleton. You can't even grasp the basic concepts of institutional analysis that I am proposing. Just stick to your absolutist delusions of us vs them, good vs evil, capitalism vs socialism... I'm sure it will work out great for you. Blah blah blah, I am a loser with too much time on my hands. You can't even grasp my argument so you go for the meaningless option of attacking me personally, as if I give a fuck. All the best mate, goodbye.
@InvertedFox I apologize that i am not weak and gullible like your dad. i know how to think for myself, which is why i dont need your opinions. Remember you sent me an e-mail message. i did not ask for it. you will need to find yourself before you will find the truth. Good luck on your journey.
Mate you are deteriorating into attacks on my parents!
Thinking for yourself is all about being able to properly absorb and analyse different perspectives objectively... without allowing your own ego to dictate your immediate reaction. Somehow I think this level of analysis is lacking in your argument. I did not "email" you, I responded to something you said in public... but whatever.
Chill blood, put the ego down. step back, observe. boom.
@dirtypimpbird You may be aware of the book "myth of the Ford Pinto case" by Gary T. Schwartz....
Here is a passage from said book: "The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs"
Of course this issue is not about Ford...it is about the nature of all corporate and state institutions.
@InvertedFox "encourage manufacturers to consider such trade-offs". So who doesn't consider such trade offs. I travel to work everyday, I am trading off safety at home for danger of commute in order to make income. Corporate institutes, government institutes and all people perform these same tradeoffs, everyday.
@daobagua Deciding to walk or take the bus is very different from the institutionalized decision making process that multi national corporations go through to determine policies that effect millions of non consensual individuals...
It is the same with the state. The state makes tradeoffs that effect millions of non consensual individuals.
The "tradeoffs" of an individual are very different from institutional "tradeoffs" and externalities. I really don't see the point of that argument...
@InvertedFox Deciding to drive increase the risk to others on the road. How is it different. The others on the road were not consential to your decision. Externalities are always created, by everyone. The importance is to have a system that allows for externalities to be addressed. A system like the free market place allows you to speak judicially or through your choice of purchase. Go ahead, try to sue a large government who also controls the judicial system.
This has been flagged as spam show
This whole case was one big smear campaign only 27 people died from rear end collision with this year and model. In total the Ford Pinto had one of the lowest casualty rates of compact cars for that year and it was ONLY in that year that this was a problem. Keep in mind the hundreds of deaths was NOT from REAR end collisions but from ALL collisions in general. I suggest everyone read "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case".
Xantheus07 1 week ago
Could somebody explain what the difference is between Thoreau's quote and charity? Is Friedman trying to imply that even charity originates from the desire to fulfill one's self-interest?
mikek241 1 week ago
@mikek241 The Thoreau quote only means that you should be skeptical about the intentions of people who claim to be doing something in the sole interest of others. It mostly refers to how certain lobbyists will try to implement government policies under the guise that it will be best for the nation when in reality it's only best for themselves. I don't really think it's referencing charity in the sense of donating to the Red Cross
johnsurs22 1 week ago
@johnsurs22 So how is the distinction made with regards to charity? If you want to donate, aren't you still acting for the sole interest of others..?
I mean, I agree with Friedman on Thoreau's quote, I just don't see how he distinguishing it form charity...
mikek241 1 week ago
@mikek241 I guess there really is not much of a distinction in the quote
johnsurs22 1 week ago
@mikek241 My opinion is that Thoreau quote emphasizes not the homeowner's own morals on what is good (i.e.- donation to charity), but the man who comes to the house with his own design of doing good. That to me seems like the distinction.
heavym3tal 1 week ago
@heavym3tal You nailed it, yeah, it wasn't apparently obvious, but that's exactly right. Thanks.
mikek241 6 days ago
@mikek241 your quite welcome =)
heavym3tal 6 days ago
god damn Ayn Rand, I mean, Milton Friedman.
Debordsbullet 1 month ago
I never knew Michael Moore was capable of being thin.
MAGMADIVER1 1 month ago in playlist conservatives ahoy!
This has been flagged as spam show
3:47 -- gold digger
jose1ole 2 months ago
Comment removed
jose1ole 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read "The Banker Who Saved His Soul" - it'll open your eyes.
Bobzeedo 2 months ago
What Friedman's generation of intellectuals lacked was the ability to apply discernment and wisdom within the context of a scientifically delineated system. And honestly, I can understand the impetus for his generation's worldview. Mankind had seen tremendous advancements in technology and quality of life since the industrial revolution. As a result, they venerated the scientific process above all else. Notice how he's willing to accept the virtues of freedom at the cost of mercy and humanity?
VeritasLux 3 months ago
Lectures like this are funny, OF COURSE Friedman spanks this kid. The kid, is just a kid and enjoys the gifts of having an open mind and is willing to stand up and say something and learn. Friedman enjoys having the experience and education and knowledge to get his point across. No surprise how it turns out...
ShinEmperor 3 months ago
I think "Self-Interest and the Profit Motive" need to be seriously re-evaluated. The reality is that not every person works for themselves and for profit. Personally, I think the "profit motive" is what's destroying economies right now.. Working for profit is very specific. It's not for a common good, it's not for progress, it's not working to be responsible, it's not working for mankind. Profit is an excess of resources. They are working for excess. All excess taken to an extreme is bad.
ShinEmperor 3 months ago
Milton Freedman should be locked up and the key thrown away.....he is nothing but EVIL! He speaks utter tosh. The electric compnay is to blame for selling to the consumer at ridiculously high prices. We all own the electricity....damn Margaret Thatcher and damn Milton ugly mush.
girlznguitarz 3 months ago
@girlznguitarz
No it doesnt belong to everyone, it belongs to those who have participated in making the electricity available.
The people who made investments in it, the architecht who decided how the power plant was to be built, the supervisor, the workers who built it, all the people who work with supervising the plant and creating electricity, the boss who supervises the workers, the economists who calculate the cost-effectivness, the lawyers for the firm and so on.
all these people won it
unfad1ng 3 months ago
Milton Freedman should be locked up and the key thrown away.....he is nothing but EVIL!
girlznguitarz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where was "the invisible hand" when our economy went south? Years of Friedman-inspired deregulation, executed by father and son Bush, left financial markets in the hands of -- well -- invisible hands. Now off their regulatory leashes, financial institutions could create, invest in, and manipulate new, exotic, unstable, ungrounded, risky, but highly profitable, financial products -- mainly derivatives and securitization devices, such as subprime mortgage packages.
OrganNLou 3 months ago
pause at 3:47
hendersonn11 3 months ago
Is that kid Michael Moore?
rockyqw12 3 months ago
@rockyqw12 According to another video where this same kid and Milton talk about the Ford Pinto, yes it is Michael Moore. As you can see, he is now three times the man he was in his youth.
harbar3000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
w w w (dot) ginmemberforum (dot) com
merculiv 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A classless, moneyless,STATELESS communities of humanity sharing the EARTH in cooperation for our common needs and well being . This world social harmony within and without can only come about through a democratic majority movement of NO LEADERS AND NO FOLLOWERS only consciousness of our common interest can shatter the false limits, the structrual exploitation and the dehumanisation of minority class rule. Monetary serfdom of humanity is evil
arzoyan 4 months ago
RICH self interest = exploitation
mba2ceo 5 months ago
@mba2ceo You were aware, of course, that the Marxian concept of "exploitation" has been repeatedly debunked, weren't you?
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman
@FletchforFreedom ... NO it has not ... Fact: socialism is the most just system ... STOP using dictatorships connect by the exploiters to justify oppression. Distribution of profit among the workers is the best fair system.
mba2ceo 5 months ago
@mba2ceo I am not responsible for your ignorance. Marxian exploitation theory is based on the labor theory of value which was obliterated 100 years before Marx penned his thesis and then by Bohm-Bawerk and Hayek and Mises and countless other economists (as opposed to Marx - a failed journalist). Fact: capitalism has raised the living standards of literally the entire planet while socialism has NEVER worked (hybrid economies leach off the working market parts). Do some actual research!
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@mba2ceo Ypu are also old enough that you should know the difference between baseless emotional assertions (like "socialism is the most just system") and ACTUAL facts (which, apparently, you would not recognize). The fact is workers have benefited tremendously from the opportunities created by capitalists (who get faor remuneration for providing capital, tools, etc, and for assuming the risks), raising wages and living standards far beyond the hope of your "more just" pipe dream.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@mba2ceo
"Distribution of profit among the workers is the best fair system."
but the ppl wont work to the best of their abilities if they realize that the fruits of their labour will be distributed....it will lower their morale to work..
koala8 4 months ago
@mba2ceo You can only exploit willing people. If you do it by force, then someone should call the cops and report them to the authorities.
zdrux 4 months ago
the guy in the orange has a lot of misdirected, buried rage, Friedman becomes his target. (Outrage = I must be in the right) In the face of rage, truth and reason are most often lost. Not here. Friedman is such a zen master to never fall in that pit with the kid and just stay focused and uneffected, ever congenial. He's old school civility - ability to not make everything personal, emotional where there's got to be a villian to crucify, someone to blame and punish to get justice.
ItsDonaldSutherland 5 months ago 28
@ItsDonaldSutherland
+1 for "old school civility"
seppsters 4 months ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland Believe it or not, the guy in the orange shirt is a young Michael Moore.
SARKEK 4 months ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland Man in orange is none other than young Michael Moore.
ismetdere 3 months ago
What a projection on the kid? Are you sure about that? Milton Friedman, is from the Chicago school of economics; he's a wall streets darling, the pentagon love him too. Milton Friedman is like a Alan Greenspan, or a Paul Rubin type, or perhaps even a Clarence Thomas -weak social climbers -a compromised pawn to be played.
bluegalactic 3 months ago
@bluegalactic I'm not projecting rage onto the kid. It's perception not projection. He genuinely is angry at the results of free trade, capitalism which Milton promotes. I've read Milton's books. He's not as much politcal as he's for personal freedom as long as pursuit does not harm anyone. Milton is anti any person or group taking away another's personal freedom. That's a good thing. Milton was against regulation. Greenspan was in the business of regulating. How could they be on the same page?
ItsDonaldSutherland 3 months ago
However, they don't see themselves that way because they are terribly delusional. If you wish to learn more of Milton freedman's work look at Pinochet's chile, or all of south America during the 70's and 80's. It's a disaster.
bluegalactic 3 months ago
@bluegalactic
Chile was not a disaster during the reign of Pinochet..
Never before in the history of Chile have they had as high an amount of economic growth and reduction in poverty as during that period of time. Chile is now one of the richest countries in South America, is this really that much of a failure?
You must distinguish sharply beetween the murders commited by Pinochet and his economic policies
unfad1ng 3 months ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland Are you f***ing kidding me? this man's answer to the electric bill case was that "other people" was to be blamed rather than the electricity providers finding an alternate solution. He is obviously a profit based individual (worst scum of the earth) like everyone else on wall street.
TheOnlyFIshy 2 months ago
@TheOnlyFIshy Why is profit wrong in your view? Profits-what's left after expenses (rent, insurance, utility). Profits used to pay employees, invest in new equipment, research and development. If your business only breaks even then you don't eat, you don't progress and there is no incentive. Profit motive is why you have an X-box or I-pad to enjoy this Christmas or a car to go to Grandma's house (Ford perfected the unit & made it affordable). Non profits wouldn't do it. No incentive to do it.
ItsDonaldSutherland 1 month ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland Okay I think I made a typical outburst comment there. Recently I've changed my view on how every country in the world is run, this is because I watched Zeitgeist movies, which constantly backs up all the information it gives and from that point of view it's safe for me say that I don't support any major corporation/business in its aims for 'profit'.
And to be honest there isn't any point of debating about this as it's one of those topics that's too deep.
TheOnlyFIshy 1 month ago
@TheOnlyFIshy
I loved the Zeitgeists, but why do you think that they never actually try to put in place their system? Why could a system that supposedly would work for 7 billion people not work for a hundred thousand?
The reason is simple. Individuals have information that society is not privy to. You cannot run things top down. The answer they always give is "computers" as if that is an answer. Profit represents value you have given to society (so long as it is gained by free exchange).
Keeban3 1 month ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland What's funny is that this kid is none other than Michael Moore!
hawkeyery 2 months ago
@hawkeyery Really?! I saw another video titled "Milton Friedman destroys a Young Michael Moore", but I had no idea it actually was o.O
Hayleyfire929 1 month ago
@Hayleyfire929 No it's not Michael Moore. That video was just giving the kid a derisive nickname. Like if I see a kid running around ordering the other kids to give him their toys I might joke he is a "young hitler"
nerfmyaccount 1 month ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland He's just a kid. People grow up.
testmark1 1 month ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland totally agree. its just obnoxious when someone interprets disagreement as a personal insult. You just can't be Socratic with someone who thinks they belong to The Great and the Good, who must vanquish the Evil and Malevolent in order to further Progress.
aldoreshgaramok 1 month ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland Lots of people have rage over the profit system. It's destructive and harmful. If Friedman zealots were actually interested in seeking knowledge and not blindly following their leader they would see something very interesting in this debate. Friedman never refutes the kids point, he attempts to obfuscate the issue, and then finally concedes that Ford should have been liable to the courts and had a legal obligation to inform people it built a death car
nerfmyaccount 1 month ago
@nerfmyaccount what Friedman does is try to understand the principles behind orange kid's argument... In this debate Ford responsability is irrelevant. Friedman says that there will always be a tradeoff between quality (risk) and price, and its the costumer responsability to know what he is buying. Every car is a death car, every car can be made a little safer but theres always a cost, and its your responsability to bear that cost.
KalilYiuTubiu 1 month ago
@KalilYiuTubiu No Friedman very clearly (or perhaps not so clearly since his fans don't see it) concedes that Ford has a responsibility to inform people that they have decreased the safety of the car in order to increase their profits, and that the government has an obligation to enforce that condition. I understand that Friedman attempts a deflection with a philosophical question of mortal risk in daily life, but he ultimately has to agree with the kid and does, albeit sneakily
nerfmyaccount 1 month ago
@nerfmyaccount He said what he said so quit interpreting information. He was clearly stating that people within themselves have a responsibility to choose. If a company makes a death trap, That's their loss because nobody will buy that car after that incident, and likely since that car will not sell they will remove it all together. Do you think people working in that company really benefit fully if their customers are dead and cannot buy anymore from them?
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
@tehatemachine did you watch the video? Ford had an internal memo where they calculated that they could save money in the long run by releasing a death trap car because the money from the lawsuits would be less than the money changing the car. And then Friedman says that the government HAS THE OBLIGATION AND IN FACT MUST ENFORCE a private business providing all important safety information about the car so the consumer can make an informed choice, and consequences if they dont!
nerfmyaccount 2 weeks ago
@nerfmyaccount Of course I have, This was after the incident started though. And they really did mess up on their calculations because in the End they'd be loosing far more money than what they would be saving by being greedy assholes. Same thing happened to microsoft and their red ring of death. People where pissed and the people in charge of that area weren't being accountable so they started to loose customers. Then they HAD to recall all of them which cost them even more.
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
@nerfmyaccount they would of saved alot more money if they spent a little more in bette throughout or made components. Because cutting to many corners in the end does cost you far more than you initially planned to save by being to cheap. So the only way to not loose as much customers is to do the right damn thing in designing well engineered products that don't kill or crap out on the consumer.
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
@nerfmyaccount "because the money from the lawsuits would be less than the money changing the car" But again I mentioned that you'd still not be saving any money in the end by paying for lawsuits. You'd garnish a bad reputation for your business and people would spread the truth by word of mouth. Then afterwords you'd have a big decline in customers. That's what happened to General Motors and Chrysler. They made alot of cheap crap cars that nobody wanted to buy.
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
@tehatemachine I agree that capitalism would have punished Ford for making a death car, but this kid, and Milton Friedman, both agreed, even if they wouldn't want to admit it, and even if most people watching the video don't want to admit it, that Ford should never have been given the chance to kill, the government has a duty to force Ford to reveal the safety of their car to all potential customers, and if they do not, they are in violation of law and must face consequences.
nerfmyaccount 2 weeks ago
@nerfmyaccount But even before the incident started, There was almost no way to tell if this could of happened or not. the engineers at ford that designed the components where not aware that their faulty design ended up turning cars into fireballs until after the even, In which people within the company have failed to take care of on their own. which is incidentally their loss to in recognition and in it's name.
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
@nerfmyaccount To me it really depends which law you violate, Personal liberty Definatly, But many other laws hidden in the books We could be breaking on a daily basis without knowing. but to the whole point like Milton said. You could be reducing your chances of death by simply not walking across the street. Anything really can kill us. An asteroid could smash right through my roof killing me and everyone else in my house. Life isn't fair.
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
@nerfmyaccount The only problem with those companies is if their execs are able to grab hold of and influence government decisions with tariffs and interfering with foreign competition. Which stumbles growth. Friedman in his others vids couldn't stress that enough to his viewers. So far nobody has listen TO THIS DAY. and alot of jobs are now shipped out of the U.S due to growing regulations and heavy city ordinances which burdens Even local businesses.
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
@nerfmyaccount if my customers would be dieing i would be loosing money and market fast as hell. People pullout whenever shit like that happens. But for the first exploding pinto. There was no way for us consumers to see that coming, Neither was it for the engineers who designed it wrong, Faults happen and bad things as a result contribute. it's like trying to predict an earthquake. but the aftershock makes people more aware and prepared next time in choosing their methods.
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
@ItsDonaldSutherland the guy in the orange is michael moore
aviwolfowitz10 3 weeks ago
whys the guy in orange so fuckin rude? by the way thanks for dressing up.
mnypwrrspkt 5 months ago 10
@mnypwrrspkt He's young Michael Moore
ismetdere 3 months ago
@mnypwrrspkt thats a young michael moore
aviwolfowitz10 3 weeks ago
@aviwolfowitz10 No, that guy in the orange being Michael Moore is a big misnomer on the internet. Look at a picture of Moore in college and he doesn't look much like Moore in College. You'll also note this guy looks quite a bit better than Moore in college.
ShamanMcLamie 3 weeks ago
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
The NFL is a perfect example of socialism working. The Green Bay Packers, a team from the smallest market in the league were able to become World Champions via salary caps and revenue sharing.
Major League Baseball, however, is more comparable to what we have in America. The smaller market teams don't stand a chance, so it's usually the bigger market teams like the Boston Red Sox, the New York Yankees, and the Philadelphia Phillies who are perennial contenders.
stickyickyicky1203 6 months ago
Comment removed
notwithoutmilk 6 months ago
The NFL is actually a great example of capitalism. It just shows you, a private organization in the pursuit of maximizing profits will do noble things if that noble act is efficient and effective. Notice the government did not mandate any salary cap and/or revenue sharing nor did the NFL mandate it for some altruistic reason. It did so to maintain the competitive nature of the league which will attract high ratings.
notwithoutmilk 6 months ago
@stickyickyicky1203 There's a very great distinction. In sports the success of your franchise financially is not JUST based on the performance of your team. It's also based on the culture that you've created for the people that financially support you. Yankees fans will be Yankees fans no matter HOW poorly they do, because of that tradition. So to even think about comparing the internal workings of a sports league to a free market is fallacious to begin with.
supahsekzy 5 months ago
@stickyickyicky1203 Strangely enough...the BoSox, Yankees and Phillies all never made or are out of the playoffs already. The Marlins have more World Series wins in the last two decades than the Phillies, Mets, and Cubs put together.
blumbino 3 months ago
I heard that this guy was Michael Moore. Anyone think that's true???
tatsumakisempyukaku 6 months ago
@tatsumakisempyukaku It's not true. It was a joke title at a different channel because this guy's arguments are much like Michael Moore's.
goingalt 6 months ago
5:00 did he just say that the death of a man, is not a fault of the electric company which turned off the power to his house leading to his death, but its the fault of the mans neighbours and friends and in effect charity?
fuck this guy he is soooooo obsessed with money
DrIScream 6 months ago
@DrIScream Not exactly. He is saying that blaming a large, non-human entity that cannot possibly know the circumstances for each and every customer shouldn't be blamed considering actual people; neighbors, friends and family can know and respond much better.
As far as being "obsessed" with money, well he was an economist after all and, strange as it may seem, money is an important part of commerce.
kev3d 6 months ago
@DrIScream
Is a utility company responsible for personally checking on the welfare of each and every customer who doesn't pay a bill? What would that cost, and how much would it add to everyone else's bill? Most utility companies now have a voluntary means, a form enclosed with the bill, for customers to provide them with a name of someone to contact before power is cut off. Most customers who suffer this fate have not told anyone; some are found with cash. Sad, but not unlike a suicide.
EconomicLiteracyNow 6 months ago
It reminds me of some college buddies who hate capitalism because it exploits the poor Chinese factory workers. But where were they before the factories came to China and the people were even poorer. And if the factories r shut down it they would go right back to the where they were. Yet China is transforming for the better as they open up to Capital. Chinese people fighting over limited amount of iPads. Who would of dreamed of that even 15 years ago. Libs have small brains big hearts.
DiNatalli 6 months ago in playlist Milton Freedman
i mICHAEL mOORE?
ALFTUBE50 6 months ago
@ALFTUBE50
Lol yes,.. I think that guy was a pretty pissed hippy.. But i'll give him the benefit of the doubt
fearfulmatrix 6 months ago
this kids question (or lack of), is an exellent example or youthful arrogant ignorance. someone who would ruin everything for the sake of .?????????............. his youthful arrogant ignorance.
basscataz 6 months ago
@basscataz
Come on man.. give him a chance.. How else is he gonna learn? I think its pretty ironic that you judge a person by only one dialogue and then call HIM arrogant. What if he was a planted question? If think its pretty arrogant to imply judgement here, so be the bigger man, and be patient. :)
fearfulmatrix 6 months ago
@fearfulmatrix The kid in the video is Michael Moore. 'nuff said
jeffiek 6 months ago
@jeffiek
Lol Yeah he's pretty extreme. But it's not like I can agree with Friedman on every situation.
fearfulmatrix 6 months ago
You take away Self Interest and Profit Motive from an economy, you take away the incentive for people to go out and earn a living on their own so they can be independent as possible. Making them more dependent on government. The question is not whether there should be Self Interest and Profit Motive in an economy. But how it should be regulated and taxed.
FRSFreeStateNow 6 months ago
..Continued....And what if I wanted to trade with my neighbor? would that be o.k? And what if we agreed on a indirect method of exchange such as gold or silver so as to further facilitate trade? What if 51% of the people in your " democratically run world society" vote to exterminate the other 48%? Or what if 99% vote to murder the remaining 1%? It is likely that a government which is willing to forcibly redistribute wealth would not have the morality necessary for perfect egalitarianism.
weavermama 6 months ago
@weavermama
I don't think we can align with the absolute statement that everyone IS equal. One who wishes for murder is a psychopath. One who wishes for the treatment of everyone AS equal is a humanitarian. We cannot accept the principle that everyone is outright equal, We do accept that they do deserve equal treatment (Certain rights) under the conditions of promoting welfare. They do not however deserve an easy life at the cost of a stagnant society. So I believe you are partially right. :)
fearfulmatrix 6 months ago
@andycox11 If socialism is a "moneyless, propertyless, democratically run world society", how do you compel those who might wish the retain their belongs, wealth, and means of production, to relinquish these without the use of government intervention (force)? Could a libertarian society call itself such without allowing a group residing therein to disavow private property, currency etc.? Could a socialist utopia remain so if it allowed me to keep my donkey and plow? ..........continued.....
weavermama 6 months ago
Socialism is a moneyless, propertyless, democratically run world society in which there would be free access to all goods and services. It has NOTHING to do with state intervention in commodity production, the production of goods and services for sale (which exists in so-called communist countries (sic)). For more on this see andycox1953.webs.com) For more on socialism in the USA, look up WSPUS
andycox11 6 months ago
FDR VERSION OF CAPITALISM WORKED ! GOP CAPITALISM IS A DISASTER !
kn9ioutom 6 months ago
We should have never borrowed from a bank. As a matter of fact, we don't need banks. We can print our own fucking money, interest free. See, the only thing backing money is the human condition. period. End of.
flirtwd 6 months ago
Anyone else think that Friedman dodges the bullet at 5:05 by blaming the man's neighbours and friends, rather than the man himself? According to Friedman's principles it is only the man who can be responsible. If the responsibility lay with the neighbours and friends, that too would encourage someone to not pay their bills as they will always be bailed out, same as if the Elec Co. paid for you. And if they are in a poor area, no one can help you pay your bills. Friedman ignores this too, no?
Vnam72 7 months ago
Stupid hippie socialist will ALWAYS be stupid socialist.
BusinessDK 7 months ago
What kind of a sentimental moron do you have to be to believe that a corporation is responsible for charity? Charity should be the calling of his neighbors, friends and family. There's also a thin line between being charitable and being an enabler.
bxjam85 7 months ago
if the man is not paying his bill that's not only NOT PROFITABLE..................THAT'S OPERATING AT A LOSS.................no entity whether government or private CAN SURVIVE THAT WAY.......................this is not calculus.
chriswhited71 7 months ago
Milton is amazing.
altimeer 7 months ago
This impudent arrogant little Bolshevik. This is the reason this country is in the shape it is in now. These people and their ilk are on Wall Street and in government. Even his shirt is red.................
Shenandoah58 7 months ago 7
1. Get a Milton Friedman
2. ????
3. Profit
SuperRegisteredUser 7 months ago
@voiceofreason467 you're missing the point! indeed there are creative non-profit ways to provide services that are useful. However, you've been ignoring the improvements/benefits to society that profit-driven activities have brought us. You've to uds that charitable non-profit projects cannot carry the full burden of helping us decide how it is most efficient to use our resources: profit-motives inspire competition=greater efficiency+less wastage
emoweixian 7 months ago
@voiceofreason467 you define success merely as the initial public-funded/developed phases, e.g. small towns using tax money to set up internet access- at the end of the day sustainability of both the service and also the continual research and development has to be funded by someone, some person or group and that money is not going to drop from the sky! Take even Henry Ford's lowering of prices of cars, had it not been for profit innovations that build upon previously avail. tech'd not appear.
emoweixian 7 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Revision of my earlier comment: look inventions can be highly spontaneous and be of all sorts of motives NO ONE CLAIMS IT HAS TO BE ONLY PROFIT-DRIVEN MOTIVES WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING INVENTIONS! What we are saying but you can't seem to understand is that profit motive helps make such technologies accessible, more useful, more developed for the consumption and benefit of general population. Without profit motives u'd have no affordable internet access to type your shit. OWNED!
emoweixian 7 months ago
Comment removed
emoweixian 7 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Why else do people commit any actions.
Profit does not only come in the shape of money. The open source developers you refer to would have gained huge satisfaction from their work, representing a net gain for them. The internet is an inevitable result of the interconnection of computers, themselves driven by the profit motive in companies like IBM.
Can you honestly say that you have taken a single action that did not benefit you in some way?
kitt998 7 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Your example of the genetic weapon does not apply, as that is an instance of one party directly causing harm to another - the role of government is to prevent such instances from occuring. Thus, the government instigates laws and respective punishments for crimes such as murder, and also funds the police system, in order to catch people before they commit such horrible crimes.
The profit motive, when guided properly by effective regulation, is beneficial to everyone.
kitt998 7 months ago
The 'old man in Ohio' in question should not have been so reliant on electricity for the susteinance of his life. He should have understood whether he could have afforded the bills and then made a decision. It seems he made the decision without the relevant considerations.
Thus it is not the responsibility of private enterprise to subsidise what is in this case, the foolishness of its clientele.
kitt998 8 months ago
This man irons his underpants (or gets someone else to do it). Its people like him that should die a slow painful death to make up for the sins they have made throughout their life. GREEDY ignorant pig.
djpecky 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are also free to leave at any time
DOCTORDANification 8 months ago
@vandentr, the theortical and philosophical justifications function best under the assumption of anarchy. Freidman's theories work just fine if they exist in a vaccum or on paper.
However, when you do apply his philosophy to the real world, you don't get such a nice outcome. Sure, you might get macroeconmic data that shows tons of "growth," however, there's also a myriad of other economic & social indiciators demonstrating many failures of the philosophy
XXSY5XX 8 months ago
@XXSY5XX @XXSY5XX in what way are his theories incorrect? Most of the empirical evidence has shown that government involvement in industries has inevitably led to a decrease in quality and an increase in cost. His so called philosophies have become the doctrine that the central bank has been following since the 1980s. And btw, friedman acknowledged there were market failures and government was necessary in certain areas so its wrong to consider him an anarchist.
TheSlothook 8 months ago
Oh yeah!
Letting everyone do whatever they want is great, Milton Friedman.
Nothing could possibly go wrong!
There's no such thing as Systemic Risk.
Anarchy is a GREAT way to run the economy!
XXSY5XX 8 months ago
@XXSY5XX what a idiot. He believe in the Profit and LOSS system. Which means your free to do what u want but then ONLY you should pay for your choices.
Xantheus07 8 months ago
@XXSY5XX You obviously know nothing of Friedman.
Nerfball6 7 months ago
20 seconds into this video and I find myself calling bullshat on the questioner. He states "capitalism has treated you well," which is sort of like saying, "you don't have a sunburn, therefore the sun has treated you well," which simply defies logic and casts the subject as a hapless pawn of a financial system that operates on it's own, completely detached from the subject's own ability to make decisions for himself ("it's sunny today, I think I'll sit in the shade").
HomelessOnline 8 months ago
haha Micheal moore gets pawned
the3AMgenius 9 months ago
Why does that kid look like he's gonna cry?
Zimnyification 9 months ago
@Zimnyification I would prob cry if I was debating the Milton....Maybe even piss myself.
bkl139 9 months ago
@bkl139 If you want to see a Fried-slap, read an excerpt from his exchange with Westmoreland. I would cry if I was that general.
Zimnyification 9 months ago
self interest is not the boogey man
is it bad to want shelter?
is it evil to want food/water?
is it wrong to want to better life for yourself and your family?
and how does making a life better for yourself hurt someone else?
one of the mysteries of capitalism is the impossibility to ascertain all the reactions from a single action made in the interest of a single individual
and it is competition that provides the checks and counterpoints infinitely more effective than any regulation /mandate
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
Comment removed
atimetowork 9 months ago
@atimetowork
People are naturally self interested and capitalism is a system in which the best way to serve yourself is to provide a product that other people want.
Capitalism is simply a system of economic freedom, and the actions of people under capitalism reflects their own morality.
Self-interest is the main motivation and aim of individuals, and capitalism simply allows people to pursue their individual interests without coercion.
thegillotine09 9 months ago
@thegillotine09 i'm generally agree with you. i defend free market economy but i'm against wild capitalism.
atimetowork 9 months ago
@atimetowork
"Capitalism" doesn't see people as anything. It doesn't "see" at all. People selling a product see people as buyers, people buying a product see people as sellers. Politicians see people as pawns.
Capitalism recognizes that health care is a service provided by free people, and you cannot be entitled to the work of other people without compensation. That would be slavery by definition.
I live in America and am happy, peaceful, and prosperous.
thegillotine09 9 months ago
@thegillotine09 Well said!
Nerfball6 7 months ago
@atimetowork I guess without capitalism you would be able to rant your idiotic ideas on the youtube platform...Thats the only thing I see wrong with it.
bkl139 9 months ago
@bkl139 you're so stupid.
atimetowork 9 months ago
@atimetowork Capitalism is freedom. It doesn't make anyone anything. If a person screws over someone, that is fault of that person, not capitalism.
Nerfball6 7 months ago
@Nerfball6 oh really?? So, do you know that companies like Cargill, Monsanto, etc change the seeds of the plants?? They produce new types of seeds which you can use ONLY ONCE. The next harvest season, farmers should PURCHASE seeds again from them. I can't believe that governments allow this madness while 1 billion people were starving. And what's the next? Will they own our clean water?? Then air?? Greedy companies are turning world into hell and people like you call this as a freedom!!!
atimetowork 7 months ago
@atimetowork People are free to buy from seed from other companies, companies that supply seeds that you can use again and again. You mention gov, gov is trying to own the water and air with cap and trade regulations that will give more power to companies like GE. At this very moment gov cronies are putting small companies out of business through regulation, the regulations have a cost that only the multi-billion $ corps can afford. Through FREE MARKETS cargill/monosanto would have competition!
quinnrasta 7 months ago
@quinnrasta You're right. The system is eliminating the smalls, it's only free for the strongers. And the motto of wild capitalism is "only the strong survive!" look, i defend free market too. it should be that way. but it is clear that there is something wrong when you take this freedom to the extreme level.
atimetowork 7 months ago
@atimetowork It is not freedom! When someone is "FORCED" to do something while another is not, that is not freedom. When "JOE'S A/C SUPPLY CO" is forced to contribute 35% of his earnings or have his business shut down and have Joe go to jail, while GE is not made to pay the same tax, that is not freedom.That is cronyism or corporate welfare. I would encourage congress to eliminate all business tax and make it an equal playing field for all, then small business could compete on the same level
quinnrasta 7 months ago
@quinnrasta You pointed problem correctly but offered a ridiculous solution. If you eliminate all business tax, how will governments get revenue? how will they fund the infrastructure investments? how will they balance the budget? how will they pay the cheques of public servants? Don't you see what is going on in Greece? They were not paying business tax, too. The country is bankrupt.
atimetowork 7 months ago
@atimetowork Ridiculous solution?A business cannot pay taxes,only people can pay taxes,a business is a nonhuman entity. If Exxon is taxed who pays the tax? The shareholder(teachers pension fund) pays it, the employee pays it or the consumer pays it. Greece is a totally different , they evade taxes all together because they are so high.The Fair tax would work or just tax on an individual basis,not business.This would bring in more revenue,GE didnt pay corp taxes at all but their CEO payed taxes
quinnrasta 7 months ago
self interest is not the boogey man
is it bad to want shelter?
is it evil to want food/water?
is it wrong to want to better life for yourself and your family?
and how does making a life better for yourself hurt someone else?
one of the mysteries of capitalism is the impossibility to ascertain all the reactions from a single action made in the interest of a single individual
and it is competition that provides the checks and counterpoints infinitely more effective than any regulation or mandate
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The monetary serfdom of immnese humanity shackled in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being expressing our creative energies in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF HUMNAITY
arzoyan 9 months ago
ya self interest will magically help society's problems....
uh?
MrBigEnchilada 9 months ago
I wonder what this kid is doing these days?
all028 9 months ago
@all028 He's getting overly fat off of capitalism while making movies tashing it. That kid is Michael Moore.
Nerfball6 7 months ago
Morons like this are a good argument against the rule of the majority, as much as I love democracy.
ScionAscendant 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IDIOTs like him vote for OBAMA.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 9 months ago
There's an interview in a "documentary" called the One Percent, and Milton Friedman is interviewed. The ONE time that Friedman FINALLY loses his patience in public, and self righteous luddites call him and "asshole," classy.
NoProbaloAmigo 9 months ago
this kid is so dumb. how would the corporation make a profit if they didn't do any good?
aaronelharar 9 months ago
@aaronelharar Can you believe that this kid is Michael Moore?
domenicsergi 9 months ago
@domenicsergi It is not Michael Moore.
bweazel 9 months ago
@aaronelharar your such and idiot, how about you take for example the Tobacco industry
mikizzle1 7 months ago
hÊy_ì_fÊél_sÔ_lonÈlY_tÔÐÂY
BibiyyAllenaia181 10 months ago
Fuck parasites, be a producer.
gutterflood 10 months ago
"Capitalism has treated you well"- bullshit. Capitalism treats no one well. Capitalism can and will only reward you for the work you do.
gutterflood 10 months ago
@gutterflood "Capitalism can and will only reward you for the work you do."
The bonus the Board of Directors gave themselves this year certainly reflects the proportion of work they did for the company, dontyathink? Individuals in third world countries working 14 hour days for survival wages, they clearly get payed equal to the value of their labor by our big friendly corporations, wouldn't you say? The stock market isn't rewarding people for just having lots of money in the first place, is it?
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox What you are describing did not result due to capitalism but because of socialism. If the corps knew they wouldn't just get a bail-out for "the good of the workers" then they wouldn't give themselves huge raises because of how badly that hurts the business. People in the third world countries you describe are oppressed by there governments and there cohorts into working in those horrible conditions. What you described is very heart-touching, but you aren't describing capitalism.
gutterflood 10 months ago
@gutterflood You and I clearly have very different definitions of the global capitalist/corporatist system, and socialism. There really is no point in continuing at this point...
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@gutterflood "If the corps knew they wouldn't just get a bail-out for "the good of the workers" then they wouldn't give themselves huge raises because of how badly that hurts the business"
This is possibly the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. By what magic were you able to dive into the minds of the "corp"? The blame socialism argument is old, man. Have you even researched what socialism is? It has nothing to do with the state, or welfare, or any of that shit...
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox Lol you don't know what socialism is.
Also to say that all corporate heads WILL give themselves raises if we were fully capitalist is also "diving into the minds of them." You're a hypocrite who can't even see the irony of everything he says.
gutterflood 10 months ago
@gutterflood A hypocrite? How so? I have made an argument based on observation of current corporate institutions, not future "free market" ones. I am not against free markets, but I am also not against cooperatively structured businesses all functioning independent to the state. Personally I choose to work in a cooperative environment... I work better that way, with no boss to dictate how I do it. State and corporate institutions should be dismantled as are counter to our liberties.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
You gotta love the kid's "Dipshit" voice.
DonEdwardVoiceovers 10 months ago
Dumb, young, unproductive liberal gets skooled! I am betting he still lives with his mommy, and in her basement, no less...
dirtypimpbird 10 months ago
@dirtypimpbird "Dumb, young, unproductive... etc." - You may disagree with his opinion, but his argument, in terms of logic, was nevertheless sound. His age has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You have no way to know how productive or unproductive he is. You have made no contribution to any sort to this discussion. Congratulations, you have successfully shown that you are incapable of evaluating multiple points of view without becoming childish, adhominem and prejudiced.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox---Please explain to me in specificity how his logic is sound. I want you to wow me with your critical thinking skills, but i bet you become a mute now.
dirtypimpbird 10 months ago
@dirtypimpbird Jesus Christ man, seriously? You don't have to agree with him to see that he presents his argument logically. Logic in argument is definable as thus "a set of propositions (or premises), followed by a subsequent proposition (conclusion) which is implied by the rest".
He gives examples of corporations prioritizing profit over the safety/health of others (premise), he then proposes that this raises an issues of morality in respect to institutionalized profit mechanisms (conclusion).
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox ---His "premise" is in fact a fallacy.. In Rhetoric always remember that HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE" .....You suffer from a serious case of Confirmation Bias, which is why you believe this kid's nonsense. Open your mind, and learn to think for yourself....
dirtypimpbird 10 months ago
@dirtypimpbird Like I said, you may disagree with his argument...but the logic is nevertheless sound. I am really not interested in this "kid" or his "nonsense"; I am interested in the discussion. There are plenty of examples of corporate institutions acting callously in the name of profit. It is wrong to single Ford out, since it is just following the standard in corporate practice. True Ford helped the Nazi war effort, but so did MG and General Motors, so its not like you can single out Ford.,
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox We finally agree. US companies should never have sold goods to the socialist scum - the Nazi. Good thing for all of us that capitalism killed these socialist scum. InvertedFox, you should spend more time learning, instead of making inane comments on you tube all day. You really are an ignorant loser with too much time on your hands. Learn to think before you type!!!!!!!
dirtypimpbird 10 months ago
@dirtypimpbird Dude, you are an absolute simpleton. You can't even grasp the basic concepts of institutional analysis that I am proposing. Just stick to your absolutist delusions of us vs them, good vs evil, capitalism vs socialism... I'm sure it will work out great for you. Blah blah blah, I am a loser with too much time on my hands. You can't even grasp my argument so you go for the meaningless option of attacking me personally, as if I give a fuck. All the best mate, goodbye.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox I apologize that i am not weak and gullible like your dad. i know how to think for myself, which is why i dont need your opinions. Remember you sent me an e-mail message. i did not ask for it. you will need to find yourself before you will find the truth. Good luck on your journey.
dirtypimpbird 10 months ago
@dirtypimpbird Weak and gullible like my Dad!? LMAO
Mate you are deteriorating into attacks on my parents!
Thinking for yourself is all about being able to properly absorb and analyse different perspectives objectively... without allowing your own ego to dictate your immediate reaction. Somehow I think this level of analysis is lacking in your argument. I did not "email" you, I responded to something you said in public... but whatever.
Chill blood, put the ego down. step back, observe. boom.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@dirtypimpbird You may be aware of the book "myth of the Ford Pinto case" by Gary T. Schwartz....
Here is a passage from said book: "The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs"
Of course this issue is not about Ford...it is about the nature of all corporate and state institutions.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox "encourage manufacturers to consider such trade-offs". So who doesn't consider such trade offs. I travel to work everyday, I am trading off safety at home for danger of commute in order to make income. Corporate institutes, government institutes and all people perform these same tradeoffs, everyday.
daobagua 10 months ago
@daobagua Deciding to walk or take the bus is very different from the institutionalized decision making process that multi national corporations go through to determine policies that effect millions of non consensual individuals...
It is the same with the state. The state makes tradeoffs that effect millions of non consensual individuals.
The "tradeoffs" of an individual are very different from institutional "tradeoffs" and externalities. I really don't see the point of that argument...
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox Deciding to drive increase the risk to others on the road. How is it different. The others on the road were not consential to your decision. Externalities are always created, by everyone. The importance is to have a system that allows for externalities to be addressed. A system like the free market place allows you to speak judicially or through your choice of purchase. Go ahead, try to sue a large government who also controls the judicial system.
daobagua 10 months ago