rofling hard at all those Friedman cock-hoppers atm. Yeah, apparently he was a pretty smart guy, but that doesn't mean you have to beliefe or defend everything he says. There is a whole bunch of other "geniuses" who thought Friedman was wrong with most of his oeuvre.
All i can see is from here, that he dodges the question very sophistically - so he is rhetorically very skilled, but didn't answer the student's question.
@loschrisos2 Of course he is as fallible as any other human being, and you don't need to agree with his conclusions to recognise and admire his methodology for analysing economic problems. It would of been the easiest thing to join the student in condemning what happened as evil and unjust, it was certainly tragic. What Friedman's analysis reveals is the underlying principles that are involved.
I've only just discovered these clips and those of Christopher Hitchens I must have been living in a cave not to have heard about these earlier! I want to coin a new word, The Miltslap!
what does people smoking have to do with unknowingly driving dangerous cars that will burn whoever is on the backseat (your kids on the way to school)? And you people comment that this man is smart and intelligent? that was the most unwise analogy in the history of mankind.
MF is saying that the people should have the freedom to choose to take the risk of driving the car, and thus it is also correct for the government/court system to impose heavy fines on corporations that mislead the consumer by not informing them....he's main argument is based on a person's freedom of choice...he's basically saying that Ford should have had a disclaimer on their products like cigarettes. its disturbing how someone cant even understand something so simple...
He said that smoking being bad for you was commonly known. There was NO disclaimers on packets at his time. He said the corporations didn't have to provide information to the government, Ford could have easily got away with that. He kept saying the guy is avoiding the principle. The guy was actually avoiding A principle, friedman's principle, however friedman himself was avoiding many more principles.
Ford wouldn't have easily gotten away with it, if there is a legal system which ensures the ppl have the right information in order to freely choose what they purchase. and that's what MF was saying...
btw there are laws to ensure that companies have proper disclaimers now..
what principle did MF avoid specifically? imo the boy didnt really have a principle...its intellectually lazy to simply point the finger and say that the corporation was "wrong" anyone can do that.
@koala8 there'd be a bunch of principles friedman was missing and the fact he was saying you are avoiding THE question of principle shows that he was far too subjective. His principle was the one about people having the freedom of choice while considering the danger factors for themselves. He didn't think of respect to human life what so ever. Class inequalities ...would people on lower income statistically be in much greater danger of death or disabling injury?
irrespective of "class", an individual values and respects their own life and thus makes decision on that basis. the only thing a business can do is provide the information. businesses cant cater to random exceptions where someone may not respect and value their own life, its not possible..it is not in the realm of business. businesses are not religious organisations that counsel ppl to make right decisions.
@koala8 so it's not in the realm of businesses to disclose any risk information either, what we are arguing about is what the regulation should be. you can't argue regulation when it supports your side and ignore it and say businesses don't have to have an opinion, when it can be enforced upon them. Intellectually lazy to just say Ford was wrong? It's common sense really. Greed and profit came first before respect to human life.
yes it IS in the realm of business because providing misleading info or omitting crucial info is fraudulent...& destroys the legitimacy of a business...the information should have been disclosed for ppl to make the best decision...
Ford was wrong for not providing the correct information, but there's nothing wrong with making cars for profit as long as consumers are not misled. the boy just says it was "wrong" without analyzing the real issue imo.
@TimeWarp66 wow you manage to put together 3 words! come now - tell me your views - I am from latin america _ I saw first hand this man's policys effect on my nation.
Yes Milton Friedman these things are so 'subtle & complicated' & those "fundamental principles' of capitalism are working so well atm. ie. GFC2. #EPICFAIL
He's flipping the guy off @ 2:30, that's intentional, and he didn't K.O. anybody. Milty wouldn't know a "principle" if it jumped up and bit him on his sensitive parts...if he had any.
Milton is (was) a douche, a smart douche, but a douche nonetheless. How about answering the kids questions? He answered questions with questions. How bout this' "OK Milton...the person burned to death is your son....is $200,000,000 too much"? How about this, have people sign a disclosure stating that they understand that the vehicle has a tremendous chance of bursting into flames if rear-ended? Oooooh, sales of Vega's would have sky rocketed. Sorry, yes money is important, so are people.
Friedman said that the Government's job was only to provide the justice system which would enforce heavy fines on companies which deliberately concealed material facts from consumers.
I didn't realise that car manufacturers went round advertising faults which could lead to death. And the fines the courts imposed obviously weren't that heavy, hence Ford deciding not to put in the plastic block.
Something wasn't right here then, but Friedman doesn't address it.
@Vnam72 Of course Friedman addressed it, you just didn't like his answer. What did you just say in your post? "And the fines the courts imposed obviously weren't that heavy" If the courts did not impose a fine heavy enough to keep people from being harmed by Ford's product, then it is the courts fault for NOT DEFENDING the citizenry. The kids logic is flawed, he a human life as a $ value Milt asked what was the price of a person was to warrant a plastic block. BTW the Pinto is no longer around
@quinnrasta But that was my point. The government is failing in the one task Friedman says it's their duty to provide - a decent justice system. Thus when that fails, Ford can get away with making this kind of decision.
I completely agree with Friedman in principle - what is the value of a life - impossible to answer - but as I say, he doesn't seem to address what happens when the court system fails, pure 'capitalism' is allowed to run amok.
@Vnam72 Well said! But going back to Friedman's views,it is another failure of government. It is only the private citizens that can punish Ford ultimately by not purchasing their products. IF, the public continues to purchase their products knowing the risks,(caveot emptor) I would say Ford has no liability and the decision to purchase a dangerous product is on the buyer.But as we can see the public did not want to the dangerous Pinto.Capitalism prevails when left up to the private consumer,IMHO
@quinnrasta In some cases, yes that is exactly what happens. However, in a lot of markets, especially those characterised by a few big players, that doesn't tend to happen. If (hypothetical) all the car companies decided not to put this safeguard in, a cartel exists and the consumer would have no choice. Look at the Petrol companies and Banks. Big players, very rarely competing on price, or doing anything different from the other. No real choice. Cont.
Also bear in mind Ford did not advertise these risks and I don't think it's the responsibility for non-engineers such as the consumer to read owners manuals to try and figure out whether they are getting a higher risk. It's just not possible for most people. Plus the poorest people in society would end up taking this choice, if the knowledge existed, because it would be the cheapest available, which again is no real choice.
The students admission of not holding all life sacred is very disturbing, however, why is it ok for him to not hold life sacred and make Ford take the position that it is? If Ford says they do not think all life is sacred,(like the student) then by the student's own logic Ford is not accountable. He screws his own argument to make his point. This is a typical move of a liberal. Logic is not in the vocabulary of a liberal when it goes against their desired outcome. This kid cried after the debate
@quinnrasta That's why they supports labour unions. The labour unions raise the wages of their members while creating unemployment for non-union members.
Look at all socialist policies:
Fair trade = exacerbates oversupply of goods
Minimum wage = price creating unemployment
Tariffs = transfers jobs to unproductive and inhibits competition
200 hundred lives a year.....welcome to national health care......"treatment needed".... "timely treatment" ... cass sunstein.........."adjusted quality life years" ..... marion lucy "cost vs years gained".....welcome to the socialistic horror show......FARMVILLE.
Milton Friedman basically concedes that corporations have an ethical duty to give accurate information to the customers, and failing to means they're breaking the law and the government must step in and enforce (through the courts). In essence he agreed with the kid's point. But in practice corporations will commit fraud when theres a good chance they can get away with it (strong profit incentive) so his after the fact government enforcement wouldn't work, but that's nothing new for friedman
@nerfmyaccount Friedman is not an anarchist, he just believes in the free market. Governments primary role is protecting its citizens from harm whether it be theft/fraud or physical harm. Should the government (through the courts) not make Ford accountable,by penalizing them enough to change Ford's ways, it is the government that has failed. Should people decide to take the risk to forgo price, their problem. Ford knowingly commits fraud, their problem,"IF" government makes them pay! GOV FAILED
@nerfmyaccount Friedman is not an anarchist, he just believes in the free market. Governments primary role is protecting its citizens from harm whether it be theft/fraud or physical harm. Should the government (through the courts) not make Ford accountable,by penalizing them enough to change Ford's ways, it is the government that has failed. Should people decide to take the risk to forgo price, their problem. Ford knowingly commits fraud, their problem,"IF" government made them pay! GOV FAILED
@quinnrasta Yes but Ford has a major incentive to commit fraud because they are encouraged by the profit motive. This does not mean the Ford execs are bad, but if they can't please their shareholders they will be replaced. This system intrinsically promotes fraud. The only way to keep it in check is with strong regulations. This happens to be what happened. This does increase cost, but on the other hand road fatalities are at their lowest rates in history. Oh no our freedom to die is gone.
@nerfmyaccountHad the courts made Ford pay out a million$ for every live lost,they would have never made the mistake of committing fraud.The shareholders demand that those involved be fired & make sure that this never happened again because of the loss in revenue.This would happen w/out gov regulation,by allowing private individuals police their own businesses.There is no need for gov,other than the courts holdin Ford accountable by taking their profits for fraud! Profit is the motive, not loss
@nerfmyaccount Commiting fraud in the name of short term profit as an incentive makes no sense. No legitimate business with a reputation is willing to risk billions in long term profits over one car. Regulation is what has killed the competitive market the competitive market is what keeps car makers in this case making the best quality and prices lower. You can thank regulatory agencies with trade tarrifs for keeping high quality low priced foreign automakers from competing CONT.
@nerfmyaccount Yes road fatalities are at their lowest rates in history,but it isnt because of regulations in my opinion. The consumer (like my wife and I) were looking for the best in safety for our family, we found that one vehicle was safer than the other, so were are looking to buy that vehicle. Same regulations, but one company decided to make one vehicle safer than its competitor's. The cost was more but we decided to sacrifice cost for safety, which was our FREE choice, gov didnt make it
@quinnrasta Well I think there are natural limits to people's free choice. Remember cars are built to travel on public roads which are shared. Someone making the choice to buy an unsafe car affects YOUR safety too since a ford pinto that blows up could blow up in front of you. If you want pure free choice you can build an uncertified vehicle not street legal for private property, or you could attempt to pay Ford or someone else to do so.
@nerfmyaccount The competition in any market forces quality up as makers attempt to win market share the bells and whistles without quality will only carry a company so far. Furthermore competition also keeps prices down it is regulation that has protected the market share for monster corporations. Take a look at regulatory history timelines and all the automakers now under the huge conglomerate big three auto makers. Trade tarrifs have reduced the competitive market to CONT.
@Richdanahuff To a very select few who have the financial backing to produce anything and conform with regulatory agencies. It is historical reality that corporations have been able lobby for regulations that hurt competitors. Regulation again is bastardized into leverage for Industry and protects the markets from outside companies competing.
That douchebag says he believes in abortion yet he's so concerned with the lives of Ford Pinto drivers. A classic socialist/liberal just stupid as shit.
@Staenwald There can be a fine line between whether what we're being told is a lie or truth! And yes, where to serve the justice IS a huge problem. I feel for consumers that end up being harmed or killed when its the business who has the resources to make products 'safe'. I'd like to one day see basic human ethics (truth, like you said) have a greater say in business models - unfortunately those that can make money from being slightly less ethical end up having the advantage in the market ;)
@Staenwald So how are we to know which is a better investment for ourselves when we don't have all the information? As consumers we have to trust organisations, but in order to continue growing, which is the system, they have to make as much money from us as they can - this sounds like a conflict of interests to me. Perhaps in this example Ford should have told the public what they knew and offered the fuel tank part as an optional $13 extra, then their market would have decided!
@DCLNick Most cars were designed the same as the Pinto, with the fuel tank lower between the rear bumper and the rear differential. The Pinto is not the only car that burned the same as the Pinto. It was a design feature common of the time, the real issue with the Pinto was that due to its size the doors could get easily pinned shut when rear ended. The car actually was a favorable car according to reviews of the time compared to other compact cars.
This is a question of morals and human decency. The mere fact that a company compares human life against a profit surely shows the inhumanity of the financial system, all in the name of turning a profit. It sounds like Milton Friedman could put a cost on the life of his mother. And people only have a choice as far as the financial system allows them. I'm sure Milton Friedman was never in the position where he could only afford an unsafe Pinto to get to work to keep his family alive.
Milton was a tremendous speaker. There are times when I agree with him and there are other times I do not agree with him. But always, he is a pleasure to listen to.
@JimNebuchanezzar This is awesome Moore has no idea of what Friedman is saying he speaks on a whole other level. Friedman knows that if people were allowed to exercise free choice in the market this would never be a question or issue because consumers actually control the market. Moore on the other hand thinks that he is doing a service by pointing out how this big bad corporation is abusing people and the people have no other choice but to buy their product. LOLOL
@Richdanahuff Well in this case, I believe, Ford was misleading the consumer (with lethal consequences) so characterising them as a "big bad" corporation might not be so wrong - to some degree anyway. Pity the dude in the audience didn't argue along those lines though (although I don't think that's an argument for government - it's an argument for private watchdogs)
@JimNebuchanezzar Understood but that isn't the case nothing he says passed the common sense test if what he said were true noone would have bought a Pinto if over a 1,000 people burned to death in them. Furthermore to believe that a Corporation would risk profit on a bad reputation over a supposed 13$ part is just to put it bluntly stupid to believe. The information presented is far fetched and only those who are unaware would believe it.
@JimNebuchanezzar The only people I knew who believed it were the average people who had never so much as changed a spark plug in there life let alone changed the spider gears in a rear differential. These were the unknowing masses who bought the story, but above that the belief that over 1,000 people perished in gruesome deaths burned to death trapped in a car and it had not been headlines sooner leaves one suspicious of the truth.
@JimNebuchanezzar I researched the case and ran across the schwartz study which had researched the facts presented in court findings from a mother who was killed and her son who was burned extensively but survived. What came out was the facts which represent a far different picture keep in mind lee Iacocca was the CEO of Ford and was fighting for his reputation as well as the Ford MoCo. The Government is who set the numbers as well as statistics on vehicle safety produced irrefutable facts.
@JimNebuchanezzar A completely different picture can be drawn from the facts than what Mother Jones mag painted. It is obvious that Mother Jones willfully misrepresented the facts to sell a sensational story through a ground breaking expose that reveals the evils of big business. Lets not notice that Mother Jones is a far left anti capitalist agenda magazine. Now lets discuss how a free market would have handled Ford.
@JimNebuchanezzar In a Free Market with no government interference the consumer once aware of the issue would not have purchased the car killing the money invested by Ford. Furthermore it is fair to assume the consumer would have lost faith in Ford products after such a debacle and sales would have slowed considerably. At this point the consumer would be controlling the market forcing Ford to re-establish credibility with quality and lower prices to draw consumers.
@JimNebuchanezzar Ford would either correct its quality to draw the consumers back or the consumers will purchase products from someone more reliable. Free Markets are the truest expression of the voice of the people and the exercise of free will. Free markets will always correct its own issues without regulation in free market capitalism the power belongs to the people not the government or the corporation.
@Richdanahuff I agree with all this. If there was no misrepresentation in the Pinto case then obviously the dude in the audience doesn't have a point at all. If there was however, I think characterising Ford as "big and bad" would be sensible. I think we all value safety, and while I don't believe in laws to ensure it, I would personally not buy from an unsafe company, and I would characterise them as "big and bad". That's all I was saying. Heh.
@JimNebuchanezzar I agree if these facts were true then I would agree completely. This is young Michael Moore who went on to work for Mother Jones as I believe an editor later. I can understand why Moore makes his lopsided movies if he was naive enough to believe what he says about Ford is true then his crusade against corporations makes perfect sense. The problem with his perception is his apparent thought process that he is the only one who sees the injustice and must expose it to us.
@LukeGriffths121 u seem to not understand economics. i am not an american and have no idea of american politics. i live in europe so perhaps more "socialist" for an american but i still can understand the logic of milton friedman. he is not avoiding the question but going to the core of the question
Milton Friedman is the perfect example of the superior reason applied to civil free-market societies. The only problem is that this man who justifies the moral low-ground and monetarily places his philosophies as the free-market moral high ground will be among those who are destined to face the anger of the people whom are eventually going to become fed up with such satanic beliefs. The kings of the earth tread on the kings of the world but that will only last for so long.
@WhatsupWorldful There is nothing Satanic about believing in free choice, free market s or any other freedom to choose. Free agency is how we are judged taking choice away from people because a few so called intellectual elites who feel the need to apply paternalistic philosophy to control the free agency God gave us is far more Satanic. Friedman believed in free choice and not holding others responsible for our own bad choices liusten to him he is saying take responsibility for your self.
@WhatsupWorldful The free Market is the truest expression of our individual free choices the ebbs and flows of the market is the will of the peoples choices not a bureaucratic suit sitting in an office playing the parent making choices for us. This philosophy of Friedman is the closest thing to the true freedom we all dream of. By the way tghis kid is Michael Moore and his info is false it came from a Mother Jones ( Anti Capitalist-Pro Socialist) article from willfully distorted facts.
@WhatsupWorldful Study the market and how Government intervention is destroying the free market and driving inflation through the roof. What Michael Moore does is follow the same willfully presented mis-information that he learned from Mother Jones when he worked there and now has made a fortune exploiting the frustrations of the general population. Yes this is Michael Moore according all sources
That leftist is/was a moron. Typical progressive-liberal that's been brainwashed and can't think critically to save his life. Obama sees the world the same way he does and America is paying the cost . . .
@Zachw2007 I thought he was actually really smart. Sure, he may disagree with your values and beliefs, but I thought his questions and arguments were well articulated for just being some kid. Also, I do not believe that any single party is responsible for America's current status, especially one person. You can believe that voting in a republican will get us out of this mess, but, if you remember as I do, a republican was in power for eight years when this all started.
@ArnieArnie789 WHY IS THAT? JUST BECAUSE YOU CANT THINK FOR YOURSELF AND YOU SIDE WITH A YOUNG MICHAEL MOORE. IT IS EASY TO SAY HE CORRUPT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DO SOME CRITICAL THINKING.
@MrBIGL34 It is also easy to turn the caps lock off, and articulate like normal people.
The generalization that all liberals idolize Michael Moore is laughable. There are plenty who despise him.
The person you are questioning is actually viewing political discussions, like you, and not videos of "talking cats" like so many other individuals on here. I think it's safe to say that they can think for themselves.
You are not infallible, so your opinion could very well be wrong. Think about it.
@MrBIGL34 no i've never watched any of michael moore's movies, i just happen to have gotten this conclusion from "CRITICAL THINKING" of my own. just listen to what he's saying and you tell me that isn't corruption and disregard for a fellow human
... Is Money fundamentally Evil? Is Capitalism and Socialism Evil? Are all Governments and Voters Evil? For the first definitive classical answer, consult the Great Pyramid. Search YouTube for "The Great Pyramid, Why was it built".
Here is the solution: transparency. All producers must disclose their safety findings. Let consumers make their own choice. If you want a car you have the choice of the expensive very safe car, the more dangerous cheap car, the moderately priced reasonably safe car, or no car at all. It's not the producer's job to keep you safe, it's your life, be smart!
Don't get me wrong, I am not a "liberal". I am anti statist... it is hard to deny that the state is a self serving institution, like any other, that must bleed society in order to sustain itself. However, corporate mechanisms are very similar... primary is self preservation; the institution must preserve. Then comes expansion; the institution must expand it's wealth, power and influence - exponentially. Throw in the stock market system, banks and centralize power to the board of directors...
There is such a massive body of evidence suggesting that corporate institutional frameworks have an extremely damaging effect on the world... they are literally forced by law to put profit above all externalities. The interconnection of state and corporate interests via campaign contributions has us locked in a vice. It is the joining of the worlds most powerful institutional bodies in a self perpetuating embrace that has is destroying any chance of true liberty and freedom.
@InvertedFox I advocate holding elected officials accountable, we must be politically active and keep track of what our Congressman does and hold them accountable. Our education system has systematically forget what our Political system is and how we control it and therefore for the last 100 yrs it has been mislabeled a democracy which is majority/mob rule. Your average american does not understand our system but the short easy answer for those not knowledgeable of it is we are a democracy.
@InvertedFox We have to re-educate each other and re take the power of our Government through our processes. The problem is and reality being what it is we haven't been a Gov for the people and by the people since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The military excerises its power in the name of US interests and foreign policy which always has to do with Industry namely Oil etc...it always goes under the secretive strategic interest.
No, they did not. Therefore making Friedman's smoking comparison obsolete. His entire argument is a theoretical attempt to morally rationalize the robotic profit mechanisms of the Institution.
@InvertedFox And of course you have no idea of the particulars involved have you ever researched the case ?? What evidence do you need to know that a Pinto would be less likely to survive a crash with a behemoth Chrysler or station wagon or Ford LTD. Do you know what the supposed design flaw was?? Firedman does not advocate big business he advocates freedom of choice and personal responsibility to self.
@Richdanahuff The "particulars" of the Ford Pinto case are documented in Ford's own internal records... May I suggest a simple Google search? Through its testing process Ford found that "In crashes over 25 miles per hour, the gas tank always ruptured". The cause? A poorly protected gas tank (obviously?). Ford calculated that this design fault would kill 180 people on average every year. This is not a theoretical question of subjective cost evaluation, this is putting profit over people's lives.
@InvertedFox The same problem happened with the full size models in fact it happened to the president of Ford in the 60's in a full size model. It wasn't just Ford the fuel tank hung too low in the back of the car behind the rear differential so that when the car was struck it would get punctured by the bolts, this was a common feature of the time. The numbers you quote are common for all companies who produce products that consumers buy it is not a conspiracy.
@InvertedFox You could blame Lee Iacocca for pushing production in order to get the car the market twice as fast as engineers wanted in order to stay competitive. Now according to investigations done by Rutgers law school the Pinto actually had less deaths and a better safety record than its competitors and that the numbers were severely inflated by the misleading mother jones article that was actually gotten from NHTSA, in other words the whole thing was ridiculous
@InvertedFox It appears from examination of the evidence of the Ford pinto case that the notorious liberal left wing mother jones magazine seemed to inflate the whole incident in order to get liberals up in arms against the evil corporations, wow imagine that dishonesty and misinformation in order to create a sensational story in the name of liberalism OR so Mother Jones mags can sell more magazines like all businesses believe it or are in it for profit even if they have to create the issue.
@InvertedFox And the results of this scary article and naive liberals who hunger for reasons to blame corporations for their own shortcomings hmmmmmm yes you got it people voted for and politicians justified bigger Gov and more regs intended or unintended these are the consequences of such a debacle. Yaaayyyyy lets here for totalitarian goverment we are going to become.
@Richdanahuff You could have Googled this SO easily, but here I'll make it easy for you.
"According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher... it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn"
@InvertedFox First of all the design feature was common in MOST vehicles of the time second of all the numbers came from Government not an internal memo and Mother Jones Magazine perpetuated the conspiracy of evil big Ford and business in general. Yes much of this has been debunked as far as the conspiracy you and many others presume. The Pinto was not the only car that burned in the same manner from the same design but it happened so few a far between it was not a concern to Ford.
@InvertedFox ALL businesses use the same risk vs gain model in many different aspects, insurance requires it. What you are quoting are numbers that you seem to assume Ford expected this, this is paranoid and preposturous to think a company does not do everything in its power to mitigate this in the name of profit. If profit was the motive it seems idiotic for the company to plan on losing $50 million by allowing people to burn to death intentionally in the name of profit ?!?!?!?
"What you are quoting are numbers that you seem to assume Ford expected this"
I am struggling to understand your use of the English language...
"it seems idiotic for the company to plan on losing $50 million by allowing people to burn to death intentionally in the name of profit ?!?!?!?"
Your math and economic understanding, at least so far as I can tell with the lack of coherence, needs work. I'm really not interested in continuing this, dude...
@InvertedFox I didn't think you would as usual liberals who are anti business/money in general resort to insults and ignore irrefutable facts. Emotional rhetoric by you and those like you demonstrate the same illogical reasoning that gives way to socialism and loss of freedom. You apparently are not disenfranchised however you seem to lack maturity and control of your emotion at least long enough to look at the evidence so you can think for your self.
@Richdanahuff I wasn't trying to insult you I genuinely could not make sense of that comment, there were a few confusing misuses of English. The argument you are making now is the subject of a Gary T. Schwartze book "The Mith of the Ford Pinto Case" and another publication by Birsch and Fielder, yes? The problem is, all they are arguing is that "everybody did it, so why should Ford be blaimed?". But how does that nullify what is essentially an institutional observation and critique?
@InvertedFox I would argue that the obervation made of the institution was tainted by misleading propadanda. The Pinto case is more about political left wing demonizing corporations in general and using this case and misleading people to jump on their agenda through misinformation. The facts were distorted to cause uneeded upheaval for what??? you and I have opportunity to succeed or fail in this society we cannot blame those who have succeeded in their endeavors for our lack of relative success
@InvertedFox Though I do not agree with lobbyist using government to achieve big business objectives I wholeheartedly agree with free enterprise. Free enterprise is true freedom and the only thing should be doing is producing cartes of law that protects innocent uninvolved parties from being affected by others choices i.e. the preservation of individual freedoms. The Pinto case is really about OUR choice to purchase if we choose a cheaper car and part of choice is knowing that by doing so we CON
@InvertedFox we accept the inherent risk just like today. To buy a small fuel saving car is a smart choice when it comes to preserving our own money. However we accept the fact that we must be more vigilant in preserving our lives on the road in which others CHOSE to buy full size SUVs that could easily destory a fuel saver. I believe in this freedom I do not believe Ford put cars on the road that were any more dangerous than anyone elses according to my beliefs.
@Richdanahuff I am not against the free market, although personally I prefer to work in a cooperatively owned workplace (I own a small design/marketing company with a few good friends, I prefer to work with no boss). I think their is a need to dismantle the current hegemonic power structures that have locked themselves in a monopolistic grip around the global market. A monopolized political economy is very dangerous, I believe. The threat to individual freedoms comes from institutional power...
@InvertedFox Companies that are publicly traded are owned by stockholders, there is always a major stockholder but essentially this is a cooperative with lesser and greater say according to ownership. This is ingenious due to the fact that employees and citizens have an individual interest that the company does well. However when you are talking about free market that benefits all would be a salesman/route driver for a well known beverage company that works on commision.
@InvertedFox When a driver works on this system he has to put in effort into his clients in order to beat out competition for the best sales spots, quality and freshness of product, build relationships with managers etc....Everyone benefits from this system the driver gets paid for his industrious efforts the store gets better service thus increasing sales for both and the company makes more profit because of the dynamics involved.
@InvertedFox Now as far as Ford going with the status quo, there is no evidence Ford created a bad product I am in fact a fan of Pintos. I think it is reasonable to assume that when you produce a product like a car someone is going to die in it this is not a point of contention. The idea that the Mother Jones article alluded to was that Ford knew that people WOULD die heinous deaths due to their knowledgeable ineptitude in design. CONT
I do not agree that Ford knew this would happen specifically I believe that if you sell 1,000,000 cars their will be a few deaths due to human error design.driver or otherwise the odds say it will happen. Humans will always find a unique way around every so called fail safe because a human designed it means it is doomed to fail sooner or later. I place blame on a person who intends to harm others but in a cars case my opinion is it was a complicent agreement with both knowing the risk
@Richdanahuff I don't think Ford is any better or worse than any other leading car manufacturers in terms of corporate practice. Ford funded the nazis, but then again General Motors and GM were cashing in on that situation as well. But you see this all just adds to the evidence suggesting that the institutional characteristics of corporations and other "free market" institutions routinely compels human beings to make cold, robotic and inhuman decisions in the name of profit mechanisms.
@Richdanahuff You don`t have to make the numbers up, To look at the position Ford took, The student said it clearly, 13 bucks extra per car, Or around 1000 dead over the car`s usual prodution run, Ford`s guess was sadly about right, You know even Milton Friedman said, Let the big car companies die out, Ford and the like had to be rescued by the Goverment, Something he was against, So either way, Ford`s in the wrong, On business ethics and profits.
@xmoroseguyx Michael Moore made this number up, the fact was the problems with the Pinto was a design flaw that was common with most cars of the time not just the Pinto. This supposed internal memo that said a life was worth 200,000 did not come from Ford it was a Government number that was given in a misleading article in Mother Jones magazine.
@xmoroseguyx The bottom line is if you valued your life enough and really wanted a safer car to drive you would cut back on other pleasures and wants and pay for a higher quality car. If a person is so value minded that they were willing to overlook the obvious dangers in such a car and accept the risk that is their choice. No one forced anyone to buy a Pinto or to overlook its lesser obvious lack of safety in comparison.
@xmoroseguyx If you look at all the cars of the time most full sized cars were huge from station wagons, cadillacs, etc...it was obvious to most that a small car could never survive any collision with any of these behemoths of the time.
@xmoroseguyx At the end of the day you fail to realize that EVERY single company that is liable for its product has to do the same risk vs gain model. They all insure for this and know that someone could die as a result of their product. Ford did take a risk pushing the Pinto to market before it had completed all its quality testing.
@Richdanahuff Face it numpty, Sick minded nilistic greedy bastards at the top of Ford, Worked out the numbers, And then played the courts against the safety of the drivers and passengers of their car, I mean, The whole audience was with the student, He had him beat! " A million people starve, To make one car completely safe" Eh? What has food got to do with it? Yeah mate, Your talking bullshit.
@xmoroseguyx Perhaps you are not aware of how economies work in this world regardless of Government. The problem with the Pinto is about the quality of car you will get for the price you are WILLING to pay. People buy small compact cars regardless of safety in self interest it doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at the car and recognize its likely inability to survive a crash with anything but consumers look at the price and fuel costs and accept this risk everyday.
@xmoroseguyx What you are saying is Ford execs decided it was cool for a consumer to burn to death as long as they profited. This doesn't sound reasonable to anyone, they rolled the dice like any business OR individual on the odds it doesn't happen or rarely does. The old saying of if you want quality you must pay for it is true, in a FREE market society you are FREE to pay for better quality if you CHOOSE to, basically you get what you pay for.
@xmoroseguyx The thing you seem to miss is that any individual or company plays the odds and laws of averages in every decision they make. Every business that can held accountable for its product does an analysis based off of risk vs gain models. In the military it is called Risk Assessment you do a rolling risk assessment in every decision you ultimately make. You seem to believe that there are more principled businesses looking out for you and not themselves.
@xmoroseguyx This is a childs idealism, everything everyone does is in their self interest whether it be profit, emotional or anything else. Companies are to make profit, publically traded Companies like Ford have to by law make decisions that profit to the best of their ability. What Ford did was make a decision that was extremely risky with a HIGHER probability of loss of life than their other makes with a reduced cost to the consumer.
Unless if you have no morality and no concern for life, you cant balance principles of life and money like what Ford did. However, Friedman's principle that people has the choice to choose is fundamentally correct in the capitalist system. The capitalist system sees that the principle lies in assigning a cost to the potential life lost and a cost to adding the protection. Those who do no want to take the risk have the choice to spend more.
@bw01a This poor goofy kid is Michael Moore and as you may have noticed he hasn't gotten any smarter but his sense of right and wrong and his hand selected information or lack of has appealed to a this time period where he can appeal to the disenfranchised poor etc...with his rhetoric and half informed topics. I believe he knows his information is half truths but also knows he has made millions exploiting citizens angst.
@kiminokami I researched it and as far as I can tell all sources say this is the same Michael Moore, If you look at him at a glance it is hard to tell due to the weight but a closer look at his face and the fat Moore they have the same eyes and shape. To add to all that his reasoning and mindset, look how confused Moore gets when Friedman simply changed the number value of a life he couldn't think and repeated someone elses response.
@periechontology The Monetary system is what is wrong, corporations is what is wrong, when profit is more important than human life, that is what is wrong....If you dont see that then i feel sorry for you.
Granted it took him like 5 minutes to get to the point, but i see what he was getting at. Even more so if you actually setup the courts to handle mis information. Not posting calories on your menu in a fast food joint for example. That would be an offense that McDonalds could get sued over, hiding the harmful knowledge. But we don't allow that in our wacky system, instead we have to wait for the FDA to say something.
@bluefootedpig You could sue McD's but whether they post it on their menus or not, that that food eaten in excess amounts is unhealthy is widely known.
@bluefootedpig We Americans are losing personal responsibility, they go to McDonalds and eat food that is produced in bulk at a low cost and then never question the quality of it???? We start getting fatter and yet the alarm doesn't go off to quit eating it. Our culture cultivates blame on others and no responsibility on our part.
@Richdanahuff very true, and the more I look into these things, the worse it gets. If you look up like what nestle does, I don't see how anyone could think that is a good company.
Wow, this is completely insane... It's obvious now that the capitalist model has failed. When human life is weighed against a collective group of profit makers then we all need to understand it's an epic fail. The tighter and the tighter the system becomes the more and more likely more people will become a 'pinto driver'. I am sure Milton would have a far more different perspective if this personally affected him or his family.
@redpompeii How is it obvious? Free market Capitalism hasn't been practiced in America for over a hundred years. The closest model currently exists in China (yes, with it's wonderful human rights violations). They're also not the world's largest debtor nation. With Capitalism as opposed to their prior model they have made great strides towards individual freedoms. It was under their prior model (Communism) that there were far worse atrocities committed.
@Rensune Economic self-determination, autonomy of self, free of the meddlesomeness of the patenalistic state, and private property (of the sovereign individual, and by and large, "corporate" entities) have been the mainstay of (our) free and open society; and this view is more or less consistently communicated by most classical liberal thinking. Not so with the "progressive", statist liberal types. China is statist-Capitalism; a further refining of U.S. govt. paternalism.
"Let`s suppose it would have cost a billion dollars!" A response like that usually comes from the primary school playground, Notice how he takes the quality of the car out of the question, And talks about the level of compensation, The general public know there will always be a risk being on the road, But for Ford to be forced to pay compensation, Means they made a faulty car, The student right on is right on this one.
To the contrary. he correctly points out that the issue is the tradeoff between quality and cost. Even if the incident at Ford mentioned by the student had not been long debunked, the fact remains that Ford could make a vehicle that approaches perfect safety only at a cost that would make automobiles unaffordable to anyone. Ford did not produce a car with a known defect (and fixed it immediately) but the testing necessary to find every defect would eliminate cars from the road.
@xmoroseguyx He framed it as a question of cost saved vs what a life was supposedly valued at at the time. Freedman asked him a great question about whether or not had the value of a life been placed at a billion would he still be arguing the same thing.
Friedman seems to steer the discussion away from the moral implications involved in the simple fact that a business' profitability can come at great cost to the consumer, the employee and others involved peripherally..how are we to manage these hidden costs?
@tmbill - I think the idea is that when word gets out about an unsafe vehicle, then the people themslves will manage the hidden cost by by shopping elsewhere, thus punishing the company. True, that won't help the people who have already died. A lot of people think government oversight is the answer here ... but that assumes the gov't cares more about you than the company does, and I don't think that's true.
Milton says at 5:35 the fundamental principle is how much people are willing to pay to not get killed. The younger man had as his fundamental principle that companies should be more ethically aware: not everyone for himself, but thinking about eachother outside of money. That seems to me as a more important fundament, where change is really needed. Soon after this Milton says people are stupid to smoke, to let people believe trying to stop deaths is also his priority (smart move). Is it?
If we survive over the next century to see past his trickery, Milton Friedman will go down as a major purveyor of one of the most false and despicable systems in the history of mankind. We are fooled en mass now because the system is still 'living and breathing' but like all others before it, IT IS GOING TO DIE... my sincerest hope is we do not all die out as a species with it.
MILTON FRIEDMAN IS A SMOOTH TALKING ARROGANT ASSHOLE. HIS SUPPOSED KNOWLEDGE OF ECONOMICS IS NOT ECONOMICS AT ALL. HE PROMOTES PROPAGANDA OF MONEY VALUE... THE SYSTEM HE BACKS IS MORE WASTEFUL THAN EVERY OTHER SYSTEM IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. HE REALLY ACTUALLY PROMOTES AN ANTI-ECONOMIC SYSTEM... THIS I HOPE WILL SHORTLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL... THE SOONER THE BETTER ...OR WE ARE ON A FAST TRACK TO EXTINCTION ON THIS PLANET. TIME IS FAST RUNNING OUT!!
Economics is all about the frugality of a made invention called money, which is now wholly based on debt in the US, not resource. Though he would never come out and admit it directly, Friedman does a great job defending the current virtues of money over human life, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The more I watch the actions of governments, multinationals and banks who manipulate and control it all the more I think to myself...
Actually, economics is the science of human interaction (that long precedes money) and, while it is certainly been harmed by governmental intervention replacing commodity money with fiat money (which is not the same thing as "based on debt"), the fact is that, in the absence of a monetary system of some kind, humankind (in which the poor have gotten tremendously richer due to capitalism) could maintain neither the current level of population nor technology and its abolition would kill billions.
rofling hard at all those Friedman cock-hoppers atm. Yeah, apparently he was a pretty smart guy, but that doesn't mean you have to beliefe or defend everything he says. There is a whole bunch of other "geniuses" who thought Friedman was wrong with most of his oeuvre.
All i can see is from here, that he dodges the question very sophistically - so he is rhetorically very skilled, but didn't answer the student's question.
loschrisos2 1 week ago
@loschrisos2 Of course he is as fallible as any other human being, and you don't need to agree with his conclusions to recognise and admire his methodology for analysing economic problems. It would of been the easiest thing to join the student in condemning what happened as evil and unjust, it was certainly tragic. What Friedman's analysis reveals is the underlying principles that are involved.
asdflive 1 week ago
@loschrisos2 The student was understandable unprepared to argue those principles because he only saw what lied on the surface.
asdflive 1 week ago
Wow, Milton was great at Dodging the Actual Question!!!!!
KnowledgeKEMET 1 month ago
@KnowledgeKEMET Watch it again . He showed them the mechanism of how IT WORKS.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@tehatemachine There is no need to!
KnowledgeKEMET 1 month ago
I've only just discovered these clips and those of Christopher Hitchens I must have been living in a cave not to have heard about these earlier! I want to coin a new word, The Miltslap!
samsamm77 2 months ago 4
@samsamm77 it's exactly the same with me
mrgarlicbread100 1 week ago
Debating Milton Friedman...one big assed mistake
gman2013 3 months ago 13
what does people smoking have to do with unknowingly driving dangerous cars that will burn whoever is on the backseat (your kids on the way to school)? And you people comment that this man is smart and intelligent? that was the most unwise analogy in the history of mankind.
arseniyonline1234555 4 months ago
@arseniyonline1234555
MF is saying that the people should have the freedom to choose to take the risk of driving the car, and thus it is also correct for the government/court system to impose heavy fines on corporations that mislead the consumer by not informing them....he's main argument is based on a person's freedom of choice...he's basically saying that Ford should have had a disclaimer on their products like cigarettes. its disturbing how someone cant even understand something so simple...
koala8 4 months ago
He said that smoking being bad for you was commonly known. There was NO disclaimers on packets at his time. He said the corporations didn't have to provide information to the government, Ford could have easily got away with that. He kept saying the guy is avoiding the principle. The guy was actually avoiding A principle, friedman's principle, however friedman himself was avoiding many more principles.
arseniyonline1234555 4 months ago
@arseniyonline1234555
Ford wouldn't have easily gotten away with it, if there is a legal system which ensures the ppl have the right information in order to freely choose what they purchase. and that's what MF was saying...
btw there are laws to ensure that companies have proper disclaimers now..
what principle did MF avoid specifically? imo the boy didnt really have a principle...its intellectually lazy to simply point the finger and say that the corporation was "wrong" anyone can do that.
koala8 4 months ago
@koala8 there'd be a bunch of principles friedman was missing and the fact he was saying you are avoiding THE question of principle shows that he was far too subjective. His principle was the one about people having the freedom of choice while considering the danger factors for themselves. He didn't think of respect to human life what so ever. Class inequalities ...would people on lower income statistically be in much greater danger of death or disabling injury?
arseniyonline1234555 4 months ago
@arseniyonline1234555
irrespective of "class", an individual values and respects their own life and thus makes decision on that basis. the only thing a business can do is provide the information. businesses cant cater to random exceptions where someone may not respect and value their own life, its not possible..it is not in the realm of business. businesses are not religious organisations that counsel ppl to make right decisions.
koala8 4 months ago
@koala8 so it's not in the realm of businesses to disclose any risk information either, what we are arguing about is what the regulation should be. you can't argue regulation when it supports your side and ignore it and say businesses don't have to have an opinion, when it can be enforced upon them. Intellectually lazy to just say Ford was wrong? It's common sense really. Greed and profit came first before respect to human life.
arseniyonline1234555 4 months ago
@arseniyonline1234555
yes it IS in the realm of business because providing misleading info or omitting crucial info is fraudulent...& destroys the legitimacy of a business...the information should have been disclosed for ppl to make the best decision...
Ford was wrong for not providing the correct information, but there's nothing wrong with making cars for profit as long as consumers are not misled. the boy just says it was "wrong" without analyzing the real issue imo.
koala8 4 months ago 3
The student was being a bit rude to Mr. Friedman
MrOneBlackMan 4 months ago
@TimeWarp66 wow you manage to put together 3 words! come now - tell me your views - I am from latin america _ I saw first hand this man's policys effect on my nation.
willronin 5 months ago
@cantilever an oxymoron if I heard one
willronin 5 months ago
@TimeWarp66 Ihope you are being sarcastic :)
willronin 5 months ago
who is this asswipe student.. does he really think he's smarter than friedman?
mnypwrrspkt 5 months ago 2
Droppin intellectual bombs since 1912
supahsekzy 5 months ago
Yes Milton Friedman these things are so 'subtle & complicated' & those "fundamental principles' of capitalism are working so well atm. ie. GFC2. #EPICFAIL
dbvalentine 5 months ago
@dbvalentine Capitalism is working great. The recent crisis has nothing to do with capitalism but the failure of central planning.
diurdi 5 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 5 months ago
He whooped that boy's ass, a terse intellectual beat-down that the Hitch would be proud of.
spader49 6 months ago
These students are stupid
BaldyV 6 months ago
@spunkets
John20xd6 6 months ago
He's flipping the guy off @ 2:30, that's intentional, and he didn't K.O. anybody. Milty wouldn't know a "principle" if it jumped up and bit him on his sensitive parts...if he had any.
spunkets 6 months ago
That kid totally looks like a hippie.
freemarketfreedom 6 months ago
When people pursue their self-interests of becoming rich, they have invest their money in capital. Through investments, the value of labour increases.
Can't believe how socialists can't understand that simple concept.
freemarketfreedom 6 months ago
Does anyone else want to punch that whiney pimpledick in the face?
erroneous169 6 months ago
Milton is (was) a douche, a smart douche, but a douche nonetheless. How about answering the kids questions? He answered questions with questions. How bout this' "OK Milton...the person burned to death is your son....is $200,000,000 too much"? How about this, have people sign a disclosure stating that they understand that the vehicle has a tremendous chance of bursting into flames if rear-ended? Oooooh, sales of Vega's would have sky rocketed. Sorry, yes money is important, so are people.
Waszma 7 months ago
Friedman said that the Government's job was only to provide the justice system which would enforce heavy fines on companies which deliberately concealed material facts from consumers.
I didn't realise that car manufacturers went round advertising faults which could lead to death. And the fines the courts imposed obviously weren't that heavy, hence Ford deciding not to put in the plastic block.
Something wasn't right here then, but Friedman doesn't address it.
Vnam72 7 months ago
@Vnam72 Of course Friedman addressed it, you just didn't like his answer. What did you just say in your post? "And the fines the courts imposed obviously weren't that heavy" If the courts did not impose a fine heavy enough to keep people from being harmed by Ford's product, then it is the courts fault for NOT DEFENDING the citizenry. The kids logic is flawed, he a human life as a $ value Milt asked what was the price of a person was to warrant a plastic block. BTW the Pinto is no longer around
quinnrasta 6 months ago
@quinnrasta But that was my point. The government is failing in the one task Friedman says it's their duty to provide - a decent justice system. Thus when that fails, Ford can get away with making this kind of decision.
I completely agree with Friedman in principle - what is the value of a life - impossible to answer - but as I say, he doesn't seem to address what happens when the court system fails, pure 'capitalism' is allowed to run amok.
Vnam72 6 months ago
@Vnam72 Well said! But going back to Friedman's views,it is another failure of government. It is only the private citizens that can punish Ford ultimately by not purchasing their products. IF, the public continues to purchase their products knowing the risks,(caveot emptor) I would say Ford has no liability and the decision to purchase a dangerous product is on the buyer.But as we can see the public did not want to the dangerous Pinto.Capitalism prevails when left up to the private consumer,IMHO
quinnrasta 6 months ago
@quinnrasta In some cases, yes that is exactly what happens. However, in a lot of markets, especially those characterised by a few big players, that doesn't tend to happen. If (hypothetical) all the car companies decided not to put this safeguard in, a cartel exists and the consumer would have no choice. Look at the Petrol companies and Banks. Big players, very rarely competing on price, or doing anything different from the other. No real choice. Cont.
Vnam72 6 months ago
Also bear in mind Ford did not advertise these risks and I don't think it's the responsibility for non-engineers such as the consumer to read owners manuals to try and figure out whether they are getting a higher risk. It's just not possible for most people. Plus the poorest people in society would end up taking this choice, if the knowledge existed, because it would be the cheapest available, which again is no real choice.
Vnam72 6 months ago
The students admission of not holding all life sacred is very disturbing, however, why is it ok for him to not hold life sacred and make Ford take the position that it is? If Ford says they do not think all life is sacred,(like the student) then by the student's own logic Ford is not accountable. He screws his own argument to make his point. This is a typical move of a liberal. Logic is not in the vocabulary of a liberal when it goes against their desired outcome. This kid cried after the debate
quinnrasta 7 months ago
@quinnrasta That's why they supports labour unions. The labour unions raise the wages of their members while creating unemployment for non-union members.
Look at all socialist policies:
Fair trade = exacerbates oversupply of goods
Minimum wage = price creating unemployment
Tariffs = transfers jobs to unproductive and inhibits competition
et c
etc
etc
freemarketfreedom 6 months ago
A 20th century sophist
GoreTuzkPT 7 months ago
200 hundred lives a year.....welcome to national health care......"treatment needed".... "timely treatment" ... cass sunstein.........."adjusted quality life years" ..... marion lucy "cost vs years gained".....welcome to the socialistic horror show......FARMVILLE.
chriswhited71 7 months ago
Milton Friedman basically concedes that corporations have an ethical duty to give accurate information to the customers, and failing to means they're breaking the law and the government must step in and enforce (through the courts). In essence he agreed with the kid's point. But in practice corporations will commit fraud when theres a good chance they can get away with it (strong profit incentive) so his after the fact government enforcement wouldn't work, but that's nothing new for friedman
nerfmyaccount 7 months ago
@nerfmyaccount Friedman is not an anarchist, he just believes in the free market. Governments primary role is protecting its citizens from harm whether it be theft/fraud or physical harm. Should the government (through the courts) not make Ford accountable,by penalizing them enough to change Ford's ways, it is the government that has failed. Should people decide to take the risk to forgo price, their problem. Ford knowingly commits fraud, their problem,"IF" government makes them pay! GOV FAILED
quinnrasta 7 months ago
@nerfmyaccount Friedman is not an anarchist, he just believes in the free market. Governments primary role is protecting its citizens from harm whether it be theft/fraud or physical harm. Should the government (through the courts) not make Ford accountable,by penalizing them enough to change Ford's ways, it is the government that has failed. Should people decide to take the risk to forgo price, their problem. Ford knowingly commits fraud, their problem,"IF" government made them pay! GOV FAILED
quinnrasta 7 months ago
@quinnrasta Yes but Ford has a major incentive to commit fraud because they are encouraged by the profit motive. This does not mean the Ford execs are bad, but if they can't please their shareholders they will be replaced. This system intrinsically promotes fraud. The only way to keep it in check is with strong regulations. This happens to be what happened. This does increase cost, but on the other hand road fatalities are at their lowest rates in history. Oh no our freedom to die is gone.
nerfmyaccount 7 months ago
@nerfmyaccountHad the courts made Ford pay out a million$ for every live lost,they would have never made the mistake of committing fraud.The shareholders demand that those involved be fired & make sure that this never happened again because of the loss in revenue.This would happen w/out gov regulation,by allowing private individuals police their own businesses.There is no need for gov,other than the courts holdin Ford accountable by taking their profits for fraud! Profit is the motive, not loss
quinnrasta 7 months ago
@nerfmyaccount Commiting fraud in the name of short term profit as an incentive makes no sense. No legitimate business with a reputation is willing to risk billions in long term profits over one car. Regulation is what has killed the competitive market the competitive market is what keeps car makers in this case making the best quality and prices lower. You can thank regulatory agencies with trade tarrifs for keeping high quality low priced foreign automakers from competing CONT.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@nerfmyaccount Yes road fatalities are at their lowest rates in history,but it isnt because of regulations in my opinion. The consumer (like my wife and I) were looking for the best in safety for our family, we found that one vehicle was safer than the other, so were are looking to buy that vehicle. Same regulations, but one company decided to make one vehicle safer than its competitor's. The cost was more but we decided to sacrifice cost for safety, which was our FREE choice, gov didnt make it
quinnrasta 7 months ago
@quinnrasta Well I think there are natural limits to people's free choice. Remember cars are built to travel on public roads which are shared. Someone making the choice to buy an unsafe car affects YOUR safety too since a ford pinto that blows up could blow up in front of you. If you want pure free choice you can build an uncertified vehicle not street legal for private property, or you could attempt to pay Ford or someone else to do so.
nerfmyaccount 7 months ago
@nerfmyaccount The competition in any market forces quality up as makers attempt to win market share the bells and whistles without quality will only carry a company so far. Furthermore competition also keeps prices down it is regulation that has protected the market share for monster corporations. Take a look at regulatory history timelines and all the automakers now under the huge conglomerate big three auto makers. Trade tarrifs have reduced the competitive market to CONT.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@Richdanahuff To a very select few who have the financial backing to produce anything and conform with regulatory agencies. It is historical reality that corporations have been able lobby for regulations that hurt competitors. Regulation again is bastardized into leverage for Industry and protects the markets from outside companies competing.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
Alisa Rosenbaum > Ludwig Von Mises > Milton Friedman, and they're all better than the alternative.
Ataensic 7 months ago
That douchebag says he believes in abortion yet he's so concerned with the lives of Ford Pinto drivers. A classic socialist/liberal just stupid as shit.
farrelrj 7 months ago
friedman > peter joseph
tmac9938 7 months ago
Milton just K.O'd the student at 5:25
EriPages 7 months ago 26
Michael moore is such an ignorant tosser. It's pretty obvious he doesn't even understand the base concepts that he is trying to fight.
Berelore 8 months ago
Michael Moore, 300 lbs earlier.
LogicalFlawDetector 8 months ago 4
@Staenwald There can be a fine line between whether what we're being told is a lie or truth! And yes, where to serve the justice IS a huge problem. I feel for consumers that end up being harmed or killed when its the business who has the resources to make products 'safe'. I'd like to one day see basic human ethics (truth, like you said) have a greater say in business models - unfortunately those that can make money from being slightly less ethical end up having the advantage in the market ;)
DCLNick 8 months ago
@Staenwald So how are we to know which is a better investment for ourselves when we don't have all the information? As consumers we have to trust organisations, but in order to continue growing, which is the system, they have to make as much money from us as they can - this sounds like a conflict of interests to me. Perhaps in this example Ford should have told the public what they knew and offered the fuel tank part as an optional $13 extra, then their market would have decided!
DCLNick 8 months ago
@DCLNick Most cars were designed the same as the Pinto, with the fuel tank lower between the rear bumper and the rear differential. The Pinto is not the only car that burned the same as the Pinto. It was a design feature common of the time, the real issue with the Pinto was that due to its size the doors could get easily pinned shut when rear ended. The car actually was a favorable car according to reviews of the time compared to other compact cars.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
This is a question of morals and human decency. The mere fact that a company compares human life against a profit surely shows the inhumanity of the financial system, all in the name of turning a profit. It sounds like Milton Friedman could put a cost on the life of his mother. And people only have a choice as far as the financial system allows them. I'm sure Milton Friedman was never in the position where he could only afford an unsafe Pinto to get to work to keep his family alive.
DCLNick 8 months ago
Milton was a tremendous speaker. There are times when I agree with him and there are other times I do not agree with him. But always, he is a pleasure to listen to.
graw81 8 months ago 37
My God I love this man. lol.
JimNebuchanezzar 8 months ago
@JimNebuchanezzar This is awesome Moore has no idea of what Friedman is saying he speaks on a whole other level. Friedman knows that if people were allowed to exercise free choice in the market this would never be a question or issue because consumers actually control the market. Moore on the other hand thinks that he is doing a service by pointing out how this big bad corporation is abusing people and the people have no other choice but to buy their product. LOLOL
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@Richdanahuff Well in this case, I believe, Ford was misleading the consumer (with lethal consequences) so characterising them as a "big bad" corporation might not be so wrong - to some degree anyway. Pity the dude in the audience didn't argue along those lines though (although I don't think that's an argument for government - it's an argument for private watchdogs)
JimNebuchanezzar 8 months ago
@JimNebuchanezzar Understood but that isn't the case nothing he says passed the common sense test if what he said were true noone would have bought a Pinto if over a 1,000 people burned to death in them. Furthermore to believe that a Corporation would risk profit on a bad reputation over a supposed 13$ part is just to put it bluntly stupid to believe. The information presented is far fetched and only those who are unaware would believe it.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@JimNebuchanezzar The only people I knew who believed it were the average people who had never so much as changed a spark plug in there life let alone changed the spider gears in a rear differential. These were the unknowing masses who bought the story, but above that the belief that over 1,000 people perished in gruesome deaths burned to death trapped in a car and it had not been headlines sooner leaves one suspicious of the truth.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@JimNebuchanezzar I researched the case and ran across the schwartz study which had researched the facts presented in court findings from a mother who was killed and her son who was burned extensively but survived. What came out was the facts which represent a far different picture keep in mind lee Iacocca was the CEO of Ford and was fighting for his reputation as well as the Ford MoCo. The Government is who set the numbers as well as statistics on vehicle safety produced irrefutable facts.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@JimNebuchanezzar A completely different picture can be drawn from the facts than what Mother Jones mag painted. It is obvious that Mother Jones willfully misrepresented the facts to sell a sensational story through a ground breaking expose that reveals the evils of big business. Lets not notice that Mother Jones is a far left anti capitalist agenda magazine. Now lets discuss how a free market would have handled Ford.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@JimNebuchanezzar In a Free Market with no government interference the consumer once aware of the issue would not have purchased the car killing the money invested by Ford. Furthermore it is fair to assume the consumer would have lost faith in Ford products after such a debacle and sales would have slowed considerably. At this point the consumer would be controlling the market forcing Ford to re-establish credibility with quality and lower prices to draw consumers.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@JimNebuchanezzar Ford would either correct its quality to draw the consumers back or the consumers will purchase products from someone more reliable. Free Markets are the truest expression of the voice of the people and the exercise of free will. Free markets will always correct its own issues without regulation in free market capitalism the power belongs to the people not the government or the corporation.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@Richdanahuff I agree with all this. If there was no misrepresentation in the Pinto case then obviously the dude in the audience doesn't have a point at all. If there was however, I think characterising Ford as "big and bad" would be sensible. I think we all value safety, and while I don't believe in laws to ensure it, I would personally not buy from an unsafe company, and I would characterise them as "big and bad". That's all I was saying. Heh.
JimNebuchanezzar 8 months ago
@JimNebuchanezzar I agree if these facts were true then I would agree completely. This is young Michael Moore who went on to work for Mother Jones as I believe an editor later. I can understand why Moore makes his lopsided movies if he was naive enough to believe what he says about Ford is true then his crusade against corporations makes perfect sense. The problem with his perception is his apparent thought process that he is the only one who sees the injustice and must expose it to us.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
3:37 - hahahahahahaha
manoman0 8 months ago
I wish the entire series was posted since the links to it are now dead.
dick117 9 months ago
Milton Friedman is a cunt. He acts like a politician here, totally avoiding the question.
LukeGriffths121 9 months ago
@LukeGriffths121 u seem to not understand economics. i am not an american and have no idea of american politics. i live in europe so perhaps more "socialist" for an american but i still can understand the logic of milton friedman. he is not avoiding the question but going to the core of the question
deshmeradesh 9 months ago
@deshmeradesh I understand economics. How can you say he doesn't avoid the question?
LukeGriffths121 9 months ago
@LukeGriffths121 herpaderp
NRPBrute 8 months ago
Milton Friedman is the perfect example of the superior reason applied to civil free-market societies. The only problem is that this man who justifies the moral low-ground and monetarily places his philosophies as the free-market moral high ground will be among those who are destined to face the anger of the people whom are eventually going to become fed up with such satanic beliefs. The kings of the earth tread on the kings of the world but that will only last for so long.
WhatsupWorldful 9 months ago
@WhatsupWorldful There is nothing Satanic about believing in free choice, free market s or any other freedom to choose. Free agency is how we are judged taking choice away from people because a few so called intellectual elites who feel the need to apply paternalistic philosophy to control the free agency God gave us is far more Satanic. Friedman believed in free choice and not holding others responsible for our own bad choices liusten to him he is saying take responsibility for your self.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@WhatsupWorldful The free Market is the truest expression of our individual free choices the ebbs and flows of the market is the will of the peoples choices not a bureaucratic suit sitting in an office playing the parent making choices for us. This philosophy of Friedman is the closest thing to the true freedom we all dream of. By the way tghis kid is Michael Moore and his info is false it came from a Mother Jones ( Anti Capitalist-Pro Socialist) article from willfully distorted facts.
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
@WhatsupWorldful Study the market and how Government intervention is destroying the free market and driving inflation through the roof. What Michael Moore does is follow the same willfully presented mis-information that he learned from Mother Jones when he worked there and now has made a fortune exploiting the frustrations of the general population. Yes this is Michael Moore according all sources
Richdanahuff 8 months ago
That leftist is/was a moron. Typical progressive-liberal that's been brainwashed and can't think critically to save his life. Obama sees the world the same way he does and America is paying the cost . . .
Zachw2007 9 months ago
@Zachw2007 I thought he was actually really smart. Sure, he may disagree with your values and beliefs, but I thought his questions and arguments were well articulated for just being some kid. Also, I do not believe that any single party is responsible for America's current status, especially one person. You can believe that voting in a republican will get us out of this mess, but, if you remember as I do, a republican was in power for eight years when this all started.
pocketocrisps 9 months ago
all i got from this video is that milton friedman is a corrupt person, the prime example of the absolute worst that capitalism can bring about
ArnieArnie789 9 months ago
@ArnieArnie789 WHY IS THAT? JUST BECAUSE YOU CANT THINK FOR YOURSELF AND YOU SIDE WITH A YOUNG MICHAEL MOORE. IT IS EASY TO SAY HE CORRUPT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DO SOME CRITICAL THINKING.
MrBIGL34 9 months ago
@MrBIGL34 It is also easy to turn the caps lock off, and articulate like normal people.
The generalization that all liberals idolize Michael Moore is laughable. There are plenty who despise him.
The person you are questioning is actually viewing political discussions, like you, and not videos of "talking cats" like so many other individuals on here. I think it's safe to say that they can think for themselves.
You are not infallible, so your opinion could very well be wrong. Think about it.
pocketocrisps 9 months ago
@MrBIGL34 no i've never watched any of michael moore's movies, i just happen to have gotten this conclusion from "CRITICAL THINKING" of my own. just listen to what he's saying and you tell me that isn't corruption and disregard for a fellow human
ArnieArnie789 6 months ago
... Is Money fundamentally Evil? Is Capitalism and Socialism Evil? Are all Governments and Voters Evil? For the first definitive classical answer, consult the Great Pyramid. Search YouTube for "The Great Pyramid, Why was it built".
CivilizedMan444 9 months ago
Here is the solution: transparency. All producers must disclose their safety findings. Let consumers make their own choice. If you want a car you have the choice of the expensive very safe car, the more dangerous cheap car, the moderately priced reasonably safe car, or no car at all. It's not the producer's job to keep you safe, it's your life, be smart!
CamillaCalamity 10 months ago
@CamillaCalamity Agreed
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
Don't get me wrong, I am not a "liberal". I am anti statist... it is hard to deny that the state is a self serving institution, like any other, that must bleed society in order to sustain itself. However, corporate mechanisms are very similar... primary is self preservation; the institution must preserve. Then comes expansion; the institution must expand it's wealth, power and influence - exponentially. Throw in the stock market system, banks and centralize power to the board of directors...
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox Gave you ever read the book by General Smedley Butler " War is a racket"?
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
There is such a massive body of evidence suggesting that corporate institutional frameworks have an extremely damaging effect on the world... they are literally forced by law to put profit above all externalities. The interconnection of state and corporate interests via campaign contributions has us locked in a vice. It is the joining of the worlds most powerful institutional bodies in a self perpetuating embrace that has is destroying any chance of true liberty and freedom.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox I advocate holding elected officials accountable, we must be politically active and keep track of what our Congressman does and hold them accountable. Our education system has systematically forget what our Political system is and how we control it and therefore for the last 100 yrs it has been mislabeled a democracy which is majority/mob rule. Your average american does not understand our system but the short easy answer for those not knowledgeable of it is we are a democracy.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox We have to re-educate each other and re take the power of our Government through our processes. The problem is and reality being what it is we haven't been a Gov for the people and by the people since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The military excerises its power in the name of US interests and foreign policy which always has to do with Industry namely Oil etc...it always goes under the secretive strategic interest.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
i dont get it , do those customers know the defect of the Pinto be4 purchasing the car?
tarawind829 10 months ago
@tarawind829
No, they did not. Therefore making Friedman's smoking comparison obsolete. His entire argument is a theoretical attempt to morally rationalize the robotic profit mechanisms of the Institution.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox And of course you have no idea of the particulars involved have you ever researched the case ?? What evidence do you need to know that a Pinto would be less likely to survive a crash with a behemoth Chrysler or station wagon or Ford LTD. Do you know what the supposed design flaw was?? Firedman does not advocate big business he advocates freedom of choice and personal responsibility to self.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff The "particulars" of the Ford Pinto case are documented in Ford's own internal records... May I suggest a simple Google search? Through its testing process Ford found that "In crashes over 25 miles per hour, the gas tank always ruptured". The cause? A poorly protected gas tank (obviously?). Ford calculated that this design fault would kill 180 people on average every year. This is not a theoretical question of subjective cost evaluation, this is putting profit over people's lives.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox The same problem happened with the full size models in fact it happened to the president of Ford in the 60's in a full size model. It wasn't just Ford the fuel tank hung too low in the back of the car behind the rear differential so that when the car was struck it would get punctured by the bolts, this was a common feature of the time. The numbers you quote are common for all companies who produce products that consumers buy it is not a conspiracy.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox You could blame Lee Iacocca for pushing production in order to get the car the market twice as fast as engineers wanted in order to stay competitive. Now according to investigations done by Rutgers law school the Pinto actually had less deaths and a better safety record than its competitors and that the numbers were severely inflated by the misleading mother jones article that was actually gotten from NHTSA, in other words the whole thing was ridiculous
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox It appears from examination of the evidence of the Ford pinto case that the notorious liberal left wing mother jones magazine seemed to inflate the whole incident in order to get liberals up in arms against the evil corporations, wow imagine that dishonesty and misinformation in order to create a sensational story in the name of liberalism OR so Mother Jones mags can sell more magazines like all businesses believe it or are in it for profit even if they have to create the issue.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox And the results of this scary article and naive liberals who hunger for reasons to blame corporations for their own shortcomings hmmmmmm yes you got it people voted for and politicians justified bigger Gov and more regs intended or unintended these are the consequences of such a debacle. Yaaayyyyy lets here for totalitarian goverment we are going to become.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff You could have Googled this SO easily, but here I'll make it easy for you.
"According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher... it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn"
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox First of all the design feature was common in MOST vehicles of the time second of all the numbers came from Government not an internal memo and Mother Jones Magazine perpetuated the conspiracy of evil big Ford and business in general. Yes much of this has been debunked as far as the conspiracy you and many others presume. The Pinto was not the only car that burned in the same manner from the same design but it happened so few a far between it was not a concern to Ford.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox ALL businesses use the same risk vs gain model in many different aspects, insurance requires it. What you are quoting are numbers that you seem to assume Ford expected this, this is paranoid and preposturous to think a company does not do everything in its power to mitigate this in the name of profit. If profit was the motive it seems idiotic for the company to plan on losing $50 million by allowing people to burn to death intentionally in the name of profit ?!?!?!?
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Richdanahuff
"What you are quoting are numbers that you seem to assume Ford expected this"
I am struggling to understand your use of the English language...
"it seems idiotic for the company to plan on losing $50 million by allowing people to burn to death intentionally in the name of profit ?!?!?!?"
Your math and economic understanding, at least so far as I can tell with the lack of coherence, needs work. I'm really not interested in continuing this, dude...
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox I didn't think you would as usual liberals who are anti business/money in general resort to insults and ignore irrefutable facts. Emotional rhetoric by you and those like you demonstrate the same illogical reasoning that gives way to socialism and loss of freedom. You apparently are not disenfranchised however you seem to lack maturity and control of your emotion at least long enough to look at the evidence so you can think for your self.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff I wasn't trying to insult you I genuinely could not make sense of that comment, there were a few confusing misuses of English. The argument you are making now is the subject of a Gary T. Schwartze book "The Mith of the Ford Pinto Case" and another publication by Birsch and Fielder, yes? The problem is, all they are arguing is that "everybody did it, so why should Ford be blaimed?". But how does that nullify what is essentially an institutional observation and critique?
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox I would argue that the obervation made of the institution was tainted by misleading propadanda. The Pinto case is more about political left wing demonizing corporations in general and using this case and misleading people to jump on their agenda through misinformation. The facts were distorted to cause uneeded upheaval for what??? you and I have opportunity to succeed or fail in this society we cannot blame those who have succeeded in their endeavors for our lack of relative success
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox Though I do not agree with lobbyist using government to achieve big business objectives I wholeheartedly agree with free enterprise. Free enterprise is true freedom and the only thing should be doing is producing cartes of law that protects innocent uninvolved parties from being affected by others choices i.e. the preservation of individual freedoms. The Pinto case is really about OUR choice to purchase if we choose a cheaper car and part of choice is knowing that by doing so we CON
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox we accept the inherent risk just like today. To buy a small fuel saving car is a smart choice when it comes to preserving our own money. However we accept the fact that we must be more vigilant in preserving our lives on the road in which others CHOSE to buy full size SUVs that could easily destory a fuel saver. I believe in this freedom I do not believe Ford put cars on the road that were any more dangerous than anyone elses according to my beliefs.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff I am not against the free market, although personally I prefer to work in a cooperatively owned workplace (I own a small design/marketing company with a few good friends, I prefer to work with no boss). I think their is a need to dismantle the current hegemonic power structures that have locked themselves in a monopolistic grip around the global market. A monopolized political economy is very dangerous, I believe. The threat to individual freedoms comes from institutional power...
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@InvertedFox Companies that are publicly traded are owned by stockholders, there is always a major stockholder but essentially this is a cooperative with lesser and greater say according to ownership. This is ingenious due to the fact that employees and citizens have an individual interest that the company does well. However when you are talking about free market that benefits all would be a salesman/route driver for a well known beverage company that works on commision.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox When a driver works on this system he has to put in effort into his clients in order to beat out competition for the best sales spots, quality and freshness of product, build relationships with managers etc....Everyone benefits from this system the driver gets paid for his industrious efforts the store gets better service thus increasing sales for both and the company makes more profit because of the dynamics involved.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox If the information quoted by the student was true I would take a different stance.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@InvertedFox Now as far as Ford going with the status quo, there is no evidence Ford created a bad product I am in fact a fan of Pintos. I think it is reasonable to assume that when you produce a product like a car someone is going to die in it this is not a point of contention. The idea that the Mother Jones article alluded to was that Ford knew that people WOULD die heinous deaths due to their knowledgeable ineptitude in design. CONT
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
I do not agree that Ford knew this would happen specifically I believe that if you sell 1,000,000 cars their will be a few deaths due to human error design.driver or otherwise the odds say it will happen. Humans will always find a unique way around every so called fail safe because a human designed it means it is doomed to fail sooner or later. I place blame on a person who intends to harm others but in a cars case my opinion is it was a complicent agreement with both knowing the risk
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff I don't think Ford is any better or worse than any other leading car manufacturers in terms of corporate practice. Ford funded the nazis, but then again General Motors and GM were cashing in on that situation as well. But you see this all just adds to the evidence suggesting that the institutional characteristics of corporations and other "free market" institutions routinely compels human beings to make cold, robotic and inhuman decisions in the name of profit mechanisms.
InvertedFox 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff You don`t have to make the numbers up, To look at the position Ford took, The student said it clearly, 13 bucks extra per car, Or around 1000 dead over the car`s usual prodution run, Ford`s guess was sadly about right, You know even Milton Friedman said, Let the big car companies die out, Ford and the like had to be rescued by the Goverment, Something he was against, So either way, Ford`s in the wrong, On business ethics and profits.
xmoroseguyx 10 months ago
@xmoroseguyx Michael Moore made this number up, the fact was the problems with the Pinto was a design flaw that was common with most cars of the time not just the Pinto. This supposed internal memo that said a life was worth 200,000 did not come from Ford it was a Government number that was given in a misleading article in Mother Jones magazine.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@xmoroseguyx The bottom line is if you valued your life enough and really wanted a safer car to drive you would cut back on other pleasures and wants and pay for a higher quality car. If a person is so value minded that they were willing to overlook the obvious dangers in such a car and accept the risk that is their choice. No one forced anyone to buy a Pinto or to overlook its lesser obvious lack of safety in comparison.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@xmoroseguyx If you look at all the cars of the time most full sized cars were huge from station wagons, cadillacs, etc...it was obvious to most that a small car could never survive any collision with any of these behemoths of the time.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@xmoroseguyx At the end of the day you fail to realize that EVERY single company that is liable for its product has to do the same risk vs gain model. They all insure for this and know that someone could die as a result of their product. Ford did take a risk pushing the Pinto to market before it had completed all its quality testing.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff Face it numpty, Sick minded nilistic greedy bastards at the top of Ford, Worked out the numbers, And then played the courts against the safety of the drivers and passengers of their car, I mean, The whole audience was with the student, He had him beat! " A million people starve, To make one car completely safe" Eh? What has food got to do with it? Yeah mate, Your talking bullshit.
xmoroseguyx 10 months ago
@xmoroseguyx Perhaps you are not aware of how economies work in this world regardless of Government. The problem with the Pinto is about the quality of car you will get for the price you are WILLING to pay. People buy small compact cars regardless of safety in self interest it doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at the car and recognize its likely inability to survive a crash with anything but consumers look at the price and fuel costs and accept this risk everyday.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@xmoroseguyx What you are saying is Ford execs decided it was cool for a consumer to burn to death as long as they profited. This doesn't sound reasonable to anyone, they rolled the dice like any business OR individual on the odds it doesn't happen or rarely does. The old saying of if you want quality you must pay for it is true, in a FREE market society you are FREE to pay for better quality if you CHOOSE to, basically you get what you pay for.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@xmoroseguyx The thing you seem to miss is that any individual or company plays the odds and laws of averages in every decision they make. Every business that can held accountable for its product does an analysis based off of risk vs gain models. In the military it is called Risk Assessment you do a rolling risk assessment in every decision you ultimately make. You seem to believe that there are more principled businesses looking out for you and not themselves.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@xmoroseguyx This is a childs idealism, everything everyone does is in their self interest whether it be profit, emotional or anything else. Companies are to make profit, publically traded Companies like Ford have to by law make decisions that profit to the best of their ability. What Ford did was make a decision that was extremely risky with a HIGHER probability of loss of life than their other makes with a reduced cost to the consumer.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
I wondered if Moore was an ignorant commie prick in his youth, or if he developed into one later in life...
1wowee 10 months ago
300 lbs earlier!!!
elvisfan22 10 months ago
Unless if you have no morality and no concern for life, you cant balance principles of life and money like what Ford did. However, Friedman's principle that people has the choice to choose is fundamentally correct in the capitalist system. The capitalist system sees that the principle lies in assigning a cost to the potential life lost and a cost to adding the protection. Those who do no want to take the risk have the choice to spend more.
MrBigEnchilada 10 months ago
Poor goofy liberal kid, he's only regurgitating what his liberal professors have taught him over the years.
bw01a 10 months ago
@bw01a This poor goofy kid is Michael Moore and as you may have noticed he hasn't gotten any smarter but his sense of right and wrong and his hand selected information or lack of has appealed to a this time period where he can appeal to the disenfranchised poor etc...with his rhetoric and half informed topics. I believe he knows his information is half truths but also knows he has made millions exploiting citizens angst.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff How do you know that is Michael Moore, besides the title of another copy of this video on youtube?
kiminokami 10 months ago
@kiminokami I researched it and as far as I can tell all sources say this is the same Michael Moore, If you look at him at a glance it is hard to tell due to the weight but a closer look at his face and the fat Moore they have the same eyes and shape. To add to all that his reasoning and mindset, look how confused Moore gets when Friedman simply changed the number value of a life he couldn't think and repeated someone elses response.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@periechontology The Monetary system is what is wrong, corporations is what is wrong, when profit is more important than human life, that is what is wrong....If you dont see that then i feel sorry for you.
ernz3712 11 months ago
What a piece of shit....Milton Friedman is what is wrong with the world....
ernz3712 11 months ago
@ernz3712
"what's wrong with the world"?.... typical Liberal Utopianism.
periechontology 11 months ago
@ernz3712
are you high?
suchafool990 11 months ago
@ernz3712 Socialists like you are what's wrong with the world.
evolutionist101 10 months ago
@ernz3712 Go live in Russia or Libya.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 10 months ago
Granted it took him like 5 minutes to get to the point, but i see what he was getting at. Even more so if you actually setup the courts to handle mis information. Not posting calories on your menu in a fast food joint for example. That would be an offense that McDonalds could get sued over, hiding the harmful knowledge. But we don't allow that in our wacky system, instead we have to wait for the FDA to say something.
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
@bluefootedpig You could sue McD's but whether they post it on their menus or not, that that food eaten in excess amounts is unhealthy is widely known.
silikon2 11 months ago
@bluefootedpig We Americans are losing personal responsibility, they go to McDonalds and eat food that is produced in bulk at a low cost and then never question the quality of it???? We start getting fatter and yet the alarm doesn't go off to quit eating it. Our culture cultivates blame on others and no responsibility on our part.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
@Richdanahuff very true, and the more I look into these things, the worse it gets. If you look up like what nestle does, I don't see how anyone could think that is a good company.
bluefootedpig 10 months ago
Wow, this is completely insane... It's obvious now that the capitalist model has failed. When human life is weighed against a collective group of profit makers then we all need to understand it's an epic fail. The tighter and the tighter the system becomes the more and more likely more people will become a 'pinto driver'. I am sure Milton would have a far more different perspective if this personally affected him or his family.
redpompeii 11 months ago
@redpompeii How is it obvious? Free market Capitalism hasn't been practiced in America for over a hundred years. The closest model currently exists in China (yes, with it's wonderful human rights violations). They're also not the world's largest debtor nation. With Capitalism as opposed to their prior model they have made great strides towards individual freedoms. It was under their prior model (Communism) that there were far worse atrocities committed.
Rensune 11 months ago
@Rensune Economic self-determination, autonomy of self, free of the meddlesomeness of the patenalistic state, and private property (of the sovereign individual, and by and large, "corporate" entities) have been the mainstay of (our) free and open society; and this view is more or less consistently communicated by most classical liberal thinking. Not so with the "progressive", statist liberal types. China is statist-Capitalism; a further refining of U.S. govt. paternalism.
whiff1962 11 months ago
they did stop making pintos ,a redesighn did happen.was it called toyota?american cars didnot get called junk on accident.
stealthgerm 1 year ago
"Let`s suppose it would have cost a billion dollars!" A response like that usually comes from the primary school playground, Notice how he takes the quality of the car out of the question, And talks about the level of compensation, The general public know there will always be a risk being on the road, But for Ford to be forced to pay compensation, Means they made a faulty car, The student right on is right on this one.
xmoroseguyx 1 year ago
To the contrary. he correctly points out that the issue is the tradeoff between quality and cost. Even if the incident at Ford mentioned by the student had not been long debunked, the fact remains that Ford could make a vehicle that approaches perfect safety only at a cost that would make automobiles unaffordable to anyone. Ford did not produce a car with a known defect (and fixed it immediately) but the testing necessary to find every defect would eliminate cars from the road.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@xmoroseguyx He framed it as a question of cost saved vs what a life was supposedly valued at at the time. Freedman asked him a great question about whether or not had the value of a life been placed at a billion would he still be arguing the same thing.
Richdanahuff 10 months ago
Friedman seems to steer the discussion away from the moral implications involved in the simple fact that a business' profitability can come at great cost to the consumer, the employee and others involved peripherally..how are we to manage these hidden costs?
tmbill 1 year ago
@tmbill - I think the idea is that when word gets out about an unsafe vehicle, then the people themslves will manage the hidden cost by by shopping elsewhere, thus punishing the company. True, that won't help the people who have already died. A lot of people think government oversight is the answer here ... but that assumes the gov't cares more about you than the company does, and I don't think that's true.
nasaguy 1 year ago 2
Milton says at 5:35 the fundamental principle is how much people are willing to pay to not get killed. The younger man had as his fundamental principle that companies should be more ethically aware: not everyone for himself, but thinking about eachother outside of money. That seems to me as a more important fundament, where change is really needed. Soon after this Milton says people are stupid to smoke, to let people believe trying to stop deaths is also his priority (smart move). Is it?
lakesentience 1 year ago
If we survive over the next century to see past his trickery, Milton Friedman will go down as a major purveyor of one of the most false and despicable systems in the history of mankind. We are fooled en mass now because the system is still 'living and breathing' but like all others before it, IT IS GOING TO DIE... my sincerest hope is we do not all die out as a species with it.
xxxricky 1 year ago 2
@xxxricky Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein... good reading, in case you have not read it already ;)
len2son 1 year ago
@xxxricky Yeah, no.
Meowmiks 1 year ago
MILTON FRIEDMAN IS A SMOOTH TALKING ARROGANT ASSHOLE. HIS SUPPOSED KNOWLEDGE OF ECONOMICS IS NOT ECONOMICS AT ALL. HE PROMOTES PROPAGANDA OF MONEY VALUE... THE SYSTEM HE BACKS IS MORE WASTEFUL THAN EVERY OTHER SYSTEM IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. HE REALLY ACTUALLY PROMOTES AN ANTI-ECONOMIC SYSTEM... THIS I HOPE WILL SHORTLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL... THE SOONER THE BETTER ...OR WE ARE ON A FAST TRACK TO EXTINCTION ON THIS PLANET. TIME IS FAST RUNNING OUT!!
xxxricky 1 year ago
Economics is all about the frugality of a made invention called money, which is now wholly based on debt in the US, not resource. Though he would never come out and admit it directly, Friedman does a great job defending the current virtues of money over human life, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The more I watch the actions of governments, multinationals and banks who manipulate and control it all the more I think to myself...
FUCK MONEY...THE SHIT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED!!
xxxricky 1 year ago
Actually, economics is the science of human interaction (that long precedes money) and, while it is certainly been harmed by governmental intervention replacing commodity money with fiat money (which is not the same thing as "based on debt"), the fact is that, in the absence of a monetary system of some kind, humankind (in which the poor have gotten tremendously richer due to capitalism) could maintain neither the current level of population nor technology and its abolition would kill billions.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago