Friedman's on the Military Industrial Complex

[39sumer]

he said this when almost everyone was much more nieve and blind to the injustices our military has taken part in

[p4ul1z]

Nose nick her Friedman and all the other Jews have invested into the military industry, hence they are and have been collecting profits from wars all around the globe.

[Vyna80]

I finally found something I disagree with Friedman on.

[SrijitSanyal]

I'm surprised by the weakness of his response here. I would have expected him to say that incentives to wage war from those who invest in the military would be counterbalanced by the incentives of everyone else who invests elsewhere, whose trade would be disrupted, so long as we had a free and competitive society. The real reason for military growth has more to do with anti-foreign bias and general democratic failure. People still think we need soldiers to secure our oil supply.

[hamnose]

Milton's remarks may have been made before Haliburton but they were after Kodak lobbied for national ID cards ...after DOW lobbied to keep vets from getting recognition for illnesses caused by Agent Orange. The U.S. might not make a good hard drive but we make bombers and tanks. The MIC (along with attorney's fees) are a major portion of the GDP and the multinational corporations Milt loves so much, are the largest segment of our economy, not small business. Anybody think that's a coincidence?

[MatthewRider1]

A little unfair to criticize Friedman about this interview, at the time of the interview military spending wasn't as bloated as it is now. There is NO WAY Friedman would have the same position about the 36% military spending of today.

[hamnose]

"I don't believe that for a minute" ... This said at a time when we were still paying for the cost of Vietnam. And yet people listened to this snake oil salesman and like a dog to his vomit we went back to doing the same old shit with even less regulation. Horay!

[tehatemachine]

@hamnose Like the Video Author said

"The question is, do you have the humility to look into this further to discover the lie that it is."

That in whcih you do not, Your facts are based upon rhetoric that makes you feel good.

[hamnose]

@tehatemachine Now "the question is do you have the humility to" admit that your post didn't make any sense. The "video author" didn't say that. That's a segment of Eisenhower's farewell speech up there and he doesn't say it either. If you are you trying to express disagreement, then say what it is. Say what "fact" or "rhetoric" you dispute. And how the hell can you say rhetoric makes me feel good? No, it doesn't make me feel good. Apparently you aren't clairvoyant. WTF

[ChrisnSnoop]

@hamnose Agreed 100%. The biggest contradiction of Friedman's so-called "free market" (which has never existed) is the idea that capitalism can survive as a separate entity from Western imperialism--and that the only impediment to "market forces" is big government. In reality, the Western private sector depends very much on the subservience of big government and its military dominance over foreign territories. As a system designed for the few at the expense of the many, MIC = success.

[hamnose]

@ChrisnSnoop Well damn, we better get a room. In a twisted way we already have a "free market". I like the part about the easy living and all the neat stuff, but the price is high: no privacy, no rights, no freedom etc. (Not that you ever use those things;)). And what's left of the government ain't so great. But it's often very bad for people elsewhere. They just need to get an MIC and a banking empire and they too can be a bunch of pampered goose stepping little nazis. Amiright?

[inaquitoguy]

I work for those contractors. The reason they charge such high prices is because the list of requirements for new military technologies are written by desk generals with no engineering experience. They have no idea that faster, stronger, lighter, more explosive are all completely contradictory terms and the cost of meeting those requirements is phenomenally high.

[Redfingers]

Ironically, the private contractors have defrauded the American public out of billions of dollars, according to the Pentagon, and the private military contractors cost more than a US marine. What do we have to show for all the private contractors employed in Iraq? A trillion dollars in the hole and several thousand smoldering craters later, we get a stinking shit pile that nobody can seriously suggest is any better off.

[noobyoutoobdood]

This is one issue is disagree with friedman on.

[rigu1984]

btw.....never been liberal or conservative...always viewed voting as an exercise in futilty seeing direct action and personal ethos of non materialism and simplicity in lifestyle as most efficient way at beating back the evils of the nation state and corporate militarism...but im probably going to cast a vote for Ron Paul

[rigu1984]

saying there was no MIC or private business interests influencing war in the mid to late 70s is foolish..in fact this has been woven into the fabric of the US.The annexation of Hawaii at the behest of wealthy plantation owners, the spanish american war again for the those that were the godfathers of modern agribusiness.. the banana wars of the 1930's for the united fruit company etc. weapons manufacturers wielded more of an influence post ww2. War is almost always spurred by business interests.

[16thHop]

Looking at the American wars/coups/military support during the Soviet Era started for three reasons:

- Protect Resources in certain areas(most of the conflicts in the middle east)

- Take up space in the international community with American strongmen (Suharto, South Vietnam, Seko in Zaire)

- The threat of "a good example" of a working socialist state (assassination and coup of Allende in Chile with Friedman's favorite Pinochet, most military supported terror in Latin America such as Contras)

[cjandersen]

@16thHop Your comment about Friedman's "favorite Pinochet" is such a common and absolutely ignorant statement. The question is, do you have the humility to look into this further to discover the lie that it is. Friedman wasn't a supporter of Pinochet.

[hamnose]

@cjandersen Milton called it the "Miracle of Chile". And whoa! some miracle: triple digit inflation, negative balance of trade, pathetic GDP. etc. Their social security system disappeared a year after privatizing it. And surprise! Without a civil infrastructure to provide messy non free-market things like justice and democracy, people abused their authority. Who'd a thunk it? So Milt didn't go along with that? Well, under those miraculous circumstances how do you prevent it?

[FabiusMaximus1000]

Once the Chinese & Russia privatize their military, we can relax. Meanwhile, I'm comfortable with 4% of GDP going to protecting the country.

[accountNo9]

Whilst we can all agree, Bloated defense budget and the MIC is a massive problem today, Perhaps he was not necessarily wrong at this time. This was early 1970s in this talk(?), possibly he simply could not predict how corrupt and intertwined military and government could become, i have no hard evidence - but I don't believe many people in this period entertained serious thought that the MIC could actually pose such a threat to the stability of the nation itself

Just a thought, 2c

RON PAUL 2012

[brazenhubris]

He's right again. I like this guy. Join The Sane Party d com and spread the word, and listen to my latest interviews on my channel. Don't worry, I'll take it from here, uncle Milty.

[aaronshoup]

This guy is hilarious. I am now under the impression that this guy was a comedian, posing as an economist. My god, I think it was really Andy Kaufman in disguise! Private industry may be more efficient, but the profits are soaked up by the owner! I get it now, that was the punch-line!

[Buddyronny]

I'm going to explain Friedman's response:

Friedman was NOT speaking of the military industrial complex. He was speaking of national defense--the need for a strong military. Economically speaking, there is NO way to ensure national defense without a government-directed military force. Does anyone think that we should turn the military over to private entities, and thereby hand over the country to a warlord? No, the military must be government-directed. That's his point.

[Buddyronny]

@Buddyronny

As for the industrial complex around the military, should we have the government privatize all the companies and/or start producing weapons itself? The government can not produce goods at any lower cost than private enterprise, so we'd lose money there. We are left with the current state of affairs: Government-directed military forces, and private enterprises that produce the weapons and supplies. Does that mean that we don't have any corruption? No, but it's the best we've got!

[aaronshoup]

@Buddyronny That may be his point, but when big corporations profit off of war, and money is allowed to influence politics, we end up with a situation in which our military really is directed by private corporations.

[pmango1000]

@aaronshoup GIVE AN EXAMPLE THEN RATHER THAN SIMPLE TALKING POINTS

[pmango1000]

@Buddyronny Exactly! Well said!

[balbahut0g]

L I E B E R M A N

[4390100]

As Max Keiser would say, Milton Friedman was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The military Industrial complex partially holds our country hostage, it's Stockholm Syndrome or his bank account was overflowing with somebody's money and there is no other alternative. He should have listened to Eisenhower's departure speech from the Presidency, keeping in mind that Eisenhower was also one of the highest ranking Generals in United States history, and all that makes Eisenhower more knowledgeable.

[MillionthUsername]

Friedman always allowed his statism to derail him. The US military is freakishly bloated, wasteful, unaccountable, menacing. The MIC is a parasite sucking the life blood out of they dying American Empire.

And it isn't hard to defend free market alternatives to "national defense." As an economist, he should have opened his mind more. It seems like he decided to settle in many ways, making an uneasy peace with the establishment so as not to be rejected as too radical.

[cjandersen]

@MillionthUsername Bravely spoken.

[pmango1000]

@MillionthUsername Agreed, the military is wasteful, but then again so is EVERY department of government. At least the military keeps USA from being taken over and has an important function. Its welfare and all the social engiuneering programs that are bankrupting USA, not just military

[Aphoresis]

@MillionthUsername

Or maybe he wasn't a wild eyed "let's burn everything down tomorrow" ideologue that had at least read a little Edmund Burke, and was resolved to deal sensibly with something as significant as National defense for the time being, whatever gradual changes the future might eventually hold for it in the direction of privatization..

[InnuendoXP]

@MillionthUsername

You know that's interesting. How it suggests that Miltons statements against all taxation and social programs could be considered to be less controversial than the privatisation of military.

The only dilemma I can really see then is to what, whom and how is a private military force kept in check or held accountable to anyone but itself if ALL militaries were private. Though of course you could very-well say that the US government isn't doing too terrific a job itself either.

[kawaiigardiner]

@MillionthUsername I don't think it needs to be handed over to private sector because the same stupid things would happen - the simple reality is that for the last 22 years the US has been wondering around bumping into things wondering what its purpose is in a post cold war world. Unless you have some sort of coherent long term plan for the role of the US has in a multipolar world I'm sorry the money will keep getting wasted on random shit that is unneeded and unjustified toys for the boys.

[jneil2007]

Milton Friedman is not denying that there is no military industrial complex. He is in perfect line with Paul I believe. Having a strong military without having an empire and putting the military industrial complex down by rejecting war.

[TheDano1947]

Uncle Milty must have a brain tumor, of course the private sector owns the military and war is profitable.

[mixmastermeeks]

@TheDano1947 At what point did he say that war isn't profitable? Really what he is saying is that if a private company owned the military they would make more profit because they would do it cheaper. It is true that some private companies have influence on who gets military contracts. That isn't the same thing as saying that the private sector has any effect on when and who we go to war with.

[MrDoobious]

Whoever thinks war is a necessity is absolutely wrong. There is nothing necessary about it.

If you believe otherwise you obviously do not know the true reasons wars are fought. Wars are fought for aquisition.

War is: The rich sending the poor to extort from other nations what they cannot aquire peacefully.

[cjandersen]

@MrDoobious Is this another conservative trying to sound like a liberal?

[pmango1000]

@cjandersen thats what you don't get: Conservatives ARE Liberals, Classic Liberals that is:

"Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets"

TODAY'S "LIBERALS" WANT GOVERNMENT TO RUN EVERYTHING

[cjandersen]

@pmango1000 Wait a minute! Are you another one of those Harvard liberals who likes to stir the pot by trying to sound like a Chicago school economist?

[TheGrindsprint]

@pmango1000 "Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, ..."

but that´s not conservatism. Conservatism is traditionally associated with nationalism/patriotism, dynastic traditions, religious intolerance, and so on. Even tho I admit that "conservatives" in america has been for some time advocating liberal economic policies. Not strange since there is no history of feudalism in America.

[doom032]

@MrDoobious

Sometimes the choice is simple: Either you fight a war or you get destroyed. And that doesn't always have to be a defensive war.

[pmango1000]

@MrDoobious Oh please, so tell me: what did USA "acquire" in Korean War?? Vietnam? Bosnia? Iraq1 or Iraq2? Afghanistan? Most Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans were/are NOT poor.

[MrDoobious]

@pmango1000 I retract my earlier statment. Well played. However the MIC NEEDS wars in order to keep the governments budget high. So perhaps the aforementioned wars were necessary to inflate government spending, ergo make more revenue for the MIC.

Vietnam was an atrocity. it never should have happened. Iraq *perhaps* was a strategical maneuver, so the US could encroach on arab states. Afghanistan controls 93% of the worlds opium supply, and yes the US does profit from this.

[16thHop]

@pmango1000

1) Korea/Vietnam -Domino theory to prevent Chinese influence (both s. Korea and Vietnam were under tyrannical dictatorships at the time)

3) Bosnia and Iraq 1 were good wars in my opinion

4) Iraq 2 was concocted with bullshit as a US ploy to keep their hand on the oil spigot of the middle east. It wasn't about human rights because we never made noise when Iran was using US gases against civilians in Iran-Iraq War

5) Afghanistan has to do with strategic position with Iran/Pakistan

[igystrvigy]

Have any economists noted how the "cost of war" has decreased through the years? The costs in casualties and weaponry seems to have gone down tremendously.

[Saebeck32]

This was before Halliburton. Friedman might have a different tone today.

[Jaluzaga]

I disagree also.

[jezza1789]

WOW I finally disagree with him. The Military Complex uses its influence and political power to start wars all over the world on small nations that could never touch us.

[s0beit]

I disagree with Milton on this big time, but It's nice he helped to end the draft. Granted, I will have to sign up for it, the point is at least he helped a little lol.

[MrBigEnchilada]

friedman is not correct, we dont need the government wastes in military spending on things we cant even use UNLESS we go to war. Why spend so many billions on planes we never use.....at least we can delay them. Then theres the cost overruns, oligopolies that are created because the government only buys from one or two companies. They need to reduce military spending and use it somewhere USEFUL.

[mba2ceo]

War is a scam to steal resources while exploiting the stupid to suffer & die for Elite benefit. War is a tool Elites utilize for their benefit. Even during NAM USA did not send their educated.

[avdquick]

@mba2ceo

Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.

Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. [McCaffrey]

Learn to do proper research then listen to your ivory tower beard scratching liberal anti-american teacher or are you a sheeple who regurgigates what an 'expert' says and call it your own.

[cjandersen]

@avdquick Holy crap! I had NEVER heard the word "sheeple" before!

And, I totally agree with that last paragraph.

[mba2ceo]

This fool is a moron or a liar ... these parasites are called "War Profiteers".

Want to stop all WARS ... reduce Elites incomes to minimum wage. Peace On Earth would spread like wild fire.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@mba2ceo talk about a moron! war is the ultimate competition-- an abhorrent one indeed-- but there is no way to stop war; war is a condition of humanity and the only important thing is to WIN YOUR WARS

reduce all elite incomes to minimum wage?

wth are you smoking/shooting/sniffing/eati­ng?

peace on earth? are you a satanist? or just an egotistical utopian?

[EmperorProzen]

@2dum2getsocialism I agree that war is abhorrent. War is politics via violence.

However, due to the global economy and how easy trade is in modern times. Wars are very different now from what they used to be like. The U.S. has not declared war since World War II. There have been wars like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... in this manner; but they differ from an offer war like the War of 1812. The reason is because of the global economy as well as global communication; nations are tied together.

[epajrgolf]

Oh boy Friedman you were so wrong on this one.

[hayden50]

@epajrgolf times have changed, this interview was from 1979 when the soviet union still existed & was a major threat.

[epajrgolf]

@hayden50 Yeah times have changed to prove President Eisenhower correct. The military industrialized complex he warned about has its full grip on the country and is reaping huge profits and selling technologies to countries like China.

[hayden50]

@epajrgolf yes, i agree...

[epajrgolf]

@epajrgolf There is nothing wrong with China. They earned there success in my view.

[MrBigEnchilada]

@epajrgolf lol the us doesnt sell to china, it sells to japan and republic of china/taiwan to keep PRChina in check.

[epajrgolf]

@MrBigEnchilada I never said America sells anything to China. Read it and get your information correct. The companies that make weapons for America are not loyal to the "red white and blue" they are loyal to money and the country that can put out the big bucks gets the prized weapons.

[epajrgolf]

@MrBigEnchilada Do you really think that the companies that make weapons for America stay loyal to America? Do you think they wouldn't sell technologies to countries with a lot of money?

[gregruz45]

wow looking at the state of the military today i would say that there are a lot of interests who make a huge amount of money on war. HALIBURTON anyone?