Do Gooders Who Do Harm

Milton Friedman discusses the efficacy of "affecting to trade for the public good," as Adam Smith put it.

All too often people who are well-meaning and have good intentions end up creating results which are the opposite of the very thing they are trying to fix.

From:
Donahue (1980)

View the full episode here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=21ECB9DFF9B468D8

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• dogooders
• dogood
• do-gooders
• nader
• liberal
• conservative
• friedman
• sowell
• republican
• democrat
• economics
• social policy
• welfare
• social reform
• obama
• GM
• general motors
• deregulation
• ICC
• airlines
• trucking
• adam smith
• donahue
• public good
• populism
• corporatism
• capitalism
• regulation

[iCookie1]

Friedman seems to believe all good intentions always have bad outcomes. But what about all the times they have good outcomes? What about regulation such as the Glass-Steagall? The Clean Water Act? The Child Labor act? Did those also have bad outcomes?

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@iCookie1

Yes.

[diogotomediogo]

@WideWorldOfWisdom such a long answer. proves how much thought you've taken into it. asshole

[WideWorldOfWisdom]

@diogotomediogo

I'm sorry you feel the need to call people names. I will tell you that long-winded responses do not automatically mean thought has been included.

[aussieconservative]

@aussieconservative an intelligent debater would use my above comment against me i guess.

[aussieconservative]

@WideWorldOfWisdom long winded arguments containing mere verbal virtuosity are often evasions of thought hoping that the reader will be caught up in things such as words and cadence forgetting content and facts are what matter.

[WalterLiddy]

@diogotomediogo It was a yes/no question. Why should he elaborate when the question: a) is so muddled in its thinking, and b) doesn't ask for more than a one-word reply?

[WalterLiddy]

@iCookie1 First, he doesn't say anything like that 'good intentions always have bad outcomes'. He says that those who affect to trade for the benefit of others are either lying or mislead and that such people are invariably working against the public interest. It is quite possible to have good intentions, to act openly in one's own interests, and in so doing contribute to society - in fact it's the only way to do so.

[gcfoneman]

As is often the case, people look at the intentions of laws not the outcomes. Some do gooders really have the best of intentions, unfortunately they are so blinded by intentions they cannot see the obvious unintended consequences of the laws they support. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act had nobles intention, making it possible for people to get mortgages that otherwise would not have qualified. How could that not see that if you lower lending standards foreclosure rates would go up.

[WesOKelly]

@iCookie1 Glass-Steagall ramped inflation, and raped the interest rate. Clean Water act cost businesses billions of dollars and millions more in frivolous lawsuits. Child labor act ruined the welfare of children by putting them in a state of dormancy, rather than working hard and being productive. Don't get me wrong, they should have treated the children much better than they did, BUT the way to do it wasn't by forcing them to hire adults who need more pay.

[jesbeard]

@iCookie1 Friedman did not believe all good intentions have bad outcomes, and if you think he believed that, you should listen more closely. As to the three specifics you list, yes, all did far more harm than good. Regarding child labor specifically, you really should read Friedman's book Free to Chose, or Walter WIlliams' book The State Against Blacks.

[CosmicFork]

@WideWorldOfWisdom :such a long answer. Proves how much thought you've put into it, asshole!

[ohedd]

@mikerotcherson Yes, that's what they want, but they are unable to do so in a system free of government intervention. Where unions stand on their own, as well as businesses, the two are just as dependent on each other, and will reach a healthy consensus on labor terms and conditions. No need for truck laws, no need for minimum wages, no need for lunch breaks.

[ohedd]

@jrwel14 Exactly. If the government doesn't intervene in the business of either employer and union, we'll get a balanca of power, as the employer is just as dependent on the employee as the employee is on the employer. The two will reach a consensus that'll satisfy both. Therefore, federal truck law is redundant - in fact it only limits us.