Free to Choose - vol 02, 1990

See the entire video at www.ideachannel.tv
"When anyone complains about unfair competition, consumers beware." Friedman tells us about the writings of Adam Smith who, 200 years ago, warned that businesses always try to sell for the highest price and will try to control the market to do so. But without government help businesses cannot force people to buy their goods. Consumers will always get the lowest possible prices when competition is free and robust. Introduced by George Schultz. Discussion with Michael Walker, Fraser Institute and Steve Cohen, UC Berkeley.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• government
• subsidized
• subsidy
• india
• market
• looms
• industry
• milton
• friedman
• economics
• freedom
• capitalism
• choice

[kyufa]

mr1001nights: "Work for a boss or starve" seems to be your only argument. It's not even really an argument, it's simply a posture that you repeat over and over, as if repetition makes something more true. Address the third "work for yourself" option or STFU.

[kev3d]

The housing bubble was caused by people with poor credit history and banks willing to lend to them due to government reassurance, not "Poor" people. There is a difference. As it is, it was those with poor credit history that defaulted on the loans. Every one of the people you listed died more than 40 years ago and none were economists by trade. Rather than pick my favorite dead philosopher to support my view, I let the economists who know something about the subject persuade me.

[sreymind]

@CosmicFork

'unbalanced share of the nation's wealth'

Nations don't have wealth, people have wealth and some have more than others. Simply adding it up is no more the nation's wealth than the sum total of all the money carried by people standing at a bus stop is the bus stop's wealth.

[Karlzberg414]

There's a problem with this reasoning in that it lumps together both essential goods and choice or "luxury" goods together. They are very different. When free markets are applied to luxury or surplus goods - things which people can live without - there is no problem. But when it is applied to goods essential to human survival, it can create chaos - housing, basic food, healthcare, fuel for example.

[conorhennessey]

some real deep thinkers there....

[conorhennessey]

lol. amateur economics 101.

[conorhennessey]

coercion implies the use of physical force

[jtandbear]

Yes, we have a coercive market. It happens when the gov't steals 3 trillion dollars from us and creates a pot of gold that every last interest group and business fights for the access of so they can stamp out free competition. Why's the coercive market destructive? It is b/c of such gov't interference and crony capitalism. Even in a coercive market, though, there is no set amount of wealth. Just b/c one group has money, it doesn't mean that you can't have it, too. It's not a zero sum game.

[CosmicFork]

I reject the premise that there is a quote "free-market" for ordinary workers in this country. What we have is a Coercive Market . In a Coercive Market, the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth. Those who preach the virtues of the free market should be the first to recognize that a coercive market is as certain to be destructive as a genuine free market is beneficial.

[CosmicFork]

But is this "market" really "free"? Coercion marks the employer-employee relationship at every point. For most employees, pay and working conditions are neither negotiable, nor a matter of free choice. It is "take it or leave it." And few are in a position to leave it--not when a job is a necessity for survival. In a true free market, both the buyer and seller of work or services are free to bargain for the best possible terms.

[kev3d]

You think a government would not also arise? What I meant by "no government" is no currently established government. One (or many) would form because governments always spontaneously form. So do markets. Assuming technology did not revert back 3000 years, the market would be relatively free until (like now) the government grew to the point of massive incompetence, over taxation, over regulation, and corruption all in the name of "social justice".