A student poses a series of question on based on Friedman's notion that people should pursue their own self-interest. The student points out that he'd read that Friedman had previously come out against disaster aid for victims of a flood in Pennsylvania. Friedman corrected the questioner and noted that he did not come out against private aid for flood victims but instead was against the Federal Government providing discounted flood insurance in advance to home purchasers which motivated people to build houses in areas where they otherwise would not have been able to obtain insurance privately. If not for the discounted insurance, it's likely many of the flooded houses would never have been built in the first place as it wouldn't have been in peoples self-interest.
The student went on to note that it was recently reported that an old man in Ohio died when the electric company turned off his power when he'd failed to pay his electric bill. Was it moral for the company to act in it's own self-interest to do so? Friedman responded by asking what if the electric company never turned off the power for anyone? Who would pay the cost--the people who own or work at the electric company? It would be unjust to impose that responsibility on individuals who are running an honest business of providing electricity. Friedman suggests that the true responsibility lies on the mans neighbors and friends who were not charitable enough to allow him to meet the electric bills.
Finally the student uses the example of Ford deciding not to install a $13 block of plastic which would prevent it's Pinto cars from exploding in a rear-end collision. Ford estimated such a move would cost 200 lives a year at a cost of $200,000 per life lost. They multiplied and found that it wasn't worth it to install the plastic block. He asked if a corporation seeking it's own self-interest was a good thing in this case? Friedman responded by asking, what if it cost $1 billion to save each life, should Ford have put in the block? It's simply not practical to put an infinite value on an individuals life. If it took $1 billion in resources to keep one individual safe, and acquiring those resources meant that a million people must starve, it's a bad deal. Friedman concludes that he doesn't know if the $200,000 number that Ford used was the right number to maximize the overall benefits, but at the end of the day the principle is that we can't simply protect ourselves from everything and impose that cost on others. Friedman posits that the question the student should be raising, is should Ford be required to attach the statement to the car, "we've made this car $13 cheaper, and therefore it is X% more risky for you to buy it".
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
What is this little idiot's solution? Just have government impose his idea of morality? Everyone knows Government does eveything it does so well... His example of someone dieing because his electricy was truned off...What is the solution? Don't let power companies turn of peoples electricity? What would the consequences be? hmmmm.. If you are in a buisness where you don't get paid for what you do...you quit... And no more electricity...This isen't hard to understand.
people sometimes call other people DENSE.... its not because they are stupid but because they dont allow new ideas into their head.
that kid was a stubburn person, who was asking questions as "gotchas" and now allowing Friedman to answer. If the Dense kid would have allowed Friedman to answer, perhaps he would have understood, the things he was asking about, a little better.. But he was not interested in understanding this correctly.. only to somehow prove Friedman wrong.
Why are "free market" and "capitalism" confused? There is a lot of economic activity that is parasitic. Like gambling, entertainment, porn, excessive speculation, etc.
Milton's point about it works best if everyone acts in their own interest is intriguing. Take the case of a shoal of Sardines or a flock of birds beings attacked by a predator(s). They all swirl around as if one united body evading capture. However, studies showed that actually each fish or bird was acting independently keeping the perfect distance from its fellow so it would not be caught RATHER than all helping each other not get caught. The fact they all got scoffed has never been explained..
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
that kid was a stubburn person, who was asking questions as "gotchas" and now allowing Friedman to answer. If the Dense kid would have allowed Friedman to answer, perhaps he would have understood, the things he was asking about, a little better.. But he was not interested in understanding this correctly.. only to somehow prove Friedman wrong.
On second thought, they should keep doing it so I have ample sources of humor.