@@qurpt7319 Saying that sarcastically is actually quite foolish. The device of considering a more extreme example of a syllogism is exactly the kind of thing that advanced philosophy from ancient Greece to now.
What I can appreciate from this exchange is that the student did some homework as opposed to simply regurgitating empty sentiments he hadn't given any thought to. He seems so innocent. Students in newer videos with opposing views are rarely so inclined to have discourse, wow!
@Rosscoe Schopenhauser Are you implying that laissez faire is the wrong ideological approach and we should instead adopt something more authoritarian? Do you see the irony in saying "our schools are promoting marxism, let's reject the free market."
That's because this guy had humility and understood that he could be wrong. The ones that start using air horns and shit don't consider that. They already know they're undoubtedly right.
@@silikon2 Yes he did, in part. But he supports abortion for the convenience of the mother, society, his personal conscience??? So he thinks it's ok to actively kill a living person for (plug in your own reasons) but doesn't think it's right for Ford to "risk" lives to save money. So what the student is really arguing is that HIS preferences should be accepted by rejecting preferences of others. What if the student had decided to forgo his education and its cost and used that money (say $200K) to take medicines to Africa, Asia, or some other place where people dies of disease every day for lack of medicine. He could have saved countless lives (say 100) with that money but made (an unconscious choice) of "letting" those people die because he used the funds for his personal education. Every choice we make has some influence (positive or negative) on others. While it is easy too disagree with the choices of others (especially large companies) it is more difficult to admit our own selfish motives and their effects. I wonder where the student is today and whether he has ever driven a Ford. 🙂
What Milton is getting at is: What the young man is implying is that generosity is something which we should rely on companies to provide to us, and that is quite outrageous, not to mention irresponsible of us in how we treat others. The day we expect companies to do our charity for us, we will be sorely disappointed in the results thereof.
I hope you've become smarter over the two years that you posted your stupid comment. Do you know how much charity corporations contribute? You were probably one of the losers of Occupy Wall Street lmao.
@@abbej5183 I hope you've become smarter over the two years that you posted your stupid comment. David wasn't even talking about whether or not or how much charity corporations contribute. He is suggesting that the proper approach to situations similar to the one in the video is to depend on one's self and community over a given system or corporation. Besides, when you take an individual case as is presented in the video here, the best way to help a specific individual almost necessarily depends on that individual's social circle. Typically, corporations give to other organizations on a grander scale without usually specifying individuals. Learn to pay attention to the point of a statement rather than what you erroneously assume it is before choosing to condescendingly react to your own misunderstanding of someone else. "lmao"
I must say, I'm not really a 'free marketeer' at all. But this was a fantastic response by Friedman on the first point. I too would have been fooled by the emotional arguments put forward by the questioner in relation to the Ford case. Thanks for the upload.
Brian C There's a middle way, some eu countries are doing that and they are better off than USA, when it comes the quality of life for the average dude
That seems to be starting to change. For instance, the 50000 surgeries and procedures the UK had to delay to labor shortages in the medical field. Furthermore, should the time come that we finally decide to pull our military froom Europe, there's a good chance those nations will crumble even faster do to the financial burdens those nations would inherent.
@@danielabianchetti1336 Greedings from Finland. The middle way is having a free market and then taxing it. But mixed economy is mixed disaster and controlled economy is complete disaster Further more. Laffer curve shows us how taxing less is taxing more.
Milton Friedman is arguing with principles based on statistics and the audience member is thinking in terms of individual life. Companies and people in general can not exactly predict future events for individuals but can make pretty reliable statistical claims based on past observed events. This why Milton is right about how it is a question on how much a life is worth.
Where I would maybe disagree with Friedman was that he wasn't clear that companies should disclose unsafe aspects of their vehicle. They should do so. This is also why you should thoroughly research a purchase as potentially unsafe as an automobile. We have vehicles with 3, 4 and 5 star crash ratings- they are what they are. You pays your money, you takes your choice.
Back then there was no star ratings for vehicles!! .. People died just as much and even more in the higher priced cars than they did in a Ford Pinto .... it's just that the Pinto was cheap and more people had them!! Same thing can be said today with cars even with a star crash Rating!!! I will say ... Mr. Moore didn't take his own advice in life!! Mr. Moore is feeding off of the stupid!! Hey... he has that right to make money!!! That little big fat bassted!!
How can you disagree if you say yourself he wasn’t clear? Are you disagreeing with an unclear statement? Are you criticizing his clarity? He does say the right thing was for the company to disclose the risk, and the government role is to provide a justice system where malicious hiding of risks should be prosecuted.
I'm an economist and work in investment banking. This view is unbearably naive. Free market means class society over time. Because there will be winners and losers after 30 years of competition. And guess how they will distribute their resources after the first generation. There is a reason why we have something like "old money". "Old money" is exactly the result of the free market. The sons of rich men will always inherit the earth and then they will give it to their own sons
@@xuchilbara21392 I’ll be honest, so called “high” finance is an evil in society IMO. And it is natural that someone working in that field comes to the conclusion that you have. But I think if you look deeper, you’ll find a nuance there. The ability to accumulate wealth is not undesirable; inflating away or excessive taxation of wealth are only favoured by communists. Nor is inheritance a bad thing; it is only just that the fruits of ones labor pass to his next generation. Additionally, wealth has a way of dissipating; Mike Tyson made $200M from his boxing career, and was broke after only a few years of retirement. The ill feeling you rightfully have for the kind of perpetual wealth where “the sons of the rich inherit the earth” is really the result of _usury._ Where instead of people earning (and spending) money, _money is “earning” money._ Usury is (a word I cannot say, but which starts with a _j_
@@xuchilbara21392 I’ll be honest, so called “high” finance is an evil in society. And it is natural that working in that field comes to the conclusion that you have. But I think if you look deeper, you’ll find nuance there. The ability to accumulate wealth is not undesirable. Inflating away or excessive taxation of wealth are only favoured by communists. Nor is inheritance a bad thing. It is only just that the fruits of ones labor pass to his next generation. Additionally, wealth has a way of dissipating. Mike Tyson made $200M from his boxing career, and was broke after only a few years of retirement. The ill feeling you rightfully have for the kind of perpetual wealth where “the sons of the rich inherit the earth” is really the result of usury. Where instead of people earning money, money is “earning” money.
Friedman is the man. In all the countless videos that I've watched (literally hundreds) where pundits try to make a case for their view on economics, nobody - except maybe Thomas Sowell - comes close to being as good as Friedman in articulating himself so well.
***** You are arguing about the talking points, and I'm not necessarily concerned about that. There are only miniscule difference between Sowell and Friedman, who were practically joined at the hip in their thinking. The point is this: there are countless videos of Friedman getting up in front of an auditorium of a hostile audience. Not only does he take them all on, he dominates the debate without being mean or harsh in any way. Sowell is also a master debater and a lot of fun to watch. But I'm presently unaware of him taking on the masses to the extent that Friedman does over and over again.
Ike Evans Sowell is equally as brilliant. In fact, I tend to look at Sowell as more credible because of his Marxist upbrining, his studying under Friedman and still remaining a Marxist...but after working in the Department of Labor, doing a complete 180 and realizing Marxism could never work. That in of itself is a remarkable change in direction. Yo!
I would say that such a problem in a Free Capitalist society would be resolved by customers both refusing to buy these dangerous cars and then either criminal or civil action being taken to punish the negligence of the guilty. In a Socialist society the cars would be made by the State with no incentive to meet customer demands and if threatened with legal prosecution would simply overwhelm the aggrieved with all the allied powers of government who own said industry.
This kid is confused. He admits that not every life is sacred but he's upset over 1000 deaths in Ford Pintos. When you get so selective in which lives are worthy of saving, you end up with this kind of confusion. That kid doesn't have a leg to stand on when he admits to being in favor of killing unborn human life.
Andrea Burman What about when the Nazis invaded a country and raped the population's woman who had blonde hair and blue eyes. The women got pregnant and gave birth to them now the mother are dead but the children are now adults who are treated horribly by their fellow citizens. Because they represent the oppressive force? Should the women have tried to escape to place that provided abortion to save the children the pain of be treated horribly by their own countrymen?
+Anthony Haller The child had no choice in the matter, it doesn't deserve to die. how is killing an innocent life okay? besides, abortion wasn't really prevalent back them as it is now.
@@udjujdjddd5052 he and other students in the audience sound like young socialists in the making... I'm sure most of them dropped the commie gobbledegook as soon as they graduated, got real jobs, and started paying bills.
I read some of the comments here, and I have to wonder whether we've all seen the same video. I have to believe the comments critical of Friedman come from individuals who haven't seen his other speeches or talks. He was a very intelligent and well-spoken person with reasoned ideas. At the heart of all his talks was the idea that individuals should be free to decide their own best interests. I find this difficult to disagree with, and his viewpoints all derived from there.
I was a bit confused what he was actually saying at first but thinking about it. But I think he was saying a truly free market (which includes freedom of information) then consumers should be able to choose whether or not to pay less money in exchange for a higher risk. The only issue with Ford Pinto was that they didn’t tell anyone so the consumer couldn’t have known and wasn’t able to make that choice
In a hazards analysis today, 200 lives a year in this Ford example would be utterly intolerable, and the design would need a complete re-work. But note- it is not possible to reduce the risk to zero. There is no such thing as no risk. In safety engineering there is only the principle of reducing risk "As Low As Reasonably Practicable", and the analysis considers the severity and also the likelihood of hazards to evaluate the risk E.g. an event which would result in the death of
the car didnt cost two million dollars noone bought a car for two million dollars so its an idiotic and cowardly response by Friedman to that kid. Freidman took the point to an extreme but he didnt make the relating factors an extreme as well because if u would pay that mount to buy such a car then a life is obviously worth more than the car in such an extreme example. if a car cam have infinite value as ford sees it then so does a life. if u make a car that kills people knowingly then u should go to jail.
What the CEO and other executives do with their money is THEIR business. They EARNED their salaries in precisely the same way as any other worker and for exactly the same reason. They may choose to buy mansions or give generously to charity (in fact, the wealth created under the system you are denouncing created the most charitable society in all of human history). And in reality, such wealth is overwhelmingly invested in productive activities that, again, make us all better off.
this is an interesting topic.. Milton was saying people should have the choice on what to pay for their safety and makes a reference of conscious risk of crossing the street. obviously every screw and bolt of a car carries some risk of failing but it's usually not a catastrophic failure like the gas tank flaw was. and offsetting that potentially fatal flaw happened at Ford, the decision wasn't made by the customers, they thought they were buying as vaguely dangerous of a car as any other at the time while the truth was it was actually much more dangerous as other models. I might be missing some component of the discussion but usually I'm 100% on board with what the man says so it was surprising to hear him justifying something borderline criminal and not really a feature of free market.
No he didn't, he was expressing his distaste in fords decision to choose not to lose a very small amount of money in order to save a large number of lives. By saying he believed principles need to be balanced he suggested if the cost had been more and the amount of lives lost was not so severe, it may have been reasonable to have cut the panel out. However, the loss in lives was great and the loss in profit was miniscule. Ergo, Unbalanced.
@doonymacc This was NOT the students point. He was involved in a discussion about the morality of capitalism. Thats why I said you guys had the context wrong. The question was never, did Ford do the right thing. It was whether capitalism is inherently immoral. THAT was the point the kid was making, and THAT was the point that Friedman was addressing. You guys didnt understand the first thing about the video; context.
MF has said, "Can a building have moral obligations? If a building can't have social responsibility, what does it mean to say a corporation can?" Fine. But corporations claim the rights of a person, without the responsibilities. The outcome has been one disaster after another, to the point that of the relatively few habitable places on earth, it is those where corporate pursuit of profit dominates that now threaten the entire biosphere. And that, to the extent that the corporate model of development holds sway, since it has sweeping rights, but ever fewer responsibilities.
The juridical person should not be called a person, and limited responsibility should not exist. Those are the flaws of capitalism and are not needed by it.
You are an idiot if you think corperations created the mess we are in, its government that made everything more difficult. Ironic your post to criticize 'corperations' on responsibility places no agency or responsibility for government which is the ultimate power and monopoly. socialists seem to see this.
Friedman very patient. Explains thoroughly because he wants to impart his knowledge onto others. and the last point so true. it is not the fault of the electric company. money would have to be taken from somewhere and that would ideally be from that persons family, associates, co-workers and neighbors.
Capitalism is not a pure free for all take at all costs, but it has become exactly that. The right to do business in our states and in our nation should have a moral cost and a moral obligation. And the beneficiaries of such costs and obligations should be the People, not the governments. There is more waste in government than in any other institution, and less that $0.10 of every dollar that flows though government for programs actually goes to the program itself. The right to profit and capitalism are not the same. Capitalism is merely the right of those with money (capital) to request something for the funds, in order to provide capital. With the abuses from major banks that have taken place for decades, but truly exposed in the financial crisis and fraud of 2008, it is apparent their views of capitalism is to own the capital (Washington DC). Investment bank alumni also own Chicago access to treasury - their form of capitalism is to own all public funds, leverage it, and if they fail they pass the poor results on to the people. At some point in time, the people will not tolerate such illegal misappropriations of public funds, and will hold the players accountable. When that occurs, the nature of capitalism will change - and will revert back to the legal form of providing capital for the use by people creating jobs, money flow, and profits.
@sevendayz1980 the kid wasnt an idiot, he just never thought things through to the end. The problem is that he went in with a specific question and anticipated a specific answer. When he got an answer he didnt expect (or understand) he reacted naturally. Its no crime to misunderstand what Friedman was saying initially (and dont forget the kid was reacting in real time). It is the people who misunderstand it after weeks and insist on screaming at people providing explanations who are the idiots.
@pensword5 Glad you liked it though it may be based on an inaccuracy. Check out the article on Wikipedia about the Ford Pinto. Apparently there's some controversy regarding the accuracy of the article Mr. Moore is referencing. (Thanks to Richdanahuff for encouraging me to study the case.)
Friedman missed the mark on the last one. The blame needs to go to the guy who could not pay the bill, period. Not to his neighbors for not being charitable. Love Friedman, but he sometimes tries to not come off as ruthless even if that is the right stance to take.
Socialism did not die in America in the 19th century, not even close. There was a huge socialist movement from the beginning of the 20th century until the late 30's. Socialism, as an ideology, was originally thought up as a step towards full communism. Now the ideas of socialized services and certain socialized policies is frankly the definition of government; a lack of any socialism is simply anarchy. Socialism as an overarching ideology behind government is generally what many Americans oppose
The words capitalism and morality do not fit well in the same sentence. Capitalism has no morals, ethics, principles, or ideals, capitalism is only interested in profits. In capitalism everything, including human life is subordinate to profits.
I am a pro-capitalist and I believe in a more efficient and beneficial capitalist society with moral codes to protect the rights of the individual and promotes innovation through fair competition. Therefore, I think every man, rich or poor, should have rights and should have their own property and the government should not interfere in the economy other than limiting the number of monopolies and regulate the banks to prevent a repeat of 1929. To be only interested in profits is more likely to be due to human nature, not capitalism. do not compare mere, primal desires to an ideology. Indeed, if one person were to want to treat his workers poorly and care less for their well being, then its likely that that person owning the company will less likely have a successful business. Sure, in the past, capitalism in the 19th century was quite difficult, but only because capitalism, in practice, was trying to adapt in an industrializing world. Corporate Greed is NOT competition, but illogical, emotional-based, primal desires fueled by id.
CoreyStudios2000 Capitalism used to be like that, however, the best thing about capitalism is that it is an economic ideology that at its core is all about survival of the fittest. That brings us to a broad definitition of what is "fit". Merely it depends on the market. Environmental and humanitarian causes have helped shape how we see modern day capitalism. It's still about making profit (because what business exists to not make money?), however there's more twists added to it to make sure in the eyes of the customer, the money is being made "morally".
Capitalism has become an exclusive bourgeois club to benefit a select few. Generally, capitalism gives people the opportunity to accumulate as much materialism for themselves without any regard for others or the environment. In the land of status conscious material worship, capitalism is America's primary religion. Greed and selfishness are human traits. Humans are the worst form of life. Most people haven't figured out anything to do with their lives except to mutilate themselves, each other, and the environment.
Capitalism is a word, which refers to a system, which is comprised of people. Word's can't want things, or have morals. People have morals. If capitalism is all about profit, what you mean is people are all about profit.
Shane Levine Capitalism is more than just profit. Its also people, regardless of class status or any other background, having their own private property. A rich man may have a mansion while a poor person will only have a small house, but both of the two individuals have their own private property.
The fact that capitalism has "improved more lives" than any other system is simple historical fact. Capitalism is an economic system, not a spiritual one - it has no bearing on it whatsoever. Instead, capitalism has been the sole source of the increase in technology and prosperity that has improved the living standards and life expectancy the world over during the last three centuries. If longer and healthier life isn't an "improvement"...
Do people actually know how many deaths were caused by the Ford Pinto? Less than 200, from 2.2 million sold. Basically, it wasn't any more dangerous than any other ford vehicles.
Libertarianism is a moral and ethical philosophy based on Social and Economic liberty. Just because you have met people who call themselves libertarians, does not mean that they are. Economics is difficult. Not everyone can argue them perfectly. Just because you have gotten a handful to not be able to explain themselves, does not mean that this is indicitive of the group as a whole, nor does it mean that the principle of Libertarianism invalid.
It is unfortunate that Milton has not been recognized as the class one Machiavellian he was. His public appearances were masterpieces of guile while his choice of intellectual adversaries were typically students barely out of high school. I would love to have seen this grandstanding crackpot for once tricked into debating a bona fide scholar in the field of Political Science. Friedman was much to slippery to ever get caught on camera opposite a Hannah Arendt, Ellen Meiksins Wood or Sheldon Woolin.
***** Nobel prize should not be used as a way to justify or legitimate Dr. Friedman's viewpoint on economics, or anybody's for that matter. Granted, he is a brilliant rhetorician and his legacies throughout the world during the past few decades attest to the significance of his ideas. But we have now arrived at a time where his free-market ideas have been gravely challenged due to their disastrous effects throughout the world. This, then, raises the question how he received a Nobel prize in economics when his economic policies have brought about economic ruins worldwide (as well as good, from certain point of view), who gets to decide who receives a Nobel prize, and why. Resulting from these rumination is the deflating of the authority of the Nobel prize. This by the way, is nonetheless peripheral to the central argument of the original comment that you responded to, which as you know, is about Milton debating against those much younger than he is. And I have to agree, from his public debates that I've seen, that his debates rather seem like an opportunity for him to outshine and crush the (young or extremely ideologically biased) contenders rather than having two well-paired and balanced intellectuals arguing their positions with mutual respect. You on the other hand, mostly elaborate on the word "crackpot," which I believe is of smaller relevance than the more important claims.
The explicit intention of my choice of words is to suggest that Friedman's expertise in Economics for what it is worth does not qualify him to speak with any knowledge of, let alone authority on subjects germane to the discipline of Political Science. He used his credentials as an economist to grandstand or make claims about subjects he actually knew little or nothing about and anyone seeking to deceive listeners in this way is a crackpot in my opinion.
BeTheFirst Isn't "outshining or crushing young opponents" usually what happens during Q&A sessions with professional intellectuals? Friedman didn't choose the composition of his audiences. Moreover, the entire Free To Choose series, which is I believe available in its entirety on YT, is footage of Friedman taking on multiple adversaries who were very much bona fide scholars. Not only that, he debated bureaucrats who instituted many of the government projects he so despised. You only have to take the time to look...
gary morrison A great deal of Friedman's academic work concentrated on studying the economic effect of governmental policies put in place during the Great Depression. He therefore studied in depth more than a few governmental agencies; it's hard to imagine how he couldn't have learned quite a bit about how governments arrive at policy decisions.
Freidman ROCKS! All cars are crash tested so it's not like the consumers couldn't find out weather or not it's a safe car. If you want security. Then buy a slow heavy Volvo, if you want speed without the security then buy a sports car. It's that easy!
Who is saying it's okay for companies to do that? It hurts people and ruins their business. And people suing companies happens all the time. Class action law suits are everywhere. And they win lots of time. Even with all the consumer protections, companies STILL put out products that aren't safe, sometimes by accident. It's part of life.
While I think Milton Friedman has some great points, I would LOVE to have posited this to him. tl;dr, isn't a governmental guideline atleast necessary to determine a base line that companies can reference when stating how dangerous something is, or must every care list every single aspect that depreciates its safety from 100% perfectly safe in everyway. "Mr. Freidman, I see why you think government should deregulate the car industry and allow the free market to decide which cars are most desired by the people, and if the people choose to increase their risk of death by .01% or however, in return for saving 12$ they should be free to, however as you state, the company should have to put a label stating this fact to inform the purchaser. However, the question becomes, and where I believe government is necessary, at what point is the label necessary? What car is determined safe and therefore does not need a label? Maybe government does not have to mandate which cars are available, but mustn't they at least determine an ideal level so that people will understand the safety distinctions between cars? the pinto is now .01% (or whatever) less safe...compared to what? we have a general guideline to compare it to?" I also think the question of the pinto exploding and injuring people around them is a fair question aswell.
He didn't say the government should require it, he said the government should supply a court system in which the companies can be held responsible and be made to pay hefty fines. The government should not mandate that a company label the cars unsafe, but hold them responsible should they withhold relevant information about the safety of the vehicle.
The point at which it does not directly effect the consumer. For instance, if the car had the fault where the mirrors would break off if it were in a collision, would not effect the consumer, therefore there's no need for the information to be included. Furthermore, the decision would be made by the consumer and the courts. If the consumer felt it should have been supplied information, they can launch a suit, and if the court decides that the problem could not have caused harm to the individual, or if the part did not cause harm, then the suit would be invalid. The requirements for what information should and should not be included are to be set by the producer, and to be ridiculed by the consumer. That is free market.
Matthew Kelley that is totally fair, I would have just loved to hear milton say that. you must admit that is a fair question. because according to the free market, this price for putting the information would be passed onto the customer. should a consumer be forced to pay for information when they might not care?
Why Milton is wrong. He says the Electric company is not at fault for turning off the power and letting a man freeze to death. The company has to do that otherwise no one would pay their bill. But he doesn't want to just let the man die so he says well, other people - society - should have helped him out. But where is the money coming from to help him out? Welfare and charity! Which he is opposed to.
As much as I hate agreeing with Friedman, I've completely agreed with him on the other videos I've watched of his talks so far. This one just sounds as if he's going against his own principles and Michael Moore is actually right on this one.
I love how theres a giant poster protesting Friedman's meeting with Pinochet. I wonder what the person raising that banner would have to say about Chile and the Capitalist experiment :) A society that places equality before liberty ends up with neither, but one that places liberty before equality ends up with a good measure of both.
If I understand Friedman's point on the Pinto case correctly it is that the number Ford assigned to the lives lost due to rear-end crashes, that could have otherwise been avoided by an 11 dollar fix (not 13), is morally justifiable given that a change in the number would result in even greater harm? Firstly, I don't think he understands how Ford calculated the costs and benefits. The 200,000 dollar value Ford assigned to every life lost (i.e. how much they are *willing* to pay) in these types of crashes were included in the calculation to directly pay families, along with 67,000 for injuries and 700 for damages for other incidents, compared to the costs of fixing the defective Pintos (which was 11 dollars x 12.5 billion cars). Because it was 88 million dollars cheaper to pay for the deaths, injuries, and damages, Ford chose not the fix the defect. If Ford were to change the value of a life lost to these types of crashes to 200 million as he posed to questioner, then Ford would instead choose to fix all Pintos for 137 million instead. Nevertheless, let's take Friedman's thought experiment to include not just a change in value per person lost in these types of crashes, but a change in cost per part to fix defective Pintos (which he, for whatever reason, necessarily tied together). It seems that if this were the case, then producing Pintos wouldn't be profitable at all and wouldn't be something Ford would manufacture (thus avoiding the harms he talked about in the beginning of the clip of people). However, I think this is important in that it shows how morally shallow cost-benefit analysis is (i.e. what Friedman calls "principle"), namely that putting a number on human life (and how low such a number is) is treating people are means instead of ends within a calculus that has, as its end, saving or gaining money for a given company instead of providing and protecting customers as best they can (regardless if it costs an extra 11 dollars per car).
I think Friedman kind of dodged the point of the question by indeed reducing to absurdity. Although doing this can be a healthy exercise of reason, sometimes it is plain fallacy as it destroys the spirit of a debate by endless "what ifs"...
+Ken McNutt II Well, pack your bags my fellow capitalism supporters. We have been outdone by this clever man posting his heavily sourced and objective material to prove a logically valid point. Bravo Ken McNutt! You should join the debate team at your local middle school. You'd do great :)
He is right. Capitalism itself is a system for managing resources. There is no morality within the system. A moral system is imposed by society, not by capitalism.
Friedman is not evil. That's preposterous. He simply believes that the best way of bringing about good and raising up the lower stratums of society is through a capitalistic economy. It doesn't mean he's evil.
Just because government pays for education doesn't mean they have to administer it. Dr. Friedman was big on school choice. He did not want people getting on RUclips throwing F-bombs everywhere. He wanted people to have good literary skills.
The young man hasn't read his Adam Smith has he. It's not by the benevolence of the electric company that our lights turn on, but by their self-interest. If we pay, they provide. No payment, no power. Friedman was right about knowing all the details about these kinds of stories as well, because I don't think your power being shut off is something that surprises you like a sucker punch. You get lots of notice and many warnings before the final plug is pulled.
I should clarify, a principle against capitalism would be that NO price should be put on human life. Because capitalism doesnt specify what a single price should be, just that a price does exist. Because the kid admits that a price CAN be put on human life, he is not arguing against capitalism in principle. It is still possible for there to be a principle that a human life shouldnt be priced at $200k, but capitalism doesnt set that price, so it isnt a fault of capitalism.
I would counter the “position of socialists” with the following argument: The investor (e.g. the capitalist) is of great help to the common laborer. 1. The investor allows the worker to receive compensation for their labor before the good has been sold. 2. The investor takes on the risk of loss if the good does not sell. Sure, the workers will not have jobs if the company goes bankrupt, but they still were paid each pay period for their labor regardless of the final result.
the car didnt cost two million dollars noone bought a car for two million dollars so its an idiotic and cowardly response by Friedman to that kid. Freidman took the point to an extreme but he didnt make the relating factors an extreme as well because if u would pay that mount to buy such a car then a life is obviously worth more than the car in such an extreme example. if a car cam have infinite value as ford sees it then so does a life. if u make a car that kills people knowingly then u should go to jail.
BTW, capitalism is the only moral choice. It is neither more nor less than economic liberty. It doesn't create self-interest (which is not "selfishness - no ifs and buts about it) which is an aspect of human nature, it channels it into societally beneficial avenues creating the goods and services that people need.
Friedman doesn't dodge anything. Michael Moore simply asks the wrong question, he should've asked whether a corporation should have an obligation to disclose the information regarding the problems w/ the pinto, not whether the $13 is the value of a human life. That obligation is a matter of the legislature to determine, not a moral obligation of the company itself. Friedman's whole philosophy is that a corporation is only obligated to do everything it can to increase profits WITHIN THE LAW.
it wasn't Milton who twisted the subject. It was the young hippie. The power company provides a service which the consumer (old man) CHOOSES to BUY. When one buys a product or service like that for the purpose of elevating their comfort or quality of life or convenience it is the CONSUMERS responsibility to continue to pay for that service. Now if that old man failed to plan appropriately for retirement then his neighbors should have helped him out. It's not the power co's job to keep him alive.
How can you prove that abortion is not murder ...please explain ? Politicians have decided that abortion of a fetus is not murder , but politicians have decided a lot of things . The bombing of Vietnam ....., invasion of Iraq , ethnic cleansing in Bosnia . The mother has a right but the unborn child has a right . Who protects the childs rights ?
@doonymacc a principle is a fundamental truth. What principle is involved? Friedman is an intellectual heavyweight because he convinces people using logic and rational argument. And he doesnt shy away from debate. That is very rare.
Again, the fix is to stop expecting capitalism to do the impossible and eliminate the socialistic interventions that prevent it from working properly. Cutting out government intervention in the economy (and lowering governmnet spending) increases prosperity for EVERYONE. It creates jobs; it eliminates the incentives to dependency; it frees up charitable resources. And, yes, private schooling is cheaper than public schooling and does a vastly better job.
@Johnf85 the point was: the risk of dying can always be reduced by a cost. No car in the world is perfectly safe, but if you want a safer car, you'll have to pay more. you could probably make cars a lot safer by installing 10 million dollar brakes in each car. Does that mean we have to spend 10 million on every car? And 20 million could reduce the risk even further, but again, it's more costly.
You get so little out of this exchange. What Friedman was trying to say was that the kid was not discussing principle, he was indeed asking if Ford had evaluated the cost of each life at the right price. Perhaps they should have estimated a million dollars per life. Based on the same principle, they would have concluded it'd be cheaper to install the part; the kid would have been satisfied. The question is "why?". Because Ford put a higher monetary value on life? Then the kid would have been sa
Einstein couldn't hold a candle to Friedman on economics and social policy, just as Friedman wouldn't know where to start in the field of physics. Just because he was a genius in one area doesn't make him a god of all forms of thought.
I never said anything about "trademark". Profit, on the other hand, has been the engine of prosperity and technology that has improved the lives of literally every living being on this planet.
Fingers sown on, BTW, are NOT "small things". That is incredibly delicate microsurgical work. It could never have happened were it not for the work of American plastic surgeon, Dr. Harry J. Buncke who, thanks to the incentives of capitalism, famously devloped basic techniques on a rabbit in his garage with home-made instruments!
The responsibility for the old man's fate should not lie with his neighbours or friends or relatives (assuming he had some) or with the electricity supplier. It lies in the basic standards and collective will of the society he is a part of. Nothing to do with socialism, communism, liberalism or even free market capitalism it's got everything to do with common decency, common sense and common basic Humanitarianism.
Correcting you, it's not wrong engineering, it's an option to not expend more in the cars with safety materials. -- Now responding your question: If people care about how safety is the car when they buy it they can demand to know it. If enough people care about it and the company don't inform that, they will be lossing custumers and if the company give wrong information it's fraud and they will be legally charged.
We won't "progress" beyond money for the same reason we won;t progress beyond modern medicine. It isn't that "everyone cares about" it. It's that the benefits of the existence of money outweigh, by several orders of magnitude, any problems it causes. Money is not immoral; it is Amoral.
This "for profit" slur really must end. It was the rise of for profit insurance companies that have provided more and better care for Americans in a system that has also given us the highest living standards in the world for hundreds of millions of people. It has been the imposition upon insurance companies that have driven up the costs of the system (and changed insurance - a risk handling mechanism - to coverage - an all encompassing thing) and harmed Americans.
@Jononutoob Milton Friedman agreed with you in the video, saying that companies that hid information from users that cost lives should be punished to the full extent of the law. And despite this some people think that he was saying that whatever companies do it perfectly fine!
It's not a question of how "everything should start" but rather how everything CAN start. Neither technology nor prosperity has EVER progressed as Marx suggested. The free market never "forces" anyone to do anything. The only way to HAVE a Marxist system is to impose it by force - as history demonstrates. And capitalism has improved EVERYONE'S conditions, not just those of "the leader". I never claimed perfection for anything, nor have I cursed you; I am trying to educate you to history.
The pre-existing condition clause, before government got hold of it, only exluded those who had no insurance of any kind before becoming ill. This was to prevent people from letting everyone else pay for their risk and then game the system afterward - kind of like buting insurance after the house burns down and then filing the claim. Its presence is entirely rational. It wasn;t moved beyond that until government began mandating insurance contract language.
I have no problem with the coverage of pre-existing conditions for anyone who has not waited to get sick to buy insurance. Essentially no one does; certainly not the health insurers who had such a system in place initially anyway. Simply eliminating the governmental intervention into insurance contract standardization would have prevented it from ever becoming an issue in the first place.
None other than yourself can put your expenses in relation to your own health and safety. Witholding information and decieving is one thing, building a product to satisfy the demand of the customers is something else. Only I can decide if it's beneficial for me to ride a bike to work or walk, given what I gain in safety and lose in time. My time, my health and safety situation, my money.
This is fucking childish and stupid. The guy was asking how can capitalism be so ethical if in practice some corporation like Ford was responsible for killing hundreds and thousands of people. This Milton Friedman(who sounds like a "fried man") goes on to argue the "principles of capitalism" and how capitalism is ethical so long as you "work hard" and that the consumer should have the option of putting their lives at risk. Instead of arguing a solution to a problem that further proves the immorality of capitalism, he argues that the principles of capitalism and how things like individuality somehow exist within capitalism. I don't know much about this guy, but I hope he has either changed or doesn't have a strong following.
The entire auto industry, then, is responsible for causing tens of thousands of deaths each year. It is good that people are concerned about safety, that they ask about safety. Laws and courts should require that corporations give honest answers. But Friedman is right that the questioner is not addressing a matter of principle. He is suggesting that, at a certain price, the decision Ford made was wrong. So, for the sake of argument and to illustrate what is really at stake, Friedman asks what price would have made Ford's decision correct. Well, it is not up to Ford to decide. That is up to each of us to decide what risks we want to accept and how much we are willing to sacrifice to avoid certain risks. Ford should be truthful. Risks should be known. Society works best when all people are trying to learn the risks, rather than when people are invited to rely on regulators to hold risks at some 'safe' level that, in the view of some people, will not be safe enough. Are corporations evil? Or are we neglecting our responsibility as citizens to make them account for externalities? gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2013/11/are-corporations-evil-or-are-we.html
Look, I will start by saying that I do not believe capitalism is a sustainable ideology however I do understand what mr. Friedman is trying to say. The ideas of liberalism is that everyone has the right to offer their product as ford with their dangerous vehicles. However this information should be disclosed and potential customers should be made aware of it before deciding whether to purchase the product in question. In an ideal world this would work well however in order for that to work we have to assume that the governing bodies of corporations have high moral standards and will not be perusing profits by any means. This is actually where the problem with capitalism and communism arises. The lack of moral standards and the predator nature of humans makes it hard for such ideologies to sustain. Many are willing to bend the rules to get themselves ahead and once in power it seems like they avoid responsibility for their actions.
***** Only if the information about the danger is free and public. Is not, then how do you know what car is better? Capitalism is an utopy, because, using your example of motivation, What is the motivation of Ford to give the information about that car for free and public? Ford wants to make money and that clash with the idea of Freedom
milton friedman is right, you can reduce your chance of getting killed at any time. it just depends on how much you're willing to give up for it. you could wear a helmet all day to prevent head trauma, you could avoid streets, not drive cars, eat healthy foods to minimize chance of disease, never smoke or drink alcohol, install alarm systems in case of fire, and so onwards..
First of all, stop saying "you." In case you hadn't noticed, I have used "they" to describe libertarians each and every time I reference them, so perhaps you may want to reevaluate my beliefs. Also, supporting private prisons doesn't mean you support drug-use sentences. Not at all, actually. Finally, do you believe that state-run prisons, courts, police, etc. don't feed a massive amount of pockets with dirty money? If so, you are living under a rock at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
You, again, make my point for me, combining three fallacies: first, that the need to obtain the means of survival - including food - is ever an impairment upon liberty, rather than merely a facet of reality; second, that no (or few) alternatives exist to entering into such contracts without facing starvation, particularly where private property rights are protected; and, third, you overlook the fact that capitalism - including private property protections - is what has largely ended stravation.
Would you like the government to pick winners and losers, then? Yeah.. look how well that has worked. Competition is good. The winner will be the one with the lowest price and the best product. As Mr. Smith said,"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
I am not opposed to change. I am opposed to regression. And your labels are flatly incorrect. I am an advocate of liberty (including economic liberty) in large part because I care about peiople, particularly those least among us. It is WHY I am such a staunch defender of capitalism and free markets as history demonstrates that no force in human history has done more for these people THAN capitalism.
The intentions of Nike are ENTIRELY good. the company provides a product to consumers that people want at a price they are willing to pay (good). They provide opportunities for people to work in order to improve their lot in life (good). They provide a return to shareholders who invest their savings in order to make a better life for themselves and their children (good). They do not pretend to be morally superior to anyone (bad).
Consumers should be apprised of known risks when they purchase a product so that they may decide whether they want to take such a risk or not. Businesses that do NOT apprise their customers of known risks can be declared negligible in a court of law and charged accordingly. That, however, is pointedly different from UNKNOWN risks. This is where the market comes in. Businesses exist today that have the sole purpose of providing accurate information for the consumer -- more reliable = more profit
Linda Peeno was not an employee such as shee suggested nor was she given more pay as the result of any claim denying action (finding the - undisputed - Humana response to her testimony took less than a minute online). Further the claim she denied was for a heart transplant for an older patient - the kind of procedure that is FREQUENTLY UNAVAILABLE under socialized medicine because of the cost and generally limited benefit. Humana's actions were both perfectly legal and ethical.
Sentient beings are not commodities and should not be considered as such. Otherwise, human dignity and rights becomes impossible. The ramifications of this are so important I wouldn't have enough of 5 comments to explain it all.
Better yet, Ford's ACTUAL behavior demonstrates the real impact of capitalism. In order to preserve its reputation and continue to attract customers in the marketplace (that is, in order to maintain those nasty profits) Ford fixed the problem as soon as it was revealed (never having had any foreknowledge of a problem) and produced a car - the Pinto - which, even with the problem, was actually safer than other cars of the same class on the road.
From a societal standpoint you are correct---however science and technology is not subsequent of wealthy economies and free-market trade. The only reason they seem to have a correlation is because as economic development increases so does global communication (but even that is circumstantial) in reality communication is the real culprit--communication leads to a higher rate of trial and error because it becomes a global endeavor--communication leads to global dicussion--global organization...etc
Insurance companies should be (and are) forced to cover the treatments covered by the insurance contract. Coverage is NOT denied for covered care and in the (very rare) cases where coverage is in dispute, there are mechanisms for the resolution of those disputes. What an exec makes is, again, irrelevant to the issue. The money paid to insurance companies includes that necessary to administer it (govt bureaucracies are much MORE wasteful) which is one reason WHY we have BETTER care here.
@andentoren continued from previous post... The question is about whether or not Ford was moral in their actions to set an arbitrary price tag on human life, as opposed to including in initial construction, a 13 dollar part which would have saved lives, and would not have cost nearly as much as a recall years down the line. A re-design was in order as soon as the problem was known, which, as stated, was pre-release of the car in question. It would have saved lives and credibility.
It isn;t waiting lists that are a myth; it is the notion that people are told they ahve insurance and regularly find that ordinary care is not covered.
As the CEO cannot morally pay more than the (entirely just) market wage, the only outcome of a price floor for wages (either a minimum wage law or some imposed threshold of "decency") is the elimination of the jobs created (because the return is eliminated and the job cannot exist under such circumstances) condemning the workers in countries like Indonesia to greater misery, hunger and perhaps even death and the "morality" of those demanding that "decent" wages be paid evaporates.
Of course insurance companies don;t provide care, but, worse, they have been prevented from offering insurance. The insurance system (and it worked well for health care for decades as it still works well in other areas) was designed to cover risk. It wasn't designed for the sniffles; it was designed to cover large scale medical expenses and people were expected to cover the cough and cold (or not see a doctor for every tweak), but mandated coverage, employer involvement, etc, ended that.
Pfft, that guy really said the people that died are at fault because they didn't want to pay more for a car they didn't know would blow up on them. 10/10, you've got to love neoliberalism
As for forecasting demand, I think its quite a strong point for advocating the nationalisation of utilities. Demands for things like heating, electricity, internet, healthcare, transport etc do not fluctuate wildly, they are things that are always needed. Cold winter=more heat. Early spring=less heat. Dont think free market forces are essential there. As for smaller things, I dont think society is advanced enough at this point to plan them, so they should be left alone
and as I said, if someone has been deemed a child molester, the community already knows. Also, if you're unaware- quite a few sex criminals do not end up on the sex offender database and a lot of them have sealed records. No real help there. I've noticed a trend, when people are proven wrong they tend to resort to insults and vulgarity. You have come to that point. Thank you for submitting.
Consider: You own a store. Brand X costs you 80 cents and the market price is $1. Someone insists you pay $1.10 for it but the market price is still $1. You, of course, stop selling it because you lose money on it. What you make or how much profit the store earns is irrelevant. The same applies to jobs. They are created when they generate more return than they cost. Forcing up the cost to your idea of "decent" eliminates the job regardless of how much the CEO makes or the company profits.
Friedman fascinates me. It's astonishing seeing how easily he tackles the most sensitive topics.
Easily? Or arrogantly?
@@ericfair-layman2429 is great
Not easily or arrogantly…but confidently? Yes and yes.
Hmmm yes "WhAt iF it CoStS a Billion DOllArs"
@@qurpt7319 Saying that sarcastically is actually quite foolish. The device of considering a more extreme example of a syllogism is exactly the kind of thing that advanced philosophy from ancient Greece to now.
What I can appreciate from this exchange is that the student did some homework as opposed to simply regurgitating empty sentiments he hadn't given any thought to. He seems so innocent. Students in newer videos with opposing views are rarely so inclined to have discourse, wow!
@Rosscoe Schopenhauser Are you implying that laissez faire is the wrong ideological approach and we should instead adopt something more authoritarian? Do you see the irony in saying "our schools are promoting marxism, let's reject the free market."
That's because this guy had humility and understood that he could be wrong.
The ones that start using air horns and shit don't consider that. They already know they're undoubtedly right.
It's a good point. I think Friedman is right but the kid is making an intelligent argument.
@@silikon2 Yes he did, in part. But he supports abortion for the convenience of the mother, society, his personal conscience??? So he thinks it's ok to actively kill a living person for (plug in your own reasons) but doesn't think it's right for Ford to "risk" lives to save money. So what the student is really arguing is that HIS preferences should be accepted by rejecting preferences of others. What if the student had decided to forgo his education and its cost and used that money (say $200K) to take medicines to Africa, Asia, or some other place where people dies of disease every day for lack of medicine. He could have saved countless lives (say 100) with that money but made (an unconscious choice) of "letting" those people die because he used the funds for his personal education. Every choice we make has some influence (positive or negative) on others. While it is easy too disagree with the choices of others (especially large companies) it is more difficult to admit our own selfish motives and their effects. I wonder where the student is today and whether he has ever driven a Ford. 🙂
Unless I am mistaken, the student posing the question was the odious multi-millionaire Michael Moore.
What Milton is getting at is: What the young man is implying is that generosity is something which we should rely on companies to provide to us, and that is quite outrageous, not to mention irresponsible of us in how we treat others. The day we expect companies to do our charity for us, we will be sorely disappointed in the results thereof.
I hope you've become smarter over the two years that you posted your stupid comment. Do you know how much charity corporations contribute? You were probably one of the losers of Occupy Wall Street lmao.
United Airlines XD
David Hynes good point
Abbe J
You miscomprehend what David wrote. Read n digest again.
@@abbej5183 I hope you've become smarter over the two years that you posted your stupid comment. David wasn't even talking about whether or not or how much charity corporations contribute. He is suggesting that the proper approach to situations similar to the one in the video is to depend on one's self and community over a given system or corporation. Besides, when you take an individual case as is presented in the video here, the best way to help a specific individual almost necessarily depends on that individual's social circle.
Typically, corporations give to other organizations on a grander scale without usually specifying individuals.
Learn to pay attention to the point of a statement rather than what you erroneously assume it is before choosing to condescendingly react to your own misunderstanding of someone else.
"lmao"
I must say, I'm not really a 'free marketeer' at all. But this was a fantastic response by Friedman on the first point. I too would have been fooled by the emotional arguments put forward by the questioner in relation to the Ford case. Thanks for the upload.
Free market or controlled market, it's not a hard decision when one looks at the wealth created by South Korea and North Korea.
Brian C There's a middle way, some eu countries are doing that and they are better off than USA, when it comes the quality of life for the average dude
That seems to be starting to change. For instance, the 50000 surgeries and procedures the UK had to delay to labor shortages in the medical field. Furthermore, should the time come that we finally decide to pull our military froom Europe, there's a good chance those nations will crumble even faster do to the financial burdens those nations would inherent.
manboob5000
Exactly. Totally agree.
@@danielabianchetti1336 Greedings from Finland. The middle way is having a free market and then taxing it. But mixed economy is mixed disaster and controlled economy is complete disaster
Further more. Laffer curve shows us how taxing less is taxing more.
Milton Friedman is arguing with principles based on statistics and the audience member is thinking in terms of individual life. Companies and people in general can not exactly predict future events for individuals but can make pretty reliable statistical claims based on past observed events. This why Milton is right about how it is a question on how much a life is worth.
Where I would maybe disagree with Friedman was that he wasn't clear that companies should disclose unsafe aspects of their vehicle. They should do so. This is also why you should thoroughly research a purchase as potentially unsafe as an automobile. We have vehicles with 3, 4 and 5 star crash ratings- they are what they are. You pays your money, you takes your choice.
Back then there was no star ratings for vehicles!! .. People died just as much and even more in the higher priced cars than they did in a Ford Pinto .... it's just that the Pinto was cheap and more people had them!! Same thing can be said today with cars even with a star crash Rating!!!
I will say ... Mr. Moore didn't take his own advice in life!! Mr. Moore is feeding off of the stupid!! Hey... he has that right to make money!!!
That little big fat bassted!!
Because of these ruthless capitalist government is needed. I've succesful companies would give back to there environment the government was useless.
How can you disagree if you say yourself he wasn’t clear? Are you disagreeing with an unclear statement? Are you criticizing his clarity? He does say the right thing was for the company to disclose the risk, and the government role is to provide a justice system where malicious hiding of risks should be prosecuted.
I’d be on Milton Friedmans side if it was disclosed. But it wasn’t.
The freer the market, the freer the people.
Which “people”? Everybody? What you said is partly right
Lol
I'm an economist and work in investment banking. This view is unbearably naive. Free market means class society over time. Because there will be winners and losers after 30 years of competition. And guess how they will distribute their resources after the first generation. There is a reason why we have something like "old money". "Old money" is exactly the result of the free market. The sons of rich men will always inherit the earth and then they will give it to their own sons
@@xuchilbara21392 I’ll be honest, so called “high” finance is an evil in society IMO.
And it is natural that someone working in that field comes to the conclusion that you have.
But I think if you look deeper, you’ll find a nuance there.
The ability to accumulate wealth is not undesirable; inflating away or excessive taxation of wealth are only favoured by communists. Nor is inheritance a bad thing; it is only just that the fruits of ones labor pass to his next generation. Additionally, wealth has a way of dissipating; Mike Tyson made $200M from his boxing career, and was broke after only a few years of retirement.
The ill feeling you rightfully have for the kind of perpetual wealth where “the sons of the rich inherit the earth” is really the result of _usury._
Where instead of people earning (and spending) money, _money is “earning” money._
Usury is (a word I cannot say, but which starts with a _j_
@@xuchilbara21392 I’ll be honest, so called “high” finance is an evil in society.
And it is natural that working in that field comes to the conclusion that you have.
But I think if you look deeper, you’ll find nuance there.
The ability to accumulate wealth is not undesirable. Inflating away or excessive taxation of wealth are only favoured by communists. Nor is inheritance a bad thing. It is only just that the fruits of ones labor pass to his next generation. Additionally, wealth has a way of dissipating. Mike Tyson made $200M from his boxing career, and was broke after only a few years of retirement.
The ill feeling you rightfully have for the kind of perpetual wealth where “the sons of the rich inherit the earth” is really the result of usury.
Where instead of people earning money, money is “earning” money.
Friedman is the man. In all the countless videos that I've watched (literally hundreds) where pundits try to make a case for their view on economics, nobody - except maybe Thomas Sowell - comes close to being as good as Friedman in articulating himself so well.
***** You are arguing about the talking points, and I'm not necessarily concerned about that. There are only miniscule difference between Sowell and Friedman, who were practically joined at the hip in their thinking.
The point is this: there are countless videos of Friedman getting up in front of an auditorium of a hostile audience. Not only does he take them all on, he dominates the debate without being mean or harsh in any way.
Sowell is also a master debater and a lot of fun to watch. But I'm presently unaware of him taking on the masses to the extent that Friedman does over and over again.
Ike Evans Sowell is equally as brilliant. In fact, I tend to look at Sowell as more credible because of his Marxist upbrining, his studying under Friedman and still remaining a Marxist...but after working in the Department of Labor, doing a complete 180 and realizing Marxism could never work. That in of itself is a remarkable change in direction.
Yo!
***** A valid point.
Sowell is more of a stock conservative though. Friedman was more libertarian.
Watch Friedman and Sowell take Pliven to School
I would say that such a problem in a Free Capitalist society would be resolved by customers both refusing to buy these dangerous cars and then either criminal or civil action being taken to punish the negligence of the guilty.
In a Socialist society the cars would be made by the State with no incentive to meet customer demands and if threatened with legal prosecution would simply overwhelm the aggrieved with all the allied powers of government who own said industry.
Why "with no incentive to meet customer demands"?
This kid is confused. He admits that not every life is sacred but he's upset over 1000 deaths in Ford Pintos. When you get so selective in which lives are worthy of saving, you end up with this kind of confusion. That kid doesn't have a leg to stand on when he admits to being in favor of killing unborn human life.
Andrea Burman What about when the Nazis invaded a country and raped the population's woman who had blonde hair and blue eyes. The women got pregnant and gave birth to them now the mother are dead but the children are now adults who are treated horribly by their fellow citizens. Because they represent the oppressive force? Should the women have tried to escape to place that provided abortion to save the children the pain of be treated horribly by their own countrymen?
so kill the children for the crime of nazis your messed up man
Charles Gable
SO you defending the NAZIs actions. They didn't have the morning after pill back then. You really are sick as fuck.
+Anthony Haller The child had no choice in the matter, it doesn't deserve to die. how is killing an innocent life okay? besides, abortion wasn't really prevalent back them as it is now.
I said nothing about the nazis. your the one who is trying to justify killing innocent babies because of your nazi friends.
This kids questions are on point and very brave, well done.
He thinks he's more intelligent than he actually is. People like that always get exposed when they try to argue with someone smarter than them
@@udjujdjddd5052 he and other students in the audience sound like young socialists in the making... I'm sure most of them dropped the commie gobbledegook as soon as they graduated, got real jobs, and started paying bills.
we as humans beings should persue our own happiness without the government telling us how we should live
I read some of the comments here, and I have to wonder whether we've all seen the same video. I have to believe the comments critical of Friedman come from individuals who haven't seen his other speeches or talks. He was a very intelligent and well-spoken person with reasoned ideas.
At the heart of all his talks was the idea that individuals should be free to decide their own best interests. I find this difficult to disagree with, and his viewpoints all derived from there.
I was a bit confused what he was actually saying at first but thinking about it. But I think he was saying a truly free market (which includes freedom of information) then consumers should be able to choose whether or not to pay less money in exchange for a higher risk. The only issue with Ford Pinto was that they didn’t tell anyone so the consumer couldn’t have known and wasn’t able to make that choice
In a hazards analysis today, 200 lives a year in this Ford example would be utterly intolerable, and the design would need a complete re-work.
But note- it is not possible to reduce the risk to zero. There is no such thing as no risk.
In safety engineering there is only the principle of reducing risk "As Low As Reasonably Practicable", and the analysis considers the severity and also the likelihood of hazards to evaluate the risk E.g. an event which would result in the death of
the car didnt cost two million dollars noone bought a car for two million dollars so its an idiotic and cowardly response by Friedman to that kid. Freidman took the point to an extreme but he didnt make the relating factors an extreme as well because if u would pay that mount to buy such a car then a life is obviously worth more than the car in such an extreme example. if a car cam have infinite value as ford sees it then so does a life. if u make a car that kills people knowingly then u should go to jail.
What the CEO and other executives do with their money is THEIR business. They EARNED their salaries in precisely the same way as any other worker and for exactly the same reason. They may choose to buy mansions or give generously to charity (in fact, the wealth created under the system you are denouncing created the most charitable society in all of human history). And in reality, such wealth is overwhelmingly invested in productive activities that, again, make us all better off.
Morality comes from people's hearts, not from an economic system.
Young Michael Moore got schooled, too bad he never learned.
3:15 he justified Ford's decision there.
this is an interesting topic.. Milton was saying people should have the choice on what to pay for their safety and makes a reference of conscious risk of crossing the street.
obviously every screw and bolt of a car carries some risk of failing but it's usually not a catastrophic failure like the gas tank flaw was.
and offsetting that potentially fatal flaw happened at Ford, the decision wasn't made by the customers, they thought they were buying as vaguely dangerous of a car as any other at the time while the truth was it was actually much more dangerous as other models.
I might be missing some component of the discussion but usually I'm 100% on board with what the man says so it was surprising to hear him justifying something borderline criminal and not really a feature of free market.
No he didn't, he was expressing his distaste in fords decision to choose not to lose a very small amount of money in order to save a large number of lives.
By saying he believed principles need to be balanced he suggested if the cost had been more and the amount of lives lost was not so severe, it may have been reasonable to have cut the panel out.
However, the loss in lives was great and the loss in profit was miniscule. Ergo, Unbalanced.
@doonymacc This was NOT the students point. He was involved in a discussion about the morality of capitalism. Thats why I said you guys had the context wrong. The question was never, did Ford do the right thing. It was whether capitalism is inherently immoral. THAT was the point the kid was making, and THAT was the point that Friedman was addressing.
You guys didnt understand the first thing about the video; context.
MF has said, "Can a building have moral obligations? If a building can't have social responsibility, what does it mean to say a corporation can?" Fine. But corporations claim the rights of a person, without the responsibilities. The outcome has been one disaster after another, to the point that of the relatively few habitable places on earth, it is those where corporate pursuit of profit dominates that now threaten the entire biosphere. And that, to the extent that the corporate model of development holds sway, since it has sweeping rights, but ever fewer responsibilities.
The juridical person should not be called a person, and limited responsibility should not exist. Those are the flaws of capitalism and are not needed by it.
Give evidence for your claims.
You are an idiot if you think corperations created the mess we are in, its government that made everything more difficult. Ironic your post to criticize 'corperations' on responsibility places no agency or responsibility for government which is the ultimate power and monopoly. socialists seem to see this.
@@goodgoyim9459 You are the idiot.
Friedman very patient. Explains thoroughly because he wants to impart his knowledge onto others. and the last point so true. it is not the fault of the electric company. money would have to be taken from somewhere and that would ideally be from that persons family, associates, co-workers and neighbors.
Capitalism is not a pure free for all take at all costs, but it has become exactly that. The right to do business in our states and in our nation should have a moral cost and a moral obligation. And the beneficiaries of such costs and obligations should be the People, not the governments. There is more waste in government than in any other institution, and less that $0.10 of every dollar that flows though government for programs actually goes to the program itself. The right to profit and capitalism are not the same. Capitalism is merely the right of those with money (capital) to request something for the funds, in order to provide capital. With the abuses from major banks that have taken place for decades, but truly exposed in the financial crisis and fraud of 2008, it is apparent their views of capitalism is to own the capital (Washington DC). Investment bank alumni also own Chicago access to treasury - their form of capitalism is to own all public funds, leverage it, and if they fail they pass the poor results on to the people. At some point in time, the people will not tolerate such illegal misappropriations of public funds, and will hold the players accountable. When that occurs, the nature of capitalism will change - and will revert back to the legal form of providing capital for the use by people creating jobs, money flow, and profits.
Hence torts?
@sevendayz1980 the kid wasnt an idiot, he just never thought things through to the end. The problem is that he went in with a specific question and anticipated a specific answer. When he got an answer he didnt expect (or understand) he reacted naturally. Its no crime to misunderstand what Friedman was saying initially (and dont forget the kid was reacting in real time). It is the people who misunderstand it after weeks and insist on screaming at people providing explanations who are the idiots.
Haha, is this really Michael Moore? Seems like he never learned..
@pensword5 Glad you liked it though it may be based on an inaccuracy. Check out the article on Wikipedia about the Ford Pinto. Apparently there's some controversy regarding the accuracy of the article Mr. Moore is referencing. (Thanks to Richdanahuff for encouraging me to study the case.)
Friedman missed the mark on the last one. The blame needs to go to the guy who could not pay the bill, period. Not to his neighbors for not being charitable. Love Friedman, but he sometimes tries to not come off as ruthless even if that is the right stance to take.
jonnyhan Friedman is speaking from a standpoint of morals, not a standpoint of legality. Laws =/= Morality in a free society.
jonnyhan What's PC mean?
Anthony Haller
Politically correct.
jonnyhan
Thanks.
he was castigating the neighbors for a moral failing he was being ruthless
Socialism did not die in America in the 19th century, not even close. There was a huge socialist movement from the beginning of the 20th century until the late 30's. Socialism, as an ideology, was originally thought up as a step towards full communism. Now the ideas of socialized services and certain socialized policies is frankly the definition of government; a lack of any socialism is simply anarchy. Socialism as an overarching ideology behind government is generally what many Americans oppose
The words capitalism and morality do not fit well in the same sentence.
Capitalism has no morals, ethics, principles, or ideals, capitalism is only interested in profits. In capitalism everything, including human life is subordinate to profits.
I am a pro-capitalist and I believe in a more efficient and beneficial capitalist society with moral codes to protect the rights of the individual and promotes innovation through fair competition. Therefore, I think every man, rich or poor, should have rights and should have their own property and the government should not interfere in the economy other than limiting the number of monopolies and regulate the banks to prevent a repeat of 1929. To be only interested in profits is more likely to be due to human nature, not capitalism. do not compare mere, primal desires to an ideology. Indeed, if one person were to want to treat his workers poorly and care less for their well being, then its likely that that person owning the company will less likely have a successful business. Sure, in the past, capitalism in the 19th century was quite difficult, but only because capitalism, in practice, was trying to adapt in an industrializing world. Corporate Greed is NOT competition, but illogical, emotional-based, primal desires fueled by id.
CoreyStudios2000 Capitalism used to be like that, however, the best thing about capitalism is that it is an economic ideology that at its core is all about survival of the fittest. That brings us to a broad definitition of what is "fit". Merely it depends on the market. Environmental and humanitarian causes have helped shape how we see modern day capitalism. It's still about making profit (because what business exists to not make money?), however there's more twists added to it to make sure in the eyes of the customer, the money is being made "morally".
Capitalism has become an exclusive bourgeois club to benefit a select few.
Generally, capitalism gives people the opportunity to accumulate as much materialism for themselves without any regard for others or the environment.
In the land of status conscious material worship, capitalism is America's primary religion.
Greed and selfishness are human traits. Humans are the worst form of life.
Most people haven't figured out anything to do with their lives except to mutilate themselves, each other, and the environment.
Capitalism is a word, which refers to a system, which is comprised of people. Word's can't want things, or have morals. People have morals. If capitalism is all about profit, what you mean is people are all about profit.
Shane Levine Capitalism is more than just profit. Its also people, regardless of class status or any other background, having their own private property. A rich man may have a mansion while a poor person will only have a small house, but both of the two individuals have their own private property.
The fact that capitalism has "improved more lives" than any other system is simple historical fact. Capitalism is an economic system, not a spiritual one - it has no bearing on it whatsoever. Instead, capitalism has been the sole source of the increase in technology and prosperity that has improved the living standards and life expectancy the world over during the last three centuries. If longer and healthier life isn't an "improvement"...
Do people actually know how many deaths were caused by the Ford Pinto? Less than 200, from 2.2 million sold. Basically, it wasn't any more dangerous than any other ford vehicles.
Ben G
Oh bullshit.. Stfu idiot
Libertarianism is a moral and ethical philosophy based on Social and Economic liberty.
Just because you have met people who call themselves libertarians, does not mean that they are. Economics is difficult. Not everyone can argue them perfectly. Just because you have gotten a handful to not be able to explain themselves, does not mean that this is indicitive of the group as a whole, nor does it mean that the principle of Libertarianism invalid.
It is unfortunate that Milton has not been recognized as the class one Machiavellian he was. His public appearances were masterpieces of guile while his choice of intellectual adversaries were typically students barely out of high school. I would love to have seen this grandstanding crackpot for once tricked into debating a bona fide scholar in the field of Political Science. Friedman was much to slippery to ever get caught on camera opposite a Hannah Arendt, Ellen Meiksins Wood or Sheldon Woolin.
you got that right pal, very true.
***** Nobel prize should not be used as a way to justify or legitimate Dr. Friedman's viewpoint on economics, or anybody's for that matter. Granted, he is a brilliant rhetorician and his legacies throughout the world during the past few decades attest to the significance of his ideas. But we have now arrived at a time where his free-market ideas have been gravely challenged due to their disastrous effects throughout the world. This, then, raises the question how he received a Nobel prize in economics when his economic policies have brought about economic ruins worldwide (as well as good, from certain point of view), who gets to decide who receives a Nobel prize, and why. Resulting from these rumination is the deflating of the authority of the Nobel prize.
This by the way, is nonetheless peripheral to the central argument of the original comment that you responded to, which as you know, is about Milton debating against those much younger than he is. And I have to agree, from his public debates that I've seen, that his debates rather seem like an opportunity for him to outshine and crush the (young or extremely ideologically biased) contenders rather than having two well-paired and balanced intellectuals arguing their positions with mutual respect. You on the other hand, mostly elaborate on the word "crackpot," which I believe is of smaller relevance than the more important claims.
The explicit intention of my choice of words is to suggest that Friedman's expertise in Economics for what it is worth does not qualify him to speak with any knowledge of, let alone authority on subjects germane to the discipline of Political Science. He used his credentials as an economist to grandstand or make claims about subjects he actually knew little or nothing about and anyone seeking to deceive listeners in this way is a crackpot in my opinion.
BeTheFirst Isn't "outshining or crushing young opponents" usually what happens during Q&A sessions with professional intellectuals? Friedman didn't choose the composition of his audiences. Moreover, the entire Free To Choose series, which is I believe available in its entirety on YT, is footage of Friedman taking on multiple adversaries who were very much bona fide scholars. Not only that, he debated bureaucrats who instituted many of the government projects he so despised. You only have to take the time to look...
gary morrison A great deal of Friedman's academic work concentrated on studying the economic effect of governmental policies put in place during the Great Depression. He therefore studied in depth more than a few governmental agencies; it's hard to imagine how he couldn't have learned quite a bit about how governments arrive at policy decisions.
Freidman ROCKS! All cars are crash tested so it's not like the consumers couldn't find out weather or not it's a safe car.
If you want security. Then buy a slow heavy Volvo, if you want speed without the security then buy a sports car. It's that easy!
This young guy was a smart kid.
Who is saying it's okay for companies to do that? It hurts people and ruins their business. And people suing companies happens all the time. Class action law suits are everywhere. And they win lots of time. Even with all the consumer protections, companies STILL put out products that aren't safe, sometimes by accident. It's part of life.
While I think Milton Friedman has some great points, I would LOVE to have posited this to him.
tl;dr, isn't a governmental guideline atleast necessary to determine a base line that companies can reference when stating how dangerous something is, or must every care list every single aspect that depreciates its safety from 100% perfectly safe in everyway.
"Mr. Freidman, I see why you think government should deregulate the car industry and allow the free market to decide which cars are most desired by the people, and if the people choose to increase their risk of death by .01% or however, in return for saving 12$ they should be free to, however as you state, the company should have to put a label stating this fact to inform the purchaser. However, the question becomes, and where I believe government is necessary, at what point is the label necessary? What car is determined safe and therefore does not need a label? Maybe government does not have to mandate which cars are available, but mustn't they at least determine an ideal level so that people will understand the safety distinctions between cars? the pinto is now .01% (or whatever) less safe...compared to what? we have a general guideline to compare it to?"
I also think the question of the pinto exploding and injuring people around them is a fair question aswell.
He didn't say the government should require it, he said the government should supply a court system in which the companies can be held responsible and be made to pay hefty fines. The government should not mandate that a company label the cars unsafe, but hold them responsible should they withhold relevant information about the safety of the vehicle.
Matthew Kelley at what point is it relevant? who decides that?
The point at which it does not directly effect the consumer. For instance, if the car had the fault where the mirrors would break off if it were in a collision, would not effect the consumer, therefore there's no need for the information to be included. Furthermore, the decision would be made by the consumer and the courts. If the consumer felt it should have been supplied information, they can launch a suit, and if the court decides that the problem could not have caused harm to the individual, or if the part did not cause harm, then the suit would be invalid. The requirements for what information should and should not be included are to be set by the producer, and to be ridiculed by the consumer. That is free market.
Matthew Kelley that is totally fair, I would have just loved to hear milton say that.
you must admit that is a fair question.
because according to the free market, this price for putting the information would be passed onto the customer.
should a consumer be forced to pay for information when they might not care?
I'm sure he would have gotten to that given enough time. You're right though, great question.
Why Milton is wrong. He says the Electric company is not at fault for turning off the power and letting a man freeze to death. The company has to do that otherwise no one would pay their bill. But he doesn't want to just let the man die so he says well, other people - society - should have helped him out. But where is the money coming from to help him out? Welfare and charity! Which he is opposed to.
friedman is correct here, as usual. Brilliant.
Correct? Taking the risk by murdering your workers to enrich yourself is correct?
Jan Andhisfiets
Sad moron.
@@peacebe2u480 Are you just introduced yourself..Sad Moron (Is that name and surname of yours ;D)
As much as I hate agreeing with Friedman, I've completely agreed with him on the other videos I've watched of his talks so far. This one just sounds as if he's going against his own principles and Michael Moore is actually right on this one.
I love how theres a giant poster protesting Friedman's meeting with Pinochet. I wonder what the person raising that banner would have to say about Chile and the Capitalist experiment :)
A society that places equality before liberty ends up with neither, but one that places liberty before equality ends up with a good measure of both.
If I understand Friedman's point on the Pinto case correctly it is that the number Ford assigned to the lives lost due to rear-end crashes, that could have otherwise been avoided by an 11 dollar fix (not 13), is morally justifiable given that a change in the number would result in even greater harm?
Firstly, I don't think he understands how Ford calculated the costs and benefits. The 200,000 dollar value Ford assigned to every life lost (i.e. how much they are *willing* to pay) in these types of crashes were included in the calculation to directly pay families, along with 67,000 for injuries and 700 for damages for other incidents, compared to the costs of fixing the defective Pintos (which was 11 dollars x 12.5 billion cars). Because it was 88 million dollars cheaper to pay for the deaths, injuries, and damages, Ford chose not the fix the defect.
If Ford were to change the value of a life lost to these types of crashes to 200 million as he posed to questioner, then Ford would instead choose to fix all Pintos for 137 million instead. Nevertheless, let's take Friedman's thought experiment to include not just a change in value per person lost in these types of crashes, but a change in cost per part to fix defective Pintos (which he, for whatever reason, necessarily tied together).
It seems that if this were the case, then producing Pintos wouldn't be profitable at all and wouldn't be something Ford would manufacture (thus avoiding the harms he talked about in the beginning of the clip of people). However, I think this is important in that it shows how morally shallow cost-benefit analysis is (i.e. what Friedman calls "principle"), namely that putting a number on human life (and how low such a number is) is treating people are means instead of ends within a calculus that has, as its end, saving or gaining money for a given company instead of providing and protecting customers as best they can (regardless if it costs an extra 11 dollars per car).
He never made a moral judgment. He just said ford shouldn't be required to do it.
I think Friedman kind of dodged the point of the question by indeed reducing to absurdity. Although doing this can be a healthy exercise of reason, sometimes it is plain fallacy as it destroys the spirit of a debate by endless "what ifs"...
Morality within capitalism? There isn't any. Next question.
+Ken McNutt II
Well, pack your bags my fellow capitalism supporters. We have been outdone by this clever man posting his heavily sourced and objective material to prove a logically valid point. Bravo Ken McNutt! You should join the debate team at your local middle school. You'd do great :)
+James G oh shush. Every egg can have an opinion.
A capitalist system without morality would just collapse in a day. WTF are you talking about?
He is right. Capitalism itself is a system for managing resources. There is no morality within the system. A moral system is imposed by society, not by capitalism.
Friedman is not evil. That's preposterous. He simply believes that the best way of bringing about good and raising up the lower stratums of society is through a capitalistic economy. It doesn't mean he's evil.
Just because government pays for education doesn't mean they have to administer it. Dr. Friedman was big on school choice. He did not want people getting on RUclips throwing F-bombs everywhere. He wanted people to have good literary skills.
The young man hasn't read his Adam Smith has he. It's not by the benevolence of the electric company that our lights turn on, but by their self-interest. If we pay, they provide. No payment, no power. Friedman was right about knowing all the details about these kinds of stories as well, because I don't think your power being shut off is something that surprises you like a sucker punch. You get lots of notice and many warnings before the final plug is pulled.
I should clarify, a principle against capitalism would be that NO price should be put on human life. Because capitalism doesnt specify what a single price should be, just that a price does exist.
Because the kid admits that a price CAN be put on human life, he is not arguing against capitalism in principle.
It is still possible for there to be a principle that a human life shouldnt be priced at $200k, but capitalism doesnt set that price, so it isnt a fault of capitalism.
I would counter the “position of socialists” with the following argument:
The investor (e.g. the capitalist) is of great help to the common laborer.
1. The investor allows the worker to receive compensation for their labor before the good has been sold.
2. The investor takes on the risk of loss if the good does not sell. Sure, the workers will not have jobs if the company goes bankrupt, but they still were paid each pay period for their labor regardless of the final result.
Totally dude. His full lectures are just as good as these snippets!
the car didnt cost two million dollars noone bought a car for two million dollars so its an idiotic and cowardly response by Friedman to that kid. Freidman took the point to an extreme but he didnt make the relating factors an extreme as well because if u would pay that mount to buy such a car then a life is obviously worth more than the car in such an extreme example. if a car cam have infinite value as ford sees it then so does a life. if u make a car that kills people knowingly then u should go to jail.
BTW, capitalism is the only moral choice. It is neither more nor less than economic liberty. It doesn't create self-interest (which is not "selfishness - no ifs and buts about it) which is an aspect of human nature, it channels it into societally beneficial avenues creating the goods and services that people need.
Friedman doesn't dodge anything. Michael Moore simply asks the wrong question, he should've asked whether a corporation should have an obligation to disclose the information regarding the problems w/ the pinto, not whether the $13 is the value of a human life. That obligation is a matter of the legislature to determine, not a moral obligation of the company itself. Friedman's whole philosophy is that a corporation is only obligated to do everything it can to increase profits WITHIN THE LAW.
If you found this interesting, watch 'the corporation' - an award winning doc. from Canada.
it wasn't Milton who twisted the subject. It was the young hippie. The power company provides a service which the consumer (old man) CHOOSES to BUY. When one buys a product or service like that for the purpose of elevating their comfort or quality of life or convenience it is the CONSUMERS responsibility to continue to pay for that service. Now if that old man failed to plan appropriately for retirement then his neighbors should have helped him out. It's not the power co's job to keep him alive.
How can you prove that abortion is not murder ...please explain ?
Politicians have decided that abortion of a fetus is not murder , but politicians have decided a lot of things . The bombing of Vietnam ....., invasion of Iraq , ethnic cleansing in Bosnia .
The mother has a right but the unborn child has a right .
Who protects the childs rights ?
That's why a lot of Brazilians says that this current "democracy" is worst than the military regime.
He argues that you should be able to choose if you want, or don't want to give.
@doonymacc a principle is a fundamental truth. What principle is involved?
Friedman is an intellectual heavyweight because he convinces people using logic and rational argument. And he doesnt shy away from debate. That is very rare.
Again, the fix is to stop expecting capitalism to do the impossible and eliminate the socialistic interventions that prevent it from working properly. Cutting out government intervention in the economy (and lowering governmnet spending) increases prosperity for EVERYONE. It creates jobs; it eliminates the incentives to dependency; it frees up charitable resources. And, yes, private schooling is cheaper than public schooling and does a vastly better job.
@Johnf85 the point was: the risk of dying can always be reduced by a cost. No car in the world is perfectly safe, but if you want a safer car, you'll have to pay more. you could probably make cars a lot safer by installing 10 million dollar brakes in each car. Does that mean we have to spend 10 million on every car? And 20 million could reduce the risk even further, but again, it's more costly.
You get so little out of this exchange. What Friedman was trying to say was that the kid was not discussing principle, he was indeed asking if Ford had evaluated the cost of each life at the right price. Perhaps they should have estimated a million dollars per life. Based on the same principle, they would have concluded it'd be cheaper to install the part; the kid would have been satisfied. The question is "why?". Because Ford put a higher monetary value on life? Then the kid would have been sa
Einstein couldn't hold a candle to Friedman on economics and social policy, just as Friedman wouldn't know where to start in the field of physics. Just because he was a genius in one area doesn't make him a god of all forms of thought.
I love this video. I find that people who argue against a free society do not have a clear understanding on what freedom is.
I never said anything about "trademark". Profit, on the other hand, has been the engine of prosperity and technology that has improved the lives of literally every living being on this planet.
Fingers sown on, BTW, are NOT "small things". That is incredibly delicate microsurgical work. It could never have happened were it not for the work of American plastic surgeon, Dr. Harry J. Buncke who, thanks to the incentives of capitalism, famously devloped basic techniques on a rabbit in his garage with home-made instruments!
The responsibility for the old man's fate should not lie with his neighbours or friends or relatives (assuming he had some) or with the electricity supplier. It lies in the basic standards and collective will of the society he is a part of. Nothing to do with socialism, communism, liberalism or even free market capitalism it's got everything to do with common decency, common sense and common basic Humanitarianism.
Why should an individual not be allowed to make that risk assessment on their own, why must the consumer be forced to pay a higher price?
the companies hide the risks you dummy
Correcting you, it's not wrong engineering, it's an option to not expend more in the cars with safety materials. -- Now responding your question: If people care about how safety is the car when they buy it they can demand to know it. If enough people care about it and the company don't inform that, they will be lossing custumers and if the company give wrong information it's fraud and they will be legally charged.
We won't "progress" beyond money for the same reason we won;t progress beyond modern medicine. It isn't that "everyone cares about" it. It's that the benefits of the existence of money outweigh, by several orders of magnitude, any problems it causes. Money is not immoral; it is Amoral.
This "for profit" slur really must end. It was the rise of for profit insurance companies that have provided more and better care for Americans in a system that has also given us the highest living standards in the world for hundreds of millions of people. It has been the imposition upon insurance companies that have driven up the costs of the system (and changed insurance - a risk handling mechanism - to coverage - an all encompassing thing) and harmed Americans.
@Jononutoob Milton Friedman agreed with you in the video, saying that companies that hid information from users that cost lives should be punished to the full extent of the law. And despite this some people think that he was saying that whatever companies do it perfectly fine!
It's not the electric company's fault , but capitalism's short comings.
It's not a question of how "everything should start" but rather how everything CAN start. Neither technology nor prosperity has EVER progressed as Marx suggested. The free market never "forces" anyone to do anything. The only way to HAVE a Marxist system is to impose it by force - as history demonstrates. And capitalism has improved EVERYONE'S conditions, not just those of "the leader". I never claimed perfection for anything, nor have I cursed you; I am trying to educate you to history.
The pre-existing condition clause, before government got hold of it, only exluded those who had no insurance of any kind before becoming ill. This was to prevent people from letting everyone else pay for their risk and then game the system afterward - kind of like buting insurance after the house burns down and then filing the claim. Its presence is entirely rational. It wasn;t moved beyond that until government began mandating insurance contract language.
I have no problem with the coverage of pre-existing conditions for anyone who has not waited to get sick to buy insurance. Essentially no one does; certainly not the health insurers who had such a system in place initially anyway. Simply eliminating the governmental intervention into insurance contract standardization would have prevented it from ever becoming an issue in the first place.
None other than yourself can put your expenses in relation to your own health and safety. Witholding information and decieving is one thing, building a product to satisfy the demand of the customers is something else. Only I can decide if it's beneficial for me to ride a bike to work or walk, given what I gain in safety and lose in time. My time, my health and safety situation, my money.
This is fucking childish and stupid. The guy was asking how can capitalism be so ethical if in practice some corporation like Ford was responsible for killing hundreds and thousands of people. This Milton Friedman(who sounds like a "fried man") goes on to argue the "principles of capitalism" and how capitalism is ethical so long as you "work hard" and that the consumer should have the option of putting their lives at risk. Instead of arguing a solution to a problem that further proves the immorality of capitalism, he argues that the principles of capitalism and how things like individuality somehow exist within capitalism. I don't know much about this guy, but I hope he has either changed or doesn't have a strong following.
The entire auto industry, then, is responsible for causing tens of thousands of deaths each year. It is good that people are concerned about safety, that they ask about safety. Laws and courts should require that corporations give honest answers. But Friedman is right that the questioner is not addressing a matter of principle. He is suggesting that, at a certain price, the decision Ford made was wrong. So, for the sake of argument and to illustrate what is really at stake, Friedman asks what price would have made Ford's decision correct. Well, it is not up to Ford to decide. That is up to each of us to decide what risks we want to accept and how much we are willing to sacrifice to avoid certain risks. Ford should be truthful. Risks should be known. Society works best when all people are trying to learn the risks, rather than when people are invited to rely on regulators to hold risks at some 'safe' level that, in the view of some people, will not be safe enough.
Are corporations evil? Or are we neglecting our responsibility as citizens to make them account for externalities?
gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2013/11/are-corporations-evil-or-are-we.html
He was a nobody Greg. Just some Nobel prize winning economist.
Look, I will start by saying that I do not believe capitalism is a sustainable ideology however I do understand what mr. Friedman is trying to say. The ideas of liberalism is that everyone has the right to offer their product as ford with their dangerous vehicles. However this information should be disclosed and potential customers should be made aware of it before deciding whether to purchase the product in question. In an ideal world this would work well however in order for that to work we have to assume that the governing bodies of corporations have high moral standards and will not be perusing profits by any means.
This is actually where the problem with capitalism and communism arises. The lack of moral standards and the predator nature of humans makes it hard for such ideologies to sustain. Many are willing to bend the rules to get themselves ahead and once in power it seems like they avoid responsibility for their actions.
***** Only if the information about the danger is free and public. Is not, then how do you know what car is better? Capitalism is an utopy, because, using your example of motivation, What is the motivation of Ford to give the information about that car for free and public? Ford wants to make money and that clash with the idea of Freedom
Milton Friedman responses were sound.
milton friedman is right, you can reduce your chance of getting killed at any time. it just depends on how much you're willing to give up for it. you could wear a helmet all day to prevent head trauma, you could avoid streets, not drive cars, eat healthy foods to minimize chance of disease, never smoke or drink alcohol, install alarm systems in case of fire, and so onwards..
First of all, stop saying "you." In case you hadn't noticed, I have used "they" to describe libertarians each and every time I reference them, so perhaps you may want to reevaluate my beliefs. Also, supporting private prisons doesn't mean you support drug-use sentences. Not at all, actually. Finally, do you believe that state-run prisons, courts, police, etc. don't feed a massive amount of pockets with dirty money? If so, you are living under a rock at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
You, again, make my point for me, combining three fallacies: first, that the need to obtain the means of survival - including food - is ever an impairment upon liberty, rather than merely a facet of reality; second, that no (or few) alternatives exist to entering into such contracts without facing starvation, particularly where private property rights are protected; and, third, you overlook the fact that capitalism - including private property protections - is what has largely ended stravation.
Would you like the government to pick winners and losers, then? Yeah.. look how well that has worked. Competition is good. The winner will be the one with the lowest price and the best product. As Mr. Smith said,"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
I am not opposed to change. I am opposed to regression. And your labels are flatly incorrect. I am an advocate of liberty (including economic liberty) in large part because I care about peiople, particularly those least among us. It is WHY I am such a staunch defender of capitalism and free markets as history demonstrates that no force in human history has done more for these people THAN capitalism.
The intentions of Nike are ENTIRELY good. the company provides a product to consumers that people want at a price they are willing to pay (good). They provide opportunities for people to work in order to improve their lot in life (good). They provide a return to shareholders who invest their savings in order to make a better life for themselves and their children (good). They do not pretend to be morally superior to anyone (bad).
Consumers should be apprised of known risks when they purchase a product so that they may decide whether they want to take such a risk or not. Businesses that do NOT apprise their customers of known risks can be declared negligible in a court of law and charged accordingly. That, however, is pointedly different from UNKNOWN risks. This is where the market comes in. Businesses exist today that have the sole purpose of providing accurate information for the consumer -- more reliable = more profit
Linda Peeno was not an employee such as shee suggested nor was she given more pay as the result of any claim denying action (finding the - undisputed - Humana response to her testimony took less than a minute online). Further the claim she denied was for a heart transplant for an older patient - the kind of procedure that is FREQUENTLY UNAVAILABLE under socialized medicine because of the cost and generally limited benefit.
Humana's actions were both perfectly legal and ethical.
Sentient beings are not commodities and should not be considered as such. Otherwise, human dignity and rights becomes impossible. The ramifications of this are so important I wouldn't have enough of 5 comments to explain it all.
Better yet, Ford's ACTUAL behavior demonstrates the real impact of capitalism. In order to preserve its reputation and continue to attract customers in the marketplace (that is, in order to maintain those nasty profits) Ford fixed the problem as soon as it was revealed (never having had any foreknowledge of a problem) and produced a car - the Pinto - which, even with the problem, was actually safer than other cars of the same class on the road.
2:20 you should never get involved in a public rhetorical argument with milton friedman if you are high, dude...
From a societal standpoint you are correct---however science and technology is not subsequent of wealthy economies and free-market trade. The only reason they seem to have a correlation is because as economic development increases so does global communication (but even that is circumstantial) in reality communication is the real culprit--communication leads to a higher rate of trial and error because it becomes a global endeavor--communication leads to global dicussion--global organization...etc
Insurance companies should be (and are) forced to cover the treatments covered by the insurance contract. Coverage is NOT denied for covered care and in the (very rare) cases where coverage is in dispute, there are mechanisms for the resolution of those disputes. What an exec makes is, again, irrelevant to the issue. The money paid to insurance companies includes that necessary to administer it (govt bureaucracies are much MORE wasteful) which is one reason WHY we have BETTER care here.
@andentoren continued from previous post... The question is about whether or not Ford was moral in their actions to set an arbitrary price tag on human life, as opposed to including in initial construction, a 13 dollar part which would have saved lives, and would not have cost nearly as much as a recall years down the line. A re-design was in order as soon as the problem was known, which, as stated, was pre-release of the car in question. It would have saved lives and credibility.
It isn;t waiting lists that are a myth; it is the notion that people are told they ahve insurance and regularly find that ordinary care is not covered.
As the CEO cannot morally pay more than the (entirely just) market wage, the only outcome of a price floor for wages (either a minimum wage law or some imposed threshold of "decency") is the elimination of the jobs created (because the return is eliminated and the job cannot exist under such circumstances) condemning the workers in countries like Indonesia to greater misery, hunger and perhaps even death and the "morality" of those demanding that "decent" wages be paid evaporates.
Of course insurance companies don;t provide care, but, worse, they have been prevented from offering insurance. The insurance system (and it worked well for health care for decades as it still works well in other areas) was designed to cover risk. It wasn't designed for the sniffles; it was designed to cover large scale medical expenses and people were expected to cover the cough and cold (or not see a doctor for every tweak), but mandated coverage, employer involvement, etc, ended that.
I appreciate that. I'm glad my comment brought a smile to your face. I wish you a very Happy Christmas! All the best to you.
There's Milton Friedman pointing out that truth resists simplicity.
Pfft, that guy really said the people that died are at fault because they didn't want to pay more for a car they didn't know would blow up on them. 10/10, you've got to love neoliberalism
As for forecasting demand, I think its quite a strong point for advocating the nationalisation of utilities. Demands for things like heating, electricity, internet, healthcare, transport etc do not fluctuate wildly, they are things that are always needed.
Cold winter=more heat. Early spring=less heat. Dont think free market forces are essential there.
As for smaller things, I dont think society is advanced enough at this point to plan them, so they should be left alone
and as I said, if someone has been deemed a child molester, the community already knows. Also, if you're unaware- quite a few sex criminals do not end up on the sex offender database and a lot of them have sealed records. No real help there.
I've noticed a trend, when people are proven wrong they tend to resort to insults and vulgarity. You have come to that point. Thank you for submitting.
Consider: You own a store. Brand X costs you 80 cents and the market price is $1. Someone insists you pay $1.10 for it but the market price is still $1. You, of course, stop selling it because you lose money on it. What you make or how much profit the store earns is irrelevant. The same applies to jobs. They are created when they generate more return than they cost. Forcing up the cost to your idea of "decent" eliminates the job regardless of how much the CEO makes or the company profits.