What is degrading about this dialogue? Friedman is totally decimating Donahue's unqualified and non-factual opinions and statements. Friedman is a master of knowing the facts, who is also a master of analysing many complex issues, which is such a rarity among men. Friedman is nothing less than a FORCE that is able to poke holes in the conventional wisdom of the day. Not to mention the absolute good nature of Freidman and his infectious humor. He is the ultimate optimist as opposed to folks on the left who are overwhelming pessimists. Friedman has totally taken Donahue to task on every issue that Donahue has raised in this interview. The "quality of dialog of modern media has been degraded" falls squarely on Donahues' shoulders.
And how has it degraded? What is the quality of the content in the media these days? Whose views and lifestyles predominate? Who has degraded the quality? Someone is putting out the garbage; who is it?
I always liked Donahue show. he was good at provoking but in an intelligent way. Friedman is brilliant. He has a way of communicating complex ideas in an easy practical manner
@@petersams5054 So was FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter. Yet no Leftists would ever admit that. People are products of their times and upbringing. You listen to black separatists/Hebrew Israelites in 2021 their arguments are similar to white supremacists in the 1800's to 1920. Everything in ignorance gets recycled. Just as modern authoritarian Leftism is being disguised as "social-justice" and "anti-oil environmentalism/climate change". Recognizing failures in the culture of certain ethnicities, *isn't* racism. It's brutal objectivism with a purpose that ultimately leads to *all* races achieving the closest thing to genuine egalitarianism possible. Not fake Leftist "equality of outcomes", pie in the sky dreaming that keeps minorities crippled and dependent on govt forever.
That's partially because there wasnt a million channels to fill. If it was on TV, it has to be justified. Now there's so much BS on TV you "have to" carry on to get views.
@ Can you image how the world would look had we enacted those policies 30-40 years ago? All it really requires is for politicians to let go of power they don’t deserve in the first place, and hell if some backwards dictator can do it, why can’t we?
@ throwing people from aircraft was Argentina. Idk maybe it was in Chile too but i’d say you’re looking at a South America problem, not a Friedman problem. I mean tell me if I’m wrong but the coup leader pinochio or something asked for help with the economy RIGHT? So then logically the coup was before a free market, RIGHT? So then there already was a problem of a dictator, RIGHT? Again I wanna reiterate Chile is run by mexican wanna be Nazis so, the economy did fine, brilliant even. What more can you really expect, RIGHT? Friedman made a point of it, a free market is core to a free society. Doesn’t mean a dictator can’t coincide with a free market, RIGHT? The sarcastic “RIGHT” is much appreciated. It is often called the best form of comedy, by everyone, RUGHT?
Indeed, We need another Milton like fellow to pull down this pair of pants that is left for us and give it to the rich. You know, Rich are so suffering now these days; we need another Milton to give them a hand. But don't despair, we've got Sheldon; he'll deliver us from evil. The rich actually can come and sodomize us at will, by grace of Jesus, soon, if only Sheldon acts!
***** I didn't mean to sound as though I was crediting him entirely because of his lineage, I apologize. I credit him because he is an excellent economist and philosopher, I mentioned him because he is also related to Milton.
@@michaelericksonmusic Actually no, if you really read and understand what he says you will find out that he doesn’t make claims one way or another about whether “biggie” should be eating “smalley” or vice versa. In fact he repeatedly says that if the large companies keep managing the company in a way that keeps quality high and prices low then there is no reason to really oppose such a company’s monopoly. The problem of course is that large companies are very rarely able to do this for extended periods of time, and eventually the small companies will eat up their market share. However all of this is only possible in a system that abides by one of Friedman’s key tenets. “A system must not have excessive regulations.” Good grief he talks about it at length in this very interview. If you have excessive regulations, then the only companies able to afford to meet them and have the infrastructure in place to even attempt to understand all of them, will be the large established bloated companies. Its no coincidence that the less regulated the industry, the more competitive it is and the more consumer friendly the market is. Yet it’s amusing to see the first solution to any industry with monopoly problems/not competitive enough is to pile on more regulations, which merely exasperates the problem.
No all he does is point to simple outcomes because anyone can point at a so called simple outcome of competition driving down prices. When you have only a few companies in a market collusion takes place in price fixing one way or another either directly or through government regulation. Same with his lectures on tariffs in the end the bosses chose tariffs to fight for the home market share against competition. Capital becomes more and more combined and labor becomes more and more generalised such that the price tends towards just the social minimum to get the workers back for the next pay period. The bosses become more and more petti with their discipline and more and more demanding of more production in their profit seeking goals.
@@kimobrien.No he explains things in simple ways so people can follow. The man won a Nobel,prize back when you had to actually accomplish something. And your hammer and sickle icon makes me think you are already indoctrinated into a dumb ideology.
@@kimobrien.I think you are confusing a simple answer with someone who makes it sound simple. Your observations seem to be all based around greed, now that’s quite a simple statement to make
@@richarddevlin5613 The source of profits is the exploitation of the working class. The greed of the bosses for profits drive the capitalist system. You won't here Friedman talk about the source of the profit because to do so one would have to explain how it arises since it denies any simple explanation other than the part of the value created by the labor that is the source of all value that is not a natural resource to begin with. As John locke wrote Labor transforms nature. So if one is to have a material view of nature it can't arise from exchange or probability. Since exchange can not occur without a labor cost and the same is true of gambling or value seemingly increasing by increased risk.
@@kimobrien. Are you saying that if someone doesn’t succeed it’s simply because they weren’t greedy enough ? Or they didn’t exploit enough ? I could become so greedy that I wanted a fortune twice the size of Bill Gates but this greed would not increase my income by anything
Oprah wiped out Donahue by doing a Jerry Springer style show. Then after he was gone she 'sobered up' and made more 'tasteful' programmes, though far from intellectual or ideologically balanced
Sneering anti social Rightard FREEdman same MAFIA Bank$ter as GREEDspan!! Both part of the CRIMINAL U$/UK '08 ongoing sub-prime debts World CRASH losing TRILLIONS while trashing MILLIONS of jobs and LIVES!
+James Whyte In the late 70s the US Government guaranteed loans to Chrysler(this is is in spite of the loans Chrysler went bankrupt the US taxpayer would be on the hook for those loans). Thankfully Chrysler invented the mini-van and their sales boomed and they were able to pay off the loans by the mid 1980s.
Maurice Bachand So the plan was Chrysler was going to take out a loan which WE the us citizens would have to pay back? I still don't see how any of this stuff is constitutional. How is our government allowed to decide stuff like this? we have no say, why are they even doing this for private corporation? they should take care of themselves. Is that basically what the bailout was all about? are we still on the hook for those? Excuse the ignorance just haven't kept up with politics.
"Can Sears buy Kmart?" Phil Donahue 1979 "The way Kmart has been growing, . . . can Kmart buy Sears" Milton wins again! Kmart bought Sears ten years ago in 2005.
And because of how mismanaged both companies are and because of how behind the curve they were in responding to the change to online shopping and delivery, both companies are total shit and should be pushed over the edge once and for all. This teetering act has gone on for too long. Sell off whatever has value and let the rest just die off.
It's always amazing that Milton Friedman blurts out the most amazing TRUTHS with a bright smile. Incredibly sharp mind. It's also amazing that he give all answers WITH ZERO THINKING TIME needed, he just KNOWS his stuff regardless what is asked.
That's true and astonishing. You look at modern day right leaning intellectuals like Jordan Peterson and even they have to think. Friedman just has the answers without pause. It's wild.
@@95garyl , I believe he is wrong on being able to rely on manufacturers to consistently provide safeguards against hazardous products. Some businesses will make safe products, but without government regulation, others will try to save a buck and make an unsafe product. And I believe the general public wants the government to use regulations to proactively protect the consumer from harm in the first place rather use Friedman's method of merely using their choice as a consumer, after being harmed, to stop shopping from a business that makes unsafe products. Friedman also conveniently 'forgets' about the 3rd party involved in cars known as passengers that had nothing to do with the original choice to purchase a car without government mandated safety features.
The genius is not only Milton, obviously, but also Donahue knew exactly what he was doing. The devils advocate questions were just that, and they both knew it.
@@sullimd , Yes, asking what is so bad about social safety nets that prevent people from dying, is being "the devil's advocate". I think you've assigned the wrong advocate to the wrong person.
You can tell from earlier days how the left treat people who they don't agree with. The host tried his best, throw all sort of questions at him. To anybody who is not Milton Friedman, would have been stuck on one of many questions. You can't be prepared on all of the question. If you answered 99 questions, and failed one, you have failed. Milton Friedman didn't give him one chance, he understood those people well.
Ok. I take the challenge. I will address Mr Friedmann's postulation about Government not to mandate Airbags in cars. His reasoning was that it is the individual owner of the car that should opt for an Airbag, and not burden the public with extra costs. My question is; what about the increase in car crash injuries? What economic/social/labor cost would that have, and who was to pay for it? The employer that lost a worker? The family that lost a provider/caretaker? Or the individual in question? I can imagine what Mr Friedmann would have answered, but my speculations aside. There are so many ramifications to an economic event, that the simplification of the effects are just not foreseeable. Thus, economics are about historic data and the interpretation of those. Mr Friedmann is correct that the 1929 crash followed by the run on the banks was caused by not doing the actions needed to stem the run. Remember that those actions were untried & represented unknown risks to those involved, but today we know what can happen if a bank crashes. We know now that the backup system (money printing) works. The problem is what happens when the system is abused by politicians to reach short time goals are a totally different matter.
@@oddvardmyrnes9040 People would be free to choose whether to buy the vehicle with air bags or not. If there was enough public demand, manufacturers would build vehicles with them or vice versa if demand was low. It is not the federal government's job to determine what is "safe". It would probably be safer to govern speeds on vehicles to 40 mph, but the government doesn't do that.
@@johnbrooks4965 .. Thank you for reply. I will argue that your arguments are not rooted in reality. Read up on the work of Ralph Nader & his fight to make automobiles safer. All your claims are refuted by him & his legislative work.
What is brilliant about it? Being a callous and dishonest troll does not equal "brilliance". His exact quote was "who are these angels who are going to reorder society"? He managed to say two dishonest things in the same sentence. First of all, it doesn't require an angel to help other people. It just requires a basically decent person; which Friedman wasn't. Which is why he made that contemptuous statement. Secondly, it doesn't require "reordering society"; which Friedman also knew. President Johnson was no angel; and he would have been the first person to admit it. He was a rude, crude deal-maker. However, he managed to get Medicare passed, after Reagan recorded a speech saying that if Medicare were ever passed, it would mean the "end of freedom in America". Well, we're still free, and Medicare has saved millions of lives, including my mother's. It did not require an angel to pass it, nor did it require the reordering of society. Friedman by the way wanted to end Medicare, Social Security, all safety requirements for vehicles, and the minimum wage. I'm very sorry if you find that "brilliant".
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I’m sorry you feel that way. Friedman is observing that public sector solutions can be just as insidious as private sector solutions if not more so. He also brilliantly observed that mandating an attached dagger to a steering wheel would prevent more car accident deaths than mandating an air bag. The point is that people’s behavior is tied to their perceived risk. After air bags were mandated fatalities in car accidents went up, which seems to affirm his dagger observation. I think that privatized medicine produces better health care than public medicine systems like Medicare. Currently I am required to pay into medicare on top of my current health insurance premiums. I have no say in the use of those Medicare dollars. If that was a private account where I could control the growth of my Medicare contributions like an hsa then it would be much more effective. What if my life expectancy was less than 65 so I never get Medicare. Now I have to pay for something I will never get? This is a violation of our freedom as Friedman and Reagan observed. It does reorder our paychecks and it is bankrupting our country so, yes it is re-ordering society. Yes it’s good to help others and I think more people would be more altruistic (Friedman prefers saying eleemosynary) if such self sacrifice was not coerced by government. I don’t know your family’s experience exactly with Medicare but I do know that people tend to benefit more from a private sector system than from a public one, especially the poor. Also, Friedman recommended, as an economist, that a minimum wage laws hurts poor communities. If minimum wage is $15 then employers simply don’t hire someone who doesn’t have skills worth $15. If the job applicant does not have skills worth $15 then he simply never gets the opportunity and can’t develop his skills. With no minimum wage an individual can get a job very easily and have a chance to flourish into a very productive highly paid worker. Minimum wage laws hinder economic mobility. Many countries have done quite well economically, including this one, with no minimum wage. Friedman’s views on minimum wage are very popular among economists. You sir, are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I feel that Friedman was a courageous voice of reason that the world desperately needs today!
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Politicians such as Lyndon Johnson are able to take advantage of the ignorance and economic illiteracy of the public by exploiting that ignorance for their own selfish purposes, like proposing what appears to be a solution to a problem in the form of a government program that will expand government bureaucracy and expense and contribute to inflation, and encourage dependence on government and politicians to provide solutions for problems that may be the result of the political choices of the politicians. Johnson made a career out of being a politician, and in the end left as his most memorable and lasting legacies the Vietnam war and the war on poverty. Neither was a success. If you would dig deeper into why Friedman didn't approve of social security, medicare, and the minimum wage, you would see the very sound basis upon which he based his objections. For example, have you ever considered that social security and medicare contribute to inflation? These entitlement programs have greatly increased the size of government and of government spending, thus contributing to inflation and the erosion of the buying power of the dollar. There is also the large amount of fraud that happens with these programs. Explaining how and why government causes problems that politicians opportunistically propose what ostensibly appear to be "solutions" is a subject that Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell are very adept at. You are misguided in accusing Friedman of not being a decent person, based only on your personal opinion of his opposition to medicare, social security and the minimum wage. You base your opinion on those 3 things on the basis of what you perceive them to be, as they appear to be to many people who don't take the time and make the effort to truly understand what the details and realities are. As an economist utilizing a scientific approach and analysis, Friedman has examined these matters in a comprehensive and detailed manner, allowing the results to direct him to the conclusions he arrives at. Being a decent person is very much a subjective opinion. I might just as well accuse you of being an indecent person, merely on the basis of my perception of you accusing Friedman of not being a decent person. If you knew as much as Friedman did about minimum wage and how it originated, and what it does to inexperienced, unskilled people looking for work, or how social security confiscates money from people who could make better decisions about the use of their money- including making investments with a greater yield, or how deregulation of the medical industry and getting government out of the way of alternative approaches to achieving and maintaining good health would be a much better way of addressing health care than having another complex government bureaucracy called Medicare; then you might be less inclined to disagree with him, let alone accuse him of being something he is not. Politicians don't explain that what they frequently propose to do about a problem is not a solution, but a trade off of one problem for another. Nor are they forthcoming about explaining how sometimes they, or their predecessors created the problem.
@@pakelika100 , Medicare is run more efficiently than private insurance. That is a fact that corporate shills will never admit, even though it's been proven to be true. My mother is alive because of Medicare that she paid into her entire life. She would have died ten years ago without it. I worked in private insurance. You are speaking to the wrong person about the evils of government insurance compared to private insurance. Private insurance companies feel entitled to their customers' money, with no obligation to provide coverage. I used to listen to screaming matches between insurance managers about how they weren't going to get their yearly bonus, because one of their colleagues paid too many legitimate claims, instead of denying them. I myself couldn't get decent insurance, despite working for an insurance company. I could only get a lousy HMO plan, where I could not choose my physician, and got the worst of the worst doctors who were incompetent and burned out. I got no coverage for my diabetes, as it was a "preexisting condition". I developed permanent nerve damage and permanent loss of vision because of my diabetes. It was only because of the Affordable Care Act, that critics dubbed "Obamacare" that I finally received coverage for my diabetes. Otherwise, I would be dead now. I lived the life-and-death reality of the situation, both working in insurance and almost dying as a result of it; unlike yourself.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Inspite of all the abuse and fraud associated with Medicare, you claim that it is more efficiently administered than private insurance? You can say that, but the fact is that with all of its complexity, bureaucracy, abuse and fraud, and the fact that it is a contributing factor to inflation and the erosion of the purchasing power of a dollar, in addition to overburdening medical providers with regulations and documentation requirements, it is a poor substitute for the better alternatives that a truly free market can provide. You seem to think you know that Medicare is the reason for keeping people alive, but you may be deceived into believing that only the American medical industry has effective therapeutic treatment for pathological conditions, and that a free and much less regulated market is the cause of, and not the solution to, the high cost of sick care and health maintenance- which is nonsense! Your very limited personal experience and perspective on sick care does not even equate to Dr. Friedman's qualified, objective and much more informed analysis of Medicare, though your experience means so much to you. At the risk of seeming unkind, you judge the worthiness of a government mandate that takes every worker's property to sustain a large, complex bureaucracy and program riddled with waste, abuse, and fraud, that is so complex that people need a qualified professional to guide them in order to enroll in and select a plan with any sufficient knowledge of what is best for them, purely on the basis of your own personal experience and knowledge, limited as it is. A government that truly cared about you and everyone would get out of the way of alternative approaches and practitioners who can provide holistic and natural therapeutic solutions, and dramatically reduce regulatory requirements that overburden the medical industry and drive up its costs. Furthermore, how much does your choices and lifestyle effect your physiological condition? That's a question to consider, not an accusation. You may be surprised to learn that there are people who have no use for Medicare, Obamacare, or any government "solution" to sick care. They have discovered the benefits of heeding the advice and utilizing the services of people such as Dr. Bob Marshall and his Quantum Nutrition team and products, and Pharmacist Ben Fuchs. All pathological conditions are the result of nutritional deficiencies. But politicians, government, and the medical industry pay no attention to that. Instead, they offer you Medicare and Obamacare. Both are a legal way of robbing Peter in order to pay Paul. While it can benefit some, Obamacare has to require higher premiums and deductibles and unwanted coverage for others- which contradict what Obama represented the Affordable Care Act as being, in addition to other misrepresentations that "you can keep your plan, keep your doctor." Many have found a superior alternative in Medishare and other medical cost sharing arrangements for people who don't want either private insurance or, especially, a government program. Why should those people have to pay your medical costs? You may not know as much as you think you do, as evidenced by your wrong headed, misguided statement and personal attack on Milton Friedman. Without knowing anything about me, save for my comments, you would do well to not make any comparisons to your self. And calling Friedman a corporate shill calls into question whether you comprehend what Friedman has said or if you understand the definition of what a corporate shill is. Calling for very limited government and maximum individual liberty is not even remotely like being a corporate shill. Are you a government, socialist or Democrat party shill?
Phil gets his clock cleaned here but give him some credit for at least having a debate. Liberals these days want to shut down any debate or differing points of view.
Phil just seems to be playing devil's advocate to tease strong responses out of Milton. It worked great, we got some excellent insights out of Friedman, the last revolutionary economic prodigy.
@@bhuman111 Agreed. Donahue was very good at playing the contrarian to his guests. He was an amazingly respectful interviewer especially compared to those who came after.
And he was so good humoured about it too. I think you're wrong though to make out liberals are the only fanatics. That statement itself is kinda fanatical
I hear ya. I'm 41, and it looks like people were far more respectful, and well-spoken back then. Today everyone would be trying to talk over one another
@@InsideOutsider81 I am 65 and remember watching Firing Line every Sunday with WFB, On the left there were Tom Snyder and David Susskind. The political magazines of the era such as The Nation, The New Republic, Commentary, and National Review to name just a few were erudite and respectful while zinging rhetorical barbs. Hysteria has replaced reason as the chief commodity of our discourse
I'm almost 50 and I remember these days.. news was boring. And these entertainment "talk shows" were actually intellectual and focused on getting people to discuss and think. Then when I was about 12, Springer and Geraldo showed up.
I am 79 and I watched Donahue on a regular basis back in the 1970's and 1980's when I was a stay at home Mom with 2 sons and a husband who was the Father of our 2 sons. It was a much different time. Donahue and other "talk" shows brought to light many topics of the time. News was not controlled by the government like it is now in 2024. We didn't have CNN, MSNBC, etc. with talking heads who are NOT journalists but rather people who have an agenda to keep one particular party in power and demean the candidate running against the party in power. We had high inflation under Carter like we now have high inflation under Biden / Harris. And we will continue to have high inflation if Harris / Walz team is elected in November of 2024. Government spending is out of control and our national debt is $35.1 TRILLION dollars. Millions of migrants have been welcomed into our country by Biden / Harris and now we are supporting them. It is not sustainable and Milton Friedman would have much to say about this insanity if he were alive.
My favorite moment is when Milton carefully explains that the only vehicle for lifting large numbers of people out of dire poverty has been the free enterprise system. Then Phil complains that it isn’t virtuous enough. It’s nearly 50 years later, and the same argument is being made.
@STL 1234 - And it's one of the gifts of RUclips. Those who desire to put in the work and is willing to listen, will come to realize today's problems and complaints have existed going back generations. Millennials have been indoctrinated to feel they are the ones who created the wheel.
@@dannysullivan3951 Da fuck kinda retardation is that? It would be like saying that you can't look right without looking left. No clearly you can look right without looking left and not being able to do one without the other is an oxymoron. It's a contradiction. In fact, you cannot have capitalism, free market outside of government control and have government control within the economy. One is obligatorily an infraction on the other.
Amazing what use to be broadcast on American television. Can you imagine a show like this trying to air in modern society? it would die a quick death by ratings because intellectual integrity no longer matters in the media, eyeballs do
Now that the Corporations own the Media today that is why you dont see debates like this anymore. Greed... As for modern society I would say we are on the decline because of greed trying maintain its control grip.
The owners of the five corporations that own 90% of the nation's media don't want the common man caring about important issues, or knowing the issues period. That's why the rich promote immorality and stupidity in culture. We can more easily be controlled and deceived by their bread and circuses while they set up a prison system around us.
THE PHANTOM MF speaks against mandatory installation of airbags. His contention is that additional safety for those in the vehicle should be an optional. From minute 3:40, in less than half a minute, it will be clear. I stopped watching shortly thereafter. Shall I watch the rest of the interview?
It’s amazing to me just how civil this discussion was between two individuals and an audience with clearly differing views. I believe we will never see anything like this on TV again.
I agree. How sad it is that honest discussion can't be had on any main stream news these days. We should have Thomas Sowell on all of the networks just as a test. Let the networks try to censor him!
Our society is horribly pathetic. Solid values and debates were relevant in my earlier years. Your comment is very accurate. We live in very sad times, especially socially. I pray for my grand children. That being said, does anyone pray any longer.
I am amazed at the relevance of each of these questions and talking points to today's problems. This show happened roughly forty years ago, and yet if it weren't for the hairstyles and how polite everyone is, you'd think they were talking about the current economy.
I'm amazed that people applauded. There is now way Friedman's views would be interviewed today let alone half of the audience agree. In 2016, 95% of journalists who met reportable political donation minimums donated to Democrats. Over 90% of Yale faculty identify as liberal. Not healthy.
Ralph Nader, Al Gore, and all liberal politicians, they are all the same. Virtual signaling to the finest, totally disregard the facts. As to sincerity, they are all for too things: political reward and money.
What he mean, obviously, is that sincerity of intentions to “doing good” with neither knowledge nor competence in the subject in question is useless and counter-productive. In such cases, it might have been better to just leave things alone , out of the destructive hands of the “sincere” do-gooder.
greymanBB exactly! It is much more important to be reasonable, to be a true professional. Sincerity won’t help without knowledge. Friedman already compared Hitler and Mussolini in one of his lectures when he was talking about “sincere, committed people”. Hitler was really committed and did a great deal of harm.... and Mussolini was a hypocrite, that’s why he wasn’t that dangerous.
Friedman spread knowing dishonesty. That's the opposite of destroying ignorance. There was nothing nice about him. He took pleasure in selling people arguments that he knew would hurt them if they were dumb enough to accept them. That was what he derived his enjoyment from.
@@GodwynDi , name a single time you thought for yourself, my simple friend. Why would I waste my time giving examples of Friedman's dishonesty to a troll from Russia who couldn't care less anyway? Is this really how you want to waste your one life, my simple sad friend? Trolling on a RUclips comment board to earn a cheap bottle of vodka? Please do something better with your life than this......
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I even went and looked up criticisms and responses to Friedman. I could not find anything convincing. Lots of popular articles claiming he was wrong, but nothing substantial.
@@GodOfVictory501 yes true, Adam Smith as he spoke about is one of the greatest, modern economist is martin armstrong however historically the greatest is our lord Jesus christ 🙏
@@williedonnelly4512 Hjalmar Schacht was perhaps the most successful economist in human history. What he did with Germany after the second banking crisis of Germany in the early 1930's; was the most remarkable turn around in history!
@@williedonnelly4512 True. That is because of a multitude of reasons. But Schacht knew the one universal truth, that labor is the real capital behind wealth creation. In fact farmers have to be outside their minds to sell their farms. In a few years when the world economic system has collapsed, farmers will finally get their day in the sun. They will have the ability to control the markets. The only problem in the U.S. today the level of independence farmers has greatly decreased. Many farmers today are under governmental programs. Basically working the land for the government. Ezra Pound did a great job explaining some of this in his book secrets of the Federal Reserve! Big Banks in the 1920's stole farms under the false pretense of collective bargaining. Heck, they even murderd farmers in the western states, using federal Marshall's to do so. Regardless, there is only one man who will save us all in the end! These people laugh at him, but they will not be laughing for long! All governments will fail. Only a world monarchy with the king of Zion will the final government!
We can still have this, people just need to be more mature and not petulant b@bies, that requires intelligent culture, but we have to face it, we live in a expl0itat1ve society, where a dummm populace is more profitable than an informed one, now whether you blame b1g gov or b|g biz for that...hhmnn well
What success are you talking about? School vouchers take money away from the poor for public schools, and give it to richer families to help subsidize their children's private schools that the poor can't afford. That's a very sad definition of success you have....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Succes can be measured in parent satisfaction, higher test scores, school safety, etc….almost (not quite) all charter schools in poor neighborhoods that use vouchers are favorable towards that system. Simple really.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 That is horrible propaganda used by the Teacher's unions, and even the NAACP, to control a monopoly on education. Public schools have failed to innovate and provide an acceptable education for many people. Therefore, you want to reward them by giving them a bailout. You are actively participating in corruption disguised as altruism.
@@06barcafan10 , Well, yes, I would imagine that a charter school Would be "favorable" to vouchers that would subsidize them, at the expense of the poor. You leave out the part where these vouchers siphon off money directly from public schools; as well a leave out the part that charter schools are profitable to the people who own them; and where does that profit come from? From the poorest that they take the money from. The new business model of America, that you favor. Dishonest much? Your last name wouldn't be De Vos, would it?
It's funny that this episode is almost 40 years old and Donahue is banging the same old drum. All the impoverished, disparity, inequality in the world - sounds like an Obama speech. What's the same in the equation? Government.
@@hella_cool1312 If we're being honest here, conservative politicians have had their opportunities as well to right the ship, and they've failed just as spectacularly. For example, why is a republican-led senate approving bills that increase the government's borrowing limit when what it should be doing is reining in federal spending? There is blame enough on BOTH sides of the aisle for things being the way they are today, and this country's government is more often than not at the center of the creation of more problems than it solves. If I may quote Tomas Sowell, "Government is not the personification of the national interest. They have their own interests." We voting citizens of the US would be wise to remember that.
Love this clip. Milton is in his element, Donohue is trying to score points but can’t get close. All done with mutual respect and good spirits. We need more of this.
I was a late comer to educating myself but always used the Dodge Aries K car as an example. Every governmental agency bought them because it was mandated. They all died within a few years because Chrysler was not motivated to meet the quality of other producers. In the military we had those early Ram trucks that were garbage too. They should have been allowed to fail so more efficient companies could have bought their capital equipment and made better decisions and products.
@@pstearns6164 There is always fraud, waste and abuse when the government is involved. That's what happens when all you do is spend other people's money. The government is too big. We could do without 90% of it.
3 года назад
@@zenyattamondatta7757 Really? What 90% would you do without?
@ Spoken like a government employee. Name-calling diminishes your credibility and hints that you lack an actual argument. Are you sitting at home right now, getting paid to do nothing during the "pandemic" on the government payroll? I would have to find some evidence of your assertions re: Greenspan and re: free markets before I could agree or disagree. Either way, Friedman's policies don't change my opinion about the government. I was in the military. I have seen how some people treat "other people's money." The Navy has a program to report "fraud, waste and abuse" for a reason, and the problem is government-wide.
@ The '08 crash was caused because of "feel-good" liberal/Leftist social engineering/"economic equality" -legislation lifting restrictions on lenders extending mortgages to people who had little to no verified income and in some cases, no way to verify them at all; other than a foreign drivers license. The portion of the securities market that backed those loans(after they had been shuffled around), amplifying their risk, is what let to the dominoes falling and successive crash. We know this because the hardest hit markets nationally in the housing crash, were in L.A., San Bernardino, Kern, Kings, San Joaquin, Alameda, and Contra Costa. All of those areas have high populations of illegals, who had no business buying homes they would likely default on, prior to '08. Here's an idea~ How about only *legal* citizens of the U.S. be eligible to buy property/homes, use the domestic banking system and collect govt benefits funded by taxpayers? In Mexico, no American or non-Mexican is allowed to own property. They only pay the note and "own" the structure sitting on it, not the land. And the Mexican govt can seize the land anytime they want. But see, those types of "Fascist" policies, would undercut the ability of pandering Leftist pols to wave golden tickets inciting mass illegal immigration to "hard-working" immigrants, so they can lock in a permanent voting bloc, to implement their prosperity, constructive demographics and liberty-killing agenda. You're worried about *all* the wrong things.
They definitely are still here. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Jordan Peterson, Dinesh D'souza, Johnathan Haidt, Malcolm Gladwell, Charlie Munger, Peter Thiel, Dave Chappelle. There are many greats in the making. 50 years ago nobody knew who Dave Chappelle even was. Don't lose hope. Genius still abides. There are hundreds that I didn't mention, I'm just saying what comes off the top of my head. Point is, there are good people in the world.
What a man, what a brain. I am thankful for him and people like Thomas Sowell, I call these men honest intellectual unlike what we have today in universities. I also loved how top show would have men like him on, today all you get on top shows are celebrities.
@@uwaagbonlahor1040 Just shows what nonsense he promoted before the crisis of 2008 hit. First thing that happened was the biggest banks and companies went hat in hand to Congress for their bailout. The conservative neoliberal Bush announce his plan to save the "free market" while intervening in the free market.
I have never been a Donahue fan, but he did a great job interviewing/moderating in this video. He let Milton finish his points and didn’t interrupt too much. Media people today should take some notes.
@tarkwright6511 I've seen many comments where people say they're not a fan of Donahue. What's his deal? Did he do something? I'm asking because I'm not American and I don't know.
Most modern people end up yelling and interrupting too much, and back then many of us thought Donahue was very obnoxious. Which he was, but not quite as much as so many are today
@@poom641 exactly. He was so annoying at the time now looking back he just seems fairly reasonable but misguided often just playing “devil’s advocate”.
Friedman is just too good. His third party philosophy solves a lot of problems that libertarian anarchist philosophies face, namely that voluntary action does have repercussions that impede upon the freedom of others. I have reserves about Rothbardian philosophy, but I'm all in for Friedman.
Rothbard, in the end, was partisan in his way of thinking: he was anti-authoritarian to a fault (and mean FAULT), to the point where he was disparaging Keynes out of spite more than any intellectual disagreement (i.e. the fact that Keynes ideas flourished immensely after WWII, which directly opposed Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy)
I agree with the other reply. I think Donahue is fair. He's being devil's advocate and expressing his views while also learning. I totally respect that. Not like the kind of left wing radicals you have today trying to control and hijack and defame. Anyone can learn from this. So need more of this now.
@@michaelericksonmusic No he wasn't. Biggie has eaten Smally because the state has empowered them to do so. You left out that part. Take the covid scamdemic. The State lockdowns has destroyed over 100,000 small businesses, while increasing a handful of giant multi-national corporations. Various other regulations have worked to shut down smaller hospitals and doctor offices, while funneling the same number of patients to fewer large hospitals. The government has created healthcare shortages. So no, he was exactly right.
@@michaelericksonmusic He wasn't wrong. Because he _agreed_ with the idea of "Biggie" eating "Smallie" being true... when the government continually intervenes. When the government uses our money to bail out a poorly run company, they have a chance to get bigger and consume smaller companies. And that's a chance they wouldn't have if the government would've let them fail. Conglomerates gobbling up Mom-and-pops is a result of them gaming the government system. If the government let free enterprise alone, there would be no system to game.
Where does Friedman do that? From the very beginning he dodges the question and he doesn’t even stay on topic. He just relies on McCarthyist rhetoric. It’s actually Donahue who tries to bring him back to the subject of discussion but Friedman just waves it away. Why does everyone act like Milton Friedman is some kind of intellectual power house…? His economic theories were pretty much proven wrong throughout the course of history and virtually everything he is saying here has no actual evidence-based logic. He just tries to act like he’s some wit instead of actually demonstrating any type of actual intellectual prowess.
There are two kinds of people: ones who understand Milton Friedman instantly and those who need time to come to their senses in order to realize that Friedman is correct.
There are two kinds of people: ones who categorize people into only two categories, and those who don't. That kind of black and white thinking is very limited. It keeps one from eventually seeing through the dishonest rhetoric of a corporate shill who made arguments on behalf of corporations, and not the people they take advantage of for their own profit....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 and you just missed the entire point of what Friedman says. Guess you must be in the second category still. Keep watching, you’ll get there eventually.
@@idiotproofdalek , it's possible for someone to get the point of what a dishonest cynical troll says, and to see through their dishonesty and reject it. You're not the sharpest Dalek in the horde, are you, my simple friend? You seem like you need a serious chip upgrade. Daleks aren't known for their perceptiveness or deepness of thought, just blind obedience and mastery of the word "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!" Keep processing, my simple drone, you'll get there eventually....
@@idiotproofdalek , Dal, while you were busy attempting human trolling, Dr. Who snuck in and stole all your power crystals. Not a good Day of the Daleks, is it?
Rest In Peace Doctor Milton Freeman.... Thank God we still have Thomas Sowell. It's just To bad that more younger people don't know who these Two Great Americans... And they should know about them....
Also very sad that grammar is so slack spelling and tenses are so meaningless as well, but love experts who achieve nothing but think they can define success by Chile Pinochet.
Also Rest in Peace Phil Donahue. A great interviewer, and an honest liberal. What lefttard "journalist" today would give someone like Milton the time to give full answers. These long format shows are greatly missed.
Professor of bullshit? He advocated for the ending of requiring basic safety standards on vehicles, at the same time he was a highly paid "consultant" by automobile corporations, a subject he knew nothing about. No conflict of interest there. He argued against the existence of Medicare, Social Security, and the minimum wage, and said they should be ended. So if you freaking love him, you must freaking love that as well. And you should Never accept, or allow your family to accept, those things that he advocated ending, If you really love him. I'm sure you agree with that. Right?
@@maskedmarvyl4774I do agree with ending welfare, social security, abolishment of minimum wage, and even having an option of a cheaper car with less regulations. If you know all this about Friedman, you should also hear this quote from him: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
@@NotAnEconomist , "An option of a cheaper car with less regulations". Good luck driving it. Just don't expect anyone to ride in it with you. It's easy for you to have your attitude about Social Security and Medicare, until you reach the age where it's the only thing keeping you alive. But then, no-one ever thinks they'll be in that position. Milton Friedman was a mean little troll, who thought All safety regulations of All products should be removed. That includes medical devices. Charming human being. Please find a better role model than this.
Thomas Sowell and Friedman are whack jobs of the first degree. Sowell gets exposed on a single topic for being cataclysmically wrong: theruthlesscritic.com/thomas-sowells-myths-as-facts-part-1/
@@dillonsmith8554 i checked out your link and scanned it briefly, but stopped once I noticed dishonesty by the author. About myth #1, Sowell didn't claim that capitalism ensures inequality, he said it merely can happen. The response to his myth seems to twist what he said. Nevertheless, capitalism isn't perfect, but imo history easily shows that it is the best of all the imperfect systems. For the life of me I can't see how any intellectual honest person could argue against that.
Ivan, I doubt that you could even sharpen the pencils on your local troll farm. You have to be sober to perform simple manual skills. Stay drunk, my simple, sad friend; stay drunk.....
Uh..... sure, ma'am. Donahue simply couldn't believe the callous cynicism he was hearing from this mean spirited little man. You have very low standards for heroes, in more ways than one.
+shawncox98 Dr friedman wouldn't be a modern concervative. He had no problem bashing either political party when they did things that didn't agree with his ideology. I don't agree with everything he advocated, yet today is not yesterday and I would be wrong to assume that he would be advocating the same views today. he believed in results rather than ideals. He was one of the great thinkers in his time.
+eddie telleed If he believed what he was saying, he would be advocating the same things today as he did yesterday. Carbon credits and a price on particulates could indeed help introduce a market based approach to protecting the environment for the benefit of all. In other words, it would STILL likely lead to Friedman's desired result, were it embraced... My point is that the corporate plutocrats that rule today are not interested in results benefiting humanity. They are interested in results benefiting their positions of ever increasing wealth and power. Friedman's ideas would have to actually be implemented in order to work. Today's conservatives (and anarchist libertarians) may be able to SEE the genius of Friedman, but they've also been fooled by their corporate keepers into never letting his ideas ever REALLY have a chance. And in the rare case where a market-based Friedman idea actually IS implemented, conservatives are now trained / re-programmed to disdain their own supposed hero's very idea through simple re-branding - because of who it is that actually DOES the implementing (Obama). It is all so complicated and ironic, ennit? Humanity cannot benefit from Friedman's genius because those that supposedly venerate him the most don't realize they are being manipulated into fighting tooth and nail against every attempt to implement his ideas. It's rich, really. Pun intended.
@@tellallimediumTurns out you will ignore all his supposed revisionist thinking about the 1929 stock market crisis when both parties went full steam ahead with government intervention after 2008. Afterall what elses could you do? Give the whole mess to federal bankruptcy judges to ponder over for the next ten years? Now your throwing away his theories about capitalism bringing Democracy in China and going ahead with trade barriers to protect your profits and world Empire. As you continue to though away bourgeois Democratic norms when it comes to Donald Trump.
weirdshibainu - PD also said that he was playing the devil’s advocate: he was putting up propositions that are widely held by many members of the public, or by politicians. This then gives Friedman the chance to argue against them.
Timothy Vu - yes, PD is a good interviewer, but his role or technique wasn’t obvious to everyone, as is evident from some of the comments made on this video. Peter Robinson uses a similar interview method on the videos from the “Uncommon Knowledge” series by the Hoover Institution.
I never stop learning every time I listen to Milton Friedman. Every time I read or listen to what his perspective was, it opens up thoughts and ideas. He was a superb man and one the the great thinkers of the 20th century.
The boneheaded lady who is speaking at 36:31 is exactly what's wrong with the voter base in this country and a perfect example of a low-information person. She knows that there are rich people and poor people. She believes rich people are responsible for there being poor people, but she doesn't know why or how. Not only does she not know why or how, but after a little prodding, Friedman gets her to admit that rich people don't in fact hoard their money, but use their money to make capital investments which act to create jobs and grow the economy. It's clear this woman's position is indefensible in general, and especially by her. The media has taught her to think and speak in fortune cookie sayings and to develop a bullet-point argument, without any critical thinking at all. What a shame.
No - he's just a glib, well-trained snake-oil salesman who knows how to exploit the ignorance and inexperience in public debate of a weak (if well-meaning) adversary to appear to make his point for him. Cheap tactics from a worthless man.
No, he also exploited it. He bullied and hectored her, bombarding her with several complex questions that he knew she couldn't answer, even if she understood them. He may not have been responsible for the gaps in her knowledge and her inexperience in public debate, but he was responsible for his own behaviour, which was despicable and dishonest.
Khayyam1048 Exploited? Since exploitation implies some type of gain at the detriment of someone else, what did Friedman gain from the interaction? The fact is that you're being dramatic, and you disagree with Friedman. And instead of formulating counter-arguments, you speak in ad hominems and hyperbole, implying a lack of counter-argument.
He exploited her inexperience in debate, and her inability to deal with his ambush of questions, in order to gain an unfair advantage in the encounter. He had an ideology to promote, and like many ideologues he didn't care if he had to resort to unscrupulous methods in order to be seen to prevail in the argument. This, incidentally, is one of the big quarrels that I have with the adversarial tradition in the English-speaking world, where the glibbest, most confident person (even when wrong on the facts) will be perceived as having prevailed over someone hesistant and unassertive (even when right). BTW you need to consult a good text on critical reasoning in order to establish what, for example, an ad hominem argument actually is. It isn't an ad hominem to criticise a person's beliefs or to deduce bad character from unreasonable or dishonourable behaviour (e.g. bullying one's intellectual adversary), any more than it's hyperbole simply to state an opinion with which you simply happen to disagree. If anyone is engaging in intellectual grandstanding here, it isn't me.
How interesting that Phil brings up Sears buying Kmart and Milton comments that it could be Kmart buying Sears and that it actually happend 30 years later.
I love Donahue's face when Friedman makes his point by saying that regulations have made new cars more expensive and now people own older cars instead of newer ones, and older cars are inherently less safe as cars were becoming safer on their own due to consumer demand. It never occurred to Donahue that all the regulations past didn't suddenly make all the older cars on the road change, but instead made it more difficult for the average American to take advantage of new safety features in cars
Yes and why insurance companies and state lawmakers demand by law to wear seat belts, cuz it means more chances insurance companies won't have to pay death benefits.
@@marcustulliuscicero.5856 , He's never admitted he's wrong. He resorted to sarcasm or snarkiness when confronted about his dishonest statements, and when older, actually said "I'm out of patience with you!", when someone even mildly challenged his statements.
@@marcustulliuscicero.5856 No answer, because he isn't wrong. There is a certain thing called dunning krueger, most people who are confident are uninformed, but some people who are confident are so because they ARE informed.
The PBD podcast put me onto Friedman. It's shocking how this just as relevant today. I'm just shocked right now. 50 years and still the same, if not more of the same problem.
@@tiborzkarate1 Regulations LED TO the 2008 crash. That along with stupid cronyism. The stupidity of the government to think they can force banks to loan to low credit scorer and not have any possible repercussions for starters, along with a bloated Fed reserve(basically a govt enforced monopoly). This critique of the 2008 crash needs to die out please.
@@tiborzkarate1 Incentives mean jack when the government MANDATES that your loan to a specific of people that you aren't guaranteed to get back from. Plus, the insurance of the previous bailouts that the government had granted to these banks(cronyism, an enemy of free markets), was all the assurance that they needed to take as ridiculous a risk as they possibly could
@@tiborzkarate1 Great. Like every big government advocate ever, Outsider: This is how government regulation ruins the free market BGA: You see what I'm saying? This is exactly why capitalism is bad.
A fond memory of the '70's when I was working 3rd shift and still living at home. I was a fan of Milton Friedman and heard he was going to be on PDS. I did not want to stay up until noon to watch it so I taught my mother how to use a very primitive (but state of art) reel to reel tape recorder I had and record the audio through the microphone. My dad NEVER watched daytime TV, but he watched that and it began his journey into conservatism. I could have never convinced him myself. Our family is Catholic, but my devout mother laughed when I referred to him as Saint Milton!
Absolutely. When I heard that comment I thought how amazing because in the 70’s through 90’s we were beholden to the Saudis. In the 2000’s I remember Bush saying we had 200+ years of natural gas if we’d just tap into it to be energy independent. Milton Friedmanwaa spot on as today we are a net exporter again. Trump has pushed to deregulate and the economy is prospering. So simple yet the liberals fight it tooth and nail.
I've watched this 5 times, and am better for it because I can usually recall about 10 percent of it. Which is fantastic! Because Milton is 101.5 percent smarter than I ever will be.
This is all still totally relevant. Back when you could have a reasonable and intelligent conversation without throwing a child-like tantrum if someone said something that challenged your worldview
Great episode. I highly recommend you sit down and watch it, especially if you're interested in economics, politics, business, etc. I like how Donahue stands right there in Friedman's face during the second part of this episode when he's supposed to be walking around and asking audience members to talk. Look at his aggressive body language and tone. He's so upset with what Friedman is saying and doesn't want to hear it. Later on around the 34-minute mark, when the lady in the audience asks about Sears and K-Mart, notice how Donahue interjects and tells Friedman why K-Mart was able to be successful with their discounting, whereas Friedman simply says he doesn't know because he doesn't have the business knowledge. I love this because it shows the fundamental difference between people like Donahue and Friedman - Donahue likes to proclaim, whereas Friedman likes to explain. Later on at the 41-minute mark, another fundamental difference between people like Donahue and Friedman is made when Donahue jokingly talks about his private "Donahue High School" after hearing Friedman's response to the school voucher question - he assumes that people are stupid and will send their children to his high school simply because he has good marketing and a football team. It's his criticism of freedom. Friedman quickly points out that consumers aren't as dumb as Donahue believes they are and that they will carefully choose where to send their children for their education. In essence, there's a belief that there needs to be government paternalism. Donahue asks Friedman about this government paternalism at the end after the 45:15 minute mark again. Good stuff.
It's really interesting though. While Donahue is a textbook progressive, and I don't agree with him politically whatsoever, can you imagine a modern talk-show host having a guest like Friedman on today? Having this sort of banter and discussion beyond your run-of-the-mill comedic interludes with some random actor? Watching these really gives me a respect for Phil I never had before, simply because he's willing to risk his own hubris to present an opposing viewpoint, from a man he'd probably readily admit is much smarter than himself. I cannot think of a single show that would have a person like Friedman on today, and I think we're worse off for it.
@512metro: EXACTLY! You took the words right out of my mouth. Sometime between this video and now, the Left got sick of losing debates like this one and decided to rig the game and silence and condemn any opposing viewpoints to theirs. Very sad and yet entirely predictable...
i agree to an extent but donahue tried but friedman is very respectful - he is witty but rarely condescending. he could easily be arrogant but is charming, likeable and witty.
@@mrgerrytube Your Argumentum ad hominem won't help you win an argument. For your information I've studied central planning economies and free market economics for almost two decades. I am from a socialist country that was once one of the riches countries in Latin America and traveled to over 20 countries. So give me a valid argument of why Milton Friedman was a snake oil salesman and instead of insulting me give an actual argument. Lets try to have a civilized debate amongs dissenting opinions.
@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663 if you’re a fan of Friedman, you’re part of the problem. Economics without ethics is tyranny. Adam Smith warned of this. Friedman, Hayek, Chicago school of economics, Chile. Put the pieces together yourself. Just because the intellect is sharp doesn’t mean the ideology isn’t selfish, exclusionary and dangerous. I would say read Gramsci and Freire but you won’t. Even a bit of Chomsky will explain a few things for you. And if you mention ‘trickle down’ … 🤦🏻♂️
This is one of the most fascinating interviews I have ever seen. A great job by the interviewer asking really pointed and interesting questions. No "gotcha" questions.
It’s crazy to see how some shows 60 and 50 yrs ago would ask tough and interesting questions, let their audiences do the same, and then give the guest adequate time to answer without interruption. The only place nowadays where you can see something comparable are podcasts. It’s also great to see Donahue ask a question and then sit back and listen intently… instead of rummaging around papers or only focusing on the next question. He’s not trying to “get” Friedman or attempt to embarrass him with some “gotcha” moment… he’s having a conversation and asking questions he genuinely is curious about and being respectful the entire time. Great segment
Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell are inteligent men with an ability to make complex subjects understandable , amazing analysis of a situation. His explanation that minimum wage while being well meaning has led to many problems is incredible, what an intelect and mind.
As a Swede, you have no idea what you're talking about lol. The huge growth in prosperity Sweden enjoyed started way before the cradle-to-grave welfare system emerged, and has since its introduction in the 60's (although it already took a slight turn for the worse in the 50's when we increased taxes to a historical - though still quite small, at least in comparison to today... - high) been on a decline. There's no housing for the young, the medical service isn't what you'd expect when paying some of the worlds highest taxes (in not-completely-shit countries) and waiting lines are long, the quality of the education offered here is declining etc. More government is never the answer.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Watching clips like this makes you realize how much television and the overall quality of dialog of modern media has degraded.
Isn't that the truth.
What is degrading about this dialogue? Friedman is totally decimating Donahue's unqualified and non-factual opinions and statements. Friedman is a master of knowing the facts, who is also a master of analysing many complex issues, which is such a rarity among men. Friedman is nothing less than a FORCE that is able to poke holes in the conventional wisdom of the day. Not to mention the absolute good nature of Freidman and his infectious humor. He is the ultimate optimist as opposed to folks on the left who are overwhelming pessimists. Friedman has totally taken Donahue to task on every issue that Donahue has raised in this interview. The "quality of dialog of modern media has been degraded" falls squarely on Donahues' shoulders.
And how has it degraded? What is the quality of the content in the media these days? Whose views and lifestyles predominate? Who has degraded the quality? Someone is putting out the garbage; who is it?
James Hampton The millennial bs cultural degradation
Ah, the irony. Thanks to the influence of Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, neoliberalism, and "laissez faire economics."
I always liked Donahue show. he was good at provoking but in an intelligent way. Friedman is brilliant. He has a way of communicating complex ideas in an easy practical manner
This is an excellent conversation. If it were held today they would try to discredit Freedman by labeling him a racist.
Then you’d have Sowell coming to his defense. But, they’d label him one too. 🤦♂️
behind closed doors he was absolutely a racist
@@petersams5054 🙄 see
@@petersams5054 So was FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter. Yet no Leftists would ever admit that. People are products of their times and upbringing. You listen to black separatists/Hebrew Israelites in 2021 their arguments are similar to white supremacists in the 1800's to 1920. Everything in ignorance gets recycled. Just as modern authoritarian Leftism is being disguised as "social-justice" and "anti-oil environmentalism/climate change".
Recognizing failures in the culture of certain ethnicities, *isn't* racism. It's brutal objectivism with a purpose that ultimately leads to *all* races achieving the closest thing to genuine egalitarianism possible. Not fake Leftist "equality of outcomes", pie in the sky dreaming that keeps minorities crippled and dependent on govt forever.
@@kevsamuelsdiedwafathookeri2254 Bingo!!
What an absolute treasure Milton was/is to listen to.
Unbelievable to see so many people are actually interested in a real economic argument,
And not one of them shouted ‘NAZI”.
That's partially because there wasnt a million channels to fill. If it was on TV, it has to be justified. Now there's so much BS on TV you "have to" carry on to get views.
Quiet you Nazi.
@ Can you image how the world would look had we enacted those policies 30-40 years ago? All it really requires is for politicians to let go of power they don’t deserve in the first place, and hell if some backwards dictator can do it, why can’t we?
@ throwing people from aircraft was Argentina. Idk maybe it was in Chile too but i’d say you’re looking at a South America problem, not a Friedman problem. I mean tell me if I’m wrong but the coup leader pinochio or something asked for help with the economy RIGHT? So then logically the coup was before a free market, RIGHT? So then there already was a problem of a dictator, RIGHT?
Again I wanna reiterate Chile is run by mexican wanna be Nazis so, the economy did fine, brilliant even. What more can you really expect, RIGHT? Friedman made a point of it, a free market is core to a free society. Doesn’t mean a dictator can’t coincide with a free market, RIGHT?
The sarcastic “RIGHT” is much appreciated. It is often called the best form of comedy, by everyone, RUGHT?
@ I also want to add social security is a way of control, not liberation.
We really need another Milton Friedman today.
We got David...
Indeed, We need another Milton like fellow to pull down this pair of pants that is left for us and give it to the rich. You know, Rich are so suffering now these days; we need another Milton to give them a hand. But don't despair, we've got Sheldon; he'll deliver us from evil. The rich actually can come and sodomize us at will, by grace of Jesus, soon, if only Sheldon acts!
Bob Kay ???
***** They are, I just the Milton's son was the obvious choice. Thomas Sowell is also a great one.
***** I didn't mean to sound as though I was crediting him entirely because of his lineage, I apologize. I credit him because he is an excellent economist and philosopher, I mentioned him because he is also related to Milton.
One of the best things I love about Milton is that he can tell you politely, you have no clue and to pound sand and he does it all with a a smile.
Definitely one of his best traits
Isn’t it pound sand?
Yeah. And he's been proven wrong. "Biggie" has devoured "Smalley" every step of the way.
@@michaelericksonmusic
Actually no, if you really read and understand what he says you will find out that he doesn’t make claims one way or another about whether “biggie” should be eating “smalley” or vice versa. In fact he repeatedly says that if the large companies keep managing the company in a way that keeps quality high and prices low then there is no reason to really oppose such a company’s monopoly.
The problem of course is that large companies are very rarely able to do this for extended periods of time, and eventually the small companies will eat up their market share. However all of this is only possible in a system that abides by one of Friedman’s key tenets. “A system must not have excessive regulations.”
Good grief he talks about it at length in this very interview. If you have excessive regulations, then the only companies able to afford to meet them and have the infrastructure in place to even attempt to understand all of them, will be the large established bloated companies. Its no coincidence that the less regulated the industry, the more competitive it is and the more consumer friendly the market is. Yet it’s amusing to see the first solution to any industry with monopoly problems/not competitive enough is to pile on more regulations, which merely exasperates the problem.
@@Mark_Cook Perhaps I should read more of his thinking. I was simply commenting on his "biggie/smalley" comment in this video.
There’s no better primer for students of economics than watching these interviews of Friedman.
No all he does is point to simple outcomes because anyone can point at a so called simple outcome of competition driving down prices. When you have only a few companies in a market collusion takes place in price fixing one way or another either directly or through government regulation. Same with his lectures on tariffs in the end the bosses chose tariffs to fight for the home market share against competition. Capital becomes more and more combined and labor becomes more and more generalised such that the price tends towards just the social minimum to get the workers back for the next pay period. The bosses become more and more petti with their discipline and more and more demanding of more production in their profit seeking goals.
@@kimobrien.No he explains things in simple ways so people can follow. The man won a Nobel,prize back when you had to actually accomplish something. And your hammer and sickle icon makes me think you are already indoctrinated into a dumb ideology.
@@kimobrien.I think you are confusing a simple answer with someone who makes it sound simple.
Your observations seem to be all based around greed, now that’s quite a simple statement to make
@@richarddevlin5613 The source of profits is the exploitation of the working class. The greed of the bosses for profits drive the capitalist system. You won't here Friedman talk about the source of the profit because to do so one would have to explain how it arises since it denies any simple explanation other than the part of the value created by the labor that is the source of all value that is not a natural resource to begin with. As John locke wrote Labor transforms nature. So if one is to have a material view of nature it can't arise from exchange or probability. Since exchange can not occur without a labor cost and the same is true of gambling or value seemingly increasing by increased risk.
@@kimobrien. Are you saying that if someone doesn’t succeed it’s simply because they weren’t greedy enough ? Or they didn’t exploit enough ?
I could become so greedy that I wanted a fortune twice the size of Bill Gates but this greed would not increase my income by anything
What an amazing interview. Where would you find such a calm, intellectually challenging discussion in mass media these days?
Frank Ch. Eigler Whoopie would have been screaming racist saying you just want to get away with paying poor black folk less than minimum wage.
thankfully it has improved.
Oprah wiped out Donahue by doing a Jerry Springer style show. Then after he was gone she 'sobered up' and made more 'tasteful' programmes, though far from intellectual or ideologically balanced
I agree. I also see a lots of the same issues then as now.
Sneering anti social Rightard FREEdman same MAFIA Bank$ter as GREEDspan!! Both part of the CRIMINAL U$/UK '08 ongoing sub-prime debts World CRASH losing TRILLIONS while trashing MILLIONS of jobs and LIVES!
Jeez they were talking about bailing out Chrysler even back then? Nothing has changed.
+James Whyte In the late 70s the US Government guaranteed loans to Chrysler(this is is in spite of the loans Chrysler went bankrupt the US taxpayer would be on the hook for those loans). Thankfully Chrysler invented the mini-van and their sales boomed and they were able to pay off the loans by the mid 1980s.
Maurice Bachand So the plan was Chrysler was going to take out a loan which WE the us citizens would have to pay back? I still don't see how any of this stuff is constitutional. How is our government allowed to decide stuff like this? we have no say, why are they even doing this for private corporation? they should take care of themselves. Is that basically what the bailout was all about? are we still on the hook for those? Excuse the ignorance just haven't kept up with politics.
Yup, nothing is new. I wonder which company in the future would threaten the government with riot and anarchy when they don't receive bailout?
Yep ... proving once again, and always ... our elected officials are idiots and are focused on the wrong things.
It's all bribes... err uh.. .emm ... lobbying that gets government to do what Chrysler wanted.
"Can Sears buy Kmart?" Phil Donahue 1979
"The way Kmart has been growing, . . . can Kmart buy Sears"
Milton wins again! Kmart bought Sears ten years ago in 2005.
And because of how mismanaged both companies are and because of how behind the curve they were in responding to the change to online shopping and delivery, both companies are total shit and should be pushed over the edge once and for all. This teetering act has gone on for too long. Sell off whatever has value and let the rest just die off.
@@bluecollarguy67 OR, they could change and perhaps find a better business model and become the New Apple.
@@bluecollarguy67 Easy to say in retrospect.
And they are both about out of business now!
Update in 2020... 😢
It's always amazing that Milton Friedman blurts out the most amazing TRUTHS with a bright smile. Incredibly sharp mind. It's also amazing that he give all answers WITH ZERO THINKING TIME needed, he just KNOWS his stuff regardless what is asked.
That's true and astonishing. You look at modern day right leaning intellectuals like Jordan Peterson and even they have to think. Friedman just has the answers without pause. It's wild.
@@BigEvan96Peterson delves into philosophy, which is far more complex. Wheras is economy is basically a science.
@@KolyaBennett I see.
Milton is so smooth and unmoved, what a man.
Agree! He's a whole man!
Johnathan Doe exactly right. He does let emotions rule his arguments.
Sure, he is a master of sophistry. Being smooth doesn't equal being right. And Milton Friedman is very wrong and many issues.
Glen Wallace where is he wrong?
@@95garyl , I believe he is wrong on being able to rely on manufacturers to consistently provide safeguards against hazardous products. Some businesses will make safe products, but without government regulation, others will try to save a buck and make an unsafe product. And I believe the general public wants the government to use regulations to proactively protect the consumer from harm in the first place rather use Friedman's method of merely using their choice as a consumer, after being harmed, to stop shopping from a business that makes unsafe products. Friedman also conveniently 'forgets' about the 3rd party involved in cars known as passengers that had nothing to do with the original choice to purchase a car without government mandated safety features.
The man, the legend. To be fair to Donahue, that is some next level interviewing; the way it was meant to be.
geir pedersen Agreed. Donahue was as good as anyone I’ve ever seen.
The genius is not only Milton, obviously, but also Donahue knew exactly what he was doing. The devils advocate questions were just that, and they both knew it.
@@jaywilley955 its called Trump
D parsons 3 words that make no sense in this context. Forever in your debt.
@@sullimd , Yes, asking what is so bad about social safety nets that prevent people from dying, is being "the devil's advocate".
I think you've assigned the wrong advocate to the wrong person.
Milton’s words are like a warm blanket of truth and common sense. I literally could (and sometimes do) listen all day.
You can tell from earlier days how the left treat people who they don't agree with. The host tried his best, throw all sort of questions at him. To anybody who is not Milton Friedman, would have been stuck on one of many questions. You can't be prepared on all of the question. If you answered 99 questions, and failed one, you have failed. Milton Friedman didn't give him one chance, he understood those people well.
Baa baaa
I often listen too. His interviews and speeches are more precious than an Economics degree from Boston University (where AOC got her Econ degree)
@@StephenPaulTroup 🤢🤮
Why? "Biggie has indeed eaten "Smally" every step of the way. Admit it. He was wrong.
Anyone in 2024
Ok. I take the challenge. I will address Mr Friedmann's postulation about Government not to mandate Airbags in cars.
His reasoning was that it is the individual owner of the car that should opt for an Airbag, and not burden the public with extra costs. My question is; what about the increase in car crash injuries? What economic/social/labor cost would that have, and who was to pay for it? The employer that lost a worker? The family that lost a provider/caretaker? Or the individual in question?
I can imagine what Mr Friedmann would have answered, but my speculations aside. There are so many ramifications to an economic event, that the simplification of the effects are just not foreseeable. Thus, economics are about historic data and the interpretation of those. Mr Friedmann is correct that the 1929 crash followed by the run on the banks was caused by not doing the actions needed to stem the run. Remember that those actions were untried & represented unknown risks to those involved, but today we know what can happen if a bank crashes. We know now that the backup system (money printing) works.
The problem is what happens when the system is abused by politicians to reach short time goals are a totally different matter.
@@oddvardmyrnes9040 People would be free to choose whether to buy the vehicle with air bags or not. If there was enough public demand, manufacturers would build vehicles with them or vice versa if demand was low. It is not the federal government's job to determine what is "safe". It would probably be safer to govern speeds on vehicles to 40 mph, but the government doesn't do that.
@@johnbrooks4965 .. Thank you for reply. I will argue that your arguments are not rooted in reality. Read up on the work of Ralph Nader & his fight to make automobiles safer. All your claims are refuted by him & his legislative work.
“Where do u find these these angels? I don’t even trust u to do that.”
Absolutely brilliant!
What is brilliant about it? Being a callous and dishonest troll does not equal "brilliance".
His exact quote was "who are these angels who are going to reorder society"? He managed to say two dishonest things in the same sentence.
First of all, it doesn't require an angel to help other people. It just requires a basically decent person; which Friedman wasn't. Which is why he made that contemptuous statement. Secondly, it doesn't require "reordering society"; which Friedman also knew.
President Johnson was no angel; and he would have been the first person to admit it. He was a rude, crude deal-maker. However, he managed to get Medicare passed, after Reagan recorded a speech saying that if Medicare were ever passed, it would mean the "end of freedom in America".
Well, we're still free, and Medicare has saved millions of lives, including my mother's.
It did not require an angel to pass it, nor did it require the reordering of society.
Friedman by the way wanted to end Medicare, Social Security, all safety requirements for vehicles, and the minimum wage.
I'm very sorry if you find that "brilliant".
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I’m sorry you feel that way. Friedman is observing that public sector solutions can be just as insidious as private sector solutions if not more so. He also brilliantly observed that mandating an attached dagger to a steering wheel would prevent more car accident deaths than mandating an air bag. The point is that people’s behavior is tied to their perceived risk. After air bags were mandated fatalities in car accidents went up, which seems to affirm his dagger observation.
I think that privatized medicine produces better health care than public medicine systems like Medicare. Currently I am required to pay into medicare on top of my current health insurance premiums. I have no say in the use of those Medicare dollars. If that was a private account where I could control the growth of my Medicare contributions like an hsa then it would be much more effective. What if my life expectancy was less than 65 so I never get Medicare. Now I have to pay for something I will never get? This is a violation of our freedom as Friedman and Reagan observed. It does reorder our paychecks and it is bankrupting our country so, yes it is re-ordering society. Yes it’s good to help others and I think more people would be more altruistic (Friedman prefers saying eleemosynary) if such self sacrifice was not coerced by government. I don’t know your family’s experience exactly with Medicare but I do know that people tend to benefit more from a private sector system than from a public one, especially the poor.
Also, Friedman recommended, as an economist, that a minimum wage laws hurts poor communities. If minimum wage is $15 then employers simply don’t hire someone who doesn’t have skills worth $15. If the job applicant does not have skills worth $15 then he simply never gets the opportunity and can’t develop his skills. With no minimum wage an individual can get a job very easily and have a chance to flourish into a very productive highly paid worker. Minimum wage laws hinder economic mobility. Many countries have done quite well economically, including this one, with no minimum wage. Friedman’s views on minimum wage are very popular among economists.
You sir, are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I feel that Friedman was a courageous voice of reason that the world desperately needs today!
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Politicians such as Lyndon Johnson are able to take advantage of the ignorance and economic illiteracy of the public by exploiting that ignorance for their own selfish purposes, like proposing what appears to be a solution to a problem in the form of a government program that will expand government bureaucracy and expense and contribute to inflation, and encourage dependence on government and politicians to provide solutions for problems that may be the result of the political choices of the politicians. Johnson made a career out of being a politician, and in the end left as his most memorable and lasting legacies the Vietnam war and the war on poverty. Neither was a success. If you would dig deeper into why Friedman didn't approve of social security, medicare, and the minimum wage, you would see the very sound basis upon which he based his objections. For example, have you ever considered that social security and medicare contribute to inflation? These entitlement programs have greatly increased the size of government and of government spending, thus contributing to inflation and the erosion of the buying power of the dollar. There is also the large amount of fraud that happens with these programs. Explaining how and why government causes problems that politicians opportunistically propose what ostensibly appear to be "solutions" is a subject that Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell are very adept at. You are misguided in accusing Friedman of not being a decent person, based only on your personal opinion of his opposition to medicare, social security and the minimum wage. You base your opinion on those 3 things on the basis of what you perceive them to be, as they appear to be to many people who don't take the time and make the effort to truly understand what the details and realities are. As an economist utilizing a scientific approach and analysis, Friedman has examined these matters in a comprehensive and detailed manner, allowing the results to direct him to the conclusions he arrives at. Being a decent person is very much a subjective opinion. I might just as well accuse you of being an indecent person, merely on the basis of my perception of you accusing Friedman of not being a decent person. If you knew as much as Friedman did about minimum wage and how it originated, and what it does to inexperienced, unskilled people looking for work, or how social security confiscates money from people who could make better decisions about the use of their money- including making investments with a greater yield, or how deregulation of the medical industry and getting government out of the way of alternative approaches to achieving and maintaining good health would be a much better way of addressing health care than having another complex government bureaucracy called Medicare; then you might be less inclined to disagree with him, let alone accuse him of being something he is not. Politicians don't explain that what they frequently propose to do about a problem is not a solution, but a trade off of one problem for another. Nor are they forthcoming about explaining how sometimes they, or their predecessors created the problem.
@@pakelika100 , Medicare is run more efficiently than private insurance. That is a fact that corporate shills will never admit, even though it's been proven to be true.
My mother is alive because of Medicare that she paid into her entire life. She would have died ten years ago without it.
I worked in private insurance. You are speaking to the wrong person about the evils of government insurance compared to private insurance.
Private insurance companies feel entitled to their customers' money, with no obligation to provide coverage. I used to listen to screaming matches between insurance managers about how they weren't going to get their yearly bonus, because one of their colleagues paid too many legitimate claims, instead of denying them.
I myself couldn't get decent insurance, despite working for an insurance company. I could only get a lousy HMO plan, where I could not choose my physician, and got the worst of the worst doctors who were incompetent and burned out. I got no coverage for my diabetes, as it was a "preexisting condition". I developed permanent nerve damage and permanent loss of vision because of my diabetes.
It was only because of the Affordable Care Act, that critics dubbed "Obamacare" that I finally received coverage for my diabetes. Otherwise, I would be dead now.
I lived the life-and-death reality of the situation, both working in insurance and almost dying as a result of it; unlike yourself.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Inspite of all the abuse and fraud associated with Medicare, you claim that it is more efficiently administered than private insurance? You can say that, but the fact is that with all of its complexity, bureaucracy, abuse and fraud, and the fact that it is a contributing factor to inflation and the erosion of the purchasing power of a dollar, in addition to overburdening medical providers with regulations and documentation requirements, it is a poor substitute for the better alternatives that a truly free market can provide. You seem to think you know that Medicare is the reason for keeping people alive, but you may be deceived into believing that only the American medical industry has effective therapeutic treatment for pathological conditions, and that a free and much less regulated market is the cause of, and not the solution to, the high cost of sick care and health maintenance- which is nonsense! Your very limited personal experience and perspective on sick care does not even equate to Dr. Friedman's qualified, objective and much more informed analysis of Medicare, though your experience means so much to you. At the risk of seeming unkind, you judge the worthiness of a government mandate that takes every worker's property to sustain a large, complex bureaucracy and program riddled with waste, abuse, and fraud, that is so complex that people need a qualified professional to guide them in order to enroll in and select a plan with any sufficient knowledge of what is best for them, purely on the basis of your own personal experience and knowledge, limited as it is. A government that truly cared about you and everyone would get out of the way of alternative approaches and practitioners who can provide holistic and natural therapeutic solutions, and dramatically reduce regulatory requirements that overburden the medical industry and drive up its costs. Furthermore, how much does your choices and lifestyle effect your physiological condition? That's a question to consider, not an accusation. You may be surprised to learn that there are people who have no use for Medicare, Obamacare, or any government "solution" to sick care. They have discovered the benefits of heeding the advice and utilizing the services of people such as Dr. Bob Marshall and his Quantum Nutrition team and products, and Pharmacist Ben Fuchs. All pathological conditions are the result of nutritional deficiencies. But politicians, government, and the medical industry pay no attention to that. Instead, they offer you Medicare and Obamacare. Both are a legal way of robbing Peter in order to pay Paul. While it can benefit some, Obamacare has to require higher premiums and deductibles and unwanted coverage for others- which contradict what Obama represented the Affordable Care Act as being, in addition to other misrepresentations that "you can keep your plan, keep your doctor." Many have found a superior alternative in Medishare and other medical cost sharing arrangements for people who don't want either private insurance or, especially, a government program. Why should those people have to pay your medical costs? You may not know as much as you think you do, as evidenced by your wrong headed, misguided statement and personal attack on Milton Friedman.
Without knowing anything about me, save for my comments, you would do well to not make any comparisons to your self. And calling Friedman a corporate shill calls into question whether you comprehend what Friedman has said or if you understand the definition of what a corporate shill is. Calling for very limited government and maximum individual liberty is not even remotely like being a corporate shill. Are you a government, socialist or Democrat party shill?
Phil gets his clock cleaned here but give him some credit for at least having a debate. Liberals these days want to shut down any debate or differing points of view.
drsevrin100
Exactly.
This was also back when the Nobel Prize had actual value.
Phil just seems to be playing devil's advocate to tease strong responses out of Milton. It worked great, we got some excellent insights out of Friedman, the last revolutionary economic prodigy.
@@bhuman111 Agreed. Donahue was very good at playing the contrarian to his guests. He was an amazingly respectful interviewer especially compared to those who came after.
And he was so good humoured about it too. I think you're wrong though to make out liberals are the only fanatics. That statement itself is kinda fanatical
I'm nearly 40 and I am shocked that this level of discussion was ever on network TV. Absolutely astounding.
I hear ya. I'm 41, and it looks like people were far more respectful, and well-spoken back then. Today everyone would be trying to talk over one another
@@InsideOutsider81 I am 65 and remember watching Firing Line every Sunday with WFB, On the left there were Tom Snyder and David Susskind. The political magazines of the era such as The Nation, The New Republic, Commentary, and National Review to name just a few were erudite and respectful while zinging rhetorical barbs. Hysteria has replaced reason as the chief commodity of our discourse
I get you.
I'm almost 50 and I remember these days.. news was boring. And these entertainment "talk shows" were actually intellectual and focused on getting people to discuss and think. Then when I was about 12, Springer and Geraldo showed up.
I am 79 and I watched Donahue on a regular basis back in the 1970's and 1980's when I was a stay at home Mom with 2 sons and a husband who was the Father of our 2 sons. It was a much different time. Donahue and other "talk" shows brought to light many topics of the time. News was not controlled by the government like it is now in 2024. We didn't have CNN, MSNBC, etc. with talking heads who are NOT journalists but rather people who have an agenda to keep one particular party in power and demean the candidate running against the party in power. We had high inflation under Carter like we now have high inflation under Biden / Harris. And we will continue to have high inflation if Harris / Walz team is elected in November of 2024. Government spending is out of control and our national debt is $35.1 TRILLION dollars. Millions of migrants have been welcomed into our country by Biden / Harris and now we are supporting them. It is not sustainable and Milton Friedman would have much to say about this insanity if he were alive.
My favorite moment is when Milton carefully explains that the only vehicle for lifting large numbers of people out of dire poverty has been the free enterprise system. Then Phil complains that it isn’t virtuous enough. It’s nearly 50 years later, and the same argument is being made.
@STL 1234 -
And it's one of the gifts of RUclips. Those who desire to put in the work and is willing to listen, will come to realize today's problems and complaints have existed going back generations. Millennials have been indoctrinated to feel they are the ones who created the wheel.
@@thespadestable Right on Jack. Good point.
Welcome to politics 101. Capitalism and socialism are two sides of the same coin, can’t have one without the other.
All this "Milton" talks and dang! we have Biden in the Whitehouse.
@@dannysullivan3951 Da fuck kinda retardation is that?
It would be like saying that you can't look right without looking left. No clearly you can look right without looking left and not being able to do one without the other is an oxymoron. It's a contradiction.
In fact, you cannot have capitalism, free market outside of government control and have government control within the economy.
One is obligatorily an infraction on the other.
Amazing what use to be broadcast on American television. Can you imagine a show like this trying to air in modern society? it would die a quick death by ratings because intellectual integrity no longer matters in the media, eyeballs do
Oprah took his format and made it dumber. Sells better.
Ahh so true...
Now that the Corporations own the Media today that is why you dont see debates like this anymore. Greed... As for modern society I would say we are on the decline because of greed trying maintain its control grip.
The owners of the five corporations that own 90% of the nation's media don't want the common man caring about important issues, or knowing the issues period. That's why the rich promote immorality and stupidity in culture. We can more easily be controlled and deceived by their bread and circuses while they set up a prison system around us.
The modern media is RUclips and this hour-long video has almost 1 million views
i enjoy watching Milton Friedman so much
the best !!!!!!! so smart - so articulate - so relaxed - i beg your pardon lol
hospitals are expensive. Airbags avoid or limit hospital stays.
Luca Siciliano not sure what you mean
THE PHANTOM MF speaks against mandatory installation of airbags. His contention is that additional safety for those in the vehicle should be an optional. From minute 3:40, in less than half a minute, it will be clear. I stopped watching shortly thereafter. Shall I watch the rest of the interview?
- His CONTENTION is so government doesnt take over our lives - answer is no but you should take the video and pound it up your liberal ass
It’s amazing to me just how civil this discussion was between two individuals and an audience with clearly differing views. I believe we will never see anything like this on TV again.
I agree. How sad it is that honest discussion can't be had on any main stream news these days. We should have Thomas Sowell on all of the networks just as a test. Let the networks try to censor him!
It's one of things that made America great.....unfortunately this and many of the common courtesies from that time have gone WOKE
idk some of the socialists in the audience were just as vindictive and sneering as they are today.
Our society is horribly pathetic. Solid values and debates were relevant in my earlier years. Your comment is very accurate. We live in very sad times, especially socially. I pray for my grand children. That being said, does anyone pray any longer.
@newbudget4343 I don't believe so. We probably will, but I reckon it will take a couple of thousand years for us to evolve to that stage again.
I am amazed at the relevance of each of these questions and talking points to today's problems. This show happened roughly forty years ago, and yet if it weren't for the hairstyles and how polite everyone is, you'd think they were talking about the current economy.
I'm amazed that people applauded. There is now way Friedman's views would be interviewed today let alone half of the audience agree. In 2016, 95% of journalists who met reportable political donation minimums donated to Democrats. Over 90% of Yale faculty identify as liberal. Not healthy.
Listening to this in 2020. This post is an intellectual oasis whether you’re left, right or center.
Wish the whole country would watch
Ralph Nader, Al Gore, and all liberal politicians, they are all the same. Virtual signaling to the finest, totally disregard the facts. As to sincerity, they are all for too things: political reward and money.
Could not agree more. These are the discussions not allowed in today’s subjective and lunatic times
@@evenkeeler This type of content is soon to be taken down by "fact checkers" or "truth censors"
The Left didn't like this logic then and it doesn't like it now.
"I think sincerity is a much overrated virtue."
Aslan
"Have you ever met Ralph Nader?"
Should be said to SJW!
What he mean, obviously, is that sincerity of intentions to “doing good” with neither knowledge nor competence in the subject in question is useless and counter-productive.
In such cases, it might have been better to just leave things alone , out of the destructive hands of the “sincere” do-gooder.
greymanBB exactly! It is much more important to be reasonable, to be a true professional. Sincerity won’t help without knowledge. Friedman already compared Hitler and Mussolini in one of his lectures when he was talking about “sincere, committed people”. Hitler was really committed and did a great deal of harm.... and Mussolini was a hypocrite, that’s why he wasn’t that dangerous.
SteppenWolff100- Drivel ? Well... I suppose compared to your superior intellect, anything a dummy like Friedman said would seem inane.... Jackass
Friedman destroys ignorance while being so nice about it!
ActuarialNinja absolutely
Friedman spread knowing dishonesty. That's the opposite of destroying ignorance.
There was nothing nice about him.
He took pleasure in selling people arguments that he knew would hurt them if they were dumb enough to accept them. That was what he derived his enjoyment from.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Name a single thing he said here that is dishonest or untrue?
@@GodwynDi , name a single time you thought for yourself, my simple friend.
Why would I waste my time giving examples of Friedman's dishonesty to a troll from Russia who couldn't care less anyway?
Is this really how you want to waste your one life, my simple sad friend? Trolling on a RUclips comment board to earn a cheap bottle of vodka?
Please do something better with your life than this......
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I even went and looked up criticisms and responses to Friedman. I could not find anything convincing. Lots of popular articles claiming he was wrong, but nothing substantial.
THIS CONVERSATION IS MIND BLOWING, WORTH MEMORIZING
Friedman could disarm anyone with his gentle wit and ever-present smile. He may have been the greatest economist in history.
"He may have been the greatest economist in history"
MF was great but let's not go nuts.
@@GodOfVictory501 yes true, Adam Smith as he spoke about is one of the greatest, modern economist is martin armstrong however historically the greatest is our lord Jesus christ 🙏
@@williedonnelly4512 Hjalmar Schacht was perhaps the most successful economist in human history. What he did with Germany after the second banking crisis of Germany in the early 1930's; was the most remarkable turn around in history!
@@jrutt2675 maybe however it did not work out well for the citizens as a whole going forward after that 👍
@@williedonnelly4512 True. That is because of a multitude of reasons. But Schacht knew the one universal truth, that labor is the real capital behind wealth creation. In fact farmers have to be outside their minds to sell their farms. In a few years when the world economic system has collapsed, farmers will finally get their day in the sun. They will have the ability to control the markets. The only problem in the U.S. today the level of independence farmers has greatly decreased. Many farmers today are under governmental programs. Basically working the land for the government. Ezra Pound did a great job explaining some of this in his book secrets of the Federal Reserve! Big Banks in the 1920's stole farms under the false pretense of collective bargaining. Heck, they even murderd farmers in the western states, using federal Marshall's to do so. Regardless, there is only one man who will save us all in the end! These people laugh at him, but they will not be laughing for long! All governments will fail. Only a world monarchy with the king of Zion will the final government!
2020, and still terribly relevant; perhaps moreso than ever.
Thanks RUclips algorithm! ❤️👌
Still would be curious about Friedmans opinion about the big tech companies nowadays.
@@larreye8451 he would need somebody to tell him about section 230 though.
We are feeling the pains of the bloat even moreso.
I love these Donahue/Friedman interviews. Friedman was always at his best while responding in real-time to questions.
Imagine a world where a TV host can engage with somebody they disagree with while still being not only civil but friendly.
Leftists have truly changed. But the other stupid ones are no better... Tucker auto solved those problems, but Detroit chumps said NO!
We can still have this, people just need to be more mature and not petulant b@bies, that requires intelligent culture, but we have to face it, we live in a expl0itat1ve society, where a dummm populace is more profitable than an informed one, now whether you blame b1g gov or b|g biz for that...hhmnn well
Milton’s ideas on school vouchers was way ahead of his time....wish he could see the success of that movement.
Teachers unions are waaaaaaaay too strong, and politicians are waaaaaaaay too bought and disingenuous.
What success are you talking about?
School vouchers take money away from the poor for public schools, and give it to richer families to help subsidize their children's private schools that the poor can't afford.
That's a very sad definition of success you have....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Succes can be measured in parent satisfaction, higher test scores, school safety, etc….almost (not quite) all charter schools in poor neighborhoods that use vouchers are favorable towards that system. Simple really.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 That is horrible propaganda used by the Teacher's unions, and even the NAACP, to control a monopoly on education. Public schools have failed to innovate and provide an acceptable education for many people. Therefore, you want to reward them by giving them a bailout. You are actively participating in corruption disguised as altruism.
@@06barcafan10 , Well, yes, I would imagine that a charter school Would be "favorable" to vouchers that would subsidize them, at the expense of the poor. You leave out the part where these vouchers siphon off money directly from public schools; as well a leave out the part that charter schools are profitable to the people who own them; and where does that profit come from? From the poorest that they take the money from.
The new business model of America, that you favor.
Dishonest much? Your last name wouldn't be De Vos, would it?
28:50 we don’t have a desperate need to grow, we have a desperately desire to grow, that is why this man is legendary
It's funny that this episode is almost 40 years old and Donahue is banging the same old drum. All the impoverished, disparity, inequality in the world - sounds like an Obama speech. What's the same in the equation? Government.
Very much agreed, I thought the same thing when watching this.
And those of us that lived through this era are truly tired of the Lefts same old recycled bs.
Such a good comment, Ben!
Those damn lefties and their *shuffles cards* consistent policies!
@@hella_cool1312 If we're being honest here, conservative politicians have had their opportunities as well to right the ship, and they've failed just as spectacularly. For example, why is a republican-led senate approving bills that increase the government's borrowing limit when what it should be doing is reining in federal spending? There is blame enough on BOTH sides of the aisle for things being the way they are today, and this country's government is more often than not at the center of the creation of more problems than it solves. If I may quote Tomas Sowell, "Government is not the personification of the national interest. They have their own interests." We voting citizens of the US would be wise to remember that.
Love this clip. Milton is in his element, Donohue is trying to score points but can’t get close. All done with mutual respect and good spirits. We need more of this.
I think Donovan is just the true moderator, playing the devil's advocate :)
Friedman toys with him like a cat does with a mouse
Who is Donovan?
@@connievino4226 The moderater?
@@nevillelongbottom7687 I know that's Phil Donahue. I did not see a moderator. Thanks.
"The government should not help to save Chrysler."
Timeless. Same script just different companies.
I was a late comer to educating myself but always used the Dodge Aries K car as an example. Every governmental agency bought them because it was mandated. They all died within a few years because Chrysler was not motivated to meet the quality of other producers. In the military we had those early Ram trucks that were garbage too. They should have been allowed to fail so more efficient companies could have bought their capital equipment and made better decisions and products.
@@pstearns6164
There is always fraud, waste and abuse when the government is involved. That's what happens when all you do is spend other people's money.
The government is too big. We could do without 90% of it.
@@zenyattamondatta7757 Really? What 90% would you do without?
@
Spoken like a government employee. Name-calling diminishes your credibility and hints that you lack an actual argument. Are you sitting at home right now, getting paid to do nothing during the "pandemic" on the government payroll?
I would have to find some evidence of your assertions re: Greenspan and re: free markets before I could agree or disagree. Either way, Friedman's policies don't change my opinion about the government. I was in the military. I have seen how some people treat "other people's money." The Navy has a program to report "fraud, waste and abuse" for a reason, and the problem is government-wide.
@ The '08 crash was caused because of "feel-good" liberal/Leftist social engineering/"economic equality" -legislation lifting restrictions on lenders extending mortgages to people who had little to no verified income and in some cases, no way to verify them at all; other than a foreign drivers license. The portion of the securities market that backed those loans(after they had been shuffled around), amplifying their risk, is what let to the dominoes falling and successive crash.
We know this because the hardest hit markets nationally in the housing crash, were in L.A., San Bernardino, Kern, Kings, San Joaquin, Alameda, and Contra Costa. All of those areas have high populations of illegals, who had no business buying homes they would likely default on, prior to '08.
Here's an idea~ How about only *legal* citizens of the U.S. be eligible to buy property/homes, use the domestic banking system and collect govt benefits funded by taxpayers? In Mexico, no American or non-Mexican is allowed to own property. They only pay the note and "own" the structure sitting on it, not the land. And the Mexican govt can seize the land anytime they want.
But see, those types of "Fascist" policies, would undercut the ability of pandering Leftist pols to wave golden tickets inciting mass illegal immigration to "hard-working" immigrants, so they can lock in a permanent voting bloc, to implement their prosperity, constructive demographics and liberty-killing agenda.
You're worried about *all* the wrong things.
36:20, damn this man brought me to tears. What genius. What knowledge. Im sobbing like a baby. Praying, Wishing men like this still existed.
They do. Thomas Sowell is still alive. They're just ignored utterly.
They definitely are still here. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Jordan Peterson, Dinesh D'souza, Johnathan Haidt, Malcolm Gladwell, Charlie Munger, Peter Thiel, Dave Chappelle. There are many greats in the making. 50 years ago nobody knew who Dave Chappelle even was. Don't lose hope. Genius still abides. There are hundreds that I didn't mention, I'm just saying what comes off the top of my head. Point is, there are good people in the world.
What a man, what a brain. I am thankful for him and people like Thomas Sowell, I call these men honest intellectual unlike what we have today in universities. I also loved how top show would have men like him on, today all you get on top shows are celebrities.
He is an errand boy the right wing billionaires.
Oh come on man. Whoopi Goldberg isn't that far removed from Milton Friedman.
Top shows won't invite intellectuals like these folks. They invite only celebs because that's what the market wants.
@@uwaagbonlahor1040 Just shows what nonsense he promoted before the crisis of 2008 hit. First thing that happened was the biggest banks and companies went hat in hand to Congress for their bailout. The conservative neoliberal Bush announce his plan to save the "free market" while intervening in the free market.
i require my college fin and eoc students to listen to dr. friedman.
I have never been a Donahue fan, but he did a great job interviewing/moderating in this video. He let Milton finish his points and didn’t interrupt too much. Media people today should take some notes.
T Arkwright I like Donohue and Dick Cavett.
Especially Nick know nothing at Reason mag
@tarkwright6511 I've seen many comments where people say they're not a fan of Donahue. What's his deal? Did he do something? I'm asking because I'm not American and I don't know.
I agree 100 % I'm not a huge fan of Donahue himself. But is no dummy and gives a fair interview. This wouldn't happen on TV today.
It is impossible in modern times for an intelligent discussion like this to occur
So true. I grew up watching Phil Donahue and disliked him quite a bit but boy would I welcome him back today.
Most modern people end up yelling and interrupting too much, and back then many of us thought Donahue was very obnoxious.
Which he was, but not quite as much as so many are today
Only on telly. We could have one here
@@poom641 exactly. He was so annoying at the time now looking back he just seems fairly reasonable but misguided often just playing “devil’s advocate”.
uh no its not. they happen all the time...maybe its impossible to get anyone to listen, but even there that's not true either...
Friedman is just too good. His third party philosophy solves a lot of problems that libertarian anarchist philosophies face, namely that voluntary action does have repercussions that impede upon the freedom of others. I have reserves about Rothbardian philosophy, but I'm all in for Friedman.
Rothbard, in the end, was partisan in his way of thinking: he was anti-authoritarian to a fault (and mean FAULT), to the point where he was disparaging Keynes out of spite more than any intellectual disagreement (i.e. the fact that Keynes ideas flourished immensely after WWII, which directly opposed Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy)
The economic concept he’s talking about is that of “externalities.”
Damn, we now know what your problem is.
Great interview. Donahue does a great job of provoking and asking all kinds of interesting questions, and Friedman's answers are brilliant.
The difference between this and today’s daytime television (The View) is night and day.
They are not even the same species…
My God, imagine an intelligent conversation like this being on Kimmel or any TV today?
😂never going to happen and that is more than sad
Every time Donahue thinks he has a gotcha, Friedman’s response produces a deafening silence. This is great TV, wish it was still here
In fairness, Donahue was certainly a lefty but he's also playing Devil's Advocate. They could do this honestly back then.
I agree with the other reply. I think Donahue is fair. He's being devil's advocate and expressing his views while also learning. I totally respect that. Not like the kind of left wing radicals you have today trying to control and hijack and defame. Anyone can learn from this. So need more of this now.
Its truly astounding to see how relatively respectful this dialogue is.
How things have changed.
I wish I had half the class that Milton Friedman does. How he keeps a smile and his cool in all his debates is beyond me.
Exactly, I might get frustrated and upset with the stupidity.
Yeah. And "Biggie" has eaten "Smally" every step of the way. He was simply wrong on that.
@@michaelericksonmusic No he wasn't. Biggie has eaten Smally because the state has empowered them to do so. You left out that part. Take the covid scamdemic. The State lockdowns has destroyed over 100,000 small businesses, while increasing a handful of giant multi-national corporations. Various other regulations have worked to shut down smaller hospitals and doctor offices, while funneling the same number of patients to fewer large hospitals. The government has created healthcare shortages.
So no, he was exactly right.
@@droe2570 No sh**. Biggie includes the State. They're in bed together. I didn't know I needed to add details of the obvious.
@@michaelericksonmusic He wasn't wrong. Because he _agreed_ with the idea of "Biggie" eating "Smallie" being true... when the government continually intervenes. When the government uses our money to bail out a poorly run company, they have a chance to get bigger and consume smaller companies. And that's a chance they wouldn't have if the government would've let them fail. Conglomerates gobbling up Mom-and-pops is a result of them gaming the government system. If the government let free enterprise alone, there would be no system to game.
I love Milton Friedman! The way he keeps Donahue on the subject and holds his heals to the fire... Love it.
Ah, yes, says quite a bit about....you, doesn't, Friedman never a day in his life ever was needy, or was he?
Where does Friedman do that? From the very beginning he dodges the question and he doesn’t even stay on topic. He just relies on McCarthyist rhetoric. It’s actually Donahue who tries to bring him back to the subject of discussion but Friedman just waves it away. Why does everyone act like Milton Friedman is some kind of intellectual power house…? His economic theories were pretty much proven wrong throughout the course of history and virtually everything he is saying here has no actual evidence-based logic. He just tries to act like he’s some wit instead of actually demonstrating any type of actual intellectual prowess.
Nice to see that someone knew how to work a VHS machine and properly record TV shows.
LoL
Those damn things I just gave up and bought a video player.
That way I wouldnt get angy when the recorder would record all screwed up
You act like it's rocket science, i was taping things when i was a kid
Milton Friedman, you made the world a better place. Thank God you existed!!! 🙌 💜 🙏
There are two kinds of people: ones who understand Milton Friedman instantly and those who need time to come to their senses in order to realize that Friedman is correct.
There are two kinds of people: ones who categorize people into only two categories, and those who don't.
That kind of black and white thinking is very limited. It keeps one from eventually seeing through the dishonest rhetoric of a corporate shill who made arguments on behalf of corporations, and not the people they take advantage of for their own profit....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 and you just missed the entire point of what Friedman says. Guess you must be in the second category still. Keep watching, you’ll get there eventually.
@@idiotproofdalek , it's possible for someone to get the point of what a dishonest cynical troll says, and to see through their dishonesty and reject it.
You're not the sharpest Dalek in the horde, are you, my simple friend? You seem like you need a serious chip upgrade.
Daleks aren't known for their perceptiveness or deepness of thought, just blind obedience and mastery of the word "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!"
Keep processing, my simple drone, you'll get there eventually....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 awww look you came back with exactly the same thing I said but with different words! Slowest child in the playground methinks!
@@idiotproofdalek , Dal, while you were busy attempting human trolling, Dr. Who snuck in and stole all your power crystals.
Not a good Day of the Daleks, is it?
"What are you doing with your money? That is my business and not yours." That was awesome!!! Worth the whole show!!
Rest In Peace Doctor Milton Freeman.... Thank God we still have Thomas Sowell. It's just To bad that more younger people don't know who these Two Great Americans... And they should know about them....
Also very sad that grammar is so slack spelling and tenses are so meaningless as well, but love experts who achieve nothing but think they can define success by Chile Pinochet.
@@nash984954Resorting to insults while never saying what was incorrect.
A true leftist
Also Rest in Peace Phil Donahue. A great interviewer, and an honest liberal. What lefttard "journalist" today would give someone like Milton the time to give full answers. These long format shows are greatly missed.
I freaking love this guy, RIP Professor!
Professor of bullshit?
He advocated for the ending of requiring basic safety standards on vehicles, at the same time he was a highly paid "consultant" by automobile corporations, a subject he knew nothing about. No conflict of interest there.
He argued against the existence of Medicare, Social Security, and the minimum wage, and said they should be ended.
So if you freaking love him, you must freaking love that as well.
And you should Never accept, or allow your family to accept, those things that he advocated ending, If you really love him. I'm sure you agree with that.
Right?
@@maskedmarvyl4774I do agree with ending welfare, social security, abolishment of minimum wage, and even having an option of a cheaper car with less regulations. If you know all this about Friedman, you should also hear this quote from him: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
@@NotAnEconomist , "An option of a cheaper car with less regulations". Good luck driving it. Just don't expect anyone to ride in it with you.
It's easy for you to have your attitude about Social Security and Medicare, until you reach the age where it's the only thing keeping you alive. But then, no-one ever thinks they'll be in that position.
Milton Friedman was a mean little troll, who thought All safety regulations of All products should be removed. That includes medical devices. Charming human being.
Please find a better role model than this.
the coolest guy ever ...well next to Thomas Sowell im learning!
Milton Friedman was Thomas Sowell's mentor. Two of the greatest minds of our time!
Thomas Sowell and Friedman are whack jobs of the first degree. Sowell gets exposed on a single topic for being cataclysmically wrong: theruthlesscritic.com/thomas-sowells-myths-as-facts-part-1/
@@dillonsmith8554 i checked out your link and scanned it briefly, but stopped once I noticed dishonesty by the author. About myth #1, Sowell didn't claim that capitalism ensures inequality, he said it merely can happen. The response to his myth seems to twist what he said.
Nevertheless, capitalism isn't perfect, but imo history easily shows that it is the best of all the imperfect systems. For the life of me I can't see how any intellectual honest person could argue against that.
Tom woods is awesome as well.
Both of them are idiots.
I always find myself coming back to this.
"Yes, there is 20,000 people at the Dept of Energy, ....all of them MAKING TROUBLE!"
(@15:08)
Where he tells the woman that it's his business and not hers when she asks what he's doing with his money.. priceless.
@@fml5910 lol good oxymoron lol
@20:00" Can Kmart buy Sears?"lol
Thats exactly what happened Kmart has bought Sears
Milton was a prophet
Maybe they were watching o.O
Where K Mart makes a living, I can make a killing ~ SAM WALTON
Mr. Friedman is truly a genius, people like Paul Krugman couldn't even tie Mr. Friedman's shoes.
Drumboy5165 eve. if they were velcro.
@@shirtjuggler lol
Krugman owned by Soros.
Ivan, I doubt that you could even sharpen the pencils on your local troll farm. You have to be sober to perform simple manual skills.
Stay drunk, my simple, sad friend; stay drunk.....
Shoes made in China. Milton’s “free market” at work.
Milton has been the only adult in the room for decades.
When hearing “a Nobel Prize winner” actually meant something to me
Bingo! Every time i see the words "Nobel Prize" next to Paul Krugman's name, I wince.
Why would it, Nobel's guilt over creating explosives that killed humans in droves.
5-foot-tall Friedman was effectively tomahawk dunking on Donahue throughout the whole conversation
Uh..... sure, ma'am.
Donahue simply couldn't believe the callous cynicism he was hearing from this mean spirited little man.
You have very low standards for heroes, in more ways than one.
@@maskedmarvyl4774ad hominem, try debunking Friedman's points instead of his character if you want people to take you seriously
Milton Friedman - absolute brilliance. Wish we could have him back.
This is incredible. He foretells carbon credits and "price on particulates" that Phil cannot comprehend.
+eddie telleed You are correct! Which baits the question, why do conservatives hate the idea of carbon credits now?
+shawncox98 He also favored eliminating all government regulation on emission and safety standards which artificially inflate the price of a car.
+shawncox98 Dr friedman wouldn't be a modern concervative. He had no problem bashing either political party when they did things that didn't agree with his ideology. I don't agree with everything he advocated, yet today is not yesterday and I would be wrong to assume that he would be advocating the same views today. he believed in results rather than ideals. He was one of the great thinkers in his time.
+eddie telleed If he believed what he was saying, he would be advocating the same things today as he did yesterday. Carbon credits and a price on particulates could indeed help introduce a market based approach to protecting the environment for the benefit of all. In other words, it would STILL likely lead to Friedman's desired result, were it embraced... My point is that the corporate plutocrats that rule today are not interested in results benefiting humanity. They are interested in results benefiting their positions of ever increasing wealth and power. Friedman's ideas would have to actually be implemented in order to work. Today's conservatives (and anarchist libertarians) may be able to SEE the genius of Friedman, but they've also been fooled by their corporate keepers into never letting his ideas ever REALLY have a chance.
And in the rare case where a market-based Friedman idea actually IS implemented, conservatives are now trained / re-programmed to disdain their own supposed hero's very idea through simple re-branding - because of who it is that actually DOES the implementing (Obama). It is all so complicated and ironic, ennit? Humanity cannot benefit from Friedman's genius because those that supposedly venerate him the most don't realize they are being manipulated into fighting tooth and nail against every attempt to implement his ideas. It's rich, really. Pun intended.
+shawncox98 #1TonGus you do realize that hes dead and this was filmed in 1979 right?
It's a joy to listen to Dr. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell
Sure you do because they tell every boss what they want to hear about themselves and the capitalist system.
@@kimobrien. of course commie, you got it.
@@tellallimediumTurns out you will ignore all his supposed revisionist thinking about the 1929 stock market crisis when both parties went full steam ahead with government intervention after 2008. Afterall what elses could you do? Give the whole mess to federal bankruptcy judges to ponder over for the next ten years? Now your throwing away his theories about capitalism bringing Democracy in China and going ahead with trade barriers to protect your profits and world Empire. As you continue to though away bourgeois Democratic norms when it comes to Donald Trump.
as much as I dislike p.d. he is a good sport about being schooled
weirdshibainu - PD also said that he was playing the devil’s advocate: he was putting up propositions that are widely held by many members of the public, or by politicians. This then gives Friedman the chance to argue against them.
@@28pbtkh23 i thought that was self evident. The way he went about it deserves respect.
Timothy Vu - yes, PD is a good interviewer, but his role or technique wasn’t obvious to everyone, as is evident from some of the comments made on this video. Peter Robinson uses a similar interview method on the videos from the “Uncommon Knowledge” series by the Hoover Institution.
"We don't have a desperate need to grow, we have a desire to grow" right in Phil's face, Ka-boom!
I never stop learning every time I listen to Milton Friedman. Every time I read or listen to what his perspective was, it opens up thoughts and ideas. He was a superb man and one the the great thinkers of the 20th century.
The boneheaded lady who is speaking at 36:31 is exactly what's wrong with the voter base in this country and a perfect example of a low-information person. She knows that there are rich people and poor people. She believes rich people are responsible for there being poor people, but she doesn't know why or how. Not only does she not know why or how, but after a little prodding, Friedman gets her to admit that rich people don't in fact hoard their money, but use their money to make capital investments which act to create jobs and grow the economy. It's clear this woman's position is indefensible in general, and especially by her. The media has taught her to think and speak in fortune cookie sayings and to develop a bullet-point argument, without any critical thinking at all. What a shame.
No - he's just a glib, well-trained snake-oil salesman who knows how to exploit the ignorance and inexperience in public debate of a weak (if well-meaning) adversary to appear to make his point for him. Cheap tactics from a worthless man.
Khayyam1048 Right. Because clearly this woman's complete ignorance is the fault of Milton Friedman. He didn't make her ignorant. He just exposed it.
No, he also exploited it. He bullied and hectored her, bombarding her with several complex questions that he knew she couldn't answer, even if she understood them.
He may not have been responsible for the gaps in her knowledge and her inexperience in public debate, but he was responsible for his own behaviour, which was despicable and dishonest.
Khayyam1048 Exploited? Since exploitation implies some type of gain at the detriment of someone else, what did Friedman gain from the interaction?
The fact is that you're being dramatic, and you disagree with Friedman. And instead of formulating counter-arguments, you speak in ad hominems and hyperbole, implying a lack of counter-argument.
He exploited her inexperience in debate, and her inability to deal with his ambush of questions, in order to gain an unfair advantage in the encounter. He had an ideology to promote, and like many ideologues he didn't care if he had to resort to unscrupulous methods in order to be seen to prevail in the argument. This, incidentally, is one of the big quarrels that I have with the adversarial tradition in the English-speaking world, where the glibbest, most confident person (even when wrong on the facts) will be perceived as having prevailed over someone hesistant and unassertive (even when right).
BTW you need to consult a good text on critical reasoning in order to establish what, for example, an ad hominem argument actually is. It isn't an ad hominem to criticise a person's beliefs or to deduce bad character from unreasonable or dishonourable behaviour (e.g. bullying one's intellectual adversary), any more than it's hyperbole simply to state an opinion with which you simply happen to disagree. If anyone is engaging in intellectual grandstanding here, it isn't me.
not one teleprompter
The teleprompter is the screen of his mind.
I wish teachers in high school would encourage their students watch Milton Friedman’s videos. Such fantastic education every body needs.
How interesting that Phil brings up Sears buying Kmart and Milton comments that it could be Kmart buying Sears and that it actually happend 30 years later.
I love Donahue's face when Friedman makes his point by saying that regulations have made new cars more expensive and now people own older cars instead of newer ones, and older cars are inherently less safe as cars were becoming safer on their own due to consumer demand. It never occurred to Donahue that all the regulations past didn't suddenly make all the older cars on the road change, but instead made it more difficult for the average American to take advantage of new safety features in cars
Yes and why insurance companies and state lawmakers demand by law to wear seat belts, cuz it means more chances insurance companies won't have to pay death benefits.
My favorite Friedman quote of all time: "Most people are usually wrong."
Of course, he excludes himself from that comment. Funny how it works out that way.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 when has he said he's always right?
@@marcustulliuscicero.5856 , He's never admitted he's wrong. He resorted to sarcasm or snarkiness when confronted about his dishonest statements, and when older, actually said "I'm out of patience with you!", when someone even mildly challenged his statements.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 what has he been wrong about?
@@marcustulliuscicero.5856 No answer, because he isn't wrong.
There is a certain thing called dunning krueger, most people who are confident are uninformed, but some people who are confident are so because they ARE informed.
The PBD podcast put me onto Friedman. It's shocking how this just as relevant today. I'm just shocked right now. 50 years and still the same, if not more of the same problem.
The thing i miss the most from this era is the civility fo the conversation.
Phil "Well, you know, without regulations, etc ......"
Milton: "The problem with claims like that is, they don't stand up to the facts"
Was true then, still is now
@@tiborzkarate1 Regulations LED TO the 2008 crash. That along with stupid cronyism. The stupidity of the government to think they can force banks to loan to low credit scorer and not have any possible repercussions for starters, along with a bloated Fed reserve(basically a govt enforced monopoly). This critique of the 2008 crash needs to die out please.
@@tiborzkarate1 Incentives mean jack when the government MANDATES that your loan to a specific of people that you aren't guaranteed to get back from. Plus, the insurance of the previous bailouts that the government had granted to these banks(cronyism, an enemy of free markets), was all the assurance that they needed to take as ridiculous a risk as they possibly could
@@tiborzkarate1 Great. Like every big government advocate ever,
Outsider: This is how government regulation ruins the free market
BGA: You see what I'm saying? This is exactly why capitalism is bad.
What a brilliant, in-depth analysis.
Both Phil and Milton keeping a smile on their face and a restraint on their tone while expressing opposite views. That is NOT seen today.
So glad I found this. The conversation is very open. Tough questions and very clear responses and explanations. Much appreciated.
A fond memory of the '70's when I was working 3rd shift and still living at home. I was a fan of Milton Friedman and heard he was going to be on PDS. I did not want to stay up until noon to watch it so I taught my mother how to use a very primitive (but state of art) reel to reel tape recorder I had and record the audio through the microphone. My dad NEVER watched daytime TV, but he watched that and it began his journey into conservatism. I could have never convinced him myself. Our family is Catholic, but my devout mother laughed when I referred to him as Saint Milton!
Dupes
Friedman is brilliant! First and foremost people need to be free. Free to pursue their own interests and free from government interference.
Love how Friedman predicted correctly how
Much oil we could produce in this country of deregulated.
Absolutely. When I heard that comment I thought how amazing because in the 70’s through 90’s we were beholden to the Saudis. In the 2000’s I remember Bush saying we had 200+ years of natural gas if we’d just tap into it to be energy independent. Milton Friedmanwaa spot on as today we are a net exporter again. Trump has pushed to deregulate and the economy is prospering. So simple yet the liberals fight it tooth and nail.
@@nicktravascio8337 as a petroleum geologist, Trump didn't do shit.
We imported 40% of our oil demand under Trump
The Permian Basin & Bakken Formation are largely US properties and they have an abundance of natural gas & oil.
I've watched this 5 times, and am better for it because I can usually recall about 10 percent of it. Which is fantastic! Because Milton is 101.5 percent smarter than I ever will be.
This is all still totally relevant. Back when you could have a reasonable and intelligent conversation without throwing a child-like tantrum if someone said something that challenged your worldview
WHAT, you actually listen to these know nothing eggheads, I mean pinheads, as O'Wryly says.
Milton Friedman makes me realize how inept I am
Great episode. I highly recommend you sit down and watch it, especially if you're interested in economics, politics, business, etc.
I like how Donahue stands right there in Friedman's face during the second part of this episode when he's supposed to be walking around and asking audience members to talk. Look at his aggressive body language and tone. He's so upset with what Friedman is saying and doesn't want to hear it.
Later on around the 34-minute mark, when the lady in the audience asks about Sears and K-Mart, notice how Donahue interjects and tells Friedman why K-Mart was able to be successful with their discounting, whereas Friedman simply says he doesn't know because he doesn't have the business knowledge. I love this because it shows the fundamental difference between people like Donahue and Friedman - Donahue likes to proclaim, whereas Friedman likes to explain.
Later on at the 41-minute mark, another fundamental difference between people like Donahue and Friedman is made when Donahue jokingly talks about his private "Donahue High School" after hearing Friedman's response to the school voucher question - he assumes that people are stupid and will send their children to his high school simply because he has good marketing and a football team. It's his criticism of freedom. Friedman quickly points out that consumers aren't as dumb as Donahue believes they are and that they will carefully choose where to send their children for their education. In essence, there's a belief that there needs to be government paternalism. Donahue asks Friedman about this government paternalism at the end after the 45:15 minute mark again.
Good stuff.
+Fingolfin3423 Good analysis. Phil asks at two different points "how do we help the poor?" Growth in business is bad? "
Brilliant. We should all listen up and when you finish listening to Friedman, move on to Thomas Sowell…another brilliant man.
I've never seen Donahue so out of his class. Friedman is a genius.
It's really interesting though. While Donahue is a textbook progressive, and I don't agree with him politically whatsoever, can you imagine a modern talk-show host having a guest like Friedman on today? Having this sort of banter and discussion beyond your run-of-the-mill comedic interludes with some random actor? Watching these really gives me a respect for Phil I never had before, simply because he's willing to risk his own hubris to present an opposing viewpoint, from a man he'd probably readily admit is much smarter than himself. I cannot think of a single show that would have a person like Friedman on today, and I think we're worse off for it.
@512metro: EXACTLY! You took the words right out of my mouth. Sometime between this video and now, the Left got sick of losing debates like this one and decided to rig the game and silence and condemn any opposing viewpoints to theirs. Very sad and yet entirely predictable...
i agree to an extent but donahue tried but friedman is very respectful - he is witty but rarely condescending. he could easily be arrogant but is charming, likeable and witty.
For sure. Milton is a rare breed.
He had no idea how out of his league he was.
How refreshing to hear people discuss in front of live audience without being interupted by applause every few seconds.
Friedman was an intellectual, a genius of a man who spoke with common sense and truth. A joy to listen to.
Doug Martin you really havent a clue. America’s golden age was the 50s and 60s. Then people like this snake oil salesman showed up. Now your fucked.
@@mrgerrytube what are you talking about?
@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663 neoliberalism - Google it and maybe try reading a book or two. The 1% are laughing at you all.
@@mrgerrytube Your Argumentum ad hominem won't help you win an argument. For your information I've studied central planning economies and free market economics for almost two decades. I am from a socialist country that was once one of the riches countries in Latin America and traveled to over 20 countries. So give me a valid argument of why Milton Friedman was a snake oil salesman and instead of insulting me give an actual argument. Lets try to have a civilized debate amongs dissenting opinions.
@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663 if you’re a fan of Friedman, you’re part of the problem. Economics without ethics is tyranny. Adam Smith warned of this. Friedman, Hayek, Chicago school of economics, Chile. Put the pieces together yourself. Just because the intellect is sharp doesn’t mean the ideology isn’t selfish, exclusionary and dangerous. I would say read Gramsci and Freire but you won’t. Even a bit of Chomsky will explain a few things for you. And if you mention ‘trickle down’ … 🤦🏻♂️
Milton is hitting home runs with every word....
Dupe
This is one of the most fascinating interviews I have ever seen. A great job by the interviewer asking really pointed and interesting questions. No "gotcha" questions.
It’s crazy to see how some shows 60 and 50 yrs ago would ask tough and interesting questions, let their audiences do the same, and then give the guest adequate time to answer without interruption. The only place nowadays where you can see something comparable are podcasts. It’s also great to see Donahue ask a question and then sit back and listen intently… instead of rummaging around papers or only focusing on the next question. He’s not trying to “get” Friedman or attempt to embarrass him with some “gotcha” moment… he’s having a conversation and asking questions he genuinely is curious about and being respectful the entire time. Great segment
Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell are inteligent men with an ability to make complex subjects understandable , amazing analysis of a situation.
His explanation that minimum wage while being well meaning has led to many problems is incredible, what an intelect and mind.
PBD anyone?
Yup got here straight from pbd 😂
Same
Yup
Yes sir!😂
Yes, I saw it there and came here
you gotta hand it to friedman, never loses his cool
no matter what kinda nitwit hes gotta hand hold
Sorry, Donahue. You're way outta your league here. Milton is a superhero and we need more people to study his economic principles.
Glen Wilson Donahue was outwitted, but we've learned "The Nordic Model" is better than Milton Friedman's "Miracle of Hong Kong."
As a Swede, you have no idea what you're talking about lol. The huge growth in prosperity Sweden enjoyed started way before the cradle-to-grave welfare system emerged, and has since its introduction in the 60's (although it already took a slight turn for the worse in the 50's when we increased taxes to a historical - though still quite small, at least in comparison to today... - high) been on a decline. There's no housing for the young, the medical service isn't what you'd expect when paying some of the worlds highest taxes (in not-completely-shit countries) and waiting lines are long, the quality of the education offered here is declining etc.
More government is never the answer.
Janne it's interesting to se your perspective on this. I find that few Scandinavians are willing to discuss the shortcomings of third wave socialism.
@@hithereman4198 another internet warrior that believes he knows better than Milton Friedman. In these cases you have to know your limitations