When you listen to the brilliant clarity of Milton Friedman and then to the surreal gibberish of so many academics today, you have to wonder where the wheels came off in America.
In my opinion, the wheels started to come off when J.P. Morgan had to lend money to the government of the U.S. Followed by the rhetoric of Teddy Roosevelt and the passing of the 16th amendment. I will stop here, because explaining my reasoning would take some time to define.
@Sp3nd Coin marx is a fucking idiot who hasn't worked a day in his life and whose idea of a utopia failed miserably every single time it was tried. not to mention he's responsible for more than a hundred million deaths in the last century alone. any idiot with at least two working braincells would easily beat marx in an economic debate.
More like an ignorant, self content idiot who seems to bend the facts to match his beliefs who doesn't even realize when he contradicts himself. I don't think he was malicious in it, but he was a conman. People appear to fall for his confidence despite of him not making much sense.
Jerzy Feliks you can be forgiven if you don’t remember but pay attention to what was said. It’s not employers looking after employees, it’s the fact that the employee can find a more suitable position that protects the employee.
+Владимир Ленин No. You don't understand what he stands for. He's advocating a system where the poor have historically made the greatest strides. You disagree because you ignore history.
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.The reason he offered 40 hour week and $5 a day was because it was profitable.
When he first did it he said, "people are lazy. No union or government pressured him to do it. If I pay them more for the same work above the prevalent wage will prove they are in fact just lazy. He was proved correct, and his profits went up because workers will work harder when they think they are valuable. Increasing minimum wage doesn't make people getting paid feel more valuable,because they know that is the most they can get paid for their work.
Yah ever notice how astonishing of an example that is because of how rare it actually is for the interests of capitalists to coincide with their employees and how that sort of boom in wages isn't a reliable or persistent trend that workers can depend on, it's almost like all the big successes of capitalism were opportunistic in nature which is why things like good wages or workers rights aren't maintained but only implemented when they're economically strong armed into it, basically meaning workers consumers and capitalists are all in opposition of each other
@@tysonasaurus6392 this is idiotic. Look at the work from home movement, naps at work, free food and snack at work, summer schedules, etc... None of this is government or union mandated. High end corporations do what they can to lure in talent but there is a balance. Imagine the amount of talent you could have by paying 100K for 5 hours a week of work. But you wouldn't profitable. Profitability must be the goal first and foremost.
PerpetuallyFree He has Some Good Views But All His Views on Free Trade Agreements have Came True it's Called Over 8 Jobs Shipped over Seas n The Last 25 Years .N The 50s We had 70 Percent of the Worlds Manufacturing Jobs Good Paying Jobs, Now We have 9 Percent of Worlds Manufacturing Jobs So That Globalist Agenda Has Been Met .Thank God Trump Ended TPP or Our Country Was over .Also Milton Friedman is For Open Borders and Unchecked Illegal Immigration. The Government is Supposed to Protect Us From Foreigners Coming n our Country with out Coming Legally, So Illegal Immigration and The Horrible Trade Agreements Have Fucked our Country Up and Drives Wages Down .So I would love to Debate Him on Illegal Immigration,BS Free Trade Agreements and Social Security,Medicare He wanted To Get Rid of I'm 33 and I know that's a BS Position.
You want a protectionist policy that keeps manufacturing jobs within the US. That is a governmental intervention that protects a special interest at the cost of all other people, i.e. consumers. Moreover, corporations, which are owned by almost every American, will find it hard to innovate and grow. In effect, not only consumers of manufactured products suffer but also the American people who invest in our economy (no one stores most of their assets in money market nowadays because of inflation and the Federal Reserve's unlimited power). This is exactly the kind of thing that Dr. Friedman was always talking about. When it comes to governmental policies and programs, everyone always chants reducing government, but not the part that benefits their own special interest. So the government keeps getting bigger and bigger until our freedom is swindled away.
Everything comes down to this; an ideology that emphasizes the responsibility of an individual can not be popular. It is because people don't want to take full responsibility of themselves.
It's not an ideology at all, because it's a universal basic principle which follows the scientific method... Everything else is ideological, because there is no universal nor basic principles...
Look up the political trichotomy and you'll understand that only net taxpayers should be voting for congress to prevent a big government from being formed due to useful idiots being bribed with welfare, specifically women, because they don't value freedom and responsibility, but rather security.
Friedman's rationales are so elegant and logical; this is because he looks at things through the lens of self-interest when considering the behavior and positions of any person or group. Self-interest governs all, even "selfless" activities are derived from self-interest for personal fulfillment.
@@dillotank9421It is the capitalist investors who demand a "free lunch". You see the workers come together and strike for higher wages and get the capitalist to raise wages now despite crying poverty and making offers that insult the intellegence.
33:18 "It's always been a mystery to me why a young man is [believed to be] better off unemployed at $2.35/hr than employed at $2/hr." It seems to be a common blind spot in the human mind.
crap argument. for the same reason that it is better to not sell goods at a 25% margin than to sell them at a 10% margin. it is called price dumping. in this case, the price dumping of the price of labor. any kind of serious manufacturer will not sell his product to a distributor, if he knows that he is going to distribute it with a 10% margin. he knows that the distributor will devalue his product (or dump the price) and that this will, in the long run, have a negative effect on the manufacturer and on other manufacturers that produce the same type of product. the price will keep going down until it is no longer profitable to produce the product for the manufacturer or for any of the competitors. that is how business is conducted in the real world. you do not dump the price if you want to keep doing business. price dumpers are hated in the world of business (just like scabs) and people avoid doing business with them. for the same reason, you should not dump the price of your labor. in the long run, it will devalue the price of your labor and the price of labor of others. that is why it is better to be unemployed than to work for peanuts. there is a saying in my country, better the grave than a slave.
@@AbcDef-dr7ck makes sense, but sometimes taking that lower paying job, can get you the skills to earn a higher wage. also helps personal networking. This is a Milton Friedman video right?
@@AbcDef-dr7ck Manufacturer? It would make a lot more sense to compare labor to a perishable good. If I'm not working, I can't save all of those unworked hours in a warehouse to sell to an employer next month. Anyway, you still haven't answered the question. How are you better off letting your produce rot than selling it at a 10% profit? Yes, letting it rot can drive the price up, but only as long as you don't sell. The rest of your arguments seem to suggest that what you really want is to have _other_ people let their produce rot, so that _you_ can sell yours at a 25% PROFIT. (And please start each sentence with a capital letter; it makes text much easier to read.)
@@VidkunQL You have to be paid the minimum cost to reproduce your labor for the next pay period. Where the bosses are hiring or not hiring all depends on the bosses outlook on the market for the product not the wage he must pay. He always seeks to pay the lowest wage and that wage for unskilled labor is just the very minimum socally required for the pay period to reproduce his labor. When wages rise for all workers than the demand for products workers need goes up along with their employment producing those goods while the profits of the bosses go down. This is why bosses oppose all wage increases until either a strike or political pressure builds upon them. The 1938 Wages and hours act was passed after the 44 day long plant take over by auto workers at GM. The bosses sought to head off the union drive by doing what labor was already demanding a shorter work week with no cut in pay and a floor on all wages.
our economic problems today come from decades of politicians ignoring real economists like Dr Friedman. Also, the fact that the majority of university professors nowadays are massively biased toward socialism/statitism and keynesian silliness.
rationalCrash Ummm Friedman economics have been very much at the center of government (particularly in the U.S. and the U.K.) policy since the early 1980s. Secondly, I'm not sure where you went to school but Keynesian "silliness" is certainly not the status quo within university economic departments. You're right about one thing, we've got real economics problems to face, where you are wrong is where and how they arose. Friedman isn't the solution, he's part of the problem.
+Mick Nugget Actually no. Look at the massive subsidization of banks, transport, the 30% plus of the GDP spent by government massive deficets intrusive occupational licensing etc. As for Keynesism not being the status quo, what planet are you on? Government is routinely called upon to spend more to expand the economy, Keynsian style.
@@thorbart7279 trickle down works if the government cuts spending in an equal amount otherwise you're just giving yourself debt to pay for something that you can't even pay anymore.
8:43 that eye roll....I love Mr. Friedman's lectures. Very intelligent man, makes me wish I was born in during this time to listen to him speak in person. Now we have controlled media outlets that would never broadcast this.
@@danielreardon6453 People like him have always got a new excuse for capitalism long term crisis. As long as the bosses were raking in the profits hand over fist everything appeared to be business as usual. Then the crisis of 2008 put the whole world system of capitalist trade and production on trial. Now all the defenders of the end of history and the ultimate victory of capitalism are having their doubts.
Not true ... the same argument he is making can be made about the drug patent holders and what they charge for products as he is making about unions. The facts today is that unions are much smaller than back then ... his trickle down and this anit union push of his was enacted by Reagan and we are paying for it now.
@@thorbart7279 unions are smaller than back then? I guarantee you unions have more members today than ever before. The postal workers unions are constantly growing in member size
No sir. His statement on China has come to be false big time. Scandinavian countries with socialism are way ahead of USA in well being/ education parameters!! Don't get me wrong I like USA for its emphasis on individual freedom and its vast spaces!!
I like the comments like "capitalism is alright as long as it is properly regulated!" that then go on to advocate for unions, massive social welfare programs, etc. What they do not realize, most likely because they have done no research into classical liberalism or libertarianism, is that nearly all of the leaders (including Friedman, Hayek, Mises) support regulation. What they do not advocate is the massive government takeovers that these people take "regulation" to mean. History has proven over and over that this sort of government control leads to failure and collapse. Not a big fan of history? Just look at present-day Greece!
Greece was caused by fraud by a AIG but sure let's blame the government when it's convenient..I will agree the state can get blame but let's not forget the state is what lit Capatialism in existence in the first place.
*On unions* "Again, let me emphasize, I do not intend to be in any way invidious... I am only trying to understand and analyze the situation. Adam Smith, in his great book "The Wealth of Nations", pointed out that people pursing their own self interest could promote the general interest. So I'm not complaining or criticizing at the moment, but only analyzing. If there's any fault to found, it's not with *insert union*, it's with the rest of us, for letting them get away with it."
I find it incredibly humbling the amount of times Prof. Friedman says ''in my opinion'' before saying something. And that is coming from a highly revered theorist and nobel laureate in economics. How many nobodies do we all know that arent as nearly as achieved as him, but much more overbearing and full of themselves?
@@marc4770 Yup. The dumber you are, the smarter you think you are. That's why Friedman is humble and our little friend here is the ''overbearing'' and ''full of himself'' one, as stated in my original post.
He was the master of common sense. He destroys all these nuanced views of economics. Because in the end, economics is very basic and easy to understand. The nuanced economist doesn't want the the people to understand. He'll break out formulas etc. and try to make it impossible to understand for the average person. But Friedman made it easy to understand, and he was absolutely right. Economics IS easy. Supply and demand is easy. If you work in any industry other than government, then you participate in it everyday you go to work. It is absolutely simple.
That's called "featherbedding" btw (maybe not the proper use of the term, but similar in its execution): economists themselves are oftentimes guilty of inventing theories just to keep them on their own steady incomes. We all want to make work for ourselves to take home a strong paycheck: some are more creative than others (see: Wall Street) ;-)
@@bernlin2000 He is just like other bourgeois simpletons in economics who operate on theories of capitalism being the best thing since sliced bread. Who say value is only what a market determines with supply and demand.
UNBELIEVABLE.. I am flabergasted. Some of the things I was taught throughout my life, splintered through media, society and family has come together in this one video.
He spends all his time discussing a middle class businessman's association the AMA and you think that is what a union that actual signs labor contracts is about. It just astounding how ignorant you and his audience are.
@@kimobrien. I am part of two unions. I have been fighting for unions for years. However, this video reflects a perspective I haven't heard before him. Ignorant is a strong word to use for what you are saying..unless you want to expand on your answer!
@@ozziewilson-vo The AMA is a better compared to the bosses associations like the Associations of Construction contractors for the bosses that sign contracts with craft unions. It is the bosses associations that want to drag workers in the craft unions along for support with licensing and all kinds of schemes to support "our industry" and the profits of the bosses. At the end of the day it is the bosses who take the profits and say see you later partner. They want the cream and leave us with the skim milk. The Doctor like the small businessman is increasing brought under control of big capital he becomes the servant of the insurance bosses while the small businessman is now the manager of the corp franchise. The extra cost of the higher paid skilled workers is continually reduced with new labor savings techniques and with new machines and tools.
@@kimobrien. "The AMA is a better compared to the bosses associations like the Associations of Construction contractors for the bosses that sign contracts with craft unions." I don't know what you mean-you're not clear. I understand capitalism. What do YOU mean? If you can explain to me" what a union that actual signs labor contracts is about". I would appreciate it.
@@ozziewilson-vo Maybe it would be best for you to look at the difference between the magazines the organizations put out or recommend. Say between the National Electrical Contractors Assocation, Ihe International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers a craft union Electrical Worker and Solidarity published by the United Auto Workers an industrial union and Railway Age a magazine for the rail bosses. You can see that the union magazines are about the lives of the workers. The Bosses magazines are about the industry. The Journal of the AMA is mostly concerned with the science of medicene. .
What is he right about? His were the ideas of the ruling class right up to 2008 and since then they been in a crisis of dimensions not seen since the great depression. Turns out that Russia and China have not become bourgeois democratic capitalist allies of a declining American Imperialism but world trade competition. The American ruling class itself is also considering throwing bourgeois democracy overboard since the indictment of.Donald Trump.
@@kimobrien. "His were the ideas of the ruling class right up to 2008" - No, they were not. Nothing at all of his was adopted. Everything he advised against was done, whether inflation, bigger government, higher government spending, centralization, taxation, welfare programs, laws and so on...Everything is contrary to what Milton Friedman advocated for.
@@ScandinavianHeretic Of course because he advocated what could not possibly happen. Controlling inflation? Well why should the bosses not raise prices if they can get a higher price and make a bigger profit? Why should the government not increase the money supply if the bosses can raise prices faster than wages? Property owners then benefit. Welfare programs were cut by Clinton he did what Reagan couldn't "ended welfare as we know it." Higher government spending what boss doesn't like a government contract he gets a guaranteed payment no possibility of working for a customer who runs out of money or having to sell in a bloated market? Who doesn't like to buy treasury bonds that never become worthless scraps of paper paid for with taxes you never pay on tax free government bonds.? The bosses collect the taxes for the government. They just don't like paying them. Friedman's problem is that the bosses are greedy and he is just another Jesus scorning the money changers in the temple. Anybody can heap advice on capitalist but unless you can change the system you just whiteling in the wind. They make decisions based upon profit maximization not Fredmans moralizing.
The whole purpose of this lecture is an effort to smear the unions as just organizations of money grubbers no different than the bosses. The basic reason is none of these modern scientists of capitalist money "grubbing" economy can tell you much of anything about the purpose of an economic system itself except to hail capitalism as the best invention in human history which proves nothing.since every Marxist has already conceded that it is the most productive up until this point.
"The employee is protected from his employer by the other employers for whom he can go to work ; employer is protected from his employees by other employees who can work for him". This symmetry is (theoretically) mutually beneficial. That's the reason why corporations support (when they do not simply design) "free trade" agreements that specifically exclude poor workers mobility, but facilitate rich employers mobility (e.g. NAFTA). To break this symmetry.
Milton Friedman's ideas are based on years and years of study. My question is simple, who is responsible for the individual if not himself? And, if someone else is responsible to take care of you, then how takes care of them?
That is the best critique of unions I have personally ever seen. There are a lot of areas where I disagree with Friedman, but where we agree, and where I think he is right, he delivers better than anyone.
The AMA was founded as a professional association NOT a union. It is only recently that Doctors began working fother Doctors and the AMA makes no distinction between the two. Craft unions are made up of journeymen while masters are the employers.
My father was in a union and then became management so he was on both sides. As a manager he complained about how how hard it was to get rid of lousy workers because the union protected them! Workers can slack off in union jobs but not in non union jobs! Unions in fact give people the incentive to not try as hard because their job is protected by the union!
actually following Reagan was about a 20 year expansion, one of the best uninterrupted periods of economic growth, from good monetary policy, to less regulation, his policies worked in America's favour. The crash of 2008 along with the housing bubble are all due to policies of the Government. What we have done with the good work he did was get the gov. to use there power to support special interest, and prop up corporations ect. we do not have capitalism today. We have crony capitalism.
Capitalism is by definition crony. Reagan's policies helped make Wall Street extremely powerful. Milton was essentially a corporate shill. Corporations by definition are crony because they were given massive rights and power by the state, more specifically the courts.
Brilliant and eloquent. One modern commentary on economics that I find tiring is that in the triangle of workers, government, and employers that employers are of the least merit, most greedy, need to be squeezed harder, and so on. The role that employers play in the economy and existence/expansion of a free market is probably the most important one.
@@thowdy He launched an underhanded assault on the air traffic controllers despite taking their endorsement money. The bureaucratic leaders of the AFL CIO sat on their hands refusing to use labors power to cut Reagan down to size .
who protects workers...a better question is what enables employers to exploit workers. It is rarely the situations that arise without interference from governtments
37:40 Holy shit, Loudoun County in Virginia still has the highest median income in the country. Five of the top 15 highest-income counties in the US are in Virginia.
Good question! there was a recent case in Bangladesh about a a garment factory, and china in the past 15 years. The Chinese workers wages have increased by for 400% in the last 10 years. The working conditions are better, because of the higher demand for labor. The steel industries workers, if there were more competition would have left those jobs in a heart beat for better jobs if they had they choice. If you want to catch a thief, you set out a thief. Competition is what helps the poor!
Wealthier people are more likely to agree with statements that greed is justified, beneficial, and morally defensible. These attitudes ended up predicting participants’ likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior.Who is more likely to lie, cheat, and steal-the poor person or the rich one? Research suggests the opposite is true: as people climb the social ladder, their compassionate feelings towards other people decline. Scientific American- How wealth reduces compassion. Austerity theift ?
But it is the existence of the state that favors big corporations for many reasons. Corporations are the biggest and most efficient tax extractors the government has. The bigger the monopoly, the better and simpler for the state to regulate and tax. Corporations pay higher taxes, not from their earnings, but from their workers and customers. They are the biggest employers too and the biggest supporters of the state.
Government has actually lessened the wages of doctors through managed care. While about 44% of all dental care is paid out of pocket, only 10% of all physician costs is paid out of pocket. Implementing price ceilings associated with managed care have put downward pressure on physician vs. dentist wages. As a result, dentists now work fewer hours and make more money than the average physicians due to a backwards bending labor supply curve. Furthermore, you also see a shortage of doctors.
I've been watching his videos for a few years now, and it still hasn't all come together for me. My hunch is this worldview is closest to reality, yet it's easy for it to get lost in the chaos. Sometimes we are paralyzed by choice...I don't think Friedman fully thought about that idea. I'm not sure if our brains can handle 15 brands of toothpaste :-P we get misdirected and make less-than-idea choices on our own behalf, manipulated by the government and corporate marketing.
Capitalism and democracy are flawed, but history has proven they are better than any other system humanity has tried.Those who oppose free market capitalism, can you name one system that is better at promoting individual freedom, social mobility and increase the GDP per capita of the entire nation? With capitalism, people with money can tell you what to do, the deal is achieved through voluntary trade. With socialism, the state can point its finger and tell you what to do, is that somehow more moral? If it is the case, why there are so many Cubans risk their lives to come to the US and not the other way around?
there are a lot of assumptions tied to what you are saying. You use the word better, for example, which is subjective. You use qualities like "social mobility" "individual freedom" I like what the economist thomas sowell once said.. there is no such thing as better, there are only trade offs. When you make something better, you make something else worse.
I disagree with the notion that government, as being an instrument of imposing a standard or scenario on people is either justifiable or worth anything at all. For thousands of years many nations were ruled by tradition. What this means, is that people believed in what they were doing, they agreed with what they were doing together collectively.. actually, only recently has government become completely alien to the will of the collective spirit.
Oh I must disagree. Competition benefits humanity. It creates the greatest products for the lowest cost to people. Many great creations have come to people because of competition.
Actaually, one of the reasons why health spending is so high in the US is due to the "employer subsidy," which is a pre tax benefit for health insurance premiums, that individual purchasers do not have - this was actually put into federal law after WWII and doesn't have the relation to unions.
Not so sure I agree with Milton here, because he paints a very positive picture of an era when, while the economy as a whole was growing extremely fast, our workers paid dearly for that growth, ESPECIALLY our immigrants. The late 1800s was an era of horrendous abuse of immigrant laborers who worked on starvation wages in extremely dangerous conditions. If you didn't die in the workplace, you probably died of sheer lack of nutrition. This is why we have immigration and labor protection laws. I am a capitalist, a conservative libertarian, but you HAVE TO protect workers with some government programs and regulations. I think that we can cut 90% of the regulations we have, but we can't cut 100%. I also think unions are abusive, but I think we do need to give people the right to unionize without retaliation from the employer, but also the right to not unionize.
Milton wasn't against laws protecting people from being harmed by companies. Child labor laws for example. The laws that were created by the federal government were to protect workers from themselves. The 40 hour work week for example. Complete nonsense and unnecessary. Immigrants in 1900-1910 who came from Europe had no problem with corporations and neither do Mexicans who come here. They just want to eat.
Scott M there is no need for American citizens to be competing with foreigners for wage. foreigners only drive down wages and working conditions. that's an issue. we should never be expected to work at such low wages, and horrible conditions only because others are willing to do it.
You didn't understand what he said at all, did you? Government regulation will make workers WORSE off. It's an illusion that government can protect workers...they will protect them right out of a job, and create more unemployment and fewer available hours for current employees. Those immigrants voluntarily (or involuntarily, in the cases of famine) moved from their homelands to America...they would not have done so if they didn't feel there was a chance for greater opportunity. You speak of the horrors of factories, and they were certainly not great, but we're talking about people who were choosing between a factory life (with at least the potential to move up the chain of command) and subsidence farming or worse: starvation. It's not a difficult choice, with context. You're not a conservative libertarian if you think more government regulation will better protect workers...that's simply not the case and there's plenty of studies on such federal agencies like OSHA, which issue plenty of rules but hardly ever have the budget to enforce them (even if such a thing was possible, with the huge number of employers who must follow those regulations), leaving an ineffective bureaucracy, one of many in our government.
Fantastic lecture! I thought that Unions seeking privileges for their existing members by limiting access to new members was something happening just in Italy but now I know that the bastion of free markets -the USA- is too a competition-killing society.
Airline pilots have lost ground since this was made such that they can't afford hotel rooms between flights. Of course the incumbent bosses are the ones who are making out like bandits. Freedman fails to mention the success of the incumbent bosses organizations in getting tax breaks and government contracts. Billions handed over in two big to fail subsidies.
In my place of employment, the Company doesn't hire enough workers. We are understaffed sorely. But, the answer is always for the Managers to tell us to work harder and faster. I have filed grievance several times, because, it is literally impossible to do the amount of work in the time requested. My Union fights to get help and increase the workforce. So, this idea that the Union can't fight for a wage increase as well as fight to increase the numbers is not correct.
Plus, the unions forced most of the airlines into bankruptcy which has had the overall effect of salary reductions. Because if you can't make a profit you can't pay higher wages.
Airlines are subsidized by government. The bosses only want that which the can extract a profit from. Its hard to slash labor time in transportation so either subsidies or wage cuts are needed.
Listening to Milton Friedman speak on capitalism and the rights of workers is like listening to a Grand Dragon pontificate on how benevolent slavelords protected slaves from unemployment and godless abolitionists.
Here's an example of the government ruining something. The city of Chicago tore down good houses, built Cabrini Green, Robert Taylor houses, and the Ida Wells houses, and moved the poor in there. Those housing projects became a breeeding ground for crime. The people couldn't get mortgages to buy regular houses, so they had no choice but to move in there. But for the amount of money spent building/maintaining those monstrosities, they could've lent people money to buy homes.
You don't understand housing is a guaranteed profit center for real estate sharks it is not meant to provide housing. Profits for the bosses always come forst.
+Christopher Banacka My thought too, but also, (before watching video) the employer protects the worker. Those are assets. No employer makes money by killing employees and customers. Well, except governments.
+SnapCracklePapa I disagree. Slave traders and plantation owners made a killing enslaving and murdering people. Hell, they still do- plenty of immigrants all over the world get entrapped by their employers, and are worked to death because their lives are, ultimately, disposable to their employers. It is more expensive to these people to pay above a dollar a day than it is to make it virtually impossible to escape, and work you until your spirit or your body break.
***** lol... Of course you disagree. In your fantasy world, the free market is made up of slave owners who murder their employees (that's a pretty bad business model, btw). I don't suppose you can show me one of these employers? I would think they'd have trouble finding slaves to employ, given their history of breaking spirits and bodies and all.
+SnapCracklePapa When people are starving, they are easily trapped and abused. In the UAE, many corporations got caught literally trapping Indian migrants in factories and construction sites. They stole their passports, and then forced them to pay a fee to GET the job. They then must spend the year paying back the fee, all the while unable to return home. www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/abu-dhabi-migrant-workers-conditions-shame-west It's not a fantasy world. It's just half a world away. In Bangladesh, the minimum wage is 24 cents an hour, and their government found most corporations there refused to pay it. In Bangladesh, factory deaths are routine, even leaving aside factory collapses. THAT's reality. qz.com/389741/the-thing-that-makes-bangladeshs-garment-industry-such-a-huge-success-also-makes-it-deadly/ They have also high rates of homelessness, poverty, and child death, largely because of a unregulated, corrupt state adminstrating their country. This is what a "laissez faire" market really looks like.
+SnapCracklePapa Bonus: since 1997, the US Justice department has prosecuted seven multi-claimant cases of slavery in Tomato farms in Florida alone. www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-turow/you-need-to-know-the-slavery-conditions-on-tomato-farms_b_6735842.html Friedman is half right. The market rewards smart people. But it doesn't automatically punish or disincentivize evil people, nor does it prevent people from behaving illogically. Economists are the most dismal scientists, because sometimes they forget science works the best with the fewest assumptions. Why assume markets self correct, when from the period he describes of the 18th to 19th century we experienced depressions and large recessions roughly every twenty years, but between 1945 and 2008 we experienced an era of relative calm, despite the fact that apparently the small government era was one to envy? Why *assume* some invisible hand will swoop in and make it all okay, *for* you? That sounds like a handout by some other name.
I find it refreshing that someone talks clearly and accurately about governments role. I liken it to a referee & field in sports, players require a field to play on and referees to enforce the rules & hand penalties when broken. The best sporting games I have ever watched or played in, was the games you forgot the referees where there (good sportsmanship by player). And the worst games where when the refs made bad or inconsistent calls. About the only thing rival team fans can agree on is that refs are "bought off" or is "fixing" games.
In the case of capitalism yes its always a fixed game that the bosses play. The bring vast industrial armies on to the playing field where the winner is the general who can issue the most discharges.
Investing is actually hard work. It requires a lot of knowledge of the workings of the market, and it involves a lot of stress and psychological pressure due to the high risks involved. A lot of investments result in losses. And besides, investors perform an extremely important role in an economy. Without them there would be no new capital to make the system work.
Im the 26 year old brother of the kid in those videos. I dont really make videos, I mostly use this account for watching these types of videos. I also set up our account somewhat in my favor
Union membership peaked at a high of 36% in the USA around the mid 50s, then dropped ever since. Compare this to the heavily unionized European nations that had slower wage increases than American workers in comparison. The US workers also got the weekend before EU workers. Wage increases occur with an increase in productivity. Higher productivity = higher wages. Labor unions have done nothing but drained the wealth of society for their own benefit, and have retarded overall growth.
Wonderful lecture by Dr. Friedman. The best worker protections are found in freedom and employer-competition. I can agree with that. However, there are many cases wherein government constrains competition and some of these cases are for geopolitical reasons. Often, in the form of subsidies/tax-cuts for companies like Boeing and Qualcomm. These are difficult matters to reconcile given the importance of military and foreign intelligence.
It is not an "alleged source," it is a source. The study was done by Centers for Disease Control, and confirmed in the peer-reviewed publishing by the American Journal of Public Health.
No, actually I am talking about the high wages of pilots like I would for every other profession that pays a wage. The wages of the pilots are at the point of equilibrium for what the market is willing to pay. The reason they are lower now is because airlines could not find a way to profitably operate at wages of $300,000 in today's market. Thus, they were forced down due to the rise in other overhead costs. And if pilots were not willing to work for less then they wouldn't be flying.
To be fair, the world that he is describing is gone. At the time of this speech, it was true (I believe) that 80% of Corp profits went to workers. Today that is not so. It’s less than 65%. That changes things a bit.
Contra Mr. Friedman at 32:20... The minimum wage in the USA is $0.00. They're called (unpaid) internships, and they cheapen the price of labor in each industry with interns. They impact the overall work of the workforce and receive no financial compensation. So, that means that the minimum wage is zero. Mr. Friedman does not address the desire of humans to work, regardless of what their pay is. Some think it is helpful volunteer work and don't realize that the average cost of labor goes down with each (post-training period) hour that the intern works.
Maybe you missed this fact, but I was pointing out that Henry Ford gave his workers all these things 30 years before the UAW formed. I never said he was the first, just that because he did and the nature of the competitive market that is what made it popular.
Hitler also admired him. Old Henry hired boxer Harry Bennett to enforce his no talking policy. They were leaving the assembly lines faster then he could replace them until the "smart" Henry raised wages. He also published "The International Jew" a NAZI favorite.
I love hearing Milton talk. Even though I disagree with him a lot of the time. He has, at times, great clarity of thought and was a really good speaker. Funnily though, neither of his three examples sprang to my mind at the beginning. He's right that all three do protect you when it is in their interest to do so... But I'd maintain workers protect workers in a business environment that is run democratically with the minimum authoritarianism. In those you get the best desire to work amongst workforce, which usually corresponds into better profit, which, as Milton would point out, is your best form of protection. You can't be protected against everything this way. Things like sabotage, blackmail, sexual indecency are always going to be nasty obstacles whatever system you have in place. But generally speaking, the less authority you have, from Government or bosses, the better workers look after each other.
I would ask to what end? If every person in a particular profession unionized and formed an effective monoply of labor for that good or service, such a monoply would immediately translate into a monoply on the price of that good or service. To that end, the price being imposed would be absorbed by society at large. Such a monoply is no better than if the employer had the effective monoply, and creates the same problems, hence the advent of anti trust laws. But if such laws did not exist, the union would still have to adjust their prices to a level where they could maximize their profit. After adjusting the price of that good or service they are then left with 2 options. They would have to either adjust their own pay to equally distribute their profit, or sacrifice some of the members of that union to such a point where the remaining members are satisfied with the pay they receive from the goods or services they provide. If the latter is chosen the monoply is broken and the free market will prevail, if the former occurs then the monoply becomes moot as they will probably be no better off if they had never unionized at all. Could the union improve work conditions, certainly. But it would do so at the price of profitablity, and in turn, their own pay.
And I am not saying regional airlines do not go bankrupt, but they never paid the high wages that would contribute to the average salary declining over the decades, only major airlines who had the higher wages which pulled the average salary up in the 1970s could have an effect on the slow decline over the years. Logically, you should know if the top-end salaries go from 300,000 to 181,000, then the average will fall even if regional airlines keep steady wages.
I see a lot of people on RUclips telling others entering the work force to go into a union apprenticeship program for a skilled trade like plumber, electrician, etc. Back in the 80’s, you needed to know somebody important or bribe somebody to get hired for an entry-level union job. Those jobs are not easy to get.
With a minimum wage the Government becomes a UNION and it by its nature raised prices overall which lowers the dollar the workers get and as he says (I have owned five businesses) I will not hire any more workers than I CAN AFFORD TO STAY IN BUSINESS and make a living for myself. Big misconception, that owners of small businesses must all be RICH. A good businessman will be comfortable, but will not take any more out of his business than he can under consideration of keeping good, honest, hardworking employees. Then the owner has to figure all his overhead and cost of product replacement. Then the Government comes in and takes another hunk from the owner and employees for Government (the Gov. being a UNION) for all the Social Programs like Social Security, unemployment and any other offering of the Government now THE DEMAND for people to buy from the Government Health Insurance.
Blah Blah Blah The bosses want to control everything the price of groceries, the wages and the money supply. You collect the taxes for the government at the grocery store and at the workplace. You buy the politicians who write the laws and then you claim to be making an honest profit and how wages and taxes are making you go broke. Record profits on Wall st show what a load of BS that is.
The Austrians do not deny that if a stock market crashes, then there will be economic turmoil. However, Austrians also provide consistent evidence that shows without Government intervention, the market can re-correct itself, and subsequently with Government intervention, they are not allowing the malinvestments to liquidate, and it only prolongs the problem, and makes it worst in the long term. Ex: Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian's "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great depression."
They've been talking that BS ever since the bosses went to war because of the quest to take each others for colonies and resources produced world war one. What better way to solve a crisis than to go to war and destroy the free market competition..
Correlation of ethics and income: when you earn enough to not worry about earning you're less prone to corruption, avoiding a medical system treating the rich better than the poor. -> treating the patient and not his money.
@@edam1486 the massive abuses by coal and iron mining companies in their company towns lead to the largest armed insurrection in the USA since 1861. ruclips.net/video/1rzFyBdKLvU/видео.html
the property he alluded to was due to Imperial colonialism. The same reason that made Britain and the rest of the European powers rich. Once settler colonialism reached a point of no more gains, incomes deteriorated. The solution was Neo-Liberalism, which Mr Freidman championed and we, in the 3rd decade of the 21st century, witness its consequence.
One of the first initiatives instituted by Gen. MacArthur in the re-building of Japanese society and industrial reconstruction, was the unionisation of workers. Why? because he understood that the best tool for promoting democracy, economic growth and preventing large scale business corruption and control. Initially, this system was effective, but due to American businesses attempting to gain a strong foot hold in the supply of goods and services to the Japanese people, quickly corrupted the national and local Government officials.
Although, as Friedman indicates in other talks, he's a 'classical' Liberal (absolute freedom provided one doesn't encroach upon others freedoms). have you read John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”? he was an 'original meaning' Liberal, too. we should return to the founding principles of Western Enlightenment Societies, & bloody soon!
The power behind labor is held within the people who actually do work, investing money and time into a company in comparison to working with your hands all day every day is nothing. You know your system is heavily flawed, that is why you tell me I "dont understand it". Thousands all across the world are forced into labor for the rest of their lives, and most are killed in the line of work, you tell me that is "an accident"? No, it is completely on purpose.
"80% go in wages, 14% in rent or dividends, 6% in profits : thus is is no possible to increase wages". There are not 3 classes: wage workers, owners, capitalists. Capitalists are often owners (receiving dividends and rent) and often also receive wages ! Amongst those 80%, there is a huge inequality (in average, 200x between CEO and workers). Better equality (e.g. Japan, 20x) is possible, leading to an increase in productivity (by paying better).
Yes, if the value of the worker's productivity grows due to better tools and support technologies, such as computers. How much do you think is the value of a worker's work if he simply moves boxes by hand as opposed to via a forklift? Much less.
As the use of machines increases the production time of living labor falls. Yet the source of the profit is the living labor and therefore the rate of profit must also fall.
Friedman is another idiot for capitalism. Listening to him and the two parties politicians is why the AFL-CIO leadership refused to lead any fights for the last 50 years.
When you listen to the brilliant clarity of Milton Friedman and then to the surreal gibberish of so many academics today, you have to wonder where the wheels came off in America.
Some say it's the soviet infiltration in academia known as "cultural marxism".
Watch Yuri Bezmenov for clarification.
Yes, that's a good video. I recommend watching Freidrich Hayek's video on intellectuals and socialism? You may RUclips it as well.
Thanks for the recommendation, Marc-Andre
In my opinion, the wheels started to come off when J.P. Morgan had to lend money to the government of the U.S. Followed by the rhetoric of Teddy Roosevelt and the passing of the 16th amendment.
I will stop here, because explaining my reasoning would take some time to define.
@Sp3nd Coin
marx is a fucking idiot who hasn't worked a day in his life and whose idea of a utopia failed miserably every single time it was tried. not to mention he's responsible for more than a hundred million deaths in the last century alone. any idiot with at least two working braincells would easily beat marx in an economic debate.
The swagger of a man who knows he's right and can back it up with evidence and facts
More like an ignorant, self content idiot who seems to bend the facts to match his beliefs who doesn't even realize when he contradicts himself. I don't think he was malicious in it, but he was a conman. People appear to fall for his confidence despite of him not making much sense.
Jerzy Feliks you can be forgiven if you don’t remember but pay attention to what was said.
It’s not employers looking after employees, it’s the fact that the employee can find a more suitable position that protects the employee.
@@ajmaclean351 Which requires education, and health.
@Jože Ws trade union is different in other parts of the world?
not if you actually understand what he's saying and understand logic. then he's just a bleating sheep.
An absolutely brilliant lecture. His lectures should be shown in every high school and college in the world.
+rd f The liberals would never allow it. Their teachers unions don't want the competition.
+rd f Unfortunately, by today's standards, this is considered hate speech.
+Владимир Ленин jaja yeah lenin!!
+Владимир Ленин Explain...
+Владимир Ленин No. You don't understand what he stands for. He's advocating a system where the poor have historically made the greatest strides. You disagree because you ignore history.
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.The reason he offered 40 hour week and $5 a day was because it was profitable.
Which is contrary to what mr Friedman just said...i trust your words more than his.
When he first did it he said, "people are lazy. No union or government pressured him to do it. If I pay them more for the same work above the prevalent wage will prove they are in fact just lazy. He was proved correct, and his profits went up because workers will work harder when they think they are valuable. Increasing minimum wage doesn't make people getting paid feel more valuable,because they know that is the most they can get paid for their work.
Yah ever notice how astonishing of an example that is because of how rare it actually is for the interests of capitalists to coincide with their employees and how that sort of boom in wages isn't a reliable or persistent trend that workers can depend on, it's almost like all the big successes of capitalism were opportunistic in nature which is why things like good wages or workers rights aren't maintained but only implemented when they're economically strong armed into it, basically meaning workers consumers and capitalists are all in opposition of each other
@@tysonasaurus6392 this is idiotic. Look at the work from home movement, naps at work, free food and snack at work, summer schedules, etc... None of this is government or union mandated. High end corporations do what they can to lure in talent but there is a balance. Imagine the amount of talent you could have by paying 100K for 5 hours a week of work. But you wouldn't profitable. Profitability must be the goal first and foremost.
$120/8 = $15 an hour seems like a good MW 😂
I love Milton Friedman. I wish his style of logic and reasoning wasn't such a rare commodity.
+Rebecca Marino Watching him form his arguments is truly inspiring. Men of his form are quickly disappearing.
+Justin Walley Absolutely. A dying breed.
Exactly
PerpetuallyFree He has Some Good Views But All His Views on Free Trade Agreements have Came True it's Called Over 8 Jobs Shipped over Seas n The Last 25 Years .N The 50s We had 70 Percent of the Worlds Manufacturing Jobs Good Paying Jobs, Now We have 9 Percent of Worlds Manufacturing Jobs So That Globalist Agenda Has Been Met .Thank God Trump Ended TPP or Our Country Was over .Also Milton Friedman is For Open Borders and Unchecked Illegal Immigration. The Government is Supposed to Protect Us From Foreigners Coming n our Country with out Coming Legally, So Illegal Immigration and The Horrible Trade Agreements Have Fucked our Country Up and Drives Wages Down .So I would love to Debate Him on Illegal Immigration,BS Free Trade Agreements and Social Security,Medicare He wanted To Get Rid of I'm 33 and I know that's a BS Position.
You want a protectionist policy that keeps manufacturing jobs within the US. That is a governmental intervention that protects a special interest at the cost of all other people, i.e. consumers. Moreover, corporations, which are owned by almost every American, will find it hard to innovate and grow. In effect, not only consumers of manufactured products suffer but also the American people who invest in our economy (no one stores most of their assets in money market nowadays because of inflation and the Federal Reserve's unlimited power). This is exactly the kind of thing that Dr. Friedman was always talking about. When it comes to governmental policies and programs, everyone always chants reducing government, but not the part that benefits their own special interest. So the government keeps getting bigger and bigger until our freedom is swindled away.
Everything comes down to this; an ideology that emphasizes the responsibility of an individual can not be popular. It is because people don't want to take full responsibility of themselves.
It's not an ideology at all, because it's a universal basic principle which follows the scientific method...
Everything else is ideological, because there is no universal nor basic principles...
@@5002strokeforever No it really is an ideology. I'm a believer in the need for personal responsibility, but we cannot claim that it is scientific.
Look up the political trichotomy and you'll understand that only net taxpayers should be voting for congress to prevent a big government from being formed due to useful idiots being bribed with welfare, specifically women, because they don't value freedom and responsibility, but rather security.
Wow!
@@P3RF3CTD3ATH Do you believe healthcare is a human right?
Friedman's rationales are so elegant and logical; this is because he looks at things through the lens of self-interest when considering the behavior and positions of any person or group. Self-interest governs all, even "selfless" activities are derived from self-interest for personal fulfillment.
+Mitchell Furlong People ignore self-interest because they see it as selfishness, a trait they either abhor or ignore in themselves.
+frencheneesz Indeed, temet nosce.
Socialism is the childlike belief in the 'free lunch'.
@@dillotank9421It is the capitalist investors who demand a "free lunch". You see the workers come together and strike for higher wages and get the capitalist to raise wages now despite crying poverty and making offers that insult the intellegence.
Next time maybe he will lecture on trade unions that sign labor contracts instead of professional associations of middle class businessman.
33:18 "It's always been a mystery to me why a young man is [believed to be] better off unemployed at $2.35/hr than employed at $2/hr."
It seems to be a common blind spot in the human mind.
@@tarkfarhen3870 then I rather keep my arm and work the limited jobs. Safety regulations and OSHA rules are written in blood.
crap argument. for the same reason that it is better to not sell goods at a 25% margin than to sell them at a 10% margin. it is called price dumping. in this case, the price dumping of the price of labor. any kind of serious manufacturer will not sell his product to a distributor, if he knows that he is going to distribute it with a 10% margin. he knows that the distributor will devalue his product (or dump the price) and that this will, in the long run, have a negative effect on the manufacturer and on other manufacturers that produce the same type of product. the price will keep going down until it is no longer profitable to produce the product for the manufacturer or for any of the competitors. that is how business is conducted in the real world. you do not dump the price if you want to keep doing business. price dumpers are hated in the world of business (just like scabs) and people avoid doing business with them. for the same reason, you should not dump the price of your labor. in the long run, it will devalue the price of your labor and the price of labor of others. that is why it is better to be unemployed than to work for peanuts. there is a saying in my country, better the grave than a slave.
@@AbcDef-dr7ck makes sense, but sometimes taking that lower paying job, can get you the skills to earn a higher wage. also helps personal networking. This is a Milton Friedman video right?
@@AbcDef-dr7ck Manufacturer? It would make a lot more sense to compare labor to a perishable good. If I'm not working, I can't save all of those unworked hours in a warehouse to sell to an employer next month.
Anyway, you still haven't answered the question. How are you better off letting your produce rot than selling it at a 10% profit? Yes, letting it rot can drive the price up, but only as long as you don't sell. The rest of your arguments seem to suggest that what you really want is to have _other_ people let their produce rot, so that _you_ can sell yours at a 25% PROFIT.
(And please start each sentence with a capital letter; it makes text much easier to read.)
@@VidkunQL You have to be paid the minimum cost to reproduce your labor for the next pay period. Where the bosses are hiring or not hiring all depends on the bosses outlook on the market for the product not the wage he must pay. He always seeks to pay the lowest wage and that wage for unskilled labor is just the very minimum socally required for the pay period to reproduce his labor. When wages rise for all workers than the demand for products workers need goes up along with their employment producing those goods while the profits of the bosses go down. This is why bosses oppose all wage increases until either a strike or political pressure builds upon them. The 1938 Wages and hours act was passed after the 44 day long plant take over by auto workers at GM. The bosses sought to head off the union drive by doing what labor was already demanding a shorter work week with no cut in pay and a floor on all wages.
our economic problems today come from decades of politicians ignoring real economists like Dr Friedman. Also, the fact that the majority of university professors nowadays are massively biased toward socialism/statitism and keynesian silliness.
rationalCrash Ummm Friedman economics have been very much at the center of government (particularly in the U.S. and the U.K.) policy since the early 1980s. Secondly, I'm not sure where you went to school but Keynesian "silliness" is certainly not the status quo within university economic departments. You're right about one thing, we've got real economics problems to face, where you are wrong is where and how they arose. Friedman isn't the solution, he's part of the problem.
+Mick Nugget Actually no. Look at the massive subsidization of banks, transport, the 30% plus of the GDP spent by government massive deficets intrusive occupational licensing etc. As for Keynesism not being the status quo, what planet are you on? Government is routinely called upon to spend more to expand the economy, Keynsian style.
You've been in a monetarist system since 1980.
wrong ... they listened to his trickle down ideas and that is the biggest part of our problems.
@@thorbart7279 trickle down works if the government cuts spending in an equal amount otherwise you're just giving yourself debt to pay for something that you can't even pay anymore.
8:43 that eye roll....I love Mr. Friedman's lectures. Very intelligent man, makes me wish I was born in during this time to listen to him speak in person. Now we have controlled media outlets that would never broadcast this.
Its a wonder that we have his work preserved in book and videos
@@danielreardon6453 People like him have always got a new excuse for capitalism long term crisis. As long as the bosses were raking in the profits hand over fist everything appeared to be business as usual. Then the crisis of 2008 put the whole world system of capitalist trade and production on trial. Now all the defenders of the end of history and the ultimate victory of capitalism are having their doubts.
The AMA is a professional organization. It does NOT sign labor contracts for its members.
I think this lecture was back in the 1970s. Amazing what he states is still true today and even more true today.
We're seeing his words become a reality.
Not true ... the same argument he is making can be made about the drug patent holders and what they charge for products as he is making about unions. The facts today is that unions are much smaller than back then ... his trickle down and this anit union push of his was enacted by Reagan and we are paying for it now.
@@thorbart7279 unions are smaller than back then? I guarantee you unions have more members today than ever before. The postal workers unions are constantly growing in member size
No sir. His statement on China has come to be false big time. Scandinavian countries with socialism are way ahead of USA in well being/ education parameters!!
Don't get me wrong I like USA for its emphasis on individual freedom and its vast spaces!!
onkar athith The Nordic nations are much more free market than the U.S. at this point in time
I had to write a paper for my Labor Economics class. This clip helped me immensely. I cant thank you enough for posting.
thank Mr. Friedman
Did you get an F from those dirty keynesian professors, 8 years ago
@@casperhiscock4871 lol, no I got an A in that class.
@@78g476 congrats 8 years ago i suppose. successful now?
@@casperhiscock4871 Define success
God, this guy was an Economic genius
I mean, he literally won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976.
@@rijuchaudhuri Sure the capitalist give him credit for saving them and their system.
Maybe he should talked about actual unions that sign labor contacts instead a professional association of middle class small businessmen.
I like the comments like "capitalism is alright as long as it is properly regulated!" that then go on to advocate for unions, massive social welfare programs, etc. What they do not realize, most likely because they have done no research into classical liberalism or libertarianism, is that nearly all of the leaders (including Friedman, Hayek, Mises) support regulation. What they do not advocate is the massive government takeovers that these people take "regulation" to mean. History has proven over and over that this sort of government control leads to failure and collapse. Not a big fan of history? Just look at present-day Greece!
Greece was caused by fraud by a AIG but sure let's blame the government when it's convenient..I will agree the state can get blame but let's not forget the state is what lit Capatialism in existence in the first place.
*On unions*
"Again, let me emphasize, I do not intend to be in any way invidious... I am only trying to understand and analyze the situation. Adam Smith, in his great book "The Wealth of Nations", pointed out that people pursing their own self interest could promote the general interest. So I'm not complaining or criticizing at the moment, but only analyzing. If there's any fault to found, it's not with *insert union*, it's with the rest of us, for letting them get away with it."
“FrIeDmAn OpPoSeS uNiOnS”
Middle class businessmen associations like the AMA have more in common with the National Association of Manufacturers.
I find it incredibly humbling the amount of times Prof. Friedman says ''in my opinion'' before saying something. And that is coming from a highly revered theorist and nobel laureate in economics. How many nobodies do we all know that arent as nearly as achieved as him, but much more overbearing and full of themselves?
@Sp3nd Coin haha cheeky
Sp3nd Coin Those are two statements that are almost certainly false.
@Leftism Central how many Nobel prizes in economics do you hold dickhead
The less you know, the more you think you know. The more you know, the more you know you know nothing.
@@marc4770 Yup. The dumber you are, the smarter you think you are. That's why Friedman is humble and our little friend here is the ''overbearing'' and ''full of himself'' one, as stated in my original post.
His generation is brighter than the current one in control. That gentleman is a great orator.
He was the master of common sense. He destroys all these nuanced views of economics. Because in the end, economics is very basic and easy to understand. The nuanced economist doesn't want the the people to understand. He'll break out formulas etc. and try to make it impossible to understand for the average person. But Friedman made it easy to understand, and he was absolutely right. Economics IS easy. Supply and demand is easy. If you work in any industry other than government, then you participate in it everyday you go to work. It is absolutely simple.
That's called "featherbedding" btw (maybe not the proper use of the term, but similar in its execution): economists themselves are oftentimes guilty of inventing theories just to keep them on their own steady incomes. We all want to make work for ourselves to take home a strong paycheck: some are more creative than others (see: Wall Street) ;-)
@@bernlin2000 He is just like other bourgeois simpletons in economics who operate on theories of capitalism being the best thing since sliced bread. Who say value is only what a market determines with supply and demand.
He even picks his nose like a boss. I LOVE THIS MAN!
UNBELIEVABLE.. I am flabergasted. Some of the things I was taught throughout my life, splintered through media, society and family has come together in this one video.
He spends all his time discussing a middle class businessman's association the AMA and you think that is what a union that actual signs labor contracts is about. It just astounding how ignorant you and his audience are.
@@kimobrien. I am part of two unions. I have been fighting for unions for years. However, this video reflects a perspective I haven't heard before him. Ignorant is a strong word to use for what you are saying..unless you want to expand on your answer!
@@ozziewilson-vo The AMA is a better compared to the bosses associations like the Associations of Construction contractors for the bosses that sign contracts with craft unions. It is the bosses associations that want to drag workers in the craft unions along for support with licensing and all kinds of schemes to support "our industry" and the profits of the bosses. At the end of the day it is the bosses who take the profits and say see you later partner. They want the cream and leave us with the skim milk. The Doctor like the small businessman is increasing brought under control of big capital he becomes the servant of the insurance bosses while the small businessman is now the manager of the corp franchise. The extra cost of the higher paid skilled workers is continually reduced with new labor savings techniques and with new machines and tools.
@@kimobrien. "The AMA is a better compared to the bosses associations like the Associations of Construction contractors for the bosses that sign contracts with craft unions." I don't know what you mean-you're not clear. I understand capitalism. What do YOU mean? If you can explain to me" what a union that actual signs labor contracts is about". I would appreciate it.
@@ozziewilson-vo Maybe it would be best for you to look at the difference between the magazines the organizations put out or recommend. Say between the National Electrical Contractors Assocation, Ihe International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers a craft union Electrical Worker and Solidarity published by the United Auto Workers an industrial union and Railway Age a magazine for the rail bosses. You can see that the union magazines are about the lives of the workers. The Bosses magazines are about the industry. The Journal of the AMA is mostly concerned with the science of medicene. .
It's amazing how relevant Friedman's talks are even today.
Milton Freidman was right.
I am just now discovering this man and I am sad he is still not around today.
What is he right about? His were the ideas of the ruling class right up to 2008 and since then they been in a crisis of dimensions not seen since the great depression. Turns out that Russia and China have not become bourgeois democratic capitalist allies of a declining American Imperialism but world trade competition. The American ruling class itself is also considering throwing bourgeois democracy overboard since the indictment of.Donald Trump.
His words remain because he thought to write it down!
@@kimobrien. "His were the ideas of the ruling class right up to 2008" - No, they were not. Nothing at all of his was adopted. Everything he advised against was done, whether inflation, bigger government, higher government spending, centralization, taxation, welfare programs, laws and so on...Everything is contrary to what Milton Friedman advocated for.
@@ScandinavianHeretic Of course because he advocated what could not possibly happen. Controlling inflation? Well why should the bosses not raise prices if they can get a higher price and make a bigger profit? Why should the government not increase the money supply if the bosses can raise prices faster than wages? Property owners then benefit.
Welfare programs were cut by Clinton he did what Reagan couldn't "ended welfare as we know it." Higher government spending what boss doesn't like a government contract he gets a guaranteed payment no possibility of working for a customer who runs out of money or having to sell in a bloated market? Who doesn't like to buy treasury bonds that never become worthless scraps of paper paid for with taxes you never pay on tax free government bonds.?
The bosses collect the taxes for the government. They just don't like paying them. Friedman's problem is that the bosses are greedy and he is just another Jesus scorning the money changers in the temple. Anybody can heap advice on capitalist but unless you can change the system you just whiteling in the wind. They make decisions based upon profit maximization not Fredmans moralizing.
@@ScandinavianHeretic
Do you think that applying his views by the book would make a country wealthier?
Man this guy is a badass. Right or not it's a fresh look at everything I've already "learned".
The whole purpose of this lecture is an effort to smear the unions as just organizations of money grubbers no different than the bosses. The basic reason is none of these modern scientists of capitalist money "grubbing" economy can tell you much of anything about the purpose of an economic system itself except to hail capitalism as the best invention in human history which proves nothing.since every Marxist has already conceded that it is the most productive up until this point.
"The employee is protected from his employer by the other employers for whom he can go to work ; employer is protected from his employees by other employees who can work for him".
This symmetry is (theoretically) mutually beneficial.
That's the reason why corporations support (when they do not simply design) "free trade" agreements that specifically exclude poor workers mobility, but facilitate rich employers mobility (e.g. NAFTA). To break this symmetry.
Milton Friedman's ideas are based on years and years of study. My question is simple, who is responsible for the individual if not himself? And, if someone else is responsible to take care of you, then how takes care of them?
That is the typical intelectually smart answer based in circular reasoning. Who is responsible for X if not X
That is the best critique of unions I have personally ever seen. There are a lot of areas where I disagree with Friedman, but where we agree, and where I think he is right, he delivers better than anyone.
The AMA was founded as a professional association NOT a union. It is only recently that Doctors began working fother Doctors and the AMA makes no distinction between the two. Craft unions are made up of journeymen while masters are the employers.
The AMA has more in common with the National Association of Manufactures. The are business men's associations.
I love you Capitalist Gorbachov!!! 🥰
Happy Mr Friedman. Inspiring.
My father was in a union and then became management so he was on both sides. As a manager he complained about how how hard it was to get rid of lousy workers because the union protected them! Workers can slack off in union jobs but not in non union jobs! Unions in fact give people the incentive to not try as hard because their job is protected by the union!
Almost impossible to argue with the logic in his talk. More relevant today than ever.
actually following Reagan was about a 20 year expansion, one of the best uninterrupted periods of economic growth, from good monetary policy, to less regulation, his policies worked in America's favour. The crash of 2008 along with the housing bubble are all due to policies of the Government. What we have done with the good work he did was get the gov. to use there power to support special interest, and prop up corporations ect. we do not have capitalism today. We have crony capitalism.
Capitalism is by definition crony. Reagan's policies helped make Wall Street extremely powerful. Milton was essentially a corporate shill. Corporations by definition are crony because they were given massive rights and power by the state, more specifically the courts.
Ya if only the bosses would stop buying politicians to defend private property and profits all could get a good nights sleep.
Brilliant and eloquent. One modern commentary on economics that I find tiring is that in the triangle of workers, government, and employers that employers are of the least merit, most greedy, need to be squeezed harder, and so on. The role that employers play in the economy and existence/expansion of a free market is probably the most important one.
When the use their profits to drive up the value of fictitious capital it ends up collapsing like in 1929 or 2008.
A discussion of a middle class businessmen's association has you convinced he knows what he is talking about.
As an airline pilot I agree that we have strong unions.
Didn't reagan crush it(airline unions) in the 1980s? Or was it the air traffic controllers?
@@joestein6603 air traffic controllers.
@@thowdy He launched an underhanded assault on the air traffic controllers despite taking their endorsement money. The bureaucratic leaders of the AFL CIO sat on their hands refusing to use labors power to cut Reagan down to size .
Milton Freidman out here dropping 🔥BAR
S🔥
who protects workers...a better question is what enables employers to exploit workers. It is rarely the situations that arise without interference from governtments
This man is a delicious sandwich.
So delicious
To bad you're not a girl I would invite you to lunch for such fine lectures.
Imagine joe Rogan and Milton Friedman on the same podcast. How I wish
Joe isn't intelligent enough for Friedman imo. Lex Friedman and Milton Friedman could have a conversation worth listening to
37:40 Holy shit, Loudoun County in Virginia still has the highest median income in the country. Five of the top 15 highest-income counties in the US are in Virginia.
That $15,000 average annual salary in today's money would be just short of $60,000.
Indeed! He is the sensible eloquent 'Milton the great magician'. Keep it up, Sir!
10:38...she loves a bit of Milton
Good question! there was a recent case in Bangladesh about a a garment factory, and china in the past 15 years. The Chinese workers wages have increased by for 400% in the last 10 years. The working conditions are better, because of the higher demand for labor. The steel industries workers, if there were more competition would have left those jobs in a heart beat for better jobs if they had they choice. If you want to catch a thief, you set out a thief. Competition is what helps the poor!
Wealthier people are more likely to agree with statements that greed is justified, beneficial, and morally defensible. These attitudes ended up predicting participants’ likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior.Who is more likely to lie, cheat, and steal-the poor person or the rich one? Research suggests the opposite is true: as people climb the social ladder, their compassionate feelings towards other people decline. Scientific American- How wealth reduces compassion. Austerity theift ?
But it is the existence of the state that favors big corporations for many reasons. Corporations are the biggest and most efficient tax extractors the government has. The bigger the monopoly, the better and simpler for the state to regulate and tax. Corporations pay higher taxes, not from their earnings, but from their workers and customers. They are the biggest employers too and the biggest supporters of the state.
simply brilliant
The conclusion is brilliant.
he did this lecture series in the late 70s, probably 1978 or 1979
Government has actually lessened the wages of doctors through managed care. While about 44% of all dental care is paid out of pocket, only 10% of all physician costs is paid out of pocket. Implementing price ceilings associated with managed care have put downward pressure on physician vs. dentist wages. As a result, dentists now work fewer hours and make more money than the average physicians due to a backwards bending labor supply curve. Furthermore, you also see a shortage of doctors.
The AMA is an association of middle class businessmen not a uinon.
We think small, he think are big, that why he won a Nobel Economic price.
I've been watching his videos for a few years now, and it still hasn't all come together for me. My hunch is this worldview is closest to reality, yet it's easy for it to get lost in the chaos. Sometimes we are paralyzed by choice...I don't think Friedman fully thought about that idea. I'm not sure if our brains can handle 15 brands of toothpaste :-P we get misdirected and make less-than-idea choices on our own behalf, manipulated by the government and corporate marketing.
He is so fair and unbiased in all of his arguments.
Capitalism and democracy are flawed, but history has proven they are better than any other system humanity has tried.Those who oppose free market capitalism, can you name one system that is better at promoting individual freedom, social mobility and increase the GDP per capita of the entire nation?
With capitalism, people with money can tell you what to do, the deal is achieved through voluntary trade. With socialism, the state can point its finger and tell you what to do, is that somehow more moral? If it is the case, why there are so many Cubans risk their lives to come to the US and not the other way around?
Ray C There's no such thing as "free market capitalism". There never was. Every society in history had some mixture between capitalism and socialism.
there are a lot of assumptions tied to what you are saying. You use the word better, for example, which is subjective. You use qualities like "social mobility" "individual freedom" I like what the economist thomas sowell once said.. there is no such thing as better, there are only trade offs. When you make something better, you make something else worse.
I disagree with the notion that government, as being an instrument of imposing a standard or scenario on people is either justifiable or worth anything at all. For thousands of years many nations were ruled by tradition. What this means, is that people believed in what they were doing, they agreed with what they were doing together collectively.. actually, only recently has government become completely alien to the will of the collective spirit.
gespilk Your economic system is pure assumptions and speculation.
Oh I must disagree. Competition benefits humanity. It creates the greatest products for the lowest cost to people. Many great creations have come to people because of competition.
Actaually, one of the reasons why health spending is so high in the US is due to the "employer subsidy," which is a pre tax benefit for health insurance premiums, that individual purchasers do not have - this was actually put into federal law after WWII and doesn't have the relation to unions.
Not so sure I agree with Milton here, because he paints a very positive picture of an era when, while the economy as a whole was growing extremely fast, our workers paid dearly for that growth, ESPECIALLY our immigrants. The late 1800s was an era of horrendous abuse of immigrant laborers who worked on starvation wages in extremely dangerous conditions. If you didn't die in the workplace, you probably died of sheer lack of nutrition.
This is why we have immigration and labor protection laws.
I am a capitalist, a conservative libertarian, but you HAVE TO protect workers with some government programs and regulations. I think that we can cut 90% of the regulations we have, but we can't cut 100%. I also think unions are abusive, but I think we do need to give people the right to unionize without retaliation from the employer, but also the right to not unionize.
Milton wasn't against laws protecting people from being harmed by companies. Child labor laws for example. The laws that were created by the federal government were to protect workers from themselves. The 40 hour work week for example. Complete nonsense and unnecessary. Immigrants in 1900-1910 who came from Europe had no problem with corporations and neither do Mexicans who come here. They just want to eat.
Scott M there is no need for American citizens to be competing with foreigners for wage. foreigners only drive down wages and working conditions. that's an issue. we should never be expected to work at such low wages, and horrible conditions only because others are willing to do it.
You didn't understand what he said at all, did you? Government regulation will make workers WORSE off. It's an illusion that government can protect workers...they will protect them right out of a job, and create more unemployment and fewer available hours for current employees. Those immigrants voluntarily (or involuntarily, in the cases of famine) moved from their homelands to America...they would not have done so if they didn't feel there was a chance for greater opportunity.
You speak of the horrors of factories, and they were certainly not great, but we're talking about people who were choosing between a factory life (with at least the potential to move up the chain of command) and subsidence farming or worse: starvation. It's not a difficult choice, with context.
You're not a conservative libertarian if you think more government regulation will better protect workers...that's simply not the case and there's plenty of studies on such federal agencies like OSHA, which issue plenty of rules but hardly ever have the budget to enforce them (even if such a thing was possible, with the huge number of employers who must follow those regulations), leaving an ineffective bureaucracy, one of many in our government.
Fantastic lecture! I thought that Unions seeking privileges for their existing members by limiting access to new members was something happening just in Italy but now I know that the bastion of free markets -the USA- is too a competition-killing society.
Airline pilots have lost ground since this was made such that they can't afford hotel rooms between flights. Of course the incumbent bosses are the ones who are making out like bandits. Freedman fails to mention the success of the incumbent bosses organizations in getting tax breaks and government contracts. Billions handed over in two big to fail subsidies.
The AMA is a middle class businessmen's association. Not a union. it does NOT sign labor contracts.
In my place of employment, the Company doesn't hire enough workers. We are understaffed sorely. But, the answer is always for the Managers to tell us to work harder and faster. I have filed grievance several times, because, it is literally impossible to do the amount of work in the time requested. My Union fights to get help and increase the workforce. So, this idea that the Union can't fight for a wage increase as well as fight to increase the numbers is not correct.
Yes, but did they achieve both? Because if they did, then you should ask yourself, who footed the bill for it?
@@rogueartist2008 It shouldn't just be looked at for who footed the bill, but, the production increase from a fully staffed work place.
Plus, the unions forced most of the airlines into bankruptcy which has had the overall effect of salary reductions. Because if you can't make a profit you can't pay higher wages.
Airlines are subsidized by government. The bosses only want that which the can extract a profit from. Its hard to slash labor time in transportation so either subsidies or wage cuts are needed.
Listening to Milton Friedman speak on capitalism and the rights of workers is like listening to a Grand Dragon pontificate on how benevolent slavelords protected slaves from unemployment and godless abolitionists.
Here's an example of the government ruining something. The city of Chicago tore down good houses, built Cabrini Green, Robert Taylor houses, and the Ida Wells houses, and moved the poor in there. Those housing projects became a breeeding ground for crime. The people couldn't get mortgages to buy regular houses, so they had no choice but to move in there. But for the amount of money spent building/maintaining those monstrosities, they could've lent people money to buy homes.
You don't understand housing is a guaranteed profit center for real estate sharks it is not meant to provide housing. Profits for the bosses always come forst.
Bushes ownership society ended with the crisis of 2008.
Pausing video near the start, my answer "the worker protects the worker..."
+Christopher Banacka My thought too, but also, (before watching video) the employer protects the worker. Those are assets. No employer makes money by killing employees and customers. Well, except governments.
+SnapCracklePapa I disagree. Slave traders and plantation owners made a killing enslaving and murdering people. Hell, they still do- plenty of immigrants all over the world get entrapped by their employers, and are worked to death because their lives are, ultimately, disposable to their employers. It is more expensive to these people to pay above a dollar a day than it is to make it virtually impossible to escape, and work you until your spirit or your body break.
***** lol... Of course you disagree. In your fantasy world, the free market is made up of slave owners who murder their employees (that's a pretty bad business model, btw). I don't suppose you can show me one of these employers? I would think they'd have trouble finding slaves to employ, given their history of breaking spirits and bodies and all.
+SnapCracklePapa When people are starving, they are easily trapped and abused. In the UAE, many corporations got caught literally trapping Indian migrants in factories and construction sites. They stole their passports, and then forced them to pay a fee to GET the job. They then must spend the year paying back the fee, all the while unable to return home.
www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/abu-dhabi-migrant-workers-conditions-shame-west
It's not a fantasy world. It's just half a world away. In Bangladesh, the minimum wage is 24 cents an hour, and their government found most corporations there refused to pay it. In Bangladesh, factory deaths are routine, even leaving aside factory collapses. THAT's reality. qz.com/389741/the-thing-that-makes-bangladeshs-garment-industry-such-a-huge-success-also-makes-it-deadly/ They have also high rates of homelessness, poverty, and child death, largely because of a unregulated, corrupt state adminstrating their country. This is what a "laissez faire" market really looks like.
+SnapCracklePapa Bonus: since 1997, the US Justice department has prosecuted seven multi-claimant cases of slavery in Tomato farms in Florida alone. www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-turow/you-need-to-know-the-slavery-conditions-on-tomato-farms_b_6735842.html
Friedman is half right. The market rewards smart people. But it doesn't automatically punish or disincentivize evil people, nor does it prevent people from behaving illogically. Economists are the most dismal scientists, because sometimes they forget science works the best with the fewest assumptions. Why assume markets self correct, when from the period he describes of the 18th to 19th century we experienced depressions and large recessions roughly every twenty years, but between 1945 and 2008 we experienced an era of relative calm, despite the fact that apparently the small government era was one to envy? Why *assume* some invisible hand will swoop in and make it all okay, *for* you? That sounds like a handout by some other name.
I find it refreshing that someone talks clearly and accurately about governments role. I liken it to a referee & field in sports, players require a field to play on and referees to enforce the rules & hand penalties when broken. The best sporting games I have ever watched or played in, was the games you forgot the referees where there (good sportsmanship by player). And the worst games where when the refs made bad or inconsistent calls. About the only thing rival team fans can agree on is that refs are "bought off" or is "fixing" games.
What a brilliant analogy!
In the case of capitalism yes its always a fixed game that the bosses play. The bring vast industrial armies on to the playing field where the winner is the general who can issue the most discharges.
Things have only gotten worse since this was recorded.
Investing is actually hard work. It requires a lot of knowledge of the workings of the market, and it involves a lot of stress and psychological pressure due to the high risks involved. A lot of investments result in losses. And besides, investors perform an extremely important role in an economy. Without them there would be no new capital to make the system work.
We all know the story of the suffering Bill Gates.
8:40 Girls be like "I'm impressed but I wanna see more"
A Karen in the background rolling eyes
So well stated and well developed. Such a great mind.
Man!Girls in 70's were so hot!!!!
Yes, more modest and feminine.
Oh, God.
Yeah but they didn't shave their Bush.
Im the 26 year old brother of the kid in those videos. I dont really make videos, I mostly use this account for watching these types of videos. I also set up our account somewhat in my favor
Downvotes are from the union bosses
Union membership peaked at a high of 36% in the USA around the mid 50s, then dropped ever since. Compare this to the heavily unionized European nations that had slower wage increases than American workers in comparison. The US workers also got the weekend before EU workers. Wage increases occur with an increase in productivity. Higher productivity = higher wages. Labor unions have done nothing but drained the wealth of society for their own benefit, and have retarded overall growth.
Thank you @BasicEconomics
Wonderful lecture by Dr. Friedman. The best worker protections are found in freedom and employer-competition. I can agree with that. However, there are many cases wherein government constrains competition and some of these cases are for geopolitical reasons. Often, in the form of subsidies/tax-cuts for companies like Boeing and Qualcomm. These are difficult matters to reconcile given the importance of military and foreign intelligence.
@Jack McCabe Where are you going with this?
@@ColeLPeltier Capitalist profits always come first and this is why 28 people own as much wealth as the bottom 50 %.
It is not an "alleged source," it is a source. The study was done by Centers for Disease Control, and confirmed in the peer-reviewed publishing by the American Journal of Public Health.
29:55 A powerful point!
No, actually I am talking about the high wages of pilots like I would for every other profession that pays a wage. The wages of the pilots are at the point of equilibrium for what the market is willing to pay. The reason they are lower now is because airlines could not find a way to profitably operate at wages of $300,000 in today's market. Thus, they were forced down due to the rise in other overhead costs. And if pilots were not willing to work for less then they wouldn't be flying.
To be fair, the world that he is describing is gone. At the time of this speech, it was true (I believe) that 80% of Corp profits went to workers. Today that is not so. It’s less than 65%. That changes things a bit.
Contra Mr. Friedman at 32:20... The minimum wage in the USA is $0.00. They're called (unpaid) internships, and they cheapen the price of labor in each industry with interns. They impact the overall work of the workforce and receive no financial compensation. So, that means that the minimum wage is zero. Mr. Friedman does not address the desire of humans to work, regardless of what their pay is. Some think it is helpful volunteer work and don't realize that the average cost of labor goes down with each (post-training period) hour that the intern works.
Maybe you missed this fact, but I was pointing out that Henry Ford gave his workers all these things 30 years before the UAW formed. I never said he was the first, just that because he did and the nature of the competitive market that is what made it popular.
Hitler also admired him. Old Henry hired boxer Harry Bennett to enforce his no talking policy. They were leaving the assembly lines faster then he could replace them until the "smart" Henry raised wages. He also published "The International Jew" a NAZI favorite.
I love hearing Milton talk. Even though I disagree with him a lot of the time. He has, at times, great clarity of thought and was a really good speaker. Funnily though, neither of his three examples sprang to my mind at the beginning. He's right that all three do protect you when it is in their interest to do so... But I'd maintain workers protect workers in a business environment that is run democratically with the minimum authoritarianism. In those you get the best desire to work amongst workforce, which usually corresponds into better profit, which, as Milton would point out, is your best form of protection. You can't be protected against everything this way. Things like sabotage, blackmail, sexual indecency are always going to be nasty obstacles whatever system you have in place. But generally speaking, the less authority you have, from Government or bosses, the better workers look after each other.
Increasing the number of workers also helps the Union greatly by increasing it's strength.
I would ask to what end? If every person in a particular profession unionized and formed an effective monoply of labor for that good or service, such a monoply would immediately translate into a monoply on the price of that good or service. To that end, the price being imposed would be absorbed by society at large. Such a monoply is no better than if the employer had the effective monoply, and creates the same problems, hence the advent of anti trust laws. But if such laws did not exist, the union would still have to adjust their prices to a level where they could maximize their profit. After adjusting the price of that good or service they are then left with 2 options. They would have to either adjust their own pay to equally distribute their profit, or sacrifice some of the members of that union to such a point where the remaining members are satisfied with the pay they receive from the goods or services they provide. If the latter is chosen the monoply is broken and the free market will prevail, if the former occurs then the monoply becomes moot as they will probably be no better off if they had never unionized at all. Could the union improve work conditions, certainly. But it would do so at the price of profitablity, and in turn, their own pay.
And I am not saying regional airlines do not go bankrupt, but they never paid the high wages that would contribute to the average salary declining over the decades, only major airlines who had the higher wages which pulled the average salary up in the 1970s could have an effect on the slow decline over the years. Logically, you should know if the top-end salaries go from 300,000 to 181,000, then the average will fall even if regional airlines keep steady wages.
I see a lot of people on RUclips telling others entering the work force to go into a union apprenticeship program for a skilled trade like plumber, electrician, etc. Back in the 80’s, you needed to know somebody important or bribe somebody to get hired for an entry-level union job. Those jobs are not easy to get.
With a minimum wage the Government becomes a UNION and it by its nature raised prices overall which lowers the dollar the workers get and as he says (I have owned five businesses) I will not hire any more workers than I CAN AFFORD TO STAY IN BUSINESS and make a living for myself. Big misconception, that owners of small businesses must all be RICH. A good businessman will be comfortable, but will not take any more out of his business than he can under consideration of keeping good, honest, hardworking employees. Then the owner has to figure all his overhead and cost of product replacement. Then the Government comes in and takes another hunk from the owner and employees for Government (the Gov. being a UNION) for all the Social Programs like Social Security, unemployment and any other offering of the Government now THE DEMAND for people to buy from the Government Health Insurance.
Blah Blah Blah The bosses want to control everything the price of groceries, the wages and the money supply. You collect the taxes for the government at the grocery store and at the workplace. You buy the politicians who write the laws and then you claim to be making an honest profit and how wages and taxes are making you go broke. Record profits on Wall st show what a load of BS that is.
I know lots of people who aren't greedy.
A true giant.
The Austrians do not deny that if a stock market crashes, then there will be economic turmoil. However, Austrians also provide consistent evidence that shows without Government intervention, the market can re-correct itself, and subsequently with Government intervention, they are not allowing the malinvestments to liquidate, and it only prolongs the problem, and makes it worst in the long term. Ex: Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian's "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great depression."
They've been talking that BS ever since the bosses went to war because of the quest to take each others for colonies and resources produced world war one. What better way to solve a crisis than to go to war and destroy the free market competition..
Correlation of ethics and income: when you earn enough to not worry about earning you're less prone to corruption, avoiding a medical system treating the rich better than the poor. -> treating the patient and not his money.
I'm curious if Milton Friedman ever talked about the events of Blair Mountain?
What's that?
@@edam1486 the massive abuses by coal and iron mining companies in their company towns lead to the largest armed insurrection in the USA since 1861.
ruclips.net/video/1rzFyBdKLvU/видео.html
That which protects the worker is their population
the property he alluded to was due to Imperial colonialism. The same reason that made Britain and the rest of the European powers rich. Once settler colonialism reached a point of no more gains, incomes deteriorated. The solution was Neo-Liberalism, which Mr Freidman championed and we, in the 3rd decade of the 21st century, witness its consequence.
One of the first initiatives instituted by Gen. MacArthur in the re-building of Japanese society and industrial reconstruction, was the unionisation of workers. Why? because he understood that the best tool for promoting democracy, economic growth and preventing large scale business corruption and control. Initially, this system was effective, but due to American businesses attempting to gain a strong foot hold in the supply of goods and services to the Japanese people, quickly corrupted the national and local Government officials.
MacArthur was busy fighting communism not promoting unions,
Here because covid took me down the journey of liberal to conservative.
Although, as Friedman indicates in other talks, he's a 'classical' Liberal (absolute freedom provided one doesn't encroach upon others freedoms). have you read
John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”? he was an 'original meaning' Liberal, too. we should return to the founding principles of Western Enlightenment Societies, & bloody soon!
"Economic knowledge necessarily leads to liberalism."
- Ludwig von Mises
The demand protected the worker. What happens when there isn’t a demand or it’s weak?
Great mind he had.
Alright man, say what you want. This isnt really going anywhere and neither of us have much more to argue about, so Im taking off
Stay safe
The power behind labor is held within the people who actually do work, investing money and time into a company in comparison to working with your hands all day every day is nothing. You know your system is heavily flawed, that is why you tell me I "dont understand it". Thousands all across the world are forced into labor for the rest of their lives, and most are killed in the line of work, you tell me that is "an accident"? No, it is completely on purpose.
"80% go in wages, 14% in rent or dividends, 6% in profits : thus is is no possible to increase wages".
There are not 3 classes: wage workers, owners, capitalists. Capitalists are often owners (receiving dividends and rent) and often also receive wages !
Amongst those 80%, there is a huge inequality (in average, 200x between CEO and workers). Better equality (e.g. Japan, 20x) is possible, leading to an increase in productivity (by paying better).
Japan can't repopulate itself. The same would no be true in the US and Canada were it not for immigration.
The American Medical Association as a union, interesting. I wonder what they do to influence health care policy in the United Staes of America.
Its a middle class businessman's association like many other business association.
46:10 the answer
Yes, if the value of the worker's productivity grows due to better tools and support technologies, such as computers. How much do you think is the value of a worker's work if he simply moves boxes by hand as opposed to via a forklift? Much less.
As the use of machines increases the production time of living labor falls. Yet the source of the profit is the living labor and therefore the rate of profit must also fall.
This man is a genius
A pinochet supporting genius. 😂😆
Freedom of slavery is actually a thing, and friedman won't mind free flesh trade if it propped his numbers
Anyone who can combine a bunch of fools that the AMA is a union must have something going for him.
This guy should be the president of the AFL-CIO.
Friedman is another idiot for capitalism. Listening to him and the two parties politicians is why the AFL-CIO leadership refused to lead any fights for the last 50 years.