Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Milton Friedman Versus A Socialist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 ноя 2010
- For more videos:
Facebook: FreeToChooseNetwork
Media Website: freetochoosemedia.org/index.php
Twitter: / freetochoosenet
Company: freetochoosenetwork.org
Shop: www.freetochoose.net
Stream: freetochoose.tv
I wish debates today were like this, no interrupting, no name-calling, no yelling, just a civil discussion
absolutely correct mate i'm old enough to remember when it was like this
Joe, Joe listen
excellent comment. :)
thats not happening cause government is too big
Me too but dream on!! 40 years ago even a heated discussion between a liberal and conservative would usually end in “agreeing to disagree”. But nowadays when the conservative counters the leftist with fact after fact after fact then the Lefty, having nothing else to say, immediately starts name-calling and screaming.
Man, they could talk so eloquently. What happened?
Rap and the internet.
Boo Berry No, that's not it...
Lowered standards by the bleeding hearts? What is it then?
*****
I... I didn't even remotely comment on modern day intellectuals.
*Postmodernists* took over western universities and, in doing so, leftist movements like progressivism, feminism, and social justice. The hallmark of postmodernism is the *rejection of objective truth*; that is, they believe there is no objective truth, just individual interpretations. As a result, all of these leftist movements have abandoned objectivity and rational thought, and rely mostly on *emotion* and *subjective narrative building*.
That's why we see rampant demagoguery today, rather than the eloquent discussion seen in this video.
Other side-effects of rejecting objective truth:
1) *It allows them to redefine words* such as *sexism* and *racism* to include a 'power' dynamic so it can only apply to their scapegoat class (i.e., straight white cis-gendered males). For example, they believe 'only men can be sexist because sexism is prejudice + power, and men are the dominant gender'.
2) *Journalists are increasingly abandoning journalistic objectivity*. Well, what is a journalist with no objectivity and who relies mostly on building a narrative that suits their value system? A *propagandist*.
"American labor history has been the most violent, bloody struggle anywhere in the world"
Literally every communist revolutionary state: am I a joke to you?
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. - Ecclesiastes 10:2
The first paragraph of their Commie Manifesto is an incitement to violence.
Yeah, I winced when he said that.
the most violent, bloody CLASS struggle anywhere in the world.
@@ColorMatching that still doesn't make his statement accurate.
@@scottshanahan3827 why not?
Milton Friedman had a way of putting people in their place and completely destroying their arguments without sounding arrogant, demeaning, or partisan that I've never seen anyone else able to accomplish as well.
Thomas Sowell is a close second.
***** Friedman lost this debate. He may have attacked Harrington, but he never made a salient point regarding the actual factors that have influenced American quality of life. Harrington was on point. Friedman was just pumping empty rhetoric. Watch it again. And actually think.
+Daniel Lovell I disagree. His arguments basically showed that Harrington's complaints against capitalism were really complaints against government/corporate collusion. If you want to talk about rhetoric, Harrington's comments on Medicare ("if you oppose Medicare old people will die ") was the only case I saw.
Daniel Lovell Were we listening to the same video? I have a feeling you have socialist leanings.
Harrington analyzes the policies and actions that most improved the lives of the majority of Americans. Friedman's only responses were, "I think, I believe, etc, etc." WHO CARES what "you think" or "you believe"? That's not how one analyzes history.
Friedman isn't even addressing the issue being debated. He's out of his league.
You will always lose an economic argument when your opinion is based on emotion
Yes Friedaman lost and those who relied on the bosses promise of a private pension did "get a raw deal indeed."
@@kimobrien. The irony of your pfp and your reply is astounding.
@@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272 Nothing Ironic about it Putin carried out the final Stalinist betrayal waving the flag of the CZAR the counter revolutionary whites and blaming Lenin for Ukrainian independence. Friedman advised Gorbachev on how to bring back capitalism and created an economic crisis in the process which is what capitalism always produces. Those who rely on the promises of capitalism producing wealth for anyone but an ever smaller ruling class are sadly mistaken.
that's why the quality of political debate has detoriated so much since then, that's the only way leftist rhetoric can survive.
He's against crony-capitalism.
+Gary Maccagnone I get so angry when liberals think capitalism and crony-capitalism is the same thing.
David Ryan Exactly. Conservatives like capitalism. Leftists invented crony capitalism.
The leftist media conflates the two.
+Gary Maccagnone At first glance of your profile pic I thought I was looking at Breitbart.
Tommy Dee And I see Soros in yours.
+Gary Maccagnone How so? Because it's blue or boring?
"It's come from (not the best people), the working class, the blacks, the hispanics". Here's your democratic allumni.
...and illegal third world immigrants living off welfare.
*****
I said Democratic as in the party.
Why do the US keep saying they are spreading Democracy through means of regime change? Wouldn't that be like the Queen advocating Dictatorships?
*****
it sure is
***** fukk yea!!
Its not their country and never will be. If you want to make an impact help fix the Mexican government instead of looking to White-Anglo countries for free handouts aka "welfare".
Friedman as right when stating that big government leads to big big government in bed with big business, which is what we have today-crony capitalism. He is also right in predicting how Medicare has become such a huge unaffordable mess.
Socializing healthcare has worked for all other industrialized countries including some industrially marginal countries. In none of those countries would people give up a system which they have agreed to create and pay for with their tax dollars.
kennegun
Until they run out of other people's money. Like the nordic countries are right now, and are incrementally removing aspects of their welfare state, including nationalized health insurance. Or, like Greece or Italy or Venezuela, who did run out of other people's money and are now basically without health insurance.
Yeah, like the Congressional military industrial complex, for example.
@@mrholdbutton971 uh no actually
@@lakshyakumar3629 Go on?
I think we've lost this in America, people of vastly different view points sitting down to have a discussion, people today have resorted to name calling and simply repeating what they hear.
This is fact.....Very few people nowadays could sit still and listen let alone articulate their ideas without talking over someone.
This isnt vastly different viewpoints. Its a man with all the facts and proper research slapping down some man child who should be a panhandling hobo for all the good his education did him.
It's the only way the left can win, avoiding debates
Bunnies Kitties people like you are the exact reason why we can’t have proper discussions. Think about what you’re saying...
The very fact that socialism exists and is taken seriously as an opposing viewpoint in America is disconcerting.
Milton Friedman pulled out his crystal ball on that one, nailed it right on the head.
Great laugh.
Laissez-Faire capitalism: works until the winners of free market competition establish state capitalism.
Bannana Joe the bailouts were not examples of free market capitalism. Right-Libertarians don’t advocate for bailouts.
Bailouts are a perfect example of what free market capitalism leads to, though. You can't just expect that free market competition remains intense for eternity without any winners.
TheFinnishSocialist You seem to have a basic misunderstanding as to what a bailout is; It’s quite literally the opposite of capitalism. Under a free market system businesses are allowed to fail and give way to new businesses in their place, however, a bailout artificially maintains a failing business. capitalism never claimed to maintain businesses that make poor financial decisions.
If only Friedman knew how right he would turn out to be.
+B Steele I think he did know... he seemed - always seems - very confident in his presentations. I miss this guy!
Friedman has often said that he, and anyone, in anything, needs a group of confederates to affirm his views. He was certainly confident, as he was right, but was never a true, legitimate, standalone Maverick. This is not a drawback of his, however, as when you are in circles of academia, the need for affirmation of a following/group of people who agree, comes with the territory. The same can be said for the most mundane - neocons and their mainstream media coercion - to the most radical lassiez-faire breed of capitalists - Ayn Rand, for example, who had an almost cult-like following.
He knew. He surely knew.
Thomas Sowell can do it too.
B Steele...... especially Friedman's last comment on this video.....he nailed it.
Prosperity isn't free. We have to work for prosperity. Government cant do it through magic. We must pay a price to create it.
Josh M Would you say therefore that a miner, labourer, factory worker, nurse etc. doesn't work as hard as, say, an investment banker, or stockbroker? Why do the later deserve to prosper, on the whole, so much more than the former? In addition, a shareholder in a company can earn hundreds of thousands a year just by putting some of their wealth (whether they have earned, or inherited it) into a business. Are they prospering from hard work? Landlords earn profit from ownership of property. Many of them can charge rip off rents for low standard accommodation. They are not working for their profits. The fundamentals of socialism, in my opinion, is ownership of the mens of production, distribution and exchange. Allowing people to have a say in how their business, financial services and public services are run, is the beginnings of a fairer society.
dogsanthem But in that case it is not you or I that get to determine the definition of "fair". It is politicians that decide what the word means.
No, it would move power away from the state and into the hands of ordinary people.
dogsanthem Socialism believes in more power for the State.
dogsanthem you said "ordinary people" Why did you use the term "ordinary"?
"When you have more government the industrialists take it over". That verbal gold is exactly the kind of wisdom that convinced me to become more of a centrist and less of an ideologue
You're more of a centrist because of libertarian ideas like this? Why would centrists want less government? And are you saying centrists aren't idealogues?
@@lights473 lets just call these ideas what they are, stupid. True libertarianism is anarchocommunism and murray rothbard even admitted that in the betrayal of the american right when he said the term was stolen from the left.
@@lights473 maybe he was a total communist before and he then noticed how his 'revolution' would only cause the rich being a fringe minority of _meta-capitalists_ taking away every autonomy from the poor people -who would in turn be the astonishing majority of the population- using the state (coercive force of violence). Just what happened in Russia, China, Korea…
@@gabrielflaubert5881 Fidel Castro showed you don't need to do what Stalin did to make a socialist revolution and put the working people in power.
That quote is so true today in 2023!
Such plain spoken non-confrontational facts- Thank you Milton!
Such a corporate Shill.
Government use of the central bank is what keeps the capitalist system of exploitation going.
its too bad we dont have a milton friedman running for the republican ticket
You had Ron Paul but no one voted for him you had rand Paul but no one voted for him either seems libertarianism isn't that popular
lee brondum its not popular because people dont like the message of NO FREE LUNCH
+AroundSun
You still have Ted Cruz. I found that his economic policies are very much in line with Ron and Rand Paul.
BIG BOSS perhaps a similar message, but he is bought and works for the system he will be paid to keep together. hes no ron paul...
AroundSun
Bought and works for the system? I am not sure where you got that impression, but Cruz is widely known to be an anti-establishment Republican. His voting record is evidence that he has consistently shunned corporate interest and lobbyists and instead acted in the interests of the American people who voted for him.
He has often excoriated his fellow Republicans for shirking their responsibilities to the people who elected them and instead acting in their own self interest.
If you have about 90 min. to spare in the future, I invite you to grab a cup of coffee and watch one such example of him giving his fellow Republicans an earful. The video is on C-SPAN titled: *Senate Session, Part 2 The Senate resumed consideration of a two-year, $80 billion budget deal that also raises the debt ceiling.* It may change your views of Cruz somewhat.
Milton Friedman was truly one of the wisest men.
a wise guy indeed
@@paulstanitz2723 Those who relied on the bosses promises of a private penson and healthcare did "get a raw deal indeed."
Wise Man in the Greed Way! 😂😂😂
How I expect a Rand Paul vs Bernie Sanders debate will go
+Shasta Oh, if it ever got that far I would have loved to see that debate.
You mean the 30 second snip out of a full 60 minutes you watch on Fox News? Oh wait, your boy Rand came in 5th place in Iowa, never one a state primary election or caucus and that debate never happened.
Now Rand just chortles Trump's balls to save his seat at the trough.
wRONg Paul? Ha
@@YTPartyTonight Did Bernie win? Lmao. Imagine being hostile for no reason. I thought the left was tolerant man.
@@thomascapitalmgt Rand Paul sucks up to war profiteers and corporate bailouts.
I remember reading one of Harrington's books. "The Other America" does a good job of describing poor people, but at the end of the book he demands that the federal government do something about it rather than local communities. It was utter nonsense.
***** Thank you. I used to foolishly believe that evolution was scientific and factual. Now I am much wiser. If you get rid of the foolish notion of anarcho-syndicalism, maybe you could one day be as intelligent as I am.
***** I thought evolutionists hated anything that was "intelligently designed". Is it intelligent to embrace a philosophy that hates intelligence?
Saying anarcho-syndicalism is better than the system we have now is foolish. First of all, democracies are terrible forms of government. It is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Do advocate the oppression of the minority?
You can have anarcho-syndicalistic societies inside anarcho-capitalistic societies, but not the other way around. If you love anarcho-syndicalism, advocate for anarcho-capitalism. If and when anarcho-capitalism is embraced by society, no one will care if you decide to start an anarcho-syndicalistic association as long as you don't force it on to others.
***** Anarcho-capitalists would be happy to let you have your anarcho-syndicalism, but you refuse to give them the same courtesy.
If you advocate democracy, you are advocating the oppression of the minority. It's that simple. Do you want to be forced to accept something simply because the majority said it should be accepted? The majority is often wrong.
How do supermarkets know what to put on the shelves? The supermarkets then stock what they think will sell. Each person decides what he wants to buy for himself. My decision to buy potatoes does not interfere with your decision to buy carrots. However, if we had to vote for either carrots or potatoes, the best you could hope for is to cast your vote for carrots and pray that the majority votes for carrots. Is that a good way to live your life?
*****
Capitalists are perfectly willing to let you have your anarcho-syndicalism and you then say they are oppressive? Syndicalists want to force syndicalism on everyone and you don't see this as oppressive. What color is the sky in your universe?
A free market is like the supermarket. The supermarket has a wide variety of foods because it caters to a wide variety of people and their choices. If no one buys apples, then the supermarket won't stock them. If everyone loves apples, the supermarket will try to stock as many as possible. That is what anarcho-capitalism is all about.
@@formerevolutionist What "scientific" minds convinced you that evolution is unscientific?
🤣🤣🤣 "FDR was the salvation of that class" dude said that with a straight face.
This man should have been President.
+Anon ymous Friedman had said that he didn't want to go into politics... Which is exactly why he should have.
Why not Bernie? What, do you not want to revive the Soviet Union? Remember the fun camps people got to work in? Always employed? No one to disagree with you or your government?
+❤ OIivia WiIde ❤ Because I want someone that actually believes in the Constitution of our Country, not someone that wants to undermine it. Last time I checked Friedman was a libertarian.
Anon ymous That's silly. The Soviet Union in America would grant everything you need. Have a problem with your neighbor? Report them for conspiring against the State! Problem solved. You have to be kidding me.
Anon ymous what is wrong with you idiots praising a man who's ideas have failed everywhere its been practiced?! all throughout Central and south america and Africa too
The last bit about social security was like he'd looked into a crystal ball and seen the future.
After the crisis of 2008 the Private pension plans, the 401k, the IRA and other pension schemes became as worthless as the junk bonds the federal reserve bought up. The bosses government could not claim bankruptcy. Social Security is wage insurance. While money put into private investment schemes can disappear as soon as one or more companies go bankrupt or stock value plummets. .
The real failure was all the private pension plans with the crisis of 2008.
Oh my god, Milton turned out to be so bang on, “when you have more government industrialists take it over”.
What is truly amazing about this video clip is just how mundane it is for Freedman. One could refer to just about any clip of Freedman speaking on such matters and it is equally brilliant. If you dont see the genius at the moment of viewing any video of Milton Freedman - just ponder on it for a while and it should hit you. If you dont see the brilliance of Freedman in every speech or retort = it is because your not looking properly because it is in there. Freedman is a genius of the highest magnitude.
+FiT PT it's FRIEDMAN
+FiT PT Friedman is a guy who took his own thoughts seriously and was also wiling learn from others mistakes as well as altering his initial beliefs which he found were inaccurate.
One thing I love about Friedman was his willingness to agree in principle with others that opposed his views. His disagreement was with how to achieve the same goal. Take equality for instance, some believe the Government needs to regulate this and that to make everything equal. Friedman believes in equality as well, he just sees the free market as the best way to approach that goal and sees all sorts of horrible problems that can exist with a Government regulated society. Truly a brilliant man Friedman was.
No Friedman was just exceptional when it came to explaining his abstract thought. He was able to remove all the irrelevant details of an argument and distill it down to its principle point. People always use word gymnastics and fallacies but when faced with the searing light of Friedman's abstract white canvas with basic shapes and arrows pointing to the right argument, they could not deny his logic.
FiT PT socialists get value wrong too,its desire not labour that makes a thing valuable,when was the last time we went to a shop and bought a thing because it was laborious to create it.
My reaction when looking up the definition of the word demagoguery: "YES!! There is a word for this kind of bullshit!"
+Benedictine Monk he's not saying he was wrong, he's just applauding Milton's verbiage.
Milton said is perfectly, every situation where there is less competition or the government has favored a business, it is always worse for the consumer, and employee.
Milton Friedman is a genius. I really admire him.
Rothbard>Friedman
@@MitchellfcNa32 Freedman did nothing but basically make claims that the capitalist don't know how to run their government in the interest of small business instead of the giant industries.
Wow, look at them having a respectful conversation, listening to one another, disagreeing respectfully, and dare I say, they might even be learning from one another.
3:22 - Oh My God. The absolute Gospel truth. The man was a prophet - who do you immediately think of when he mentions this unholy alignment of business and government? Goldman Sachs, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc.
My God, this man is a genius.
31T3 1337 N008 I miss him. We need someone like him.
Fight "Berniemania" with videos like these.
+Julian Dale I think Milton Friedman would agree with the major things Bernie's campaign is running on. I acknowledge that they would disagree on many other things that are less central to Bernie's campaign. I'm a huge Milton Friedman fan and Bernie Sanders supporter. I hope Bernie wins the presidency, dismantles the oligarchy, and then fails to implement most of his socialist-leaning proposals. I think all 3 of those things have a pretty high likelihood of happening.
+Julian Dale Bernie is a democratic socialist, not a full blown socialist. There's a difference.
+ranger123789 That is the most ridiculous dodge in the world. Why would he use the word "socialist" if he weren't a socialist? Do we have, then, "Democratic Racists"? That's not a full blown racist. There's a difference.
+ranger123789 ....BOTH Michael Harrington and Bernie are democratic socialists.
+Julian Dale or simply: socialists. I've seen Bernie's explanation of the difference between full blown socialisim and Democratic Socialism and...there is none.
I LOVE Bernie Sanders. I'd have loved to see him and Milton go at it though. Would have been epic.
+MrHav1k You democrats seem to have this defect that you apply emotions to your political leaders. You "love Bernie Sanders" really, have you ever even met him? Instead of love or hate or any other emotion why don't you try looking at their records, facts not emotions should rule your political decisions. Love your neighbor, not your politicians.
+MrHav1k I want to see this whole episode because people's bias and editing is clearly what makes them think that Friedman owned him. His response about medicare wasn't even a full thought.
Michael Harrington is a brilliant thinker. Watch William F. Buckley interview him on firing line. You can watch it on Amazon Prime for free. Part of that interview is available on youtube, too.
+Fedeleness
_"Love your neighbor, not your politicians."_
>Words to live by.
the room is filled with such greatness, yet so much humility !
Socialism in my country is when people with 10.000$ monthly paychecks (directly from taxpayers) tell those on minimum wages ($700) that those with (average) $1500 monthly paychecks are to blame. In capitalism everyone can succeed and have ambitions. Ambitions make progress.
I am not sure what country you are referring to.
But in the UK people who are in the high income bracket pay 50% of their salary in taxes. That means a person who works 40 hours per week in this instance is only getting paid for 20 hours per week.
All while there are people who only work 10 hours per week and get welfare to bring their hours up. This is the very definition of socialism and it is a disgrace.
denialcrayfish
A person in the UK who is deemed not to be fully employed can claim benefits. For example a person who works 2 hours per week can claim.
Or a person who only does seasonal work say for a few weeks at a time which amounts to the same thing.
And on top of this there are people actively having children while they are on welfare which is disgusting act.
Funny thing is that rich people have much less children than the poor. In my country people get their first job they can and they instantly start making children, so they get more benefits. They don't have goals in their careers. Rich people on other hand take care of their careers first and then have a child or 2.
denialcrayfish
"So what should we do, sterilize people who are on benefits?"
No I would sterilize the welfare system in other word cut 99% of welfare. The only people who should be on welfare should be those that simple are incapacitated through health or those that are disabled but have no family to take care of them. .
Everybody else should be working if they want to have a family. No money guess what no family.
Are you seriously suggesting that people should be given benefits to go and start a family with. Because if you are saying this then that is just a fraction above pure socialism.
denialcrayfish Excuse my English, but here is a typical example of my country. Absolute average paycheck in my country is somewhere around 700€. Usual benefit for unemployed is 250€, but much more if you have children or you don't have apartment. Of course that's not enough to live like a king, but here's a typical example:
Someone immigrates to my country, works for less than minimum wage - 500€ per month. Once he gets our national passport, his wife with 3 children can follow him here and get the citizenship. So they are a family of 5 with 1 more kid coming to their way. They can't live on streets, so country gives them a social apartment without a rent. Father still works for 500€, but with so many children, whole family gets about 2000€ more money every month + a free apartment. Other people that don't exploit the social system, work their ass off for 1000€ per month and they need to pay off that 100k€ worth apartment for 30 years. Couple of years ago family of gypsies received a complete house on premium location (worth 400k€) completely free of charge. No one of them has ever worked, and they never had intentions to do so.
So they got a new 400k€ house, their neighbor's properties lost 30% of value because no one likes to have gypsies for neighbors. However, gypsies didn't like to live in that house any more after a year, so they sold it for 400k€ and went living in the forest like they used to. But now they have 400k€ in the bank, more than 99.9% of ordinary families. They live in a wooden house worth 200€ and drive a 100k€ worth Mercedes. Typical gypsy lifestyle in my country.
I know for at least 100 more examples that exploit the social system and I can imagine there are much more of them. Believe me, I worked for a minimum wage at my first job. Instead of bitching about the system and waiting for country to give me something I don't deserve, I rather
I had 5 co-workers, 3 of them told me they are making kids so their wives can stay at home (still getting full paychecks) and they all get more benefits. Now I make multiple times more than I have at that company, but sincerely, I don't feel that I have enough money to have even one son or a daughter, much less 5 of them. I don't like to work, I'd rather sit on my couch 24/7 and watch TV. I'd make 10 children, let them live like Palestinian refugees, I'd sold my apartment and ask for a free social apartment. But I'm not a dick like these exploiters are.
If UK system doesn't offer as many benefits, ask Anjem Choudary how the hell can he own several houses without moving a finger in his life. On the other hand your war veterans are starving while these kind of exploiters have everything.
This guy keeps making Milton's arguments for him. How does pointing out how the government has negatively interfered in the economy and the tendency of industry and government to form coalitions somehow support the idea of giving government more power? Did I miss a step in this logical sequence?
Government is a complex multi-facuted entity consisting of interlocking agenices and departments. Some aspects of the government are good and others are bad, the govvernment can do good things and it can do bad things. You can support government when it's good and condemn it when it's bad.
@@nocucksinkekistan7321 We need to take government away from the capitalist bosses.
@@nocucksinkekistan7321 I am struggling to think what govts do well tbh
@@James_36 Roads, police, military
@@nocucksinkekistan7321 2 of those are a joke surely
Hearing what Milton Freedman said is like visualizing an upcoming train wreck.
Great video. I love the way these men debate in a gentlemanly way. We have lost this
Its impressive how he could see so many years down the road that the young men and women on Medicare would not be better off. Truly a brilliant man who should be heard today.
Yep I watched this interview with him ruclips.net/video/UlNxIc9gUMc/видео.html he's spot on with a lot of his predictions.
@@Roescoe Ya well if you don't have medicare when your elderly you can forget about any healthcare whatsoever. Social Security and medicare are here for the working class. Boss promises of pensions and healthcare aren't worth the paper they were written on.
@@kimobrien. "Social Security and medicare are here for the working class" lol they never were. They were here for entitled selfish boomers only.
Demagoguery is the new word I learned today. Thanks Milton
It's weird how these guys are able to disagree but still able engage each other politely...
one of the most civil debates I've ever seen, I doubt we'd see something like that nowadays
"Common Sense?!"...not so "common" any more. This is refreshing!
"They are going to get a very raw deal indeed!" -2014 economic collapse/ww3
What a great and enlightening conversation!
"american labor history has been the bloodiest class struggle in the world"... dude have you even heard of a gulag?
Can we vote someone President posthumously?
They actually agreed on a lot of things. I don't think this is a versus scenario. It was an interesting discussion.
Of course because Harrington was still confused over the class nature of the Soviet Union.
I got chills listening to Milton here. What a hero.
The ironic thing about arguing for medicare is you are taking money from younger people, therefore reducing their chance to pay for their medicine.
+Ben G
So the ironic thing about paying for compulsory third-party car insurance is you are taking money away from poor motorists, therefore reducing their chance to pay costs for their at-fault accident.
No, because they are paying for their own insurance, not rich old people's.
FDR was "saving the system from itself" ( Harrison at 2.30 ) How crazy is that statement - someone already within an economy saving that same economy from itself. That just is a throw away cliche line. You can't save something from itself if you are part of that self since your saving may be the cause of the problem.
Hoover's and then FDR's policies were part of the problem with the protectionist policies, high taxes, restrictions, gold buying mania and confiscation of people's wealth (including gold) which reduced people's ability to invest. This resulted in a downturn in economic efficiency and starved the nation of investment when a lack of investment was a real problem. The actual unemployment and low investment statistics support this view.
+Rob Mews FDR restored trust in the capitalist system. People were quite ready to do away with it at that Point. Its only thanks to new deal policies that people would comply. Now when the new deal policies have been gutted people are back to looking for alternatives.
+daveruda How did he do that? Didn't he confiscate people's savings (their gold). Yes, he confiscated the gold that people had worked for and didn't bank for fear of inflation that had wiped away it's value and later offered it in return for a price increase of around 180%. Additionally those people who had saved other money in banks were unable to access or simply lost it because of the government's and Fed's actions. In the meantime he inflated the currency so that their savings were worth less.
He also restricted the amount of production from farms resulting in less available for sale.
Just look at the massive inflation over those years he was in power and the huge increase in unemployment after he came to power.
before his presidency the economy was a a big mess. afterwards america got medicare, jobs and the strongest military on the planet. my utmost respect for being able to disregard facts like that though.
@@daveruda ---> "FDR restored trust in the capitalist system. People were quite ready to do away with it at that Point. Its only thanks to new deal policies that people would comply. Now when the new deal policies have been gutted people are back to looking for alternatives."
Yes and no. At first, I believe that the Neal Deal was necessary to boost confidence, but Milton may have been right that the long term effects of the New Deal may have stifled growth. Out of the 12 years of its existences ( the core employment policies actually started under Hoover), the new deal never got America out of the Great Depression. Growth was horribly slow compared to the worst economic downturns from 1830-1920. It was WW2 took America out of the great depression and really motivated the masses. At first, I didn't take Milton seriously on this. But after 8 years of Obama's policies in which he followed much of the new deal starting in 2009, I've started to look back and objectively draw comparisons. When the Rep started to really deregulate and lower the Corp tax rate, we jumped from almost no growth to 3% in 6 months. It was massive spike. No one has done in decades. Not even the Reagan administration achieved that. Its not just in America. Coincidentally, other countries were already slashing some of their corp tax rates and their regulations. Ireland went from 30%+ to 12%. Immediately, they were seeing massive growth.
I still don't know if Milton was correct on the new deal. I'm sure other factors need to be looked at. But it definitely has me thinking twice and the data is pretty solid.
@@TheJTcreate Friedman was one of FDRs "New Dealer hires" who decided that the Great Depression was caused by monetary policy failure of the Federal Reserve. It was Marx who said these were crisis of overproduction caused when profits shift from expanding production to driving up the value of fictitious capital until it collapses. That one of the ways the capitalist might choose to escape the crisis was to go to war and destroy capital. So yes the ruling class escaped the great depression with war and sacrfice by the workers with price controls and rationing. The war in Europe ended when Soviet Troops meet American and British.
Milton Friedman was a great man, and a conservative.
Too bad that today's "conservatives", if they were to know some of the things he advocated (like universal guaranteed income), would try and tar him as a "socialist".
For them, anybody who admits we live in an interdependent society and we should take that into account for our policies is a socialist.
If you honestly look at the definition of a conservative you'd understand that Milton Friedman really wasn't a conservative at all. Read Friedrich Hayek's "Why I'm not a conservative" and you'll understand that both of them really just ended up on the conservative side because they had the same opposition.
The reason 'today's "conservatives"' differ from them is because most of them are really conservatives.
Way to misrepresent his position... Milton Friedman supported replacing all welfare programs with a negative income tax UNTIL it was possible to have a completely free market society at which point that would be ended.
He was absolutely not in favor of a universal income.
I can find no evidence of that. citation or link, please?
The statement doesn't seem to make sense, even: are you (or he) suggesting that in a completely free market there would be no poverty? I'm pretty sure he didn't believe that.
ChannelMath "universal guaranteed income...I can find no evidence of that. citation or link, please"
*I'm guessing UGI is minimum wage? I could quote some of what he said above"
Friedman says "government mostly intervenes to do harm". So he seems to be a minarchist, government providing a minimumalistic "frame work".
*The result of minimum wages laws is to deny those under the law the ability to work and transfer that labor to those not under that law. We see this today with the US importing goods from countries with less inflated economies. So that law of minimum wage, harmed those it was intended to help.*
Curia Regis
Yes, I basically agree. I don't think I confused anything though.
This information is out there and it is important for us to see and also reassuring that we can see it.
We need many more programs like these.
You what I find the most interesting and important about this video. It is not that Milton Friedman is exactly right, because of course he is. Its the fact that two intelligent men are having a real argument without resorting to being rude people to justify their points. They use their research and ideas and have a real argument and that is so rare to find today.
The problem with Fredman is he denies the simple fact that the government is in fact that chosen by the profiteers and their two parties. The only way for the workers to fight against dog eat dog capitalism is with trade unions and the creation of a labor party based upon the trade unions. The promises of the bosses just about as valuable as are the paper the money is printed on.
Less government the better.
Debates were so polite and professional back then .. look at TV debates now. They have dropped a lot.
If only debates now could Be like this.
"A very raw deal indeed"
why couldn't this man (Friedman) live to 200 ?
we need him today like we've never needed him before
Indeed. I wish his set of video series could be played in high school government classes nonstop.
@@toddrf His role is to present capitalist exploitation in the best light possible. He provides reassurance to the petty Bourgeois that their efforts are appreciated by the bosses of Big Business.
@@kimobrien.I love how you unironically talk about exploitation when your symbol is the hammer and sickle
@@toddrf Milton Friedman was one of FDR's economists hired out of the University. The same FDR who went on a honeymoon with Stalin while throwing our comrades in prison.
@@kimobrien. and your point is what? Friedman disagreed with many of Roosevelt’scc policies. Having a job as a 23 year old economist is not an endorsement of all of the president’s actions.
We need the wisdom and voice of Milton Friedman more than ever now.
You got had to some who could could convince Gorbachev and Yeltsin that prosperity was only a tag sale away.
I wish I could see all the debate. Sure Friedman has a point on healthcare, but then what you do? Let the poor people die? I guess they adressed this problem later on.
Friedman is very charismatic and the film was entertaining but his ideas are contradictory with history. In the 20th C, economic and technological progress largely occurred in the state sector, not the private sector, in the US. All the difficult innovative and unprofitable work was done in the state sector and then handed over to the private sector for the incremental easier profitable work. For example the *origin* of everything in your mobile phone was created in the state sector, they said I can ship design, all languages minor variants of Algol, simply every component and important software protocols such as http, etc. In the case of social progress it is more obvious that it occurred with social reforms in the 1930, with larger administration to regulate the markets and offer welfare, free education etc, the regulations and non-market distribution of labor lead to the large economic and social gains in the 50s and 60s.
Fucking genius lol. Big goverment today and industrialist hand in hand.
DR Dan shut up
+DR Dan he means that government regulation creates loopholes that only large corporations can afford to jump through. Examples of this are permits, fees, environmental standards, and many, many other requirements that make it hard to start and operate a business. This punishes small business that lack the resources to comply with the necessary regulations, and creates an unfair advantage for large corporations.
Love these old school discussions.
Interesting debate here. Each are after a certain good bit Friedman points out points that are overlooked in the arguments and addresses the positives in every aspect of the topic at hand.
Fascinating stuff indeed
You just can't argue with Milton. Dude's a monster.
Fabio Lopez What's your newer, better way of thinking?
***** "It's not stealing, it's 'wealth redistribution'"
***** I'm tired of people tying capitalism to the Republican party and maybe that's why some have such a bad connotation with it. If you can't look at world economies and see that capitalism blatantly works - and overwhelmingly yields positive results - then you're part of what's contributing to our deteriorating society. Someone save us :/
Michael Harrington demolished Friedman, after the cut for those with the short attention span.
@@YTPartyTonight He really didn’t. He demanded the federal government assist the poor and when Friedman asked him the cost he froze up. I’ve watched the whole debate several times.
🤣 I can't believe people actually believed that milton Friedman was some kind of scholar
@Sergio Miguel lol, how is my comment not "relevant" 🤔. Is this video not about Milton Friedman? Milton Friedman was Trickle down Economics dullard who supported Dictators.
"In 1975, two years after the coup, Milton Friedman
met with Pinochet for 45 minutes, where the general "indicated very little indeed about his own or the government's feeling" and the president asked Friedman to write him a letter laying out what he thought Chile's economic policies should be, which he also did."
But, yeah how is your comment relevant again? 🤔
If only the people of our nation would listen to this man, how much better off we'd all be.
Those who relied on the bosses promises of a private pension "got a very raw deal indeed."
@@kimobrien. Chinese bot?
@@jaironino6545 Typical freedman is proven wrong by history and all you can do is red bait.
oops, I meant to say vertical supply curve, not demand curve.
This is a wery biased clip for Friedman. The debate didnt end when this clip ends. Find and listen to the rebuttal and you will see that its actually Friedman thats gets destoyed.
We need more Friedman's and Rand's in the modern age.
We need the free market system for price equilibrium and socialism for education,health care,firefighters and infrastructure. Also, most major breakthroughs in technology have been the result of socialist institutions.. ie military and university research. Capitalism is money making more money ie speculation and trading. If money was used as a medium of exchange and a temporary store of value as it was intended, we would not have these major economic crisis. Lastly, the most efficient and fair system of production is companies that are stakeholder owned NOT shareholder owned.
“When you have more government, industrialist take it over”
take note where Firedman was sat, who watched and listen when he spoke, who gave a deep heed when he finished his statements. To them its a rebuke, to the world it was nothing but raw reality of the past, present and the future! To us he is Friedman, to them they were generously Fried.
Free market as in "the" market that did what it did in the financial meltdown? And I'm supposed to grasp that model as a good. The days of capitalism creating decent jobs are long gone, the days of economic growth are reserved for those able to invest, which is now a worldwide phenomena. The meltdown reconciliation was simply the consolidation of wealth upward, with most of us benefitting only to the extent that we have money invested. The masses of people should be very happy with medicare and whatever else the government can do to provide that which the free market no longer can.
Wow strawman after strawman, pls explain in GRAPHIC detail how the Free Market caused the Housing Crisis and the Banking failures.
Amazing, but I will explain anyway, the detail so clear and explicated by so many observers of the financial meltdown as to make your comment bizarre. A financial constellation of lenders makes loans available for housing purchasers. The purchasers are not qualified to adhere to the changing conditions of the loans, the interest rates increase, the mortgage payments increase, people default, the effect spreads. The lenders have packaged the assets based debt they have incurred into packages sold to the markets, The debt , rated highly, and under extremely questionable methods, becomes an issue of loss to those invested. There are an entire set of consequences that ensue due to the above such as loss of tax revenues, loss of business due to local and state gov. contraction of services. Loss of small business activity. The value of stocks erode as the underpinnings of stock worth erode. So, the free part of the market is the unregulated aspect of lending, the deregulated banking system. The banks lost their worth as they assumed the debt associated with the sub prime loans and consequent defaults. They stop lending, money becomes tight, people can't borrow for cash flow, investment. Anyway, that is fairly graphic. This was THE perfect example of what happens when regulation ends. And then you factor in the leverage aspects of a market that allows great profits and great losses, where someone else's money funds your gambling extravagances, and voila.This is very simple stuff. A game of winners and losers, Ayn Rand at her best. Signed, stunned by your comment.
mark y Money in general and the banking system in its current state are products of the government money monopoly. Don't blame free market for the failures made by central planning. Deregulation my ass. Fed low interest rates plus community reinvestment act plus Fannie and Freddie - government dirty hands are all over, causing typical centrally planned inflationary boom ended with inevitable burst.
Yes it can be blamed on the free market, nobody forces them to do what they did with the cheap money available. They were handed a gun and they used in inappropriately. I forgot to mention the derivatives market also as one of the worse aspects of that event. If you love free market economies and their consequences, you might also enjoy Ayn Rand, if you are not familiar with her. She gives a philosophical justification for doing only what is in the individual self interest and loathed any sort of concept of public weal or issues of wealth distribution. I can't share your enthusiasm for what you seem to enjoy and your shifting of blame is indicative of your world view, enjoy.
mark y You keep using that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Government supported monopoly forbidding free competition in favor of a small group is the opposite of a free market. Fed monopoly was introduced as a cure from "free market", the same with Fannie May & Freddie Mac, and " community reinvestment act", forcing banks to provide "affordable housing".
That's what you socialists ALWAYS do: 1) set a "regulation" to suppress a free market, 2) face inevitable consequences, 3) blame "free market" 4) repeat infinitely. Every time you "fix" free market, distaster follows, and the worst part is that you never learn.
Friedman is dank sauce.
Medicare in Australia is affordable and works wonderfully, next
I am a socialist and I don'T agree with what this channel says, but I really like the fact that they don't scream at each others!! I like how they debate and I wonder why the debates are like they are right now!!
Yeah because since the 1970's or '80s, when this was recorded, my parents entered their 60's and 70's and got such "raw deal" from Social Security and Medicare... Like last year when my dad was successful treated for fatal disease with chemo and a stem cell transplant at Mayo Clinic. It could have cost close to half a million dollars but actually cost him virtually nothing out of pocket. Milton was so right... KEKW
Milton's explanation of a young man entering new socialist programs getting a raw deal when he is an old man. I love listening to him talk.
My grandfather, father and I all retired on Social Security. Private Pensions were all looted by Wall Street.
What type of healthcare system did Friedman recommend for the U.S?
a gentleman and a scholar...so uncommon now.
Milton was a visionary and towering intellectual that has been verified and proven by history every single time.
Boom, Milton just dropped some knowledge on that man
Where can I see the full length video? I hate how these cut off in the middle of the discussion.
My dads mentor at U of Chicago back in the day !
I wish I was in Milton Friedman's economic class
Harrington won this one. Friedman pretty much agreed with everything and ended up contradicting himself. If large industries received grants, isn’t it just for others to get medicare?
@Primus watch it again. Friedman agreed that big business has received handouts, saying he does not agree with that is not the point. It is a fact, it happened. Harrington's point is that since big business has received handouts, the other half can receive medicare.
@@etchalaco9971 where did he contradict himself? Friedman will be proven right when Medicare becomes insolvent in the near future. It's NOT a free good.
@@centerrightpunk the handouts given to big business? Almost every foundational industry in the US has received subsidies as he himself acknowledged so medicare is justified. The contradiction lies in him justifying one but not the other.
@@centerrightpunk medicare is paid for by payroll tax so by lowering unemployment
"most bloody class struggle any where in the world" cut to the french revolution guillotines
Those that favor government programs never seem to consider the costs to the taxpayer or to private businesses that are not insiders.
The socialist has excellent argument that Friedman failed to refute. I liked his idea that free healthcare (produced by and funded by state, not private sector or funded by personal expenditure) provides more, not less, freedom for society. He adds that he doesn’t want the “freedom” to be forced to die if the state does not produced these survives to everyone, and your job is lost.
"I liked his idea that free healthcare (produced by and funded by state, not private sector or funded by personal expenditure)"
LOL!!!!!!!!!! Taxpayers fund your leftist delusions. smh
Funded by the state? Funds taken from the people under threat of prison.
Lol yeah just cut away the response, so friedman looks as if he had won
Where oh where is the Milton Friedman of this day? We need someone just like him.
I wonder when Mr. Friedman will release another video
Lol Michael Harrington is completely right about everything
Friedman blows my mind every time!
When you look at Frieddman's opponents haircut, you know these men are going to tell jokes.
Milton Friedman's very last point in this clip is so poignant. So many of these 'protect a group of people' movements favor the incumbents at the cost of outsiders. It's exactly what the problem with licensure and unions - it favors the people on the inside, while hurting everyone else, including the cost to the broader society.
"Democratic Socialism" is an oxymoron.
Friedman is a lunatic. He calls the railroad land grants "trivial." Perhaps he really doesn't know how huge they were. Maybe he thinks the government only gave the railroads enough land to lay the tracks.
A lot of land during that time was basically free. Back then, they still had homesteading, where if you lived off a piece of unoccupied land for x amount of time it was yours. If the government auctioned off that land they gave to the rail roads, they would have received very little money, as the population to land ratio was very low back then. I'm sure some places on the East coast had high land values, but in the west land was next to nothing in value.
The railroad land grants are a perfect example of big business taking over and getting in bed with government.One only has to look up "The Credit Mobilier" scam in which many in congress were involved. no surprise there. Brigham young had to threaten to give the Mormon build roadbeds to the central pacific if they did not cough up some loot. In the end the Mormon contractors ended up with halve of what was promised because of the resultant bankruptcy.
idarusskie There are examples of corruption in certain areas, yes. But the vast majority of the rail roads were being built on land that was free to begin with. And the federal government still does the same thing with the highway system. It does the same thing with business through eminent domain. What the government did then was much more trivial than what they do today, because most of the land today is owned by someone.
Furthermore, the government wanted the rail road to succeed. Could you imagine the impact on our economy back then if we didn't have rail roads? The government wasn't providing charity for big business. It was mutually beneficial for both sides to get the rail roads completed.
you are a fucking idiot. He actually _quantified_ how huge they were. no more than 3% of national income. You are a dumbass.
+HassleCat Do you even understand the railroad land grants? STFU until you do.
Then what should people over 65 do? younger generations are paying for Medicare knowing that they will receive it when they get old
will they?
Amer Aljabr Just like social security right? Yeah everyone gets what they paid in. Lol. Grow up dude and take the wool off your eyes.
Oh, damn. Milton Friedman called it decades ago...