Seen as a made up social science, yet it’s crucial in my opinion. No high schools in my county even teach it at high school. Glad I took it at college, then continued at university.
I watched a lot of Milton Friedman on TV. I never saw him get tripped up even for a moment. He always reigned every second. After awhile you learn he's practically infallible in his opinions. He's the Einstein of economics.
which is rather suspicious. because either he hides is flaws with his rhetoric skills or noone finds. heres a secret. we all have flaws and mistakes. including this guy and einstein
@@BuGGyBoBerlEinstein, just for an example, did not agree with quantum mechanics as he did not believe God would simply roll the dice when it came to the universe. Now we know almost certainly that quantum mechanics is a real, thus that belief was a flaw of his misunderstanding and emotional attachment to the argument he was making. Socrates would be a better example of "perfection" as he would never make such a claim. His goal, like Friedmans, was to go through an argument only on its logical merit and death all values to emotion; this means that the outcome of anything should be accepted for what it is and not what you want it to be. To say that it is suspicious would put you on the level of the people who put Socrates to death. So long as the person speaking is honest about what he says, meaning there is no emotion attached to the argument other than finding the truth of the argument it'self, then there is no reason to harbor suspicion. The one providing questions in this video, for example, he is attaching an emotion of pity and a preexisting sense of duty to what he says while Friedman works from what is real. All this is not to say do no suspect as you must do that to discern what is good from what is bad, what is right from what is wrong, but you should not think that the flaws people hide are always flaws of corruption.
He's condescending and champions libertarian mindsets, of course it resonates with people as individuals. It's like if you present what Adam Smith was all about to any person, they will ultimately agree, but then if you present what say Karl Marx proposed to what Smith brought forward, it gets the wheels moving a lot more. Friedman never lets a proper dialectic of any sort into his presence.
@@strongfp hahahaha, what a crock of shit. You don't have any arguments because what he says makes logical sense. Instead you spew out 3 lines of garbage to try and defend your position. Karl Marx was proven wrong by history and yet you still have people that think socialism at that scale is a good thing.. some people just never learn
@@tmmyjay Idealogue noun 1 an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology 2 an impractical idealist Not a perfect fit I'll grant you that, Friedman is rarely blindly partisan, emphasis on the blindly, or impractical, but he is a partisan advocate and adherent to a particular ideology, Libertarianism and he is an idealist.
@@whoosh7977 you might have to go back father than 8 years. Just because the pot boiled over in 2016 and has been boiling over since then ignores all the build up to it and all the opportunities various people and organizations had to turn down the temperature.
It is so beautiful what he is saying. Instead of trying to bring down those who have it better because some people have it worse, we have to remember that those at the top also had to climb the ranks, make their own journey from the bottom, either themselves, or their parents and predecessors did. Someone coming from Mexico with less opportunity is on the same path, just closer to the beginning of the climb, whereas European immigrants from 50 years ago(and their descendants) are farther along the same climb. Neither party is to blame. Everyone goes forward together.
Why do I always feel like the illegal immigration debate takes a sharp turn toward "WTF" at some point. For instance, this "gun to the head" statement. I don't think any illegal immigrant (at least very few) would actually see a shitty job in the US as a bad option when compared to the hopelessness and corruption in Mexico. That was just kinda weird...
Well. Solution can never be moving people who has it worse. If you think that. Then you have not seen the world for what it is. This is especially true when you have a welfare state and high tax.
Sometimes you have to exaggerate the point to get people to see the difference. The difference, though often small, is real and over time creates a great divide.
@@David-ni5hj There is also a flip side to that. My grandfather came to the US decades ago and met my grandmother who I believe was born in California. The people that leave Mexico sort of ensure that nothing changes in Mexico because they have such a nearby escape valve, relatively. If all Mexicans had to endure the weight of their own country, I think it would create the incentive to change Mexico rather than just escape it and leave that to other people who will likely choose to escape it as well.
Interesting thing is that the current push for a "Living" minimum wage is this exact same phenomenon. Unions want to get rid of the option for people to willfully work at a lower wage so that unions can maintain and even push up their own cost structures. These minimum wage workers will end up being replaced by automation and Unions will maintain or raise wages for their own people.
Mr. Friedman makes a salient point that is too often completely ignored. That is, nations don't just sprout out of the ground fully formed and modern. The collective wealth, technology and knowledge of all first world nations is build up over time. That interval of time, that struggle, is important; not only for each individual but for their communities and nation. It makes as much sense to hand a teen (who never attended high school) a diploma and expect them to magically know how read, as it does to expect third world peoples to fit into first world communities and know how to thrive. Acknowledging that fact is an important step towards taming the extreme hubris of many first worlders who look at third worlders as objects of pity, mere children to be molded, as if they aren't capable of understanding their own needs. But pushing a third world nation to somehow become a first world nation most often leads to much more harm than good. If it were so easy to transform from a third world country to a first world country and if generational struggle and collective wisdom are so arbitrary, they why has every European colony in Africa and South America failed to prosper after its colonizers left? Because peoples from first world communities and nations ARE DIFFERENT from third world or subsistence nations. Remember the saying, "Give a man a fish, he eats today. Teach him to fish, he eats everyday". One is a handout, the other requires skill and time in order to (eventually) reach prosperity. This necessary ingredient, namely time and experience, simply cannot be expedited, eliminated or substituted. The third world needs to be left free to develop as THEY see fit, not as first worlders believe they should or must. This doesn't mean third worlders can't get there, but rather they just aren't there yet. Without gross interference, who knows what kind of nation or people will develop? It may be something current first worlders would like even better.
Although different perspectives I have nothing but respect for the man and his question. A lot can be learned from civil discourse and it’s a shame that conversations like this no longer happen today.
Nobody talks or has talked about illegal immigration as simply and astutely as Dr. Friedman. Because he’s not a politician. He has nothing to gain. No agenda. It’s not complicated. Just think about it as he thinks about it. Smartest guy in the room every time.
It doesn't necessarily need to be illegal. Just offer legal status with no risk of deportation but also no access to welfare programs. Or access to welfare programs is allowed after 10 or 20 years of paying taxes.
Jobs Americans "won't do"... It's not the job that Americans are unwilling to do. It's how low the wages have been depressed to by immigration, oversupply of labor, that Americans are unwilling to work for anymore.
@ugboy1 There is a massive difference - international travel is much easier and cheaper in 2010 because of huge technological advances. Even if the provision of welfare was scaled back to pre-1920 levels, the country would still be overwhelmed by the numbers - central America would be emptied for a start. The social repercussions would be felt very strongly by the lower and middle classes, and wages would take a huge dive. We are talking about hundreds of millions of people.
Denying them the opportunity to work for lower wages means denying the only weapon they have. So true. My grandfather would never have had the opportunity to work in the US in the 1920s as a farm worker if he had been forced to demand higher wages. Let employees have the opportunity to undercut the competition.
As a “ producer” myself I like how he catches the student basically demanding that higher wages be paid for ultimately his labour when he says to him but you want to buy everything at lower prices. That’s the system that how it works. You want higher wages but are unprepared to pay higher prices for your products so the producer can pay your higher wages.
Krokodil Gena Well it is now two years later since you left this comment in the country is not in deep shit. The country is thriving with a booming economy. Record low unemployment. Anyone who wants a job can get a job. You can hate Donald Trump all you want, but you cannot deny these facts. At a certain point, any intellectually honest person would have to set aside these silly “the sky is falling” generalisms about Trump and face up to the truth that he’s actually doing a pretty decent job as president. At the very least, he’s doing as good a job as Obama, or Bush or Clinton or just about any other president in history you could name. An intellectually honest person can make a strong argument that he’s been a better president than many who came before him. Sometimes it sucks to face up to the truth, but ultimately it’s the only choice you have. If the country really is in any kind of deep shit at all, I think it has a lot more to do with left wing political policies that have turned our coastal cities into cesspools of homelessness, unsustainable cost-of-living and tax burdens for the citizens not to mention the antics, chaos and violence of the far leftist domestic terrorist group Antifa, who go around carrying weapons and wearing masks while destroying property and physically assaulting people who don’t think the way they do. If these cities stopped electing leftists, these problems could all be turned around but it’s not likely to happen because this is what the liberals who live in the cities repeatedly vote for. They are reaping that which they sow.
I've always disagreed with many of Milton Friedman's views. However, I loved and respected his empiricism, intellectual courage and ability to debate and discuss in a humble and amicable way. I was reminded of these discussions after watching Rand Paul give a lecture and take questions at a predominately black college (ie in front of folks he knew would probably disagree with him). Made me feel the same way.
Possibly the only topic missing from this debate with Friedman, maybe because it wasn't such an issue back then, is the crime and drugs element. I'm from the UK, so I'm not fully informed on this, but it seems Friedman talks about the 2 options of a) Mexicans moving to the US legally, and being able to claim welfare or b) moving illegally and usefully filling a jobs gap by providing cheap labour to US busineses. The issue now seems to be option c) Move to the US illegally and get involved in drugs and crime. I'm not saying all illegal Mexican immigrants do that, but surely a far higher proportion than 30-40 years ago. Then the data would need to decide if the relative negatives to illegal immigration now outweigh the positives.
"Trying to evade starvation as long as possible"? Can someone enlighten me on the so apparantly horrid conditions that existed in 1980s Mexico to create such a situation?
The war on drugs. The US is responsible for countless deaths of innocent Central and South Americans. How many Central and South Americans must die so a US addict can live?
The War on Drugs did not precipitate any condition in Mexico where we have people trying to evade starvation in mass quantities. At the start of the 1980s, when this video was made, Mexico had a higher standard of living than most other Latin American countries except for Uruguay and Venezuela. Then by the mid-90s it was second only to Argentina.
The Philosophating Phrog Look at U.$. Eduction in the 80's compare to now. Would you say if it gotten better or worse and you cant blame illegal immigration for that. Our U S. Eduction system ranks next to Mexico. And look at the prison syatem how many were there in the 80's compare to now. You see THE WAR ON DRUGS is to blame for all of this. Until we admit the War on Drugs is waste the immigration is only going to get worse. Who benifits on the war? U.S. and Mexico Government and Drug Cartels. You know who supplies the Drug Cartels with Arms? You know more people have died in Mexico than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Lol, leftisms like to lie about how things are to support their positions. Mexico was doing just fine in the 70s and 80s, but their economy was hot garbage. Nobody was starving to death, but there wasn't much of a future available either.
The American will do the job if they are given an adequate wage. (Americans did it in the past). The illegal immigrant will do it cheaper. The employer wants the most economical employee. If you remove the illegal immigrant from the equation, by increasing penalties. The employer will be forced to pay Americans the wages that they want/need. (Supply and Demand)
Best intro music ever. Wearing a top hat, round spectacle glasses looking like the character in the board game of Monopoly, with a flamboyant aristocratic attitude: I want this played whenever I enter a room of people. I'm just sayin'
MrLecam: if we bought only a few things, and were limited to a few things we could produce, then 'buying American' would make sense. But we buy pretty much everything. And we can produce pretty much anything - especially when you consider we only play a very small part in the production of things now that our economy is so mature. In the same way a successful lawyer outsources housecleaning work so he can focus on more productive work, skilled Americans outsource unskilled work. It works!
The part that he doesn't espouse is the minimum wage, without which employers would be able to hire huge numbers of American citizens, who would then be able both to gain skills by working and as citizens to hold employers accountable for exploitation. The minimum wage is a major reason employers hire illegals instead of giving jobs to young Americans who in the early part of their lives, with few responsibilities, can afford to develop fundamental skills in exchange for a low wage.
At no time are Illegals taking jobs that US Citizens will not do. MOST are collecting Welfare. Most of those who do work are filling jobs that do pay rather well. They get those jobs by providing their Employer with a Social Security Number that is either fake or stolen. They often fill out the W-4 form with that Employer so that little or even no taxes are deducted from their pay. And many if not most are STILL collecting Welfare on top of that work income. There isn't anything they can find here that they could not build for themselves right there at home. Except for Welfare. No amount of WORK or WORK ETHIC will ever get them Welfare in their Country of birth.
With a better protected border in Canada (via the States as a buffer and the Arctic/Oceans as a natural wall); we see a similar process with Filipinos, Muslims, etc. I am in Newfoundland, Canada. The local Burger King is staffed/managed by primarily those of Filipino descent. They live in the same house, buy and share everything as a large family. Sure $10:50 cdn isn't much; but 8 people making 10:50/hr working 10+ hrs/day 6 days a week puts this household in a nice situation. Enough that working as a single unit with a single goal they will quickly own their house and perhaps the Burger King quicker than most Canadians could muster enough energy to pay off a used car.
@echatterwa He had respect for the long processes of history upon which nations are built and had a great understanding of the unpopular yet positive realities of Capitalism. At no point is he promoting illegal immigration, he is simply and rationally ( not emotionally ) explaining how both illegal immigrants and their employers both benefit from the practice.
But it is the duty of a capitalist to do such research on such acts and his duty to put his dollar towards another product of the same or better quality, but most important it should be of better quality for the consumer as well as the employed. The power of the dollar is in your hand to shape capitalism, that is capitalisms' strength.
Such a great thing to discuss. I get the young man’s point of view but you simply cannot force others to be fair for someone else based on a moral perspective. You can only look to better opportunities for others and see the work do itself the benefit of which you wanted to see in the beginning
That is a good point and true, however I still hold true to my above statement and see it as an addition. Sadly, your above statement is now a driving reason to illegally immigrate here.
That was brilliant: "What's keeping them (Mexicans) from staying in Mexico and making a better life for themselves in Mexico?" Answer: "There are no capitalists in Mexico." Excellent. God, we need to have all of these MF videos shown in every single high-school in America (or World, even)!
You are right. I have been a burger flipper,a janitor,a dishwasher,etc,etc,etc....I would do those jobs again but I can't because who would hire me at 8.00 (MW) an hour when they can hire an illegal for 8 dollars the whole day? And sure the illegal will take it because that 8 dollars triples if not more when it switches to mexico's currency.
Suggesting that unfettered access to the US labour market would work as well today as it did back in the 1800s is just goofy, and it's one of the few times I have seen Friedman commit himself to a questionable position. Inflation-adjusted wages have remained stagnant since the 1970s, and in a 21st century context open door immigration would result in an unprecedented rise in the US population. The social ramifications would be unthinkable.
The problem i have with his argument is that illegal immigration drives wages down therefor driving buying power down. The equivalent is how most manufacturing jobs left the usa which saw a nation wide decrease in wages. Maybe having illegal immigration drives the cost of goods down but also buying power down. It also drives up cost of housing as there's more demand
This sounds great, ask the native american Indians how well this immigration worked for them. What if Israel opened their boarders and let the Arabs into their country, what would happen to the Jews. At some point regardless of cheap labor and future votes, a countries survival depends on enforcing its immigration laws.
@banter2345 If you think that Irish Gangs and Italian Mafia was integration then sure fine. In my city just twenty years ago if you were a Fireman you were Irish. American's are very quick to want to move on but the idea of what to move on to is an abstract one, but that doesn't give us a free pass to forget or ignore what is so apparent. That there will be Mexican gangs and in thirty years if you are a farm hand or a Gardner or a whatever tradesman you will be Mexican and they will move on.
But if a vineyard keeps employing the same type of sub-contractors due to low costs which in turn keeps their costs down then despite dangers to health and eventual deaths then yes, the vineyard is conspiring against said immigrants for profit and gain.
A think the value that mentioned in this short clip is what most that are for immigration or it not ne illegal anyway is the growth aspect, when you take mostly male, mostly young out of a country and leave the old, the women etc, then the process that we as a country had to go through from droughts, starvation, wars, ups and downs that happen in individual lives and in a country over that process that might take hundreds of years, the same is with Mexico, we dont help drug addicts by giving them free drugs, we dont help lazy people by just giving them money, the out come is progress for that person, it's the stagnation of that person and its the same on a country scale. This is real life and the only way to grow is to fail, the best way to be a professional at anything is the mistakes and the time in that profession which is what makes a professional to begin with. Nobody just wakes up one day and says I want to build furniture and is an expert at it, no the great funiture builders have built furniture for decades and learned from their mistakes in what makes it better and stronger and more valuable furniture. Is Mexico go to ever rise above its hardships if its never left to do so, id say no, we are who we are because of the lack of places to run, our ancestor had to fight and work to the bone for us to have what we have today. It sucks I know but it is the way life is and we can't change the process of life.
@@rooksman64 If they were allowed to enter at all. Why would we let anyone in who would just be a drain on resources? Why not just keep the parasites out? If their only ambition was to be a leech on society, why let them in at all?
Americans do want to do those jobs because they don't pay enough. The wages are so low because there are millions of illegal immigrant workers willing to do them. Simple supply and demand. If you remove the illegal immagrant workers, the supply of workers plummets while the demand remains the same. Either wages will increase until legal citizens are willing to do them, or the tasks can be automated, thus fillign those jobs.
@MrLecam21 But in that instance you're paying for the product because it was made in America. The product is not identical (to you) as one made overseas. If you could buy a pencil made in America for $1 or one made in America for 50 cents, you would buy the cheaper one.
Should we be supporting American workers by offering high wage for that which can be obtained for a lower wage? Should our loyalty be to potential American workers or American consumers? It can't be to both. To level the playing field, the fairest thing to do would be to abolish minimum wage. Wages are paid as a necessary expense to produce products at a price consumers will find attractive. Wages are not an altruistic program to provide folks with an income.
@phantomcharger I can sum up the problems in one word; costs. We have too many artificial costs as it is, and they keep growing. China doesn't have a minimum wage, and, even with the restriction of speech, each chinese is relishing the chance to keep more of what they make. They also have different standards of safety; the food poisoning was bad, but the lead content in the paint? trumped up in the same way alcohol levels have been trumped here.
The owners of these companies see the profits to be had on selling out this country, so until we see the problems inherent with letting other countries do all the work we can possibly give them on the cheap, we will continue to decline as a nation. If anyone here thinks other countries dont use trade tariffs, they need to do a little research on it, the most successful countries, (like companies) know they need to protect their best interests first, all others come second.
There's a principles flaw in Friedman's reasoning that disturbs me. All his points are valid one by one, but are not compatible. When talking inheritance and borders, he talks about families and nations, which is perfectly fine; but then you can't go like he goes to a "people have responsability, not nations" or an individualistic approach. You can't have it both ways.
There is a third option, Force the wine growers to pay the same wages to whoever works for them, Like Milton said U.S.A nationals have better alternatives, If so that would leave most of the jobs to the immirgrants right? Call their greedy bluff! Put the choice to the wine growers, Pay up or close! They will crack first.
@phantomcharger now, look at the enviroment. Healthcare is now essentially going to cost more, artificially, cap and tax will likely be up for debate after the elections, if possible; the United States is not friendly toward economic freedom. Hong Kong has much less protectionist policies. The Per capita GDP of Hong Kong; $42,700. The Per capita GDP of China; $6500. Protectionist policies create an artificial barrier that restrains competition and lower prices, which increases standard of living
Its not just American its people. Everyone wants to pay for lower costs and make higher in wages. That's what business try to do. They want to make more money so that could be by two ways. Being more productive with their product which makes it cheaper n more people would buy it or by making it more demanding so they can raise the price. That's very basic what I just said though.
I disagree to some degree, as someone who lives in Africa, its entirely possible to imagine criminal or "begging" immigration. If borders were totally open who is to say people wouldn't leave their country to a European one even if there is no work available. Its better to be a beggar in Europe than starve to death in the Congo. I would have loved to hear Friedmans take on that issue. Surely it isnt healthy for a country to let in half the population of Central Africa just on the hope that they are coming to perform constructive work and add to the Economy. Same idea applies for the Mexicans. There has to be a limit to which an Economy can support Immigration, an attractive economy will no doubt be voted into with the boots of people who are less fortunate, some yes for constructive work and wage earning but also some to simply hope for a better life. Those who are not adding to the Economy would become a burden in many ways surely. This is quoted from Investopedia Productivity Productivity can be measured by the output for each hour of employee work-the GDP per person-and the effect on productivity from new immigrants may be more or less than the current level. Therefore, while GDP could increase overall as new workers found jobs, the increase may or may not boost the productivity of the workforce. Typically, it would not, but it would depend on the specific circumstances. If immigrants were highly productive, per capita GDP could increase. However, if the immigrants didn't work or didn't increase productivity, the losses would lower GDP per capita.
Friedman is wrong in the sense that illegal immigration distorts the 'work marketplace'. It is not that people will not 'work the jobs' it is that the jobs do not pay enough to live on unless you are willing to accept the working conditions e.g. living 8 to a room and tiny wages (still better than home) and no healthcare or similar safety net. This over supply of labour artificially keeps wages down to a level that makes some people rich so they have no incentive to provide a 'living wage' and so the cycle of illegal immigration and low wages continues. This creates an underclass... and in 2020 we can see the wealth disparities.
You know, I see Im getting a lot of thumb downs, all you have to do is look at the short history since we have NAFTA, you all are getting what you want, no trade tariffs, and the countrys just about done. Why do you think that is??? Id really LOVE to know what you geniuses think on how we lost all our production capacity, and how that is fucking good for us.
You display a fundamental misunderstanding of economics with this statement in that you only comprehend local, short-term equilibrium and then make a hasty conclusion without going further on from which you'd see that the global equilibrium is more beneficial overall (lower price of goods and services to consumers). The problem we have today that makes it difficult for people to diagnose correctly the economic situation is that there is a myriad of gov't distorting private behavior.
Indeed, if your logic was sound, all matter of competition of labor lowering wages would be "destructive." And by that claim, we must indefinitely raise wages ad absurdum and "create" wealth, right? It's a fair point to say minimum wage laws lock out American citizens from competing for these illegal jobs, but don't blame the illegal alien for that.
@TheCynicalDude I think you're wrong. Nations have no responsibility in the sense that only the citizens óf that nation have responsibility. When it comes to borders; it's no matter of responsibility but rather of collective interest. The law of the land ought to ensure a system in which the citizens can thrive but this does not imply that the law itself carries any responsibility. The judicial branch has to make sure the law is obeyed or the system might collapse; which I'm sure is a bad thing.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
man, economics is a very interesting topic. this thing should be taught early in school.
dekubaner yet it's not in most, and that's how bernie sanders supporters supported him. They don't get how his policies wouldn't have worked.
dekubaner in 1979 I took a economics class in High School. Now they teach homosexuality...............
Yes, actually even one semester is enough, because economics is mostly common sense. People who get PhDs in that subject end up more confused later.
@@Higgs000Boson yes, please do tell me how Dynamic Stochastic Equilibrium Models are common sense
Seen as a made up social science, yet it’s crucial in my opinion. No high schools in my county even teach it at high school. Glad I took it at college, then continued at university.
I watched a lot of Milton Friedman on TV. I never saw him get tripped up even for a moment. He always reigned every second. After awhile you learn he's practically infallible in his opinions. He's the Einstein of economics.
which is rather suspicious. because either he hides is flaws with his rhetoric skills or noone finds. heres a secret. we all have flaws and mistakes. including this guy and einstein
BuGGyBoBerl yes but do his ideas?
@@BuGGyBoBerlEinstein, just for an example, did not agree with quantum mechanics as he did not believe God would simply roll the dice when it came to the universe. Now we know almost certainly that quantum mechanics is a real, thus that belief was a flaw of his misunderstanding and emotional attachment to the argument he was making. Socrates would be a better example of "perfection" as he would never make such a claim. His goal, like Friedmans, was to go through an argument only on its logical merit and death all values to emotion; this means that the outcome of anything should be accepted for what it is and not what you want it to be. To say that it is suspicious would put you on the level of the people who put Socrates to death. So long as the person speaking is honest about what he says, meaning there is no emotion attached to the argument other than finding the truth of the argument it'self, then there is no reason to harbor suspicion. The one providing questions in this video, for example, he is attaching an emotion of pity and a preexisting sense of duty to what he says while Friedman works from what is real.
All this is not to say do no suspect as you must do that to discern what is good from what is bad, what is right from what is wrong, but you should not think that the flaws people hide are always flaws of corruption.
He's condescending and champions libertarian mindsets, of course it resonates with people as individuals. It's like if you present what Adam Smith was all about to any person, they will ultimately agree, but then if you present what say Karl Marx proposed to what Smith brought forward, it gets the wheels moving a lot more. Friedman never lets a proper dialectic of any sort into his presence.
@@strongfp hahahaha, what a crock of shit. You don't have any arguments because what he says makes logical sense. Instead you spew out 3 lines of garbage to try and defend your position.
Karl Marx was proven wrong by history and yet you still have people that think socialism at that scale is a good thing.. some people just never learn
I wish all ideological exchanges were as polite as the one in this video.
Im sure the average ideological exchange 8 years ago was nowhere near as bad as now
It's because this student probably had father and a mother and by the fact that feminist mahandrist wackos had not brainwashed him.
Friedman is HARDLY an idelogue.
@@tmmyjay Idealogue noun 1 an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology 2 an impractical idealist
Not a perfect fit I'll grant you that, Friedman is rarely blindly partisan, emphasis on the blindly, or impractical, but he is a partisan advocate and adherent to a particular ideology, Libertarianism and he is an idealist.
@@whoosh7977 you might have to go back father than 8 years. Just because the pot boiled over in 2016 and has been boiling over since then ignores all the build up to it and all the opportunities various people and organizations had to turn down the temperature.
"if you may not offer the work for lower wages, you are denying the only weapon they have" the finest at its kind.
I am a real fan of Milton Friedman. I cannot stop watching him. He is quite knowledgeable with good sense of humor.
i had chills down my back when milton ended with "you're denying them the only weapon they have"
I commend the polite young man who asked this question, and I also commend the audience who listened politely and professionally.
It is so beautiful what he is saying.
Instead of trying to bring down those who have it better because some people have it worse, we have to remember that those at the top also had to climb the ranks, make their own journey from the bottom, either themselves, or their parents and predecessors did.
Someone coming from Mexico with less opportunity is on the same path, just closer to the beginning of the climb, whereas European immigrants from 50 years ago(and their descendants) are farther along the same climb.
Neither party is to blame. Everyone goes forward together.
Why do I always feel like the illegal immigration debate takes a sharp turn toward "WTF" at some point. For instance, this "gun to the head" statement. I don't think any illegal immigrant (at least very few) would actually see a shitty job in the US as a bad option when compared to the hopelessness and corruption in Mexico. That was just kinda weird...
Well. Solution can never be moving people who has it worse. If you think that. Then you have not seen the world for what it is. This is especially true when you have a welfare state and high tax.
Sometimes you have to exaggerate the point to get people to see the difference. The difference, though often small, is real and over time creates a great divide.
Lots of opportunity in Mexico now. A large middle class
As a Latino I can agree, we go there to work because we know that everything is better there
@@David-ni5hj There is also a flip side to that. My grandfather came to the US decades ago and met my grandmother who I believe was born in California. The people that leave Mexico sort of ensure that nothing changes in Mexico because they have such a nearby escape valve, relatively. If all Mexicans had to endure the weight of their own country, I think it would create the incentive to change Mexico rather than just escape it and leave that to other people who will likely choose to escape it as well.
Oh my GOD! Do we need a Milton Friedman today! 🤯
Incredible sharpness and understanding of economics!
It is nice to listen to someone which has common sense every so often…
Interesting thing is that the current push for a "Living" minimum wage is this exact same phenomenon. Unions want to get rid of the option for people to willfully work at a lower wage so that unions can maintain and even push up their own cost structures. These minimum wage workers will end up being replaced by automation and Unions will maintain or raise wages for their own people.
when logic commands obedience.
These briliant videos should be show to the current generation wasting time on TikToks and shit.
0:34 I laughed so hard, at least the guy answered his own question.
Mr. Friedman makes a salient point that is too often completely ignored. That is, nations don't just sprout out of the ground fully formed and modern. The collective wealth, technology and knowledge of all first world nations is build up over time. That interval of time, that struggle, is important; not only for each individual but for their communities and nation. It makes as much sense to hand a teen (who never attended high school) a diploma and expect them to magically know how read, as it does to expect third world peoples to fit into first world communities and know how to thrive. Acknowledging that fact is an important step towards taming the extreme hubris of many first worlders who look at third worlders as objects of pity, mere children to be molded, as if they aren't capable of understanding their own needs.
But pushing a third world nation to somehow become a first world nation most often leads to much more harm than good. If it were so easy to transform from a third world country to a first world country and if generational struggle and collective wisdom are so arbitrary, they why has every European colony in Africa and South America failed to prosper after its colonizers left? Because peoples from first world communities and nations ARE DIFFERENT from third world or subsistence nations. Remember the saying, "Give a man a fish, he eats today. Teach him to fish, he eats everyday". One is a handout, the other requires skill and time in order to (eventually) reach prosperity. This necessary ingredient, namely time and experience, simply cannot be expedited, eliminated or substituted. The third world needs to be left free to develop as THEY see fit, not as first worlders believe they should or must. This doesn't mean third worlders can't get there, but rather they just aren't there yet. Without gross interference, who knows what kind of nation or people will develop? It may be something current first worlders would like even better.
Although different perspectives I have nothing but respect for the man and his question. A lot can be learned from civil discourse and it’s a shame that conversations like this no longer happen today.
I wish Milton was my grandpa:(
8av8today
Same
At least he wouldn't touch you
Appreciate your grandpa
Nobody talks or has talked about illegal immigration as simply and astutely as Dr. Friedman. Because he’s not a politician. He has nothing to gain. No agenda. It’s not complicated. Just think about it as he thinks about it. Smartest guy in the room every time.
It doesn't necessarily need to be illegal. Just offer legal status with no risk of deportation but also no access to welfare programs. Or access to welfare programs is allowed after 10 or 20 years of paying taxes.
Jobs Americans "won't do"... It's not the job that Americans are unwilling to do. It's how low the wages have been depressed to by immigration, oversupply of labor, that Americans are unwilling to work for anymore.
Brilliant man, he saw beyond simple nationalism and was a true believe in mankind.
As white as snow
As fit as a fiddle
As gentle as a lamb
As easy as abc
As smart as Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman was not only a SMART man - he was a WISE man - those two qualities are NOT synonymous……………
@ugboy1 There is a massive difference - international travel is much easier and cheaper in 2010 because of huge technological advances. Even if the provision of welfare was scaled back to pre-1920 levels, the country would still be overwhelmed by the numbers - central America would be emptied for a start. The social repercussions would be felt very strongly by the lower and middle classes, and wages would take a huge dive. We are talking about hundreds of millions of people.
Denying them the opportunity to work for lower wages means denying the only weapon they have. So true. My grandfather would never have had the opportunity to work in the US in the 1920s as a farm worker if he had been forced to demand higher wages. Let employees have the opportunity to undercut the competition.
As a “ producer” myself I like how he catches the student basically demanding that higher wages be paid for ultimately his labour when he says to him but you want to buy everything at lower prices. That’s the system that how it works. You want higher wages but are unprepared to pay higher prices for your products so the producer can pay your higher wages.
I would prefer to pay higher prices just so people stop fucking whining about illegal immigration and having a brainless debate.
Schwartzschild yeah but that starts a spiral upwards. More pay demanded higher price needed for product
@@schwartzschild2908 What is stopping you Schwartzschild? You are more than welcome to pay higher prices.
This guy is too articulate and intelligent. He can sway anyone to his side
Loving these videos. What a gentleman
I actually enjoy learning things that contradict my previous biases.
If only this guy replaced trump or hillary...
They have already replaced legal power in 1913, if you didn't notice. That's why the country is in deep sh&t.
Krokodil Gena Well it is now two years later since you left this comment in the country is not in deep shit. The country is thriving with a booming economy. Record low unemployment. Anyone who wants a job can get a job. You can hate Donald Trump all you want, but you cannot deny these facts. At a certain point, any intellectually honest person would have to set aside these silly “the sky is falling” generalisms about Trump and face up to the truth that he’s actually doing a pretty decent job as president.
At the very least, he’s doing as good a job as Obama, or Bush or Clinton or just about any other president in history you could name. An intellectually honest person can make a strong argument that he’s been a better president than many who came before him. Sometimes it sucks to face up to the truth, but ultimately it’s the only choice you have. If the country really is in any kind of deep shit at all, I think it has a lot more to do with left wing political policies that have turned our coastal cities into cesspools of homelessness, unsustainable cost-of-living and tax burdens for the citizens not to mention the antics, chaos and violence of the far leftist domestic terrorist group Antifa, who go around carrying weapons and wearing masks while destroying property and physically assaulting people who don’t think the way they do. If these cities stopped electing leftists, these problems could all be turned around but it’s not likely to happen because this is what the liberals who live in the cities repeatedly vote for. They are reaping that which they sow.
@@krokodilgena9288 Guess who got wrecked...bitch.
Had to add it.
@@GalryZ lol
Look up Chicago Boys and how his pupils changed an entire country under a dictatorship rule.
Mexico by in large has a thriving middle class of people that have no desire to migrate to the USA.
that's probably is true why doesn't their government take care of their people???
Only because US companies move operation to Mexico for their cheaper labor. The US created the middle class in Mexico.
I've always disagreed with many of Milton Friedman's views. However, I loved and respected his empiricism, intellectual courage and ability to debate and discuss in a humble and amicable way.
I was reminded of these discussions after watching Rand Paul give a lecture and take questions at a predominately black college (ie in front of folks he knew would probably disagree with him). Made me feel the same way.
killingfloor70 If you enjoyed Rand Paul you look at his Dad Ron Paul. Big supporter of Ron Paul its too bad his son aint like his Dad.
Possibly the only topic missing from this debate with Friedman, maybe because it wasn't such an issue back then, is the crime and drugs element. I'm from the UK, so I'm not fully informed on this, but it seems Friedman talks about the 2 options of a) Mexicans moving to the US legally, and being able to claim welfare or b) moving illegally and usefully filling a jobs gap by providing cheap labour to US busineses. The issue now seems to be option c) Move to the US illegally and get involved in drugs and crime. I'm not saying all illegal Mexican immigrants do that, but surely a far higher proportion than 30-40 years ago. Then the data would need to decide if the relative negatives to illegal immigration now outweigh the positives.
What is so ironic is that Mexico adopted Milton Friedman economics back 1970, 10 years before the US did.
"Trying to evade starvation as long as possible"? Can someone enlighten me on the so apparantly horrid conditions that existed in 1980s Mexico to create such a situation?
The war on drugs. The US is responsible for countless deaths of innocent Central and South Americans. How many Central and South Americans must die so a US addict can live?
The War on Drugs did not precipitate any condition in Mexico where we have people trying to evade starvation in mass quantities. At the start of the 1980s, when this video was made, Mexico had a higher standard of living than most other Latin American countries except for Uruguay and Venezuela. Then by the mid-90s it was second only to Argentina.
The Philosophating Phrog probably during the Mexican revolution that things took a turn for the worse, however, I could be wrong.
The Philosophating Phrog Look at U.$. Eduction in the 80's compare to now. Would you say if it gotten better or worse and you cant blame illegal immigration for that. Our U S. Eduction system ranks next to Mexico. And look at the prison syatem how many were there in the 80's compare to now. You see THE WAR ON DRUGS is to blame for all of this. Until we admit the War on Drugs is waste the immigration is only going to get worse. Who benifits on the war? U.S. and Mexico Government and Drug Cartels. You know who supplies the Drug Cartels with Arms? You know more people have died in Mexico than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Lol, leftisms like to lie about how things are to support their positions. Mexico was doing just fine in the 70s and 80s, but their economy was hot garbage. Nobody was starving to death, but there wasn't much of a future available either.
Mr. Friedman stopped short of the minimum wage debate.
So crear and Well articulated
@frostedpornflakes All of these Friedman videos are available (for sale) at the ideachannel website.
Economics is very transparent, everybody can see what's going on, and also we're all participating actively in it, and yet, only a few understand it.
2:20 Because when you're Milton Friedman, the marginal cost of picking your nose is who gives a damn.
The American will do the job if they are given an adequate wage. (Americans did it in the past). The illegal immigrant will do it cheaper. The employer wants the most economical employee. If you remove the illegal immigrant from the equation, by increasing penalties. The employer will be forced to pay Americans the wages that they want/need. (Supply and Demand)
0.50 - Milton uses Socratic method to its fullest brilliance!
Best intro music ever. Wearing a top hat, round spectacle glasses looking like the character in the board game of Monopoly, with a flamboyant aristocratic attitude: I want this played whenever I enter a room of people. I'm just sayin'
you should watch "talented mr. Ripley" :)
MrLecam: if we bought only a few things, and were limited to a few things we could produce, then 'buying American' would make sense.
But we buy pretty much everything. And we can produce pretty much anything - especially when you consider we only play a very small part in the production of things now that our economy is so mature.
In the same way a successful lawyer outsources housecleaning work so he can focus on more productive work, skilled Americans outsource unskilled work. It works!
The part that he doesn't espouse is the minimum wage, without which employers would be able to hire huge numbers of American citizens, who would then be able both to gain skills by working and as citizens to hold employers accountable for exploitation. The minimum wage is a major reason employers hire illegals instead of giving jobs to young Americans who in the early part of their lives, with few responsibilities, can afford to develop fundamental skills in exchange for a low wage.
the man was a true genius
At no time are Illegals taking jobs that US Citizens will not do. MOST are collecting Welfare. Most of those who do work are filling jobs that do pay rather well. They get those jobs by providing their Employer with a Social Security Number that is either fake or stolen. They often fill out the W-4 form with that Employer so that little or even no taxes are deducted from their pay. And many if not most are STILL collecting Welfare on top of that work income.
There isn't anything they can find here that they could not build for themselves right there at home. Except for Welfare. No amount of WORK or WORK ETHIC will ever get them Welfare in their Country of birth.
With a better protected border in Canada (via the States as a buffer and the Arctic/Oceans as a natural wall); we see a similar process with Filipinos, Muslims, etc. I am in Newfoundland, Canada. The local Burger King is staffed/managed by primarily those of Filipino descent. They live in the same house, buy and share everything as a large family. Sure $10:50 cdn isn't much; but 8 people making 10:50/hr working 10+ hrs/day 6 days a week puts this household in a nice situation. Enough that working as a single unit with a single goal they will quickly own their house and perhaps the Burger King quicker than most Canadians could muster enough energy to pay off a used car.
@echatterwa He had respect for the long processes of history upon which nations are built and had a great understanding of the unpopular yet positive realities of Capitalism. At no point is he promoting illegal immigration, he is simply and rationally ( not emotionally ) explaining how both illegal immigrants and their employers both benefit from the practice.
Owning hippies and picking his nose. Just the way we like him! :D
But it is the duty of a capitalist to do such research on such acts and his duty to put his dollar towards another product of the same or better quality, but most important it should be of better quality for the consumer as well as the employed. The power of the dollar is in your hand to shape capitalism, that is capitalisms' strength.
Anyone else think of the little bully's helper from A Christmas Story when you see the first questioner?
Such a great thing to discuss. I get the young man’s point of view but you simply cannot force others to be fair for someone else based on a moral perspective.
You can only look to better opportunities for others and see the work do itself the benefit of which you wanted to see in the beginning
That is a good point and true, however I still hold true to my above statement and see it as an addition. Sadly, your above statement is now a driving reason to illegally immigrate here.
Translation of Derail's response:
"I either can't understand economics on this level or can't counter it."
That was brilliant: "What's keeping them (Mexicans) from staying in Mexico and making a better life for themselves in Mexico?" Answer: "There are no capitalists in Mexico." Excellent. God, we need to have all of these MF videos shown in every single high-school in America (or World, even)!
😂 now mexico has a free trade and has millions of American jobs and still want to leave
So Milton Friedman is arguing in favor of Illegal Immigration?
Perhaps, but not at the expense of U.S. citizens i.e. free health care, welfare, etc. I think he have would supported work visas.
You are right. I have been a burger flipper,a janitor,a dishwasher,etc,etc,etc....I would do those jobs again but I can't because who would hire me at 8.00 (MW) an hour when they can hire an illegal for 8 dollars the whole day? And sure the illegal will take it because that 8 dollars triples if not more when it switches to mexico's currency.
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Ayn Rand
Suggesting that unfettered access to the US labour market would work as well today as it did back in the 1800s is just goofy, and it's one of the few times I have seen Friedman commit himself to a questionable position. Inflation-adjusted wages have remained stagnant since the 1970s, and in a 21st century context open door immigration would result in an unprecedented rise in the US population. The social ramifications would be unthinkable.
The problem i have with his argument is that illegal immigration drives wages down therefor driving buying power down. The equivalent is how most manufacturing jobs left the usa which saw a nation wide decrease in wages.
Maybe having illegal immigration drives the cost of goods down but also buying power down. It also drives up cost of housing as there's more demand
Thank you Milton 😊 💓
Beatniks had an issue with Sir Friedman...
I would say kept in abject poverty by political corruption, politicians set the rules you know.
This sounds great, ask the native american Indians how well this immigration worked for them. What if Israel opened their boarders and let the Arabs into their country, what would happen to the Jews. At some point regardless of cheap labor and future votes, a countries survival depends on enforcing its immigration laws.
great intro music!!! what s it?
Snarky question Jesse Eisenberg
That is actually a young John Malkovich
@banter2345
If you think that Irish Gangs and Italian Mafia was integration then sure fine. In my city just twenty years ago if you were a Fireman you were Irish. American's are very quick to want to move on but the idea of what to move on to is an abstract one, but that doesn't give us a free pass to forget or ignore what is so apparent. That there will be Mexican gangs and in thirty years if you are a farm hand or a Gardner or a whatever tradesman you will be Mexican and they will move on.
But if a vineyard keeps employing the same type of sub-contractors due to low costs which in turn keeps their costs down then despite dangers to health and eventual deaths then yes, the vineyard is conspiring against said immigrants for profit and gain.
A think the value that mentioned in this short clip is what most that are for immigration or it not ne illegal anyway is the growth aspect, when you take mostly male, mostly young out of a country and leave the old, the women etc, then the process that we as a country had to go through from droughts, starvation, wars, ups and downs that happen in individual lives and in a country over that process that might take hundreds of years, the same is with Mexico, we dont help drug addicts by giving them free drugs, we dont help lazy people by just giving them money, the out come is progress for that person, it's the stagnation of that person and its the same on a country scale. This is real life and the only way to grow is to fail, the best way to be a professional at anything is the mistakes and the time in that profession which is what makes a professional to begin with. Nobody just wakes up one day and says I want to build furniture and is an expert at it, no the great funiture builders have built furniture for decades and learned from their mistakes in what makes it better and stronger and more valuable furniture. Is Mexico go to ever rise above its hardships if its never left to do so, id say no, we are who we are because of the lack of places to run, our ancestor had to fight and work to the bone for us to have what we have today. It sucks I know but it is the way life is and we can't change the process of life.
A Nobel Prize for poor reading comprehension in defense of extortion.
It's exhausting.
Some Hispanics hate other Hispanics so much.
But there aren't any consequences for forgetting about foreign, Hispanic females.
Choice #3 would be to legally apply to come to the USA.
that would lead to welfare benefits being allocated to these new immigrants entering legally...is it sustainable ?
@@rooksman64 If they were allowed to enter at all. Why would we let anyone in who would just be a drain on resources? Why not just keep the parasites out? If their only ambition was to be a leech on society, why let them in at all?
Why didn't you just make it one video? Seems like a waste of time to upload 2 videos compared to just one.
Americans do want to do those jobs because they don't pay enough.
The wages are so low because there are millions of illegal immigrant workers willing to do them. Simple supply and demand.
If you remove the illegal immagrant workers, the supply of workers plummets while the demand remains the same. Either wages will increase until legal citizens are willing to do them, or the tasks can be automated, thus fillign those jobs.
@MrLecam21 But in that instance you're paying for the product because it was made in America. The product is not identical (to you) as one made overseas. If you could buy a pencil made in America for $1 or one made in America for 50 cents, you would buy the cheaper one.
the laugh at 1:05
Should we be supporting American workers by offering high wage for that which can be obtained for a lower wage? Should our loyalty be to potential American workers or American consumers? It can't be to both. To level the playing field, the fairest thing to do would be to abolish minimum wage. Wages are paid as a necessary expense to produce products at a price consumers will find attractive. Wages are not an altruistic program to provide folks with an income.
@phantomcharger I can sum up the problems in one word; costs. We have too many artificial costs as it is, and they keep growing. China doesn't have a minimum wage, and, even with the restriction of speech, each chinese is relishing the chance to keep more of what they make. They also have different standards of safety; the food poisoning was bad, but the lead content in the paint? trumped up in the same way alcohol levels have been trumped here.
The owners of these companies see the profits to be had on selling out this country, so until we see the problems inherent with letting other countries do all the work we can possibly give them on the cheap, we will continue to decline as a nation.
If anyone here thinks other countries dont use trade tariffs, they need to do a little research on it, the most successful countries, (like companies) know they need to protect their best interests first, all others come second.
There's a principles flaw in Friedman's reasoning that disturbs me. All his points are valid one by one, but are not compatible. When talking inheritance and borders, he talks about families and nations, which is perfectly fine; but then you can't go like he goes to a "people have responsability, not nations" or an individualistic approach. You can't have it both ways.
there is no sound for some reason
Raising the minimum wage destroys the only weapon the poor have.
Thanks for sharing
Wake up, humanity
There is a third option, Force the wine growers to pay the same wages to whoever works for them, Like Milton said U.S.A nationals have better alternatives, If so that would leave most of the jobs to the immirgrants right? Call their greedy bluff! Put the choice to the wine growers, Pay up or close! They will crack first.
@phantomcharger now, look at the enviroment. Healthcare is now essentially going to cost more, artificially, cap and tax will likely be up for debate after the elections, if possible; the United States is not friendly toward economic freedom. Hong Kong has much less protectionist policies. The Per capita GDP of Hong Kong; $42,700.
The Per capita GDP of China; $6500. Protectionist policies create an artificial barrier that restrains competition and lower prices, which increases standard of living
So pissed I wasn't presented this stuff in school...
Its not just American its people. Everyone wants to pay for lower costs and make higher in wages. That's what business try to do. They want to make more money so that could be by two ways. Being more productive with their product which makes it cheaper n more people would buy it or by making it more demanding so they can raise the price. That's very basic what I just said though.
I disagree to some degree, as someone who lives in Africa, its entirely possible to imagine criminal or "begging" immigration. If borders were totally open who is to say people wouldn't leave their country to a European one even if there is no work available.
Its better to be a beggar in Europe than starve to death in the Congo.
I would have loved to hear Friedmans take on that issue. Surely it isnt healthy for a country to let in half the population of Central Africa just on the hope that they are coming to perform constructive work and add to the Economy. Same idea applies for the Mexicans.
There has to be a limit to which an Economy can support Immigration, an attractive economy will no doubt be voted into with the boots of people who are less fortunate, some yes for constructive work and wage earning but also some to simply hope for a better life.
Those who are not adding to the Economy would become a burden in many ways surely.
This is quoted from Investopedia
Productivity
Productivity can be measured by the output for each hour of employee work-the GDP per person-and the effect on productivity from new immigrants may be more or less than the current level. Therefore, while GDP could increase overall as new workers found jobs, the increase may or may not boost the productivity of the workforce. Typically, it would not, but it would depend on the specific circumstances.
If immigrants were highly productive, per capita GDP could increase. However, if the immigrants didn't work or didn't increase productivity, the losses would lower GDP per capita.
Friedman is wrong in the sense that illegal immigration distorts the 'work marketplace'. It is not that people will not 'work the jobs' it is that the jobs do not pay enough to live on unless you are willing to accept the working conditions e.g. living 8 to a room and tiny wages (still better than home) and no healthcare or similar safety net. This over supply of labour artificially keeps wages down to a level that makes some people rich so they have no incentive to provide a 'living wage' and so the cycle of illegal immigration and low wages continues. This creates an underclass... and in 2020 we can see the wealth disparities.
You know, I see Im getting a lot of thumb downs, all you have to do is look at the short history since we have NAFTA, you all are getting what you want, no trade tariffs, and the countrys just about done. Why do you think that is???
Id really LOVE to know what you geniuses think on how we lost all our production capacity, and how that is fucking good for us.
You display a fundamental misunderstanding of economics with this statement in that you only comprehend local, short-term equilibrium and then make a hasty conclusion without going further on from which you'd see that the global equilibrium is more beneficial overall (lower price of goods and services to consumers). The problem we have today that makes it difficult for people to diagnose correctly the economic situation is that there is a myriad of gov't distorting private behavior.
@GodotheInfantry
well use whatever word you liek then however it is confusing
Where is the evidence that US citizens are refusing to work those jobs. My opinion is that those jobs are never offered to citizens in this country.
Indeed, if your logic was sound, all matter of competition of labor lowering wages would be "destructive." And by that claim, we must indefinitely raise wages ad absurdum and "create" wealth, right?
It's a fair point to say minimum wage laws lock out American citizens from competing for these illegal jobs, but don't blame the illegal alien for that.
@TheCynicalDude I think you're wrong. Nations have no responsibility in the sense that only the citizens óf that nation have responsibility. When it comes to borders; it's no matter of responsibility but rather of collective interest. The law of the land ought to ensure a system in which the citizens can thrive but this does not imply that the law itself carries any responsibility. The judicial branch has to make sure the law is obeyed or the system might collapse; which I'm sure is a bad thing.