Milton Friedman - Your Greed or Their Greed?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- www.kobo.com/w...
71republic.com...
theeconomicrev...
cameronharwick...
www.lewrockwel...
IMPORTANT: • Video
• John Bradshaw : Entrev...
www.dragonmothe...
unslaved.com/t...
But see also: • Ha-Joon Chang - 23 Thi...
In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom.
An excerpt from an interview with Phil Donahue in 1979.
en.wikipedia.or...
/ stefbot
Whether you agree with Milton Friedman or Phil Donahue, you have to admit it's refreshing to see a intellectual, calm discussion, without some crazy host yelling, or a bunch of graphics everywhere.
Dude went straight to hell.
:D
Check The Rubin Report if you want honest, long form intellectual discussion.
I'm actually impressed to see Phil Donahue appear to actually listen.
The graphics are due to capitalism though. So that’s what the free market gets you. Oh. And also the current model of outrage cable media click bait. That’s the free market model too.
Oh, Friedman would destroy them with graphics, if he had had access to current technology maybe he could have come across his point even better.
What a different day. If this was today, Phil would be replaced by some shrill person stepping on Friedman's every statement, not allowing him to complete a thought. How nice to see someone allow a guest to get their position out.
Back in the day when people wanted to learn.
Jeffrey Pritchard I imagine, too, it was in a day prior to the realization on the part of the left that theirs is an emotional, not rational position.
***** Interesting. Perhaps in that time, the distinction made discussion possible. Today, how someone *feels* about an issue is sacrosanct. That's probably why we don't see this sort of calm back-and-forth anymore. Fascinating.
+AndrewKendall71 i believe it is also a product of ratings. people love watching outrages interviews, where both sides are bickering.
this seemed like an actual conversation while today the interviewer will always try to put words in the guest's mouth
"And just tell me: where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?"
Damn, that's a good line.
Great Question
Like Carlin said, we don’t have people like that.
To be fair, he stole that from James Madison.
Litterally in most western nations excepts the US. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, but also in several other european nations.
@@LoveEliasson they are not socialist the a capitalist and Sweden has a more free economies than the us they just have a higher tax rate on both the rich poor and middle class and they spend the money effectively
"The world is runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests" is the most important quote out of the whole conversation IMO.
I don't know how anybody can refute that statement.
Absolute factual thoughts, crushing the easy rhetoric and propaganda
Adam Smith: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Imo milton friedman is just adam smith 2.0
@@vl2378 Brilliant. You win the internet sir. Most concise way to put it!
@Élaine Dumont Capitalism is not a model that is invented or implemented. By itself, without intervention from the government of any sort, there will naturally be a free market.
One of the absolute best snapshots of Milton on the Donahue show. Unfortunately, the edit cut out a single important part at the end. When Milton asked Donahue about where he was going to find all these angels to organize society and Milton said "I don't even trust you to do that." Milton went on to say "Let alone myself." That one last statement shows that even though Milton has great intellect, knowledge, and expertise, he doesn't even trust himself to run society effectively. It shows that all the intellect in the world does not make you capable of organizing a society or an economy. It is impossible for any one person on earth (or even a large government) to plan an entire economy. Only in the aggregate of open markets with buyers and sellers do economies function well. Maybe not always perfect, but better than the rest.
God bless your heart sir/ ma.
Only in the aggregate of free and open markets can buyers and consumers do economics best.
Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
No. Mr Friedman is not saying he can't be trusted to run society effectively. He saying no one can be trusted to run society altruistically. No one person can possibly have so great vision to satisfy every one's desires. People's desires and their needs are often not aligned.
We see examples today where gov't giveaways leave people disappointed because others still have more. People contributing nothing complain contributors aren't contributing their fair share.
@@65csx83 read what I said carefully and if you don’t understand it, then keep reading Milton Friedman.
That is very well said, sir.
“I don’t even trust you to do that!”
Milton Friedman was a brilliant man, yes, but he was also a brilliantly social man, which favored his success.
That last point was purposed to informalize his point which may have contradicted people’s assumptions and made them uncomfortable, including Donahue. It personalized and added humor which helped people sympathize with Friedman and be more willing to change their mind as opposed to taking a defensive position in their mind.
Persuaders of public opinion take note.
Matthew Gillespie humor.. far more compelling than looting and rioting.
Too Sense hahaha. Trump is no serious “persuader of public opinion,” but an opportunistic narcissist.
And present election cycle mainstream democrats are less connected to rioting and looting than Trump is connected to the present divisive moment.
We on the right need a Milton Friedman. Someone who obviously cares for the little man like Friedman did. But someone who understands that the best way to go about caring for the little man is through limited government. That’s far from what you see with present day republicans.
Matthew Gillespie However, it is the local leaders in those communities that are responsible for the destruction, not those in federal government. Yes, Im aware Trump is an opportunist, all politicians are. He would be an idiot not to use their inadequacies to his political advantage. Republicans might not be holy but IMO they are a lesser evil, at least they're still fighting for free speech, gun ownership, lower taxes, reduced regulations, free trade, prison reform, and capitalism. Yes, Im aware that cronyism infiltrated the system years ago, but still better than the mass socialism that Dems are now purposing. A Constitution Party would be ideal but voters are committed to self interest in the short term, not long.
I appreciate Friedman because he was championing social justice through capitalism. He was denigrating welfare and telling minorities and the poor you are worth more than a feee paycheck at least. Today’s Republicans just state all Democrats want to give you a handout, which I don’t believe. Friedman is making it clear he thinks government should be out of the way of people making decisions about their financials.
@@matthewgillespie2835 Then you miss the appeal of Trump. Trump didn’t create a single “believer.” Not one. What he DID do is tap into the policies over 60% of our people have wanted for decades, but which most politicians wouldn’t even talk about let alone implement.
Friedman's ability to communicate the ultimate superiority of capitalism so eloquently amd succinctly is truly inspiring. A great man with powerful ideas.
Dr. Cactus An organization is a mere legal fictionBut in the magical world conjured up in this article, an organization is a mere “legal fiction”, which the article simply ignores in order to prove the pre-determined conclusion. The executive “has direct responsibility to his employers.” i.e. the shareholders. “That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.“What’s interesting is that while the article jettisons one legal reality-the corporation-as a mere legal fiction, it rests its entire argument on another legal reality-the law of agency-as the foundation for the conclusions. The article thus picks and chooses which parts of legal reality are mere “legal fictions” to be ignored and which parts are “rock-solid foundations” for public policy. The choice depends on the predetermined conclusion that is sought to be proved.A corporate executive who devotes any money for any general social interest would, the article argues, “be spending someone else’s money… Insofar as his actions in accord with his ‘social responsibility’ reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money.”How did the corporation’s money somehow become the shareholder’s money? Simple. That is the article’s starting assumption. By assuming away the existence of the corporation as a mere “legal fiction”, hey presto! the corporation’s money magically becomes the stockholders’ money.But the conceptual sleight of hand doesn’t stop there. The article goes on: “Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers’ money.” One moment ago, the organization’s money was the stockholder’s money. But suddenly in this phantasmagorical world, the organization’s money has become the customer’s money. With another wave of Professor Friedman’s conceptual wand, the customers have acquired a notional “right” to a product at a certain price and any money over and above that price has magically become “theirs”.But even then the intellectual fantasy isn’t finished. The article continued: “Insofar as [the executives’] actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.” Now suddenly, the organization’s money has become, not the stockholder’s money or the customers’ money, but the employees’ money.Is the money the stockholders’, the customers’ or the employees’? Apparently, it can be any of those possibilities, depending on which argument the article is trying to make. In Professor Friedman’s wondrous world, the money is anyone’s except that of the real legal owner of the money: the organization.One might think that intellectual nonsense of this sort would have been quickly spotted and denounced as absurd. And perhaps if the article had been written by someone other than the leader of the Chicago school of economics and a front-runner for the Nobel Prize in Economics that was to come in 1976, that would have been the article’s fate. But instead this wild fantasy obtained widespread support as the new gospel of business.People just wanted to believe…The success of the article was not because the arguments were sound or powerful, but rather because people desperately wanted to believe. At the time, private sector firms were starting to feel the first pressures of global competition and executives were looking around for ways to increase their returns. The idea of focusing totally on making money, and forgetting about any concerns for employees, customers or society seemed like a promising avenue worth exploring, regardless of the argumentation.In fact, the argument was so attractive that, six years later, it was dressed up in fancy mathematics to become one of the most famous and widely cited academic business articles of all time. In 1976, Finance professor Michael Jensen and Dean William Meckling of the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester published their paper in the Journal of Financial Economics entitled “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.”Underneath impenetrable jargon and abstruse mathematics is the reality that whole intellectual edifice of the famous article rests on the same false assumption as Professor Friedman’s article, namely, that an organization is a legal fiction which doesn’t exist and that the organization’s money is owned by the stockholders.Even better for executives, the article proposed that, to ensure that the firms would focus solely on making money for the shareholders, firms should turn the executives into major shareholders, by affording them generous compensation in the form of stock. In this way, the alleged tendency of executives to feather their own nests would be mobilized in the interests of the shareholders.
+Geht Euch Nicht An Your 'argument' was VERY persuasive!
+Dr. Cactus Surely you're being sarcastic?
+Dr. Cactus The fact that someone can get so many likes for a comment like this is Truly Scary to see how far down we have gone in our analytical capabilities. Very Scary indeed ...
+NLRBE Dismissal is a denial tactic.
The reason Friedman is a giant in the world of economics is because he
does not just work with theories in a vacuum of some office, he accounts
for human nature. This is Milton at his best.
Then I'd hate to see him at his worst. That must be worse than Trump.
@@ynemey1243 .... meanwhile jobs are at an all time high, and the United States is back to being on an equal footing with the rest of the world in terms of fair trade. Perhaps you prefer waiting on the socialist food stamp line instead, ehh? Go back to the mid east if you prefer poverty and ignorance.
Well said 🔥
Debunking Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman states that free market capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty more than any other system. What he doesn’t tell you is compared to left leaning social democratic capitalist countries, free market capitalist countries are nowhere in comparison. Social democratic countries by all metrics out perform countries that are free market or free market leaning.
Milton Friedman was an advisor to Ronald Reagan and he also implemented his policies in Chile. Look at Chile and the US as an economic experiment, then compare them to socially democratic countries which have unions, regulations, minimum wage laws, lots of social programs etc, everything that Milton Friedman disapproves of and they all outperform America and Chile not just economically but socially.
People in Chile were rioting in the streets and Milton Friedman’s economic policies are no longer implemented in Chile. If Milton Friedman’s policies were so wonderful the Chilean people would not be getting rid of his policies would they?
Just like the US, the economy did improve in Chile, but only for the top richest individuals with high inequality and low wages. After Ronald Reagan implemented Friedman policies in the US inequality skyrocketed. The US is now the most highly unequal country in G7 countries, this was not the case prior to 1980. The same thing happened in the UK with Margaret Thatcher who was a fan of Milton Friedman, it is the second most highly unequal country in the G7.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world of over two million, the 3rd highest homicide rate next to Mexico and Estonia. Nordic countries have low crime, as an example Norway just shut down 27 prisons due to lack of crime. The US has a massive homelessness problem, Finland has no homelessness.
In the US it’s estimated that approximately 70,000 people die each year because they can’t afford healthcare and another 700,000 people file for bankruptcy because of healthcare costs. In 2007, 8.1 million children under 18 years old were without health insurance in the US. In left-leaning socially democratic countries nobody goes bankrupt and nobody dies. The healthcare systems in Socially democratic countries are rated to be best the world with much lower costs compared to private healthcare in the US. Milton Friedman was promoted by right wing billionaires. Personally I would not listen to him, his policies only leads to inequality and wealth concentration. He is easily debunked today.
Michael Pantazis.
@@surreallife777 "Socially democratic countries..." The examples of which people like to use are nothing of the sort: ruclips.net/video/0lxD-gikpMs/видео.html
Being greedy is not the same as wanting to earn money. It means earning, or wanting to earn, a lot more than you actually need. You can have capitalism without greed.
keep being poor m8
"Of course none of us are greedy. It's only the other fellow who's greedy." Did you miss the point of this? It's a petty insult, not a reasoned assertion.
Liberals throw around the word "greed" like catty women throw around the word "slut".
It's basic economics that there is a limited amount of resources and in general about 99.99999% of human beings have unlimited desires. Our computers are never fast enough, are cars are never efficient enough, our plane rides are never quick enough etc...
This is the definition of greed, am I correct? Seems to me that "greed" is human nature.
@@Atreus21Both serve the same purpose: to socially shame a person from being better than them, i.e. to put down your competition.
Creating more value than you personally need is the whole basis of our progress. E.g. when someone invents a way to dig up tons of steel and a way to process that, everyone benefits. The guy's getting more than he needs - thus everyone gets steel.
Look at Mr. Donahue. No anger no interruption. He sat there and listened. He countered Professor Friedman but never attacked him. He was a great devils advocate. He brought on people who totally disagreed with him and let them have their say and always there was a wonderful conversation. His type is lost on modern media today.
you have it right ,, i cant stand the way orielly and cavuto interveiw peope of interest ,,,, they constantly interupt for the sake of commercials ,,, quick say what you have to then get off because we have to make money which is more important than you opinion ... always interupting monica crowley , , incesently ,,
cant watch these know it all's who just want to divide time rather than learn something ..
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
Capitalism is a buzz word that has become synonymous with greed when all you are talking about is free trade using a monetary system.
Yeah the derogatory term stuck. It's not about capital, it's about controlling what you own
@Neo, yes.. Milton uses the correct phrase in this quote: Free Market Enterprise
I hate ism's but they are necessary for expediency sometimes.
Really boils down to lesser of 2 evils: Pro Human Individualization and Free Market Enterprise and yes free or largely free trade
vs, greater of 2 evil: Pro Human Collectivization and Government Control of all Human Trade or mostly all human trade.
But both do require greed unfortunately. Greater of 2 evils just incentivizes a way worse and concentrated and more abundant type of greed
But self interest IS same as Greed.. his best part of the quote is when he jokes sarcastically "of course none of us are greedy, its always the other fella who is greedy"
That is the best and yet to be refuted part of the quote.. probably will never be refuted.. People can only play dumb and pretend they do not get the sarcasm of the joke.. but they are checkmated at being exposed to play dumb.. they would just be playing dumb that they cannot admit to themselves that they are also Greedy like everyone else and just cannot laugh at themselves due to immaturity
Best thing a teacher taught me in Grade school once was the importance of being able to laugh at yourself and move on... definition of insanity is trying same thing over and over again expecting different results.. just like all the insane collectivists
@@thinkngskeptic exactly the last point, it's about controlling what you own
I've watched a few Friedman videos and what impresses me is whatever question thrown at him, he has a rock solid answer every time, and he doesn't even have to contemplate an answer, it's never fluffy or diversionary, it's succinct and to the point and pretty much closes question immediately. He is alien-level genius.
Alien level genius. I must take this from u. I’ll give u credit tho.
True.
@Ji Wo "His shareholder theory never panned out"
Didn't it? Because when I look around I see vastly improved quality of life due to the profit motive of capitalism. What is your alternate theory that has produced better outcomes? Socialism? 🤣🤣🤣
Please give me an example so I may compare.
"by men greater than himself"
Who specifically? You seem to have missed that important bit out.
"and a minority that would reap the rewards of enterprise. "
So you have not reaped the rewards of modern innovation? Quality of life across the world has vastly improved globally thanks to innovation brought about by free market economics. You are using a platform right now to communicate with the world that was provided to you by private enterprise yet somehow fail to recognise such a simple fact?
"That’s just basic common knowledge"
That is not an argument.
"Where can you run to when the chaos you have sown will be reaped globally? "
What chaos are you talking about? We live in the most peaceful and prosperous times in all of human history thanks to capitalism.
Your claim of 'proven wrong' doesn't meet the definition of a proof.
@@gooble69 you don’t quite understand and that’s okay. America is socialism disguised capitalism. Also, you base your thoughts on capitalism as positive because “rich people get rich” and they help the poor. Not true at all, we have a 40 year high inflation problem and corporations profits are the highest in 70 yrs. You work a job and have no money as most Americans. Tell me again why capitalism works?
My post: Anyone up for a challenge? Here is why Milton Friedman’s ideas are nonsense.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
- Benito Mussolini
So what happened after around 1980? The USA is now the most highly unequal industrialized country in the world with the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 40 years of stagnant wages. On the other hand progressive Norway just shut down 27 prisons due to lack of crime and has low inequality.
All this inequality and poverty started around 1980 with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who promoted Milton Friedman’s policies. Friedman was adviser to Ronald Reagan. So began the movement of 40 years of tax cuts for the Rich and corporations, austerity, cutting social programs, environmental deregulation, deregulation of banks/finance, underfunding the FTC, EPA and FDA, privatization, free trade, eliminating anti-monopoly laws, legalizing bribery laws to politicians, cutting and trying to privatize Social Security/pensions, privatizing education, Medicaid/healthcare and lastly the destruction of unions which gave some form of democracy to workers. This contributed greatly to stagnant wages and many employees feel they have to walk on eggshells and are afraid to speak up if they are overworked or if the environment is toxic psychologically or environmentally.
The main way conservative economists and politicians convince the public to cut social programs is national debt hysteria, “The nation is broke!” Conservative believe or cynically promote the national debt is like household debt, its not. A household does not have its own currency and a nation owes its debts to its self. Countries that get into trouble owe there debts in a foreign currency. I recommend reading The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton, it’s a best seller right now.
Its no coincidence that around 1980 wages stoped going up with productivity. Conservatives like to accuse the left of a wealth transfer, what they don’t tell you is that there has already been a wealth transfer from the poor and middle-class to the rich to the tune of about $50 trillion while wages for the poor and middle class have been flat.
This is according to Ronald Reagan’s own budget director David Stockman, who now regrets implementing supply side economic policies, he states this: “In 1985, the top five percent of the households - the wealthiest five percent - had net worth of $8 trillion - which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five per cent have net worth of $50 trillion. The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980.”
People need to understand that there are two kinds of dominant economists out there currently, one is conservative free market supply side economist and the other is the progressive demand-side economist. Conservative supply side economics policies have been proven not to work over and over again, yet the rightwing rich and conservative politicians still promote them.
The reason people in Detroit are being poisoned with leaded water is precisely because of Friedman’s idea that big government is evil and his idea that everything should be deregulated and privatized. Detroit is in shambles economically precisely because of free trade policies. Ross Perot who was running for president decades ago said this “once these free trade policies are implemented you’re going to hear a huge sucking sound of manufacturing leaving the US.” Since implementing these policies 50,000 factories in the US of closed down. Perot was absolutely right, Detroit went from a prosperous manufacturing base to what it is today, all because of cheap labor and no workers rights/unions.
Government for the people by the people is the only thing that prevents it from being overtaken by the rightwing rich and corporations, which is precisely what’s happened to the US after the conservative bill 1978 Boston Bellotti and Citizens United was passed. Prior to these two bills being passed giving unlimited funding to politicians was called called bribery, today is called “free-speech” and “corporations are people too” The US was bought and sold over 40 years ago, this is why it’s currently on the brink of revolution.
When President Jimmy Carter talked about Citizens United and this doctrine of money as speech in 2015, he said: “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president.
They eliminated the Glass Steagall act which allowed commercial banks to merge with investment banks which allowed massive amounts or risky leveraging and in turn led to the 2008 crash. All in the name of less government.
They eliminated the Sherman Antitrust Law which disallowed monopolies. There used to be hundreds of media outlets prior to the elimination of the Sherman Anti-Trust law, now most of the media is owned by a handful people. All in the name of less government.
They eliminated The Fairness Doctrine. This was a law that was in place since 1940 which required that any broadcaster had to debate both sides of the issue equally. Republican Dick Cheney and George Bush removing it. All in the name of less government.
They attacked unions. Unions fell from a high of 34% membership who is low as 10%. Many Americans today - especially women - are working more hours than they did three decades ago, but they’re not seeing a corresponding growth in wages. All in the name of moving towards a freer markets.
Americans now work the longest hours per week compared to other developed nations with no paid sick leave, no paid vacations, and no healthcare. In France, Germany and Scandinavian countries workers get 6 to 8 weeks paid vacation.
Life expectancy dropped. In 1980, the U.S. was right in the middle of the pack of peer nations in life expectancy at birth. But by the mid-2000s, it was at the bottom of the pack.”
Milton Friedman stated that his free market policies would produce democracy, this certainly did not happen in Chile. The economy in Chile worked wonderfully for the top 1% of course. If Friedman‘s ideas were so wonderful, why did the Chilean people reject his policies? The Chilean people should be jumping up and down on the streets praising Milton Friedman, yet they are advocating for the removal of Friedman’s policies.
“Statistically, 80% of the Chilean people have no money left at the end of the month. Senior citizens receives $180 per month. 33% of Chilean GDP goes to the 1%, that’s higher than almost anywhere else in the world.”
Friedman took part in molding the Chilean economy. Chile now has the longest work hours per week with low wage payouts. Just like America his policies have made a small sector of Chile wealthy.
In terms of healthcare, approximately 700,000 people In the US go bankrupt because they can’t afford healthcare or they are turned down because of pre-existing conditions. Approximately 50,000 Americans die each year because they can’t afford healthcare. How many people die or go bankrupt in France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Finland etc. etc, ZERO.
Ron Paul who’s a fan of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, stated that he thought that it was ok if someone just died in front of a hospital if he or she could not afford healthcare. Ron Paul later backtracked and said “well there’s always the churches” which is bullshit.
For your own good, my advice is not to listen in Milton Friedman. Looking forward to your replies.
P.S. When a democrat/liberal promotes conservative policies (like Bill Clinton) he or she is not progressive.
Michael Pantazis
I love the line, "Is political self interest more noble than economic self interest?" No, it's not, but we have a bunch of people clamoring for more government to control their lives.
Truer now today!
@Ben.....years ago we lived in a more ‘free’ world. Your comment is more poignant now.
Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
2020
This man was a pure and utter genius. I WISH more people paid attention to the likes of Milton Friedman instead of reality tv stars.
+JustLikeGreta lovely socialist morality
+JustLikeGreta But he didn't. And this nation experienced an economic recovery, after the horror of the late 70's, when he became an advisor to President Reagan in the 80's. The virtues of capitalism extolled in this clip were what became a catalyst for the regeneration of American Industry and prosperity that would benefit all of us through the 90's... But 9/11 brought EVERYTHING, and apparently hateful mean-spirited people like you, to where we are now....
+JustLikeGreta I´m with you completely. The economic theories created by this man brought about the existence of numerous neoliberal military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina in the 70s, leading to thousands upon thousands of deaths and disappearances. Don´t listen to those who have their heads too far stuck up their nationalist asses to see the truth.
+Jon Kenny Thanks Jon.
+curzyman Apologies, I have removed my comment as it was an inappropriate response to yours. all the best.
Milton Friedman was a brilliant man. He was the Carl Sagan of Economics.
Bigger.
Not Friedman fan, but what he did for economics was much bigger than Sagan did for physics. He was like the Feynman of Economics.
carl sagan was wrong and admitted it
Carl Sagan is NOT a legitimate scientist. He;s a Media invention, a proponent of the silliest "equation" ever written - The Drake Equation.
That's a great way to put it. He had a knack for taking difficult concepts in economics and explaining them to a mass audience.
Friedman was fantastic. Charismatic, intelligent, well spoken, and sharp as a tack.
We could use a few of him today
We need him now more than ever.
Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
@@TC-ic1ic Buzz the circle of greed.
Milton's thoughts remind me of this excerpt from the Tao Te Ching written over 2600 years ago, specifically the line "I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass."
If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
So.... basically, an anarchy?
That excerpt has so much truth in it. Especially the second-to-last one. "I let go of religion, and people become serene." It's strange, because England has a large proportion of atheists, even though its schools are sometimes intertwined with the Church of England. Meanwhile, Ireland has separation of Church and State, and they have a gigantic following of Catholics. It's unusual.
It's more reflective of Asian culture, where the philosophy is focuses on the eternal and sublime, whereas western philosophy is more practical and has an endgoal.
The excerpt is not so much anarchy, but more as a proponent for freedom.
Great quote. Sometimes, the best thing one can do is...nothing, and simply let the system stabilize. It takes great discipline and wisdom to recognize when to act, and when to let go.
I think the point that is being missed is that a person can display selfishness at certain times and egalitarianism at other times................the lack of egalitarianism or empathy for others is the problem in a capitalist system
robinsss the lack of empathy and egalitarianism is a problem in every system
This is probably one of the greatest videos on the internet.
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
He is so well spoken.
ruclips.net/user/shortspZovVe1fUsY
I just love the way - every time - how Milton calmly answers any question asked of him with polite, logical arguments that make his point time and time again.
Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
Milton Friedman is a GENIUS
+Lars Magnus Samuelsson Svenssonsenn Magnussvensamuelsson Thor, why?
Thats pretty socialist. Come with an arguement why hes bad fucking smartass.
+Carl Mangnus-Because he defenses neoliberalism and neoliberalism is ideology saying: I am rich, you are poor, so go fuck your self.
yaya
+Ted Striker.....So what....he was Jewish.....he was also smart enough to realize that history proves that Socialism doesnt work....it's not sustainable....is only leads to misery and tyranny. Capitalism is superficially criticized as being based on greed, but it is the only brand of economics that has ever grown a middle class, and it does indeed share wealth by creating new industry, business, jobs, services, etc., by naturally growing and expanding the economy. What point exactly are you trying to make with your Antisemitic comments. We white Europeans are just as greedy as anybody.
Poor people are no less greedy than rich people. EVERYBODY has an incentive to maximize their lot in life. Sure, there are the statistical few who crave frugality. But on the whole, most people would like to have a bit more than they currently have. I've never met a person who was offered a raise, but turned it down because "no, no, no, I don't need that money". Quite the opposite. All the poor and lower middle class people I've been surrounded by for my whole life have always bitched about how they didn't have enough. I wish this . . . I want that. And I'm not faulting them one bit. We ALL wish this and want that. The only difference is that some people have either lucked out by matter of birth or circumstance, or they have figured out how to work smarter rather than harder.
Just because one fails to take advantage of a powerful system, doesn't mean the system itself is evil. What's the alternative? FORCED distribution? That's the "moral" solution? Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
Communism = give me everything you have and I'll redistribute as I see fit, starting with my dear friends.
ICEGTN
another fine point. excellent ice.
Yea, ok. But there's a difference between need and greed.
*****
yes sir. you got i mate. omniscient and if they have their way...omnipotent as well.
Look another pathetic mouthpiece for the Rich. they don't want you bro, you're not goodlooking enough, shit tier genes.
"The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus." What fascinates me is that he said this decades ago, and every truly great achievement since then until today indeed did not "come from government bureaus."
What's funny is that this is complete bullshit. It's not so much that capitalism produces better advancements, perhaps he's just thinking about the industrial revolution. The heightened output is why we are capable of faster advancements; with better technologies, we can produce more at a faster rate. Which I might add are produced by universities which are funded by governments, so there's that. Einstien didn't construct his theory under the order of a bureaucrat but he did construct it while being paid from public dollars through the government. Friedman thinks he can just side step the question while using bullshit and lies but frankly, the greatest scientific advancements in history have been created through the public sector, not the private sector as he claims. Simply because capitalism happened to be the chosen economic mode of production at the time does not equal causation.
Alex Mochan Do you think Japan or Cuba has produced "better advancements"? Of course capitalism "produces better advancements." Your argument here is predicated upon the assumption that, if government ceases to fund universities, the inventions and developments produced by universities would also cease; that is completely false. How do you know that individual firms would not take the place of the taxpayer-funded government and fund universities and research themselves?
And sure, let's avoid the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That said, how could you possibly say that the development of the iPhone or the elimination of poverty in, for example, Singapore, is due to actions undertaken by "government bureaus"? It's the complete opposite: no government bureau forced Jobs to invent the iPhone and Singapore has one of the most capitalistic economies in the world.
RUclips, the website, you're commenting on, did not come from a government bureau; this is what Friedman meant.
+mtoh your standard for key technological advancement is extremely low. iPhone were created by combining already existing technologies like microprocessors, touch acreens, ext that were developed in universities. I'm simply saying that Friedman is assuming that capitalism produces more favourable results when in fact capitalism has simply streamlined communication and cooperation, making it easier for firms yo carry out larger undertakings (such as building the iPhone).
It's also interesting that you would use Singapore as it is not an example of a capitalist economy. The government owns ~90% of all the land, 85% of housing is provided by government owned housing corporations, and 22% of GDP is produced by state owned enterprises. The issues surrounding stability and economic well-being cannot be answered by a single economic principle such as capitalism and Singapore, the country you used as an example proves that. Simply having free and welcoming trade doesn't equal capitalism just the same as social housing doesn't equal Marxism. Having read Capitalism and Democracy I know that Friedman did not believe in government agency within the economy, he also would be extremely opposed to state owned land and housing (unless it's military).
I recommend reading The Shock Doctrine, it's a book about how Friedman meant well but missed his mark almost entirely with some of his theories, such as applied macroeconomics and "shock therapy". It's commonly held in the modern economic community that explaining, understanding and developing our economies relies more on streamlining interconnectedness and approaching problems as they arise than it does on using a single theory to understand it, that is something Friedman never understood.
Alex Mochan The fact that "capitalism has simply streamlined communication and cooperation, making it easier for firms to carry out larger undertakings" in itself means that capitalism is what spawned the great technological achievements. You yourself just said so.
I believe you're referring to Capitalism and Freedom. As a matter of fact, if you read it again, you will realize that Friedman does believe in government agency within the economy --just in a limited and basic form. Which is reasonable to say the least.
Friedman never claimed that a single blanket-theory can cause economies to flourish, he just claimed that theories that are predicated upon needless government intervention make things worse.
Some people just yearn to be ruled over. It's comforting for @alexMochan
Someone tag Bernie Sanders! Quick!
+Sam Iezzi No problem, Hillary will just "weekend at Bernie's" him to the White House and hold his hand while signing new wars and taxes. Vote Hillernie.
I think Bernie Sanders is more intellegent than most of the twats on this page. He wouldn´t be equally interested in this twaddle.
*@Ben Angel*
FOUND THE BERN VICTIM!
It's 2020. Do it again!
Fuck that commie POS Sanders!!!
It astounds me how many people fail to grasp the very basic concepts which Mr Friedman elucidates in this video.
One of the most iconic quotes of all time.
did someone ask for ur opinion?
aseuyx did someone ask for urs?
uyghui ghbbjb did someone ask for urs?
swordguy8 Nope, and I didn't give mine idiot
@@ashleigh3021 hah. Got him
Amazing
Love your channel, aware, and glad to see you guys like your Milton Friedman
whatever haha you guys are woke
Wtf out of every channel
What are you guys doing here instead of making prank videos?
Glad to know not everyone in SB is economically illiterate
Milton Friedman = Bernie Sanders worst nightmare!!!
cano21 Absolutely...lol!
It wouldn’t even be close. Be like a live execution!
Well not really. Americans standards of living rank 19th and are below average compared to the other developed countries. In fact, our middle class makes no more than they did in 1979 and our economy has tripled in size since then. So we are being robbed by the rich who have been lobbying the idea of trickle down economics while increasing the debt. Truth is both political parties are lobbied by the same interests groups. Face it we have no choice. Get money OUT of elections and politics
*@billy j*
Bullshit.
It is amazing that many times, the more intelligent a person sounds, the less reality affects their argument.
The simplicity and accuracy of Mr. Friedman's position, based solidly in historic reality, is always tossed aside by those who wish to decide the fate of others.
No, people do not like smart people and gravitate toward flashy but dumb people like Trump.
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
It seems the obvious place for that old Churchill quote: "Capitalism is the worst form of government there is...except for everything else."
Why are people attacking Donahue? It's his job to ask questions and play devils advocate.
It’s because of his record on the subject. I watched him scream and yell during interviews about socialism vs capitalism. You don’t see him standing on the street corner handing out lunch money from his personal stash made from a capitalist society he lives in, in order to help the poor. He wants to live the good life while a government hands out your tax paying dollar to provide for those that they choose worthy.
Spoken like a dumb-ass liberal.
@@chuckpetersen246 Maybe he donates time and money to charity and does not ask for handouts. I don’t know many Democrats on welfare, but plenty of Republicans who voted for Trump.
As much as I disagree with Phil Donahue, I admire his handling of the role of host/moderator. Phil had the courage to put on people like Dr. Friedman, Ayn Rand, Rush Limbaugh and never ridiculed them or allowed the audience to be rude. Miss you Phil!
"Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtues of the people or on the basis of their political clouts?" Is when I wanted to break the PC screen because of how amazing that was
So sad. Friedman could not even influence a much more intelligent populace in the 60's and 70's. People back then were much more interested in philosophy and taking part in the intellectual portion of policy debate.
Even those smart individuals were immune to this man's ability to reason. What hope do we have today?
We can all do our part
This will be remembered though.
Long after the fall of 'civilization,'.
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
Donahue is under the impression that greed can somehow be eradicated by socialism or communism, all those do is give greed to and power to the bureaucrats
i dont think u know what communism is
Donahue was probably the worst person to argue against Milton Friedman from an American Liberal/ Socialist perspective. Should've gotten an actual economist on there who could make arguments about the extent of the market to regulate itself.
Tbh I tend to agree with Milton here, but I'm just saying... Donahue was kind of intrinsically a straw man.
I would rather eradicate human beings
I don't think you do, Olivia. You probably think Comunidad communism is just sharing and sunshine.
True, but greed is bad is maybe the point he is making. It is easily the great flaw to capitalism as well. By definition, greed is how capitalism would thrive. Without the lust or love of money, there would be no capitalism. If so, Socialism would be the predominant economic theory throughout the entire world.
Friedman's Free To Choose should be required reading in Economics 101 (despite my opposition to anything compulsory).
He shows how freedom and free enterprise raise living standards. Government meddling is costly and counter-productive.
I think we should make it mandatory to teach every viewpoint. You can have your beliefs and still understand the other side. We should not be like Communist countries and limit ourselves to one world viewpoint.
"What is greed? Of course it's only the other fella who is greedy, not you"
Such an amazing point.
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
He gave an answer: "There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of people than the productivity of free enterprise."
Then how come USSR GDP rose 20+% after war from a 40% destruction while free market stuck to its few %? What was driving those 20%?
We need Dr. Friedman more than we've ever needed him before. I wish he lived until 120 instead of until his 90s.
Jay Kraft His son and grandson are continuing the tradition...
Jay Kraft His son and grandson are continuing the tradition...
Need him for what? To prove that he is a tad bit smarter than Trump?
He lived too long.
Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
"Is it true that political self interest is nobler somehow than economic self interest?" - Milton Friedman
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
Classic point... "none of us are ever greedy, its only the other guy"
In ourselves, the same thing is a virtue, called _pursuing goals_ or _acting in our own interests_
Damn, this response was so perfect that, when I die, I want this to be played in loops at my funeral
If Uncle Milton only had 2 minutes to go down in history, we just watched em.
The look on Donahue's face: "I'm in way over my head"
Yeah, that's sometimes a good place to be though. It takes an intelligent person to recognize it and you learn from it.
To Donahue's credit: he let Friedman talk instead of shouting him down/cutting him off.
He was civil and loved having people on his show that he disagreed with. There are a few radio talk show hosts like that today, and probably people at CSPAN as well.
If it yells it sells.
If he was well versed in logic and the real world he could have mounted a strong argument. We don't live in a free market system. That is purely a model upon which it is based. There are all sorts of distortions added to it by government regulation, the taxation system and a few other factors.
G.C. Lawrence Look up The Rubin Report here on YT :)
"They just look out for #1, and #1 ain't you. You ain't even # 2." - Frank Zappa
I wish we had more meaningful and polite discussions like this on TV. Instead, we have a bunch of hacks that shout down one another.
This clip is what got me into economics!
It’s sad that it’s amazing to see a host let the guest speak without just bulldozing and talking over them constantly. Friedman could pause and continue, and Donahue let him. That’s great
the world is in serious need of a Milton Friedman
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
This is the most influential two minutes Milton Friedman has ever stated, which led me to becoming a libertarian.
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
This man understood how it all works. The world sorely needs more intelligent people like him.
avaughnimous The problem is that markets, being amoral, are necessarily immoral. Markets are essentially utilitarian, they maximize “happiness,” and each individual is free to choose what makes him or her happy. But what happens when one man’s pleasure harms another? As E.F. Schumacher writes, “Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation to man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations: as long as you have not shown it to be ‘uneconomic’ you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper.” That is, as long as companies can make money drilling into Canada’s tar sands, who are we to question them?
Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
I did not care for the Phil Donahue Show but, I give Phil credit for having guests that disagree with him and allowing them to speak their piece. Phil lived a long life and will be remembered by many.
Like Ayn Rand milk is the moral argument for capitalism instead of the practical argument that is because greed is good and it just works. Many socialists might argue that capitalism is selfish but what they fail to realize is that selfishness is the virtue.
Brandon Stewart Virtue, by definition, is the moral excellence of a person. A morally excellent person has a character made-up of virtues valued as good. He or she is honest, respectful, courageous, forgiving, and kind, for example. Because of these virtues or positive character traits, he or she is committed to doing the right thing no matter what the personal cost, and does not bend to impulses, urges or desires, but acts according to values and principles. Some might say that good qualities are innate and developed through good parenting, which they are, but we’re not perfect. Virtues need to be cultivated to become more prevalent and habitual in daily life. With the habit of being more virtuous, we take the helm of our own life, redirecting its course towards greater fulfillment, peace and joy.
Brandon Stewart The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.
Brandon Stewart Ayn Rand is milk for hypocrisy. Explain her being on Social Security because her pulp fiction rags didn't sell enough to support her dumb ass through old age?
Capialism has provied you with your high standard of living, socialism and communism has time and time agin proven to be horiable was to handle the problem of shortages. just look at 1940's socialist Germany, or Communist Russia. Therefore capitalism and the driving force behind it which is selfishness is moral and socialism and the driving force behind it which is altruism is immoral and evil. so if you what mankind to be better off a free market solution is the best way of doing that.
I don't think you understand the free market. Yes it is restless but the compition allow the best and the brightest to succeed well the lazy fail
0:15 Mr. Friedman unamused, sitting back and chillin before he schools this dude. I laughed so hard when I saw his expression
he was a brilliant man. I wish we had more like him
but he lost his balls on this one. he is mixing greed on hoarding wealth and power and desire to pursue knowledge and excel on discovery of the unknown.
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
“There are three questions that would destroy most of the arguments on the left:
1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?
“Now, there are very few ideas on the left that can pass all three of those kinds of things.” - Thomas Sowell
One of the greatest smackdowns I have ever seen
Liberals are pissed at this clip.
+Allen1773 Uhm Friedman was a liberal dumbass.
+Luke Bruce Someone's butthurt
Allen1773 Someone is stupid
+Luke Bruce Yeah you!
+Allen1773
Milton Friedman called himself a Classical Liberal. Google it. And then Google what Liberalism actually means. There's a difference between Socialism and Liberalism.
Donahue had to be impacted by Friedman at least a little bit...he's making so much sense and throwing so much logic around...it's remarkable. It's a basic question: do you want to decide what you do with your money yourself, or would you prefer a government bureaucrat who has great charisma...and has no idea who the hell you are or what your hopes/dreams/desires are?
Mankind has advanced by individuals not groups, people having the freedom to grow and improve will raise us all up as a whole without having to oppress the individual to do it.
I never thought I would say that I would miss Donahue. He played a pivotal role in making me a conservative because his opinions never made sense to me even as a child. As for Milton Friedman - genius does not do him credit.
Rip Milton Friedman. He was a god amongst mortals!
“The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests”
“The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureau”
“In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade”
“There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of people than the productive activities that are unleashed by free enterprise”
“Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler than economic self-interest?”
Thank you Milton, I know it's a rerun but brilliant common sense has no time limit.
Milton Friedman has set the new standard of politcs for me. I'd like to find others like him who speak on other ideologies, like socialism or conservatism. Anybody have any suggestions?
Robin Hansen Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Thomas Sowell, like Friedman, are all great classical liberal economists. They often take perspectives on socialism.
John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard are on the other hand, are more ideological types, who focus their attention on libertarianism.
Robin Hansen Whatever you do, just remember to focus on ideas, even if they were mouthed by people you believe are bad. If the logic is sound, it shouldn't matter whether friedman voiced it or marx voiced it. I found this to be a long time stumbling block for me in progressing in my thought processes. 31T3 1337 N008 makes some good recommendations but then stumbles on people he/she/it finds distasteful. You'll find that Friedman and Rothbard had a great deal of common ground but that Rothbard introduces some mind blowing ideas that Friedman admitted to not being comfortable with. You will have to decide whether to stay put with the guy you like and trust (friedman) or to venture down a path etched by a strange man with strange ideas (rothbard).
Robin Hansen Henry Hazlitt "Economics in One Lesson" get the audiobook. also check out: Tom Woods (best podcast), David Friedman (his son), Petri Friedman (grandson),Thomas Sowell, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, Hans Hoppe, Noam Chomsky, Roderick Long, Stephan Kinsella, Bob Murphy, Bryan Caplan, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, FA Hayek, Walter Block.
FreeGoro Actually, I don't find Rand and Rothbard all that distasteful, I just don't recommend them for someone just starting out with libertarianism.
31T3 1337 N008 Rand is not a libertarian
An absolute genius, the one and only!
The most important mind in the last 100 years, thank you Milton Friedman.
you are obviously not capable to be the judge of this
I like von Mises, by they are both up there.
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom.
Balony. Here’s a bedtime story you can tell your kids if you have any about Milton Friedman.
There were once two politicians named Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who had an economic advisor who was called Milton Friedman. Around 1980 Friedman and this gang ushered in a conservative political and economic philosophy called Neoliberalism.
The first thing they did was to destroy unions, deregulate finance and banks, under funded and sabotage public social programs, ignore and promote propaganda against minimum wage laws (currently it’s $7.50 in the US), promoted the idea that government for the people is bad and that government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub. as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no society, only the individual.”
Lastly, and most importantly, they promoted something Supply Side Economics/Trickle Down Economics which is the philosophy of cutting tax cuts on the very rich because if you give tax cuts to the very rich, the better the economy will do will do for everyone!
But something else happened, for 43 years wages have been stagnant for the poor in middle-class while the very rich have increased their wealth from $8 trillion-$55 trillion.
Not only has the top one percent gotten very rich, but the top 10% have seen their income grow 144% while the poor and middle-class has received next to nothing.
Today the US is now the 3rd most highly unequal country in the OECD next to Mexico, which was not the case prior to 1980. More interestingly Mr. Friedman took a big interest in the economy of Chile, being an advisor to the dictator Augusto Peniche, but today Chile Is the number one most highly unequal country in the OECD! Isn’t that interesting? I guess political economic policies are like scientific laboratory experiments, you do this and you get this.
Seriously, show me any example in history where raising the minimum wage has been bad for the economy and that it has caused inflation. If this were true, you would be hearing conservatives/Republicans politicians and economists quoting this date at this point and time by country and state, but they never do that do they?
You need to understand something, there are basically two dominant economists out there, conservative economists and progressive left-leaning economists and the philosophy is completely different for each one of them. For example, having an economic degree is not the same as having a dental degree where 95% of dentists agree on how to fix teeth. Conservative and progressive economist have divergent viewpoints.
I suggest you read this article below. Based on data and logic, not emotion and propaganda by the great progressive economist, Robert Reich.
Michael Pantazis
Article Robert Reich:
“Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business.”
- Myth #1. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment.
- Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers.A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent - saving employers an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when the typical industry wage was less than half that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed.
- Myth #3: If the wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase - occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, the minimum wage is now worth almost a third less than it was in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year, leaving them with less money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going. That’s why a higher minimum wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going.
- Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage.
- Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly isn’t now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Nearly 8 million are mothers.
- Today’s starvation wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today, because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers.
- In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
- We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage.
Robert Reich
2019? I love Milton Friedman!
Wow, this guy is smart.
Damn son. He's the most based dude who's ever lived.
“I don’t even trust you to do that”. Best backhanded compliment ever.
Many people on here need to understand how utterly different capitalism (especially free market capitalism) and facism is. And how socialism and fascism are very similar.
Socialism and Fascism both work towards pretty much the exact same government structure. Regulated economy, many large agencies, subsidies, bailouts, central authority figure. The only differences they have is WHO is on their throne. And how they utilize the already existing structure both pushed so hard to create.
when we grow in awareness and facilitators, as we speak, will be trustful as well as trusted with their actions, then it's time to deliver a system like kibbutz.
... Very true. The opposite of communism is liberty, not fascism. Additionally, the opposite of fascism is liberty, not communism.
Communism and fascism are brothers that hate each other, much like how Sunnis and Shiites are both Muslims, yet routinely kill each other more than any outsider does.
Libertarianism does not lead to freedom, it leads to austerity, poor working conditions, no safeguards, etc etc
I guess I am talking about neolibertarianism, as advocated by Friedman. All he is saying is let the market do as it wants. A person doesn´t need to be a genius or an economist to avocate such nonsense. Just somebody cunning enough in "winning" arguments. To make those far more perceptive look far more stupid.
Like anyone would who is trying to defend a bankrupt philosophy, Friedman responds the only way he possibly can; by deflection. IOW, he avoids answering any questions directly, and points the finger at Communist China, Stalinist Russia, Hitler, ... whoever he can. It's not a response, it's just changing the topic.
It's no different than a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar who complains that his brother did something bad that day too.
It's following the Lawyers' Rule: "When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both are against you, bang your fist on the table and rant about the injustice inherent in the system."
So you obviously did not hear the questions. Donahue couched his questions about capitalism by asking Dr. Friedman to look "around the world" so Dr. Friedman DIRECTLY answers that question by pointing to communist China, stalanist Russia, Hitler... whoever he can to show the folly of trying too closely to regulate the free market and the natural human desire to improve his condition.
So well stated. Why can't people see through this. Perhaps it is because Friedman was not the overbearing arrogant personality of the Hannity ilk.
Two brilliant answers to two mind-bendingly stupid questions.
Friedman's brilliance is more needed today than in Donahue's day.
Words of wisdom
Greed is a byproduct of fear. A man wants to secure far more resources than he will ever need out of fear that he may run out. Also fear of the competition depleting the resources. This however sparks a perpetual consumption who's resultant eventually destroys all parties involved.
are you the teacher of donnie darko?
Mario Orozco Well at least I learned something I did not know. Not sure how it applies to me though!
CLASSIC!!!
My hero the late Milton Friedman schools Donahue on greed, capitalism compared to socialism.
I'm no angel but I will organise society for everyone.
Of course, there'll be a few people lined up against the wall....
This was the greatest education I ever got . Thank very Sir . Where are the Friedman's today . We got Krugman , Chomsky - These jokers are the great intellectuals now . Such a pity
Chomsky is a Buffoon
Donahue = owned
actually this was a facepalm by friedman
It's amazing. He loves capitalism so much yet his version of it is exactly the reason it's going to go away.
Worker Co-Operatives are proven better for everyone but capitalists and if the public owned the means of production we could run industries without money and without taxes and still find ways, very compelling ways, to reward the people who worked without depriving anyone of anything they needed.
Capitalism is an obsolete system that has brought collapse and calamity and ruin upon the world. It's time for a better system.
I can show the US as an example of a nation going from backwoods to BY FAR the most prosperous nation ever in less than 150 years because the people were free to live their lives and pursue their own interests. Show me ONE socialist nation that even comes close to that. I find it disturbing that you would rather trust your fate and well-being as a "serf" to a bunch of government bureaucrats who tell you where to work, what to eat, whether your kids go to college, etc. than make your own decisions about YOUR OWN LIFE! When I start to see people flee capitalist countries to get into socialist countries, then I will start to listen to you.
*I can show the US as an example*
The US as an example of genocide, slavery, imperialism, social darwinism, extreme wealth inequality, industrial cities in an extremely rich country that are crumbling to ruins and look like they've been bombed?
*people were free to live their lives*
Of course people who don't have money may have to live that life under a bridge eating out of the trash.
*trust your fate and well-being as a "serf"*
That's funny, capitalism is serfdom to private capitalist landlords and worker co-operatives are collectively owned by the workers themselves, not a form of serfdom at all.
Socialist Skeptic Slavery and genocide was done by democrats who were against freedom and thankfully it was abolished by republicans. People didn't need money to survive because they had land. Now that land has been marked off limits by the government "to protect the environment". It's the fault of the government if people are forced to eat trash to survive. You cannot even fish without paying enormous amounts of money to the government, how moral is that?
*was done by democrats*
LMAO that's hilarious how your political religion has you trying to pin all the blame on Democrats.
*they had land*
Land that was stolen from the natives and granted by the government to colonials.
*that land has been marked off*
All the more reason to abolish private property.
*to protect the environment*
So basically you're saying that the extremely small amount of land set aside for national parks is the problem.
Luca Fuoco
Oh look at all that empty barren wasteland desert that has red marker on it. I guess you aren't aware that any unowned property is considered federal property until someone files the paper work to claim it.
Collective greed is different from individual greed.
It's one thing to want everything for yourself and another thing to want everything for everyone. As a humanist, I think we all deserve food, water, a chance to study the world, freedom to define yourself however you like and so much more...
And I can't let a market economy ruin that for me.
No, there are no angels, Friedman. That doesn't mean that it's okay to give up and go full capitalist.
CrackThoseClaws Its OK, its the market economy that allows the supply of food and a chance to study the world.
Have you seen any statistics about how many people are starving or how many are illiterate? Maybe not all countries are capitalist, but capital has gone global.
CrackThoseClaws I've seen a lot of statistics, yes. As we know the trend in global hunger and illiteracy is sharply downwards, mainly thanks to the opening up of the emerging economies to the global markets :) The joys of capitalism eh?!
I'm talking about imperialism. Capital actually profits from countries with cheaper workers. I don't blame anyone though, you'd have to be an idiot not to invest in some cheap labour as a capitalist.
Btw, SOME people (very few actually) are now educated and don't die of starvation because our system needs technology for production. Things weren't like that during the industrial revolution, where you just had to be a basic labourer.
If I have the right to food, does that mean I have the right to your money to pay for it?
"Is it really true, somehow, that political self interest is nobler than economic self interest?" Dr. Friedman goes to the rotten heart of the socialist-Marxist argument.
Friedman was a statist. He was instrumental in designing the withholding system for the income tax during WWII. For all his talk of free markets, he thought the government should have a monopoly on money production.
People who call out others for being greedy are probably the greediest people themselves.
that makes absolutely no sense.
We need to clone 100 Milton Friedmans! We need him right now!
That would be barely enough.
Marquis de Sade of economics.
Greed is to take more than you need at the expense of giving to others who are in need. It is to choose self over one's humanity.
The debate isn't really a question about the definition of greed. It is about the fact that every possible governing system of the world runs on some form of greed.
That's not true at all. Government is the result of humanity's desire to be able to have the power to execute moral authority upon itself.
Milton Friedman classic - Greed. ruclips.net/video/RWsx1X8PV_A/видео.html Milton’s firm grasp of the fundamentals is what sets his mind apart. Howard Farran DDS, MBA
I do not believe that Milton Friedman's ideas are good for society.
Matt Sweeny Well, it's a good thing that opinons have no impact on reality then (and sadly, vice versa)
Very well put. Even if I don't agree. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think that a monetary society can result in providing what is best for all people.
Matt Sweeny No society can do that. Somebody is always screwed due to the simple fact that life is not fair and never will be fair.
Matt Sweeny it may be that you don't believe it, but have you really done all that is necessary to form an authoritative opinion on the subject? If not, your beliefs are just that, beliefs. It takes much more to gain the kind of enlightened understanding that can move forward the cause of human liberty and raise standards of living.
Einstein created the theory of relativity out of self-interest? I thought he did it because he was curious and passionate.
Government programs dont create "greatness"? Tell that to all the other scientists getting funded by government grants to come up with the next theory of relativity.
Being curious is self-interest...
Also Einstein wasnt on any government research program when he did his work on relativity, he was lecturer at a University in Germany though Uni was probably public funded.
Though I have to agree that governments have to support cutting edge research cause the public currently is too dumb to support it without government enforcement...
hookah604 Untill you get some horrible repressed religious leader in your government. It works both ways.
Beautiful example of capitalist demagogy. Of course, let´s talk about greed as a subject without any object to fix the discussion onto. Let;s just talk it as a general abstraction, and let´s avoid the social situations in which greed flows. Thus, stripped of historical analysis and rigorous scope of enquiry, anyone else besides Friedman can come up with superficial instances of greed. Obviously, this thought process leaves out all other instances where greed has actually been historically overtaken by common suffering, solidarity and trust. It seems that everyday life and social regulations are full of those examples. Milton Friedman: epic bullshitter.
Donahue wasn’t being polite, he was being intellectually honest - having truly listened and understood that what Friedman said was absolutely correct and could not be counter-argued in any rational way.
Sure, greed is a natural human trait, among many. We are all greedy. However are we all greedy enough to hoard at the expense of others, to have far more than we need while others have little to nothing?
+Bucketheadhead Of course we are. I mean, being frank and honest, we all hoard more for ourselves when we could give to others.
Again, being honest, most people could give to the homeless every day. Spare themselves that extra packet of chicken or what ever other food, or cigarettes, or some such and live more minimalist in order to give more to the hungry and homeless. Yet we don't.
But that's not greedy to us because we're talking about ourselves. After all, it's as Friedman said: "Of course, we're not greedy, it's only the other person who's greedy."
Do people really need smartphones? Do people really need that extra large coke from Mc Donalds? Of course not, yet many people get them. That, my friend, is greed. It's just the greed nobody likes to look in the mirror for.
+PsychologicalCynic I don't know where you live but where I'm from swathes of people donate part of their weekly shopping to food banks.
Your description of greed (iphones, mcdonlads etc) is very far down on the ladder. It's those who make 7 figures per year and astronomically more who hoard wealth and resources from those who have little to nothing, not the average joe with an iphone. Those with morals place limitations upon their greed, if it comes at an expense to the well being of others. At the end of the day we are a society and a community. If large numbers of its members are destitute, it doesn't bode well for the whole.
Societies where wealth is more evenly spread have less crime, lower prison populations, generally happier people, superior social services etc. There is a correlation.
Bucketheadhead Sooooo... because we don't have as much money to be greedy with, we're not as greedy as those making seven figures?
You'll have to forgive me, but that sounds a little like a double standard. I live in the midwest, I'm not sure how much cherity we give here when compared to other places, but obviously not enough by some people's standards.
More to the point, the people who make the seven figures a year, these people are supported by the consumer. I.E. You and me. We decide who's rich and who isn't, we've chosen places like Walmart and Apple, despite the fact there are better places to shop that would serve the American people's better economic interests.
Why? Walmart because they are cheap. Quite cheap, actually, one of the cheapest there is. People like to bitch, moan and complain about them, but they'll support them all day and night. That, my friend, is the greed of the lower classes. They aren't willing to make the sacrifices for a better America.
+PsychologicalCynic When there is very little choice and your existence depends on how much money you have, of course you will be forced to choose Walmart. Walmart is part of an oligarchy, which controls a stupendous amount of the worlds resources.
Choosing them is not greed, its necessary. If you cannot afford to choose the more expensive option, it would be idiotic to pick it. Nobody is completely devoid of self interest, if you want to know more about that then listen to Mr Friedman.
The point is why shouldn't the resources be more evenly spread to begin with? As I said, of the few countries where wealth is much more evenly spread, the advantages are plain to see.
Bucketheadhead Exactly! People aren't willing to make the sacrifices needed for a better world. They all expect the consequences of their decisions to "just work out" and hope for the best.
Mom and pop shops used to be all over the place, but because people are greedy, the places like Walmart got their financial support for their lower prices and cheaper products. They paid people less and offered a lower quality of life, but dammit if their prices weren't the best around!
The eventuality of this has come to pass where mega corps are in power, and the lower wages of people have made it so they can only afford the lower prices.
It's necessary because the people allowed it to be as such.
Reaping what's been sewn. Consequences for freedom. And now that the consequences of these choices have come to pass, people don't like them and would rather opt out of facing the world they've made for themselves out of indulging their own greed by trying to enact socialism?
No, sorry, I don't buy that.
People got greedy and bought the cheapest they could find. Blame the rich if you want, but I am a man who believes in reaping what's been sewn. The world today is a result of the choices the people have made, and I am of the opinion that the people should suffer for their hubris.
There will always be scam artists in the world, and the only way to beat them is with a populace who understand to their schemes.
A wiser man you will rarely find, save for Thomas Sowell, himself a student of Mr. Friedman.
As Milty and the Chicago boys about Augusto Pinochet. They were good buddies. I guess he's proud of that one. Ya reckon he was bowing down to Ayn Rand?
ask Milty
So you'd rather leave Chile with a shitty dictator and a shitty economy rather than just a shitty dictator? You're a fucking genius.
"The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus." What about the internet, landing on the moon, decoding the human genome, the list goes on and on.