Milton Friedman - The Robin Hood Myth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 кві 2010
- Milton Friedman explodes the myth that government takes money from the rich for the benefit of the poor. www.LibertyPen.com
Source: Milton Friedman Speaks
Buy it: www.freetochoose.net/store/pro...
The best way to fight socialism is to educate people in economics.
You realize that there are many socialist economist, right?
Lean Alcantara Yup, but education would still, in general, reduce the popularity of socialism. Hey, there's burning buildnings with fire exstingushiers, right?
So, those socialists are less educated in your opinion? You know that people always disagree notwithstanding the same level of education and intelligence, right?
Lean Alcantara No, I did not imply those socialists were less educated. I implied they were wrong.
Well, initially you said "educate people in economics". But that's fine, so long as you clarified it now.
The tax payers pay for it! Including the ones that don't go to school! Nailed it!
such insight
Ironic that these lefties' solution to people not being able to get ahead is to force those who don't go to school, and thus work lower paying jobs, to pay for those who do......
Lower income people DO NOT pay almost any taxes, so the higher education is not supported by them. I like Friedman ideas, but sometimes he's simply wrong.
@Yep, either things have changed or he's just wrong here.
I absolutely love all Robin Hood movies, but the story was never about robbing people and giving to the poorest. It was about a noble knight, very loyal to king Richard fighting in the crusades while traitors conspired against him to divide and take over England. Robin Locksley was betrayed and outcast, he joined a band of brigands to fight opponents of king Richard and protect the realm. He robbed those who oppressed poor people with too high taxes and tyrannical laws.
+brett kelly
Robin Hood wasnt a socialist or antisocialist in his day the feudal system keep people poor so he was trying to give money to the poor instead of the rich having all th emoney
+Christian Soldier Communism and some forms of socialism are inherently feudalistic though, because the political ruling class controls the flow of wealth.
The rich in this case being the government. He was stealing from the government and giving back to the people.
I remember the tv show. the song said 'stole from the rich and gave to the poor.'
mitch dineen Yes, and David "Davy" Crockett killed a bear when he was only three.
It's almost like... theme songs are simplistic versions of reality that you shouldn't quote when people are talking about actions in the real world instead of a television show.
I've never been hired by a poor guy.
Huntington1234567 i have its called having my own business, in business i can not afford to discriminate against the poor a lot of them are good customers i am hired by them , and not judging people you should learn
Michael Wilson For the love or God, use grammar!
@@iamasmurf1122 poor people don't hire contractors. They can't afford that
Nope but we did (unwillingly) hire them all to not do a job (welfare)
@@daveslyker4431 , I'm a poor person and I'm hiring a contractor right now. I don't have a choice.
Can you imagine him trying to speak at a university these days? There would be riots
Yep, moron millenials and snowflakes would rather "riot" than learn.
When he descrived the poor as less skilled i couldnt help think its true and also how that would piss a lot of ppl off if theyre in that demographic
Jim Gallagher There aren’t many millennials still at university buddy, unless they are doing postgraduate degrees. The youngest millennials today are 24 years old.
Uh no ? Get out of your Eco chamber
For good reason. His ideas are crap.
he talks so much sense my head exploded
I'm sorry to hear that, ma'am......
No matter if you agree with Mr. Friedman or not, we must admit it is quite refreshing to listen and watch someone talk about social and economical aspects of our society without name calling or inserting partisanship. There are a lot of important issues we need to work through but I find it difficult to discuss these issues with people today. It seems that we can't get more than two sentences into a conversation before someone starts blaming the left or the right, and regurgitating a bunch of crap they've heard from some biased media. I think if people could just focus on what is best for everyone instead of focusing on beating the other side into submission...we'd really benefit as a society.
Milton Friedman was smart enough to know that when a recession happens the answer isnt:
"Tax our way out of this son of a bitch!"
+hampe hjsjdf I was just agreeing with your statement. Narendra Modi who is the Conservative leader of India has an approval rating in the 80's because his pro business, Capitalist policies are working and making their streets safer, the poor better off, and businesses prosperous.
People predicted that because he thinks and acts like a Conservative that he wouldnt be take. seriously, get elected, or be successful. But he proved them wrong.
Canada also prospered under former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. God help them now thay they have a Leftist leader.
+hampe hjsjdf In America Conservatives will hopefully "win by losing" which is a common expression. It means that by losing and creating a Liberal dominated Country there will be no room to blame Conservatives who are out of power when the next Great Recession happens. Then the famous line "Democrats are for helping the poor man." will never be believed again by the American people.
+hampe hjsjdf Yep. When I was growing up parents took more responsibility form their children and taught them hard work, responsibility, and self reliance. And those Liberal generations were a lot less Liberal than today's young generation where many young people have either one, no, or irresponsible parenting. I was young myself, in those days I was Liberal, I knew everything about everything, and my father seemed so naive about the real world. Now after aging past 35 I learned my "Archy Bunker" dad wasn't a closed minded, inexperienced, dolt. Luckily I didnt vote back then.
Today's "know it all" teenage voters vote Liberal because they "Know" what's best for America.
+hampe hjsjdf No, the right wingers of Sweden are still social democrats.
A conservative put you in this spot, a liberal improved your economy. Does being conservative mean that you waste all your money on warfare?
Hard work and sacrifice have produced some of the most amazing people throughout history.The fight and the struggle develop our character that no government can honestly shape.
One of the best American thinkers. Are you listening Sanders? How 'bout you Rodham?
+David Cravatta Very intellectually gifted, but like many academic elites, no real world experience
Respectfully disagree. I suggest you consider his policies he advised Volker to undertake. The result was one of the most robust economic expansions in US history.
David Cravatta I agree with that. What I mean specifically was his views on workplace safety regulations, which may have been very different if in the 30s he had spent any time working in a steel mill, coal mine or some other highly hazardous occupation. This also applies to liberal academics who advocate for policies they and their families are detached from.
Excellent pts
+Tom Dalton The real point in the workplace safety for example, is that is it even the government's duty to be in charge of such things in the first place, should the government even have the power to be able to enact such regulations?
Beyond that, Milton would argue (and has argued this point) that threat or resultant lawsuit(s) levied upon a company for poor working conditions would give incentive to have a more safe workplace. The fines just need to be higher than the cost of enacting said safety measures for this to occur.
I am a big fan of Milton!
Milton didn't foresee the tremendous inflation in educational costs that are caused by student loan programs.
Those student loan programs you are referring to are government based. The federal government created the student debt crisis by creating federal student loan programs which place no accountability on the individual who takes the loan or the group giving the loan. When the government gets involved, they always fuck up the economy. The student loan crisis is a stark reminder of how the government caused the "great recession."
@@rogerdodger4212 I would say ALL responsibility is placed onto the borrower since bankruptcy isn't an option.
@@KREllis-vr1ix That doesn't matter when the government creates a crisis then provides the solution to said crisis in the form of bailouts, aka debt forgiveness. Liberals blame the banks for their mistakes and claim to be the heroes when they provide their shitty solutions.
EDIT:
Also, there is no declaring bankruptcy because there is no means to seek redress. I.E. the government can't repossess the education the person received or sue to obtain the payment by other means.
Due to government subsidized loans
literally australia tho
I love how people can come up with so many justifications for STEALING!!!!! I wonder if they justify rape and murder too
mrtimjitsu Friedman supported a negative income tax policy, the most pure example of a redistribution of income. Perhaps you raving Randian types should stick to listening to her or Stefan "child snatcher" Molyneux
mrtimjitsu yes, they just blame poverty and keep the argument circular; of course, they own terms like 'poverty' so no conservative using it knows what he's talking about.
no, they call murder of babies in womb a 'medical procedure'
"I wonder if they justify rape and murder too"
They do. Just think about what people say when someone they don't like goes to jail. "Just wait til he meets up with Bubba!"
MURDER: "You can't make a successful omelette without breaking a few eggs."
-Vladimir Lenin
RAPE: ""Red Army soldiers don't believe in 'individual liaisons' with German women," wrote the playwright Zakhar Agranenko in his diary when serving as an officer of marine infantry in East Prussia. "Nine, ten, twelve men at a time - they rape them on a collective basis." '
( . . . )
"Our soldiers' behaviour towards Germans, particularly German women, is absolutely correct!" said a 21-year-old from Agranenko's reconnaissance detachment. A number seemed to find it amusing. Several German women recorded how Soviet servicewomen watched and laughed when they were raped. "
www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11
I love Milton Friedman.
+monty tout What the hell are you talking about?
+monty tout Take Obama's Nobel Prize too
+Greedy Imp FREE @ Google Play
*What the hell are you talking about?*
Yea, I don't get monty tout's post either. Probably a socialist/feminist.
monty tout
*wrote "What the hell are you talking about? Yea, I don't get monty tout's post either. Probably a socialist/feminist."*
*Well I can understand your post and can see that you are probably a Conservative Christian bigot. Feel free to correct me if I've misjudged you.*
*MAJOR FAIL PEANUT HEAD!*
*THANKS FOR PLAYIN'*
*INSERT ANOTHER QUARTER TO TRY (and fail) AGAIN!*
Not a christian or a conservative.
Just someone who opposes a political ideology that *only* pushes for "gender equality" in instances where women are "disadvantaged" (and men are "advantaged") and *never* in instances where women are "advantaged" (and men are "disadvantaged").
A political movement that *always* advantages one group over another is not a movement that is interested in "equality" but one that is interested in supremacy.
I am not a bigot, just someone who opposes hateful and hypocritical belief systems.
monty tout
*Okay, now I get it. You're one of those loser "Male Rights Advocates."*
*What's an example of an instance where women are advantaged and men are disadvantaged?*
*I'm not saying there aren't any - but as a MRA I'm sure you could give examples, right?*
Feminism is a political ideology that fights for 'equality' by systematically vilifying men in order to justify hatred and encourage discrimination against them. Feminism is 100% sexism against men, and this is the *only* thing that feminism ever does.
Imagine for a moment that it was females who had a shorter life expectancy than males, that it was females who had more health problems than males, and that the majority of health resources were being spent on male health instead of female health. Imagine that it was females who were less likely to be given help as victims of rape or domestic violence than males, that it was females who were four times more likely to commit suicide than males, that it was females who were falling behind in education compared to males, and that it was females who were disadvantaged in courts and society when compared to males.
Feminists would be claiming that all these things are clear evidence of a society discriminating against women, and would be pushing for all sorts of policies to make females 'equal' to males. However, when these inequalities *favor* the female, feminists don't seem to take notice any of these "gendered issues".
If feminists were really interested in 'equality' between men and women, then they would be focusing on these *fundamental* forms of gender inequality. Instead, they focus on issues only affecting women. They focus on the "gender wage gap"; a myth that has been disproven countless times by economists from all over the world (proven false as early as 1971 by economist Thomas Sowell, as seen in "Thomas Sowell Dismantles Feminism and Racialism in under 5 Minutes" on youtube). They focus on "rape culture", a term that feminists appropriated in 1975 from a documentary exposing the issue of rape in male prisons, and now use it to exclusively hype up the issue of women being raped in modern society, despite the fact that incidents of this crime have been steadily declining since the 1980s. They focus on the "gender STEM gap"; the fact that there are fewer women in STEM fields, and never focus on the "gender education gap"; the fact that boys are falling behind girls in school, the fact that men make up only 43% of all college graduates, and the fact that men have been a minority in colleges since 1979.
Feminists do not care about "gender equality". They only care about advantaging women and disadvantaging men. Feminism is nothing but a hypocritical man-hating political movement.
I would like to become Robin Hood. I would steal from the rich and give it all to myself as I identify as poor.
I get it! That's a very old W.C. Fields joke.
That is the premise of the corrupt lie of black lives matter.
Pretty honest assessment
Nice name
There is a lot about Milton that I disagree with from my own experience in business and in education. However, his skill in arguement, his clarity of thinking, and his ability to explain complex concepts in simple easy-to-understand terms is a credit to his professionalism. Whether you're a right winger or left winger, authoritarian or anarchist, I think there is a lot to respect the man for. And, indeed, a lot to take issue with
+Andrew McQuade I in turn deeply respect your ability to deeply respect the strengths of a man you disagree with. That is the cornerstone of civil debate and society, and is, unfortunately, dying out. We've become ideologues before thinkers, partisan loyalists before Americans (in my country's case). The ability to respect, listen to, and compromise with someone one deeply disagrees with is increasingly becoming a quality of a bygone age.
@@AdmiralPrice Forreal when you just wanna have a discussion people turn it into a debate. It becomes a war to declare who is the winner and who is the loser instead of just understanding what makes us have the opinion we do whether we agree or not is irrelevant but finding a way we can comprise should always be the goal.
In this election I hope people really understand not to hate eachother for who we vote for because the way I see it is that each candidate represents a personality of this country and we need to respect our differences and really think about what's best for everyone and especially the kids to determine our future.
@@armandoc.3150 I think the only problem with that stems from the problem of enforced ideals. When one party has control they enshrine their personal beliefs in law and force those beliefs on others. That is primarily where the largest part of the animus between the parties originates. I think the only way we can coexist ideologically is to allow each other to think and act for ourselves as we choose and to keep the government out of individuals' lives. The problem is that neither party really wants that.
curious to know what those things are
LOL who cares about your "experiences"? My experiences, conversely, line up very well with Friedman's views. Surely you, someone who says he often disagrees with Friedman, would want me to put my bias aside and look at the facts? And so should you.
he makes a moral argument against taxing for providing schooling, but he forgets to mention that all taxing is morally wrong.
that intro song sounds like it belongs in a kids spy movie.
You are correct. A relatively freer market would benefit everyone, but the "bad" people are geniuses of manipulation. It doesn't matter what system you impose, they'll find a way to ruin it in their favor. If we can preserve the sanctity of the internet, we can save ourselves.
One of my favorite Econmist!!!!
6:43 you know you are good when Bucky Fuller is in the audience.
Im barely able to support myself. And my taxes have to go lazy ass people that dont want to try and improve there situations
If you listen closely and add up all the things that Mr. Friedman teaches us, you'll see how we got to the point where there are either the very rich or the very poor. And you'll come to the conclusion that it's not the free market that causes this, but big government coercion.
Capital reproduces itself, or what is called in simple language money makes money. Every person has basic needs as housing and eating. Housing and eatings cost the same for everyone, yet proportionally, for the same individual housing and food costs the richer PROPORTIONALLY a lesser percentage of his capital than the poorer one. Can you follow ? If I work for minimal wage I spend most of my money on rent and food but if you are a billionaire, lets say you dont invest in a clever way and simply put your 1 billion into a swiss bank with 2 percent , your billion becomes 1,02 billions , so your housing business has just grown by 50 houses in one year ! my immobile business has grown by 0 houses this year ! In what schoolclass do you learn exponential courves in the US, cause I m really wondering why the fuck i m explaining this to you ?! So it is only a question of time until the housing and the food markets will monopolize in the hands of a few , the house and the land owners !! Everybody else becomes house and land renters !! From the point of view of the free market since price fixing cant be forced the house and land owners are free to fix such rent prices that the rest of the people will have to work 80 hours a week just to have where to live and what to eat ! In fact, the owners are actually FREE to put such prices that no matter how much you work no one will be able to afford nor housing neither food ! And nothing can be done about it , they are free to choose whether they whish to put affordable prices on their products, or unaffordable ! Do I really need to explain to you how monopolies naturally accure and what the consequences of those are ?! If thats the result you wanna get, a society where a minority is free to decide about the life or death of majorities , I wish you and all the others free market lovers to manage to infiltrate the upper 0,01 percent ! good luck !
man I am re-reading your comment and wondering if you are really that stupid or doing it on purpose ? Wealth if not regulated always monopolizes itself ! Only forced regulation (redistribution) can forbid it to monopolize ! And you are saying that disproportions between rich and poor aggravates because of the regulations and redistributions ! Are you fucking nuts ! This is not even math ! this is commen sense !
David Copperfield partially correct, but far from any real outcome. That money the billionaire has invested creates capital for investment in business. That creates jobs. At some point there becomes more jobs than there is labor. That means to get employees, wages must go up. That helps the population as a hole. If he has control of most of production and does not produce increasing the economy, then he will have a pile of worthless cash, as the market will just continue around him. Even if he could gain every last bit of cash, the markets will just function around him. Be it by barter, or a new form of money. The beauty of Capitalism is that it self corrects. The discomfort of Capitalism is that it swings back and forth, is hard, if not impossible to control, and although it will never equally distribute wealth, it is the best to create wealth. Only in a free Capitalist society can a person grow from the bottom quintle to the top in a life time. And as the old saying goes a fool and his money are soon parted.
Earn what you own
Own what you earn
WISE ARCADIAN Are you inferring that there is not much of a middle class? What out of curiosity defines the really rich and the really poor if you could assign annual wage dollar amounts to this?
And because of technological progress, it's now easier than ever to self improve and get middle-class income.
Regarding taxes and welfare programs, it seems Mr Friedman is purposefully failing to mention that people in higher income brackets pay higher percentage of tax than lower earners. So it's not a case of one section of society paying more than another, they pay more or less the same.
there should be a flat tax
Quick question has the Progress party abandoned its Capitalist beliefs.
I guess that what Milton is trying to say is that the return on taxes of social programs is higher for middle income classes than for poorer classes. Because both social classes benefit equally of the program but the percentage paid of the tax relatively to their earnings is higher for poor people. I guess the point missing here is he is not taking into account that for example equal welfare (health, transport, infrastructure, public services) among classes provides a much desirable context for economic growth and social stability.
kingmatt2563 yes
Lucía Scheffel Vázquez remember these are old clips. There were not the grants then that are available now. Back then you really had to earn any scholarships. Student loans were much more restricted, and many of them required collateral. Today it is easier for any poor minority to attend college than it is for most middle class students. There are grants for being poor, grants for being black, grants for being female. There are discounts for being an illeagle alien. The Rich just pay. The poor if they graduate highschool with any kind of decent grades can get into a college, the funding will be there. We have made it pay to be from a professional welfare family. We have made it pay to be a victim. And worse of all, we now punish those that save, invest, and work hard to earn there own way.
Earn what you own
Own what you earn
He makes such reasonable and logic arguments you just know he could never have been a politician.
Thank God this is recorded. We should switch to this on Sundays.
As always, Friedman's logic is flawless.
"it's the hardest thing ever to pass legislation to increase tuition fees"
That quote hasn't aged well. Tuition fees nowadays are ridiculous
The problem is that stundent loans don't function like reglar loans.
@@fuckinggoolglemangwtfiswro4000 yea atleast with other loans its going towards an object of value that can be sold back if things get too bad financially
I think that what he meant is that no sane politician would ever run a campaign saying "increase the cost of college!" And that is very much true. Everyone is running on the premise of lowering the cost of university, at least publicly. While tuition fees (as a college student, they're ridiculous) are high af, they always campaign on lowering it, even if they don't.
They never passed legislation to increase tuition fees. What they did is pass legislation creating a federal student loan program for the good intention of “educating everybody”. Once universities realized that 18 year olds can borrow an unlimited amount of money to pay for schooling, universities shot tuition fees to the sky. As long as someone is willing to give young people loans with an unlimited magnitude, the cost of education will be expensive.
@@samuelcamachopalencia5737 mean it? He practically spelled it out.
@TheNigerianTimes Thanks man I appreciate that
@TheSlothook what are the negative externalities?
The upper class doesn't pay for Well-Fair Programs. They only pay dividend and long term investment taxes. People don't realize that most, not all , of the upper class to contribute heavily in charity foundations from the taxes they would have paid and are smart enough to contribute to society as they see fit versus allowing and trusting the government to spend wisely..
+scottab140 You can't be more right!
monty tout It worked in the US until the Fed came out. Worked on Sweden, Singapore, Hong Kong. France, Germany and the UK they all had capitalist economies in the past. No social democracy has created a rich society. Today's social democracies have a capitalist past.
Socialism hasn't produced a single dollar in economic prosperity.
monty tout Your knowledge is impressive... Show one example of a successful socialist society? . Scandinavian countries became rich thanks to free markets. Specially Sweden. You should study a little history.
It must be humiliating that someone younger than you can expose your stupidity.
If what you are saying is true, then explain Sweden and Hong Kong economic prosperity.
Hong Kong didn't had any important natural resources, but even so they managed to became the second richest society in Asia.
And you are showing your ignorance once again. The actual system isn't in the middle. You can't be half-free. Either you respect liberty or you oppress it. Today's system has only little aspects of capitalism. It's not capitalist to have a Federal Reserve. It's not capitalist to bail out big banks and car companies. It's not capitalist to have the highest corporate taxes among the developed countries. It's not capitalist to have a broken welfare system. It's not capitalist to regulate every single industry there is. It's not capitalist to manipulate the value of the dollar.
We are closer to socialism and we are failing. 17 trillion in debt are destroying the economy. . Sweden's social democracy dream lasted less than 30 years. Now they are privatizing many public institutions to improve supply and quality.
+Rod96 wrote "And you are showing your ignorance once again."
(Fans: that's like being called stupid by someone drawing daisies at the local autism clinic)
+Rod96 wrote "The actual system isn't in the middle."
Then how do you explain all the social programs in America like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Food Stamps, Auto insurance, Life insurance, Homeowner's insurance, police and fire departments, city and state utility departments, and on and on.
You sure do miss a lot of stuff. Maybe when you get older ... nevermind.
Conservatives tend to get more stupid with time. I don't see why you would be any exception.
Forgive me for being blunt and out of context but the first 15 seconds sounds alot like what softcore porn sounds like
When was this?
@CmdrTobs how exactly would those workers come to own the means of their production.and what exactly are those means.
doesn't matter all the fantasy theories of how economies should work, the hard sad truth is human nature is failed. and steps have to be taken to offset the excessives of hoarding all the things that are precious to life.
+merchantsailor like Ferrari's
What's wrong with ferraris? Each ferrari that is sold gets food on the tables on a whole bunch of people. Thanks to the magnates that are willing to buy them. Seems like the free market has a way of redistributing wealth, which makes socialist wealth distribution plans unjustified and useless.
Thinking that rich people hoard money is ignorant. What good is hoarded money? Money is only valuable in that it can be exchanged for goods and services. They spend that money, why else would they want it? That spending is what perpetuates an economy.
You say "how dare he buy a yacht, what a waste!".
You might as well be saying "how dare all these blue collar middle class folks get jobs in the yacht factory, at the boat repair shops, at the the boat parts manufacturing plants, and how dare anyone follow their dream to be hired by a billionaire as a boat captain, hiring deck crews, maintenance crews, chefs, etc?"
Nonsense... all of what you say...nonsense. And you presumably meant to write, "human nature failed", and no one hoards things, so quit making things up.
Is this guy joking? The people in the middle are most effective at political activity? Seriously? Is he for real? The richest dominate the political activity, you don't find many people making it to Congress who previously worked a 46,000 a year job.
Which means the middle people have no power whatsoever, they have to choose between ultra wealthy person one or ultra wealthy person two.
There's no choice, we are sold the 2 party system with millions and billions in ad spending. How can people have a choice, when they can't even get the message from a libertarian party or green party, for example.
Someone with some good ideas can't just run for office, they have to find ways to raise money - and the only way to raise a lot of money is to say what billionaires like to hear.
He's not just "serous" ....he's exactly CORRECT!! Middle class pays virtually NOTHING. AT least at the Federal level you certainly don't. By the time a family of 4 earning $100,000/year deducts all the child care stuff, mortgage interest deductions, and the exemptions they get just for having 4 breathing people in their home the bill from the IRS is remarkably small. Then there are all the programs from education, to medicare and social security....... all of it designed to benefit them more than anyone wealthy or poor.
*****
You have to be a party member and pay for your own campaign during the primaries. Primary campaigns can run into several million dollars, so good luck with the fund raising as an anyone.
Of course, Milton would rather bite his tongue off than acknowledge the existence of a class structure. He uses the term middle class but in the next breath denies the existence of society itself beyond the market The capitalist utopia that Milton spent his life advocating for was not adapted to the available social world but housed his model of an antisocial superman dwelling in a mythic political and historical vacuum. The heroic narrative that forms the subtext of Friedman's idealization of the market might be adaptable to the format of a comic book or a proto-fascist mass movement but performs poorly as anything but an alibi for a two class model of society. Milton's Reagan era supply side economics were in the end, marginalized by an inherent inability to conceptualize the social ills it creates coupled with a naive if doctrinaire political incompetence at dealing with them. He deployed the rhetoric of economic freedom to obstruct the exercise of political liberty by the majority through the available institutions of Democracy that remain our best hope of rationally facing the responsibilities imposed by the demands of justice equity and equality that the market has proven time and again incompetent to fulfill.
From which lecture is this excerpt from?
@EmilioCasavegas, thanks friend.
Spread the word.
LOL! Leave it to Friedman to make Robin Hood into a villain. Next up in the Friedman series: Why Scrooge, an innocent job creator, was victimized by Tiny Tim...
Years ago my eldest Grandson was reading "A Christmas Carol" and I helped him write his essay on the book. I had to say that Scrooge wasn't a crook, he was scrupulously honest in fact. I concluded that he was a mean minded individual with no empathy and no hint of altruism. Had I know about Milton Friedman I would have used him as an example. At least Scrooge had an opportunity to make amends and to admit that his values were screwed.
Friedman didn't do anything here but point out FACTS, namely where the money goes in gov welfare programs.
Does speaking truth offend you if it doesn't line up with what you want to believe?
If you people truly gave a shit about the poor, you'd want to know if gov welfare was going to the upper class instead of the poor. But instead you attack him for pointing it out.
The Clinton's make millions off of helping the poor.
The only question is, can you actually find anyone ever helped by the Clinton Foundation, other than those that work for it.
He didn't make robin hood into a villain. The robin hood myth is a a myth based on the misconception that robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, hence the name The Robin Hood myth. He's not making robin hood a villain, he's making the state a villain. The Robin Hood myth is just the name that's used for referring to the excuses politicians use to take money from people.
And that's a misconception because in reality Robin Hood didn't stole from the rich to give to the poor, he actually took the taxes that were stolen from people and gave them back to people. He was pretty much someone willing to fight against the thieving tyrants.
It's a shame Friedman didn't live to see the Great Recession in 2008. It would have been interesting to see how he'd justify the corporate collusion and rate fixing that occurred in the private sector. It would also be interesting to hear his thoughts on his old friend Alan Greenspan admitting to being wrong about the deregulation of the banks.
Also, why is it that the lowest earners in society tend to receive fewer benefits due to their living shorter lives? Is it due to less healthy lifestyles because higher quality food is more expensive? Is it because the fear of not being able to pay the bills drives somebody to smoke or drink even if they can't afford it? Is it because they were brought up by parents who smoked and drank? Is it because of low quality state schooling or unaffordable private schooling leaving people less well educated about health?
Now, I'm by no means justifying the adoption of life-shortening habits like smoking and I largely support the argument of individual choice and responsibility in these matters. However, the causal links between income inequality and these sorts of habits cannot be denied. Life at the bottom is hard and not it's not because of paying small amounts of tax. Individualism does not liberate all individuals. Friedman is using a negative effect of the system he proposes as a criticism of the system he opposes. This is cray cray.
Seb Leaper There newer was a 'deregulation of banks'. The banks are gvt sponsored and protected business. They are so heavily regulated and subsidized that they are not part of free capitalism. Study how banks are 'capitalized' through murky gvt financial operations every time they get into trouble.
+Seb Leaper the government is bank sponsored not the other way round
He would never try to justify that.
@tahoepoet You are absolutely right.
Thanks
Milton is my favourite economist
Johannus Steinmarch his principals still apply, and that’s what counts
That is true, that is where the apprenticeship phase of education comes into play. All of it works toward your final grade, both studying and field achievements. Our education system is very different to yours, and we aren't based on a strict schedule. Many of our students do focus on their own practical interests.
As Dr. Friedman pointed so many times: What causes economic collapse? Government intervention distorting the market. Take a look at what enabled the bubbles that push us further and further towards total economic collapse. We can blames big businesses, bankers, wall street, the rich white man, etc. But when you look to the root, it was the government that planted the seed and enabled the bubbles to grow.
I slowly begin to think, after watching more and more of Friedman in action, that he was a very simple mind that needed (like many economists do) to simplify the world he lived in to understand it.
Edit: and I might add, had a big desire to understand that world fully, even though he wasn't cut out for it.
+Laxave Obviously, you know little about Milton. He has many articles in scholarly economic journals. He sought to simplify economics so the common man could understand them. He apparently failed in your case. That you are slow to think is obvious.
fzqlcs Haha. Do you really think I don't know who Friedman was? I know he was an economist, I'm just saying that he and many many economists besides him (in fact, you could say the whole field of economics) simplified human behavior and made the claim that we act on the basis of one motivation which has been proven wrong and wrong again. So when you try to belittle me with your ''you haven't read Friedman's wikipedia page'', maybe take it easy next time.
I was broader point than just he's an amateur.
Can you imagine Frieeman's response to the Financial Services modernization act of 1999? The Gramm Leach Bliley Act made it possible for Commercial and investment banks coexist in one company...the main and primary beneficiary of this act was Citicorp and one of the majority shareholders in Citicorp today.....Brian Leach.
@ReeferTim yup.
Who is this guy? He's brilliant. Why haven't I heard of him before? I went to college, I haven't seen any economics or social books authored by him in any class. No mainstream media covers him, conservative or liberal.
@brianfagin no, you just didn't understand what i said. i was referring to the fact that the Market system of economics is not reliable regardless if there are regulations or not. Government regulations are band-aids to by pass the contradictions of the market, however they also invite corporate influence into government like we are seeing now and a "free" market leads to financial trusts and corporate syndicates which leads right back to where we are now if you understood history.
Not exactly true. The government wastes a much smaller percentage but when poor people receive free money, they lose their incentive to work hard.
@dragknuckle I'll remember that one as a comeback, thanks!
Interesting video and point of view.
@NoProbaloAmigo I understand what externalities are - I was interested in your comment when you said the negative externalities of low taxation - i was interested in what you thought these were
6:20 there is an incentive to force the rich to pay for the poor however. And there is even an incentive for rich people to do so themselves too, if they don't want to live in an uninformed democracy..
This one hits hard
@Mishkafofer What about the government run economics of SOUTH Korea?
I don't know what it was like in Friedman's time, but from what I observe it's the opposite. The middle class loses the most from government programs. It is at her expense (taxes) that money is given to the poor, through the government and the rich
@Dirge987
But why would they offer loans in the firstplace if the price of tuition wasn't high already?
The real point here is, you have two separate money pools that intermingle. The consumption pool feeds into wages for further consumption, capital investment for expansion, and profits. The capital pool feeds into new industry development and provides supplemental funding for capital investment as needed. If the consumption pool is starved, then you are faced with an unpleasant choice of shrinking the economy or inflating the currency with leverage against you.
I'm almost afraid to ask Mez Kitsu but what nation do you live in?
Which is why Friedman was for the lowest central government spending possible and competitive markets. The most effective way to divide power among business interactions is competition - meaning that the "buying" of force to hamper competition is minimized by the self interest of others.
@skelruck how but less? Would the tuition be affordable?
What about food stamps, or any other conceivable benefit which would provide benefits in the same manner as a negative income tax?
Assuming everything your culture does is the best, that works. If not, then it doesn't. Also, the effectiveness of education is based on the effectiveness of the educational system. When the system regulated, then it is based on the quality of regulators. Everything always comes back to the quality of leadership. Like I said, a monarchy is fine, if you have a great royal family. That is not true in most monarchies, as great leadership is rare.
Another Incredible video
@2plus2make4 I'd like to see the evidence as well!
hey mate can u explien me wtf is a constitucional republic? and the diference between republic and democrasy? thanks pal.
6:45 Social Security
Very interesting.
There are many examples of people that didn't have good grades or didn't have a high level of education, that were highly successful. The problem is that the class room atmosphere is not the same as the working atmosphere. Some people are very comfortable reading and studying books, but when it comes to implementing things they are unsuccessful. School tends to be difficult for self learners who would rather study things practical to their own life rather than the required curriculum.
In Chicago, an alderman put in for a grant to reconstruct the elementary schools that were located below the L trains, cause the noise of the trains were effecting the childrens hearing as they passed by. So the city was granted 6 million to sound proof the schools. But with ALL federal programs, by the time it got down to helping the kids, there was ONLY $ 250,000 left in the grant. So they bought ear plugs for all the kids. Sad but true. There’s govt in a nutshell
When a company has interests that align with the public interest, we get good outcomes. Assuming we are not all evil.
@NoProbaloAmigo I understand the history of taxation in the US and remember the laffer curve debate. The post from theslothook said "there has been enough evidence to show that a low tax rate also causes negative externalities". I was simply asking what these were. I was interested in whether he had an articulate argument to support his conclusion.
7:51 "Full time social security pay-ape" - well said Milton.
@Sivels
Well, you said that sicne government is so involved in public universities the cost goes up. I pointed out that prices are even HIGHER in private ivy league universities, which kinda' invalidates the argument. At least that's the only way I read into it.
State-funded higher education has also encouraged ceritification of every form of work - instead of being judged on your skills by experience, you have to have a certificate to prove your competence. It has become a education racket and means in order to progress you have to be wealthy enough to afford the certificate, which often isn't worth the paper its written on.
@lbalanovsky
That cost is a projection from their website. The other, much bigger number, is for out of state or foreign students.The cost for graduates has always been at least half as much. Not saying its cheap, but students have many options, loans, not living in dorms.
4:21 that face.
I love Milton Friedman
This didn't age well. Post secondary education provides little to no financial assistance to the middle class now. If your parents are $1 above the poverty level then saddle up for 40k in student debt, while the dirt poor and minororities groups get to experience college for free regardless of academic performance.
I agree with you in general, but there are a few quibbles I have. In its modern era, Singapore never put Friedman's policies into practice, the government has always had an extremely dominant role in the economy. Consequently, Singapore has one of the highest living standards in the world.
As an example to what I wrote before, I would use the fact of the freedom of some American business owners, who have closed their factories in the United States moving them to countries like China (because the cost of labor is cheaper there) while using the American people just to buy the products produced in those other countries. Or even "investors" who have purchased American factories as laundry rooms for other of their "business", and once the "washing" is done they close the factories.
Now, it doesn't matter how creatively you try to interpret that quote, what it says is that rich people, who benefit the most from society, should pay more back.
I still have my UOP macros economics book, I should dig that up and see how they pitch it. Now you got me wondering....
Does anyone know the date of this lecture?
Its in the 1970s he did a lot of touring. I believe the whole lecture is called Myths That Conceal Reality
His words were highly prophetic. These are the conditions America faces today politically and economically.
Utterly brilliant
When I speak of employment in government it means that civil (non-noble) staff are hired on the basis of academic achievement. So our departments choose the most qualified people based upon their grades. The measurement for success is the grades of the student, and my government is required to hire only those who score the highest grades.
Any politician who claims to be Robin Hood is actually Prince John. Robin Hood didn't steal from merchants or big businessman, he stole from nobles, the government. The bad guy in the movie "Die Hard: With a Vengeance" (who steals government owned gold) has more in common with Robin Hood than any politician.
@StopFear I dont live in CA, im not American for a start, but i agree massively, that kind of thing goes on over here in the UK too
excellent
Right on man. Trickle down economics is the myth.
@2plus2make4 negative externalities are third party effects where that third party has a cost imposed even though he/she had nothing to do with it, like, breathing in coal exhaust from a power plant.
All we need to do is to agree about where the line is between taxation and theft. Those of my friends who aren't willing or able to enter into civil dialogue on that subject deserve what they get.
does he ever talk about the 'trickle down economics' myth??
I can utterly recommend 'Real Time Relationships', a book by Stefan Molyneux which is available in audiobook for free.
That's pure wisdom
" The New Deal was a failure. There was a double dip in '37!" The double-dip was caused by raising interest rates to 7%, balancing the budget, and raising taxes all at the same time. They reverted the first two, left the third, and it recovered amazingly quickly. The 10% average growth rate included the recession!!