Milton Friedman on Donahue 1979 (1/5)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 тра 2009
- Friedman, shows why he is unsurpassed in modern times in defending liberty. He cheerfully decapitates the ideas of a government-controlled economy, over a wide range of examples. His layman's explanation as to how government intervention and the Federal Reserve control of the money supply helped cause the Great Depression is simply outstanding.
Playlist for all 5 videos:
• Milton Friedman on Don...
A person's ability to explain complex matters in a simple way shows that they have great knowledge and understanding about the subject they are talking about. Mr. Friedman was a great man and is dearly missed.
this guy could destroy any liberal on MSNBC today. He's a giant. I miss him.
In the old days, people could argue in a civil manner. We've lost this.
Wait till 2020 gets to you.. Lol
Milton Friedman's greatest strength is his ability to remain calm and rational at all times
It's almost uncomfortable to watch Donahue desperately change subject when he is so out of his depth. I miss Milton!
My thoughts precisely. Very well articulated. Off the top of my head, I can't name an interviewer who doesn't choose volume over substance or who doesn't talk over the interviewee in an interview.
I can close my eyes and believe that Mr. Friedman is speaking today. Same principles apply in 2018. I absolutely love him.
The BEST thing I see here is a (pretty much) die-hard liberal and die-hard conservative having a cogent, civil, well mannered argument (not a fight), without any insults or personal attacks and LISTENING to each other in the furtherance of learning something.
It is incredible how relevant Milton Firedman's words still are today
It is just impossible to dislike Friedman when you listen to him.
YES1!! THANK YOU FOR UPLOADING THIS!
been lookin SO long for these vids!
Thanks...finally get to see the full video!
iv always heard of phil donahue but never seen him before , i was not missing anything there except the wonderful opportunity to see milton friedman , he is a big discovery to me .
if i was half as clear as he was i think i would be ten times richer than i an now
Wow!!! It is like this interviewed was taped a year ago. Unreal. A Genious.
@Bluedogdixie Friedman's economic theories were awesome. The most awesome thing about them is how badly they worked and they (ironically enough) destroyed free enterprise in this country and abroad.
@finnemccool Got any good books you've read lately that you can recommend? Your conversations has sparked some interest in me.
The recorded transcript of their conversation was reproduced by Kissinger in his memoir, Years of Upheaval (1982). "In Chile you can never count on anything," the ambassador said, "but the odds are in favor of a coup, though I can't give you any time frame." Kissinger: "We are going to stay out of that, I assume." Davis: "Yes. My firm instructions to everybody on the staff are that we are not to involve ourselves in any way. . . . Our biggest problem is to keep from getting caught in the middle"
@louiethegreater Please explain.
What do you know about Revolutions?
Milton Friedman's book CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM should be required reading in all American high schools. Most people think of capitalism as an economic theory but fewer realize the political benefits of private markets. No one explains this better than Friedman.
That is the understatement of the decade.
1979, why didn't we listen to Mr. Friedman then? The man is a genius and we have gotten further and further away from his point of view.
Rush added: "I didn't know that a coup was coming at any particular date. We'd been hearing coup rumors for about a year."
Kissinger was better informed than the White House. A few days before the coup, Ambassador Nathaniel Davis had been recalled to Washington, not to discuss Chile per se but to be looked over as a possible candidate for a high State Department post. As he walked into Kissinger's office, he was asked immediately about the possibilities of a coup.
Yes, without question, the closure of small businesses due to competition is a huge benefit to the economy as a whole. Adam Smith never argued otherwise (he was arguing against the state-imposed guild system that bears no resemblance to modern corporations). The economic efficiencies that result actually reduce unemployment (and does not collapse the local economy). YOU need to read more. I've been studying these issues as an economist for decades.
We need another Milton Friedman today.
@platano1742 and what do you mean in the way of "equality"
equal opportunity?
equal results?
have you ever read "free to choose" by milton friedman?
im just surprised how much of this relates to today
principle of agency is the best line of drawing the difference between right and wrong.
Making cars safe has encouraged reckless driving.
@TheTrueLiberal
if i don't know what I am talking about please tell me what you think i need to know. .
This is true hosting. You're not in a debate (e.g. Bill O Reily) that you have to try to contradict what your guest is saying even though you might disagree. The point is to get your guest's point across since that's his time he's there. They changed it now (gradually) but it was very simple. The host gives a conventionally believed statement on a topic and lets the guest critique/question/answer it.
@FletchforFreedom Is that good for the economy as a whole?
@1971SuperLead Who are you to be his judge and jury?
You need to watch the video more closely (and understand how the world works). At the outset, Friedman explains that it isn't really "greed" but "individuals pursuing their separate interests", which is why you go to work to give yourself and your family a better life, which is why there are people available to teach, fight fires and protect the public and even why people give to charity. Love may do it for you, but that's not how the world works on the whole.
Paradise Lost? This guy is so packed with every underhanded trick imaginable to stonewall & waylay, must be a top of the line model with all the bells & whistles
@wowzinger The whole movie "The Corporation" is on You Tube.
I guess we will continue this discussion tomorrow. : )
Milton Friedman is unbelievably smart. Not the least of his talents is his ability to talk without moving his mouth.
@shadowgeyser How do you determine how far is "prior" ? How can you be sure you are right about your timing and cause and effect? When were the "priors" of which you speak? How do you determine success? How can you be sure that the "priors" of which you speak were not detrimental, if not equally detrimental, or if you prefer, constructive?
thank you.
There are also transcripts of Kissinger's conversations with relevant figures in Washington and elsewhere. Some of these conversations took place by telephone. These transcripts establish that Chile was not an important part of the then-National Security Adviser's daily diet.In fact, during September and October 1970--which is to say, between the Chilean election and the congressional vote the telephone record reveals a Kissinger preoccupied with a full-blown Middle East crisis, Vietnam,
@EchoMike03 what about Kissinger?
Assertions based on emotion, don't often hold up when you take a wider view. The peer pressure of public sentiment is enough to change the direction of manufacturers without government intervention, if there is competition (which is a responsibility of Government).
i miss the phil donahue show. he was the granddaddy of the talk show and noone who came after him was as good as him.
he let the guest speak and didnt interrupt every two seconds like the talk show host today do. they invite a guest on and they, the host talk more than the guest. i used to hate how oprah would ask a guest a question, then continually interrupt every few seconds, so that the guest couldnt even get a formed thought out.
@TheTrueLiberal What else do you reckon milton meant to say? Milton's saying he has some good things to say about fed reserve after greenspan. that means milton approved(therefore, also liked) greenspan's fed reserve.
@ArborMate no offense but i find the best way to clear the earwax is not with a razor sharp knife, but with a cotton Q-tip... i share your frustration though
he was the best because he knew how to listen and let his guest talk more then him.
The best that can be done for workers and farmers is to let the free market operate to their benefit rather than continuing to allow the governmnet interference that has caused such things as the Great Depression and the current economic crisis.
could somebody put the subtitles on this video, latinamericans really apreciate if one of you could do it
well put.
@neonaction
Donahue provided some points that many indeed do relate to, but Friendman handidly explained why Donahue's points were invalid.
Freidman's economics does not work? And the alternative has? This whole show pointed to proofs explained by Friedman how his economics worked vs the next best alternatives.
Milton Friedman ROCKS!
@OneApostate1 Point is, Friedman economics was not a long term fix, AND it added its own problems (which in themselves caused 2008) to boot.
@shadowgeyser How do you know that "historical and empirical evidence is supporting that government control of money, credit, and interest is detrimental", compared with any other system?
@gceron83 u arent realy making sense to me... but maybe we need to clarify
what is liberty?
in the ideal society how much power should one's nieghbors have over the liberty of another?
what is property?
what is property's relation to liberty?
what is law?
and what is the point and purpose of law in the ideal society?
@footballcowboys100 no he says that it is private issues that should not be regulated, like choosing whether to use airbags or not. he agrees that there is a strong argument for some type of government intervention to protect third parties (ie: if u have building companies)
@eoriol1955 How? Im curious.
@DavidHillI Exactly. You get it. We haven't even talked about what happened to Native Americans and Mexico. Gold was found in California after the U.S.-Mexico War. It is now the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world. Imperialism was definitely a factor in this development.
@Ospiker
In February of 1978, a California jury created a nationwide sensation when it awarded the record-breaking sum of $128 million in a lawsuit stemming from a into accident (Weinberger Romeo, 45). This one lawsuit was three times what Ford executives and engineers had estimated their final cost would be.
More Donahue, please.
@1971SuperLead Why do i need to quote what you typed for everyone to see and read?
You just can't beat him in a debate
@FletchforFreedom I'm glad you've been volunteering. That's my point that we not only work for profits. Many of us also want to help because love. Other are just greedy, and selfish.
@TheTrueLiberal Thanks for just bashing at anyone who disagrees. It helps show people who are new to the game which side to root for.
look at friedman's suit. what a stud.
I have values other than liberty. Liberty, while first on my list, isn't my only value. Quality of life and fairness are also on there.
part 2. Also, working for the government doesn't mean you can't innovate or improve. The government might be slow, but it does have innovation and improvement and often leads on these areas, the TVA being a prime example. The government brought power to the rural south long before private companies did.
I am not greedy if I want to get pay for my work. I'm greedy if, in spite of having a lot, and others not having any, I want it all.
@gceron83 no that is not really what i was interested in an answer for, what i would like your take on woul be straight answers to these questions, that we may better understand one another.
what is liberty?
in the ideal society how much power should one's nieghbors have over the liberty of another?
what is property?
what is property's relation to liberty?
what is law?
and what is the point and purpose of law in the ideal society?
sorry for the post freak-out
So, what are you a proponent of? What level of regulation is enough and who should make that determination?
@weasyeasel Are you implying that the ability to protect investment with the socially legitimated use of force does not give one bargaining leverage?
@1019079 There is a right and wrong. There is using force to achieve ends and then there's the free relation negotiations available via capitalism. Can you give a gray example?
What strikes me most about this clip is how two people with different view points could actually have a sane and civilized debate. Now they'd be shouting at each other. Let both sides present their arguments and let reason and truth win!
That humans have gathered property, in the absence of modern capitalism, is an objective fact stemming from evidence as long as 30,000 years ago, as a means of survival, and speaks to the adaptive nature of human beings. In the span of time, from then until now, people STILL gather property as a means of survival regardless of the fact that the social environment has changed SPECTACULARLY. Self interest is self interest; the only thing that changes in each instance are incentives & consequences.
@rugbyboy198127 i know right, i mean going back and reading a few of friedman's books or listening to maggie's or ronnie's speeches, its intersting to see our own reversion
Milton Friedman awsome guy... ;)
It shows a lot of eloquence!
@rmcdaniel423 "They just want someone else to finance, organize, & grow the company, then hand over the keys."
Actually in the case of ACIPCO that is what ended up happening, sort of. The founder and CEO wrote it in his will that the workers would inherit the company. He was a cool guy that actually gave a damn about his workers.
When the president asked whether Prats's ministerial replacement, General Augusto Pinochet, would remain loyal, Prats said he thought so but that the issue was irrelevant. "Even the most constitutionalist of officers," he later recalled telling the president in this most bizarre of exchanges, "will understand that a division within the armed forces would mean civil war." In effect, officers would either respect the decision of the coup-makers or be swept aside.
If Donahue believed all his own garbage, he would have demanded that the government limit the number of viewers and reallocate them to other talk show hosts of his time, regardless of demand or their ability to produce a show that appealed to the viewer. It's amazing to watch this man, who grew rich via capitalism, unable to consider a world that wasn't run by bureaucrats.
@ArborMate i'm sorry what do you think my opinion is???
I see where he's coming from with a pollution tax and I agree in principle but it is very difficult to monitor compliance or more importantly to measure emissions. How do you measure biodiversity loss for example?
by that I meant we should still pursue virtue and hope to be good.
@TampaTypeS So the choice is between a charismatic dictatorship or unregulated capitalism? I think there may be a few more options available to us.
Nixon and Kissinger discussed the matter by telephone on July 4, 1973. The President expressed regret that the coup failed ("if only the army could get a few people behind them!"). For his part, Kissinger told the President that "we had nothing to do with it." Both agreed that the prospect of flag officers leaving the Chilean cabinet was bound to deepen the crisis and put Allende in an even more disadvantageous position.
As someone on the left of this I think it a fact that people don't always know best .Airbags are a good idea, and so are seatbelts. This is not opinion but scientific fact. I like the idea of our government have some regulatory role in our safety.
We can't all be experts all the time. If I go into a restaurant I'm not going to think "this is too crowded, if a fire breaks out I'm in danger." We have fire inspectors for this and this is a real, tangible good: unlike the intangible"men with guns"
@shadowgeyser You use the word "perhaps". How do you know that you're right?
I like this guy he gives it how it is, he deals with the problem like Machiavelli which is living in accordance with human nature. Of course that doesn't mean we can't all aspire to be virtuous.
@PikPobedy I've heard of such scenarios. There is also a small restaurant in my hometown that is run as an egalitarian collective. I heard it was started by a couple people who used to work in various aspects of food service. I actually think there is much merit to that type of system, as long as everyone pulls equal weight and it is all voluntary. True free markets should allow all sorts of business models to flourish, as an "invisible hand" safeguard against monopolies.
@madashelldude ah, nice change of tune. Glad you learned something today.
Good post.
@Pi11z3ury And in the US people are free to sell their labor to whoever wants to buy it and just like goods and services, labor prices can be adjusted (except below minimum wage which should be abolished). If a person thinks his labor is worth more than he is getting paid for it then he can live with it, negotiate it, or quit to work for a better paying employer. It's the worker's responsibility to receive the full benefit of his toiling.
I do work for the government, I'm a biology teacher. I shudder at the thought of a totally private education model. I need far more than 500 characters to lambast such a potential tragedy.
This guy is my new hero.
@OneApostate1 Why it worked in short order during the Reagan years is because it had some place to go. Corporate tax rates were high, there was no surplus corporate cash...
The consumers pay the regulators through the increased price of goods and services they purchase. If the regulations mattered in the end, consumers would pay the increased price; if they didn't, the business employing regulations deemed unnecessary by consumers would have to adjust lest he go out of business.
@wowzinger Didn't your parents ever teach your to share?
I agree.
@madashelldude I said government because I ment government, and government was not the focus of the point with you so skillfully meandered around
Excuse me for intervening in your debate with Rickbar, but Its irrelevant whether there is "influence." The question is who benefits and by how much. Second, which one of his theories are you talking about? Theories on inflation are not novel and have been around well before Friedman.
Am I misinterpreting, or is Friedman proposing something similar to the Cap-and-Trade?
@1971SuperLead how so?