What Freedman is against is idiots pushing socialism in the UK (or anywhere else). Years later, right now we see the crap-fest that socialist policies can result in!
@@DJAraRealSalsa Great Britain and all western countries have lived under 45 years of Neoliberalism, with little to no socialism.....This was the creation of economists Hayek , Mises, and Lippmann...however, it was Friedman that carried the scourge of humanity with free trade. The objective of Neoliberalism was to kill socialism...which are Unions, pension plans, health care, work cooperates...... Neoliberalism had disdain for unions (socialism) as they obtained wage raises....which Neoliberals see as inflationary, hurting profits.... Globalization free trade under Thatcher and Reagan created a neoliberal world wide slave labour pool that drove working wages to stagnant slave wages. Here are a couple of videos for your perusal that illustrate the age of Neoliberalism we live under. ua-cam.com/video/myH3gg5o0t0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/D-YO5EROH-I/v-deo.html
@@TexRex6352 Educate yourself and consequently be freed from this kind of bullshit pushed by the ruling class to maintain their power. Milton Friedman is a what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like. He's nothing but hollow platitudes and a vacuous destructive ideology that as the previous comment has pointed out has ravaged not only unions, but the planet and the majority of populations across the world and will likely lead to our extinction. I get it, I was also born into a comfortable position in life (to say the least) and became a contemporary "libertarian" and it took me too long to realize how I had been swindled by a cultural hegemony established and entrenched by US empire. We _have_ to turn this shit around or we are doomed, if we haven't already sealed that fate.
+OakhillSailor No, you lose valuable information by censorship such as the kind stated by anonymouse, and while it is sold in your mind where you stand on the issue, from the outside audienceif you have to edit a debate because the responses may bother you it comes out as weakness.
Sam Jones Yes indeed, I was having an argument with a Noam Chomsky supporter and he deleted half my responses while leaving his own intact, he obviously thought I won the argument so decided to censor it.
haha I think you're right there if you start on one particular side. But perhaps not if someone is in the middle and not 100% sure which side they fall on. I used to actually be very left wing myself so sometimes people can change.
Friedman has no concept of collective responsibility. He thinks there is no such thing. Chico Marx had it right. There's no such thing as a Sanity Clause. But there is a January Sale.
Even with the biased editing Friedman owned Jay. What struck me is how the glib Jay is spinning words fast without much effect compared to the few words from Friedman with real substance.
Samir Rewari he is absolutely not against decreasing equality, as he makes repeatedly clear. He is opposed to the policies which are nominally intended to accomplish that aim, which have the opposite effect. I'm not sure how he can be clearer.
AND the only time Friedman talked over Jay is to stop Jay from interrupting, but (in addition to the obvious editing by the poster), Friedman was not allowed to finish a single point without petty interruption from Jay. Lol.
If I have 4 neighbor kids and 3 ice creams, I should be free to determine how I distribute them. I shouldn’t be forced by government to distribute them to who they deem deserving. It’s my ice cream, my money, my business, my butt on the line.
I don’t understand any of what you wrote. Why are you stiffing one kid out of a treat, and why would the government give a rat’sarse? And do your neighbours know you’re giving their kids candy? I have so many questions!!
@@constantin-X I didn't get a million dollar trust fund ar age 21 like you and Bill Gates with your employer desire to go for the gold and grab all you can. Everyone knows that its a rigged system even Donald Trump admits it. All you do is like to steal each other's markets and pay lower wages to make bigger profits. Thats what you call a business opportunity. You talk about how your a competitive but fair boss who is growing (fater) severs his customers and how where all all associates until the market goes south and then it's see ya later partner nice knowing ya but I'm gona wait it out in the gated community you just have to find competitive employment. They only guarantee the too big to fail.which means the banker who alllways gabs a big piece for himself.
@@socalbillg3409 Milton was in the pinochet regime in chile, his actions speak louder than his words. Thousands of people were murdered and others incarcerated for speaking out against the dictator that deposed a democraticly elected government. Furthermore, when milton slips into the retort"you can only serve on god" showcasing a governmental regulation= socialism bias. which is a fallacy He falls flat into the trap laid for him by peter jay, that is: that the inequalities endemic in free market societies are better serviced by integrating government action, alongside buisness, rather than allowing either organizational form to ride rough shot through the economy. Regulation fosters competition by removing opportunity for monopolies to exist, allowing small buisnesses to fill the niche instead.
Such ignorance is bliss. Socialists always have the answers, which of course always turn out to be disastrous. Always fun to read ignorant/brainwashed drivel. Government is never the solution. Some people like yourself will never get it.@@ekahnjennett4517
@@ekahnjennett4517 lol he was not “in” the Pinochet regime in Chile. Pinochet’s economic advisors studied at the University of Chicago, and they asked Milton to give them advice on how to end their inflation and reduce poverty, which is solely what he did. He even said to Pinochet directly that these capitalistic policies will lead to the end of your regime, and Pinochet didn’t believe him. Friedman wrote an article called “The Miracle of Chile”, stating that the true miracle was that a dictatorship would allow capitalist policies in the first place. So no, he was not “in” their regime. And once the free-market policies were applied (in 3 rounds: 1980, 1985, 1990), Chile became the most prosperous and healthiest country in all of Latin America in a matter of years. They had to raise interest rates in order to reduce the 600% inflation created by the socialists before him, which caused a small dip in GDP for 2 years, but once inflation was fixed, their GDP skyrocketed. Poverty was greatly reduced, infant mortality shot down, median income rose, access to healthcare rose, and by the 1990s Pinochet’s regime had fallen. All because free-market policies are a pre-requisite, and often lead to, political freedom, which is precisely what Milton said it would do to the Pinochet regime. Respectively, you should do your research.
@@adamsequeira7124 It very clearly cuts out rebuttals. Without knowing what Milton said what the British guy said didn't mean anything. His point was that Milton misrepresented Britain. We don't see him do that. He says that Milton claims that the other side wants absolute equality. He then responds with that he never made that claim. Sooooo, this showed nothing.
I watched this video in it's entirety on another clip on youtube... whoever posted this video cut out Friedman's rebuttal ... it's Jay that gets owned if you watch it through to the end.
Eric Carr because he believes that government taxes can create a better future for everyone. Pathetic. At least Friedman's ideas are not a panacea for Utopia, and never have been touted as such. OPPORTUNITY of all people allows you to BECOME however great or small YOU WILL. And don't cry to me if you only allow YOURSELF to be small in a land where you have EVERY OPPORTUNITY to become great.
@@ClickToPreview What Friedman suggested was a recipe for dystopian disaster, which is what we are getting in the shape of ever worsening environmental degradation, lightning fast climate change, and never ending wars. So thanks for nothing.
Milton Friedman always engaged in sophistry: “Yet the fact that they make that argument is precisely why Friedman has won the day for going on half a century, a spectacular success for a social sciences argument. Friedman has won the way a great debater wins - by cleverly framing the terms of the debate, not by brilliantly arguing the logic of the debate once it has been framed…Friedman, of course, didn’t feel the need to assemble any empirical evidence to support his point. An economist falls apart and turns into a blubbing puddle on the floor if you take away the concept of trade-offs because they all started in the same place: the societal trade-off between guns and butter. Trade-offs are a sacred article of faith for economists. You simply can’t be an economist if you don’t consider trade-offs to be a central feature of your worldview.” HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW “How to Win the Argument with Milton Friedman” by Roger L. Martin June 02, 2014
@@chinchanbruh5713 no it's the movement towards freidman style economics that resulted in income inequality improving to not improving. These are facts, not to mention every single country with higher social safety nets has proven to have MORE social mobility contrary to his points on "if we taxed rich people less we'd have more prosperity for more people, more freedom and more opportunity for people to advance? " Social Mobility Index: 1) Denmark 2) Norway 3) Finland 4) Sweden ... ... ... 27) United States.
@@adamsequeira7124 you know USA spends on average more on the average person for social safety. All the countries you listed have less regulated economies than the us. Not to mention most scandanavian countries are repealing their social spending.
@@chinchanbruh5713 All those countries provide, 1) free healthcare 2) free education 3) better social housing 4) have more labor unions, more collective bargaining (most of which is against freidman's "only the individual" philosophy, that helps people have a 5) higher minimum wage 6) more taxes on corporates and higher income individuals on scandavian countries repealling social spending, they still provide all the following items listed, all of which are NOT provided by the united states in any reason capacity. Obamacare was a start but still a for - profit insurance program. Not to mention the United States is 27th behind almost every developed country in the world.
That is exactly what I was thinking when I noticed the first strategic edit . Friedman had a very simple strategy for winning every argument. He spoke from the side of empirical truth.
UserNameAnonymous I have looked around a lot for it and can't find the source. If you don't believe me that's fine, but I quite clearly remember reading about it as one his last predictions before his died. The original Bloomberg piece on the tarnished reputation of the Chicago School of Economics that Friedman founded has vanished, but this article contains an excerpt: www.economonitor.com/blog/2008/12/rip-chicago-school-of-economics-1976-2008/
To the author of this channel: milton friedman to my knowledge has never lost a debate surrendered a point of his or has been convinced by the author of another idea to divorce his own. For the good of the youtube community stop releasing ficticious video claims that only highlights you're own incompetence of thought process
Maybe that is true, but just because you refuse to accept defeat doesn't mean you weren't defeated. Peter Jay made a good point: are you for equality or not? Friedman never answered. You would say it's because he didn't want to be pinned down. I would say its because Friedman doesn't have very strong convictions. That said, he didn't get to hear Friedman's rebuttals in the video as they were edited out. But I think it is a bad idea to say "he never conceded at all--that must mean he's right" as your first sentence suggests. To me that means the polar opposite, that you don't think your ideas can undergo harsh criticism and must artificially supported.
As the author of the video seems to be someone of my nationality, I can tell you that Milton Freedman is either unknown or disregarded by most economic related professors I've heard in this country, whose elected government party is the socialist one, they are not close to Cuban or Venezuelan socialism but they aspire for returning social aids and streghtening the social State which had been weakened by the crisis of 2008 and the Troika projects of the following years
UA-cam's a community now, is it? A society? Haha. Milton only ever self owns. You have to study more beyond him to see through his paid-for-promitional nonsense. He once credited Keyenes for being adaptive and being willing to change his mind with the evidence. What you highlighted was one of Milton's many flaws. If he would've made it to see today, maybe he would've regretted inspiring the economic ideology that enabled the market to freely invest in Chinese Communism. But I digress...
@@coolsimpsons I don't know whether he answered it then - responses were edited. I should add that posterity has answered that one for us - now, equality has religious status and is one of the things used to fill the void left by God being absent from the public square.
Actually, getting Friedman to state that society doesn't have values, but people do is flat out wrong. I don't think framing it as "owned" is the right way but certainly Jay's argument was convincing in that regard.
Equality, opportunity, outcome, these are muddied semantics being handled I'm extremes. No one actually wants to take ALL the money of the rich and give it ALL to the poor. What individual people want (and with enough individuals you have a society), want education as a right; healthcare as a right; a fair and liveable wage as a right. If the society of individuals pay the rich to be richer, then that money belongs to the society, and the rich should be grateful and pay back what is needed so they can have a stable middle class to enrich themselves. Otherwise, it's just feudalism with nice facades like growing GDP. Milton Friedman's market absolutism economics funded Chinese communism via the market, collapsed western production, collapsed the western middle class. The man and these ideas needs to be vilified and crucified. It sent us morally, ethically, and economically riderless, adrift to be blown about by the winds of the greed he worshipped. At least it all looked good on paper for a while. Look around at the blight now, and the abundance of hopeless souls virtually chained to fast food equipment. A land where everything goes up in value except for the value of labor and the dignity of human beings, hard work now robs you of dignity, only egregious amounts of money earned for nothing, or for stepping on people, gives you any standing or merit.
Peter Jay was just one of many liberals who show their true colors debating Milton. Angry, belligerent, cranky, extremely intolerant. Like liberals are, always. Meanwhile Milton as always, is calm, collected, polite and very tolerant and willing to exchange politely. This is the lesson one can learn from watching all of these old videos.
Right... that's why Peter Jay has won many prizes and is the author of many best-selling books, and a household name, not only in Limeyland, but all over the world.
Milton Friedman and people like him are experts at shifting blame. In his case it is almost always about shifting blame from systems back to individuals. It's either a result of ignorance or its on purpose on his part. It never seizes to amaze me how these people only look at problems from a glandular stand point and completly ignore the existence of certain systems and how they are structured and how they may favor some over others and so forth. And I use to be a huge fan of Milton too after discovering him and scouring through videos and clips of him and his work. It was only once I finally got over the fear and stigma of studying like Karl Marx that my eyes were truly open to the system of capitalism for instance and that was truly the beginning for me as I realized a there are tomes of information and philosophy from people who look at the world in a much more in depth manner rather then such a simplistic one.
I hope I live to see the day when his brand of ideas are permanently shelved and refuted like feudalism and slavery. They managed to perfect a feedback loop where the government could allow them to make money and their money would allow them to make popular will and make government. The results have been disgusting and tragic. Vs cost of living, I was making more 25 years ago just above minimum wage than today despite making significantly more. Everything is allowed to increase in value except labor, that is not an accident of market forces. The middle class of the progressive era didn't just happen, it was created, by the government and public will being willing to guide the market. The high taxes forced capitalists actively invest, now the paltry revenues mainly go towards propping up the markets, indirectly subsidizing private healthcare and private military industries at pure premiums. Now that the tail has wagged the dog, the market has dictated everything for the last 40-50 years, now look at us. Tent slums of the working poor in every city. Minimum wage is flat in value, median income is 1/3rd the value since then, meanwhile upper management can earn the same as 50k workers a year. It's a joke economy, Milton's decades of proteges strip komed the middle class wealth and production in this country and LITERALLY invested in Chinese communism. It's a god damn sick joke. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't also spit in our faces and tell us we deserve this. Meanwhile, we're too nice to give them what they deserve. There's no reason to revisit the dark pages of history, but it seems to be what they want. The market doesn't know what's best for a widow, or a paraplegic, or someone with schizophrenia, or long covid, or government subsidized market induced and diabetes: people do. We're just going to have to go through collapse to get through to the other side where hindsight is 2020. All these jokers are going to laugh to the bank just to find the bank isn't in business anymore. I hope there's a reckoning, we need a 1929 and 1930s, wake up all these people that were allowed to fail up and make money for nothing and lost their morality in the market.
Lol, he didn't get owned! The fact that he didn't know the question in advance and simply could answer with such logic. Milton was the teacher, and had a opositional defiant child from England not willing to look at cause and effect.
For everyone missing the part where Friedman gets owned: Start at 6:38. Then, at 6:47, CAREFULLY listen to Friedman's response "You can only serve one God" (in other words, you can only pursue one objective). Jay's response is (rightly so) "Nonsense!" Friedman NEVER defends the proposition that you can only serve one objective, rather than a well-balanced set of objectives! People balance many goals in their own lives (family, career, leisure, money, etc.) Why should governments have policies that are aimed at the pursuit of only one objective? Friedman simply brushes off this philosophical question. HE DOES NOT ANSWER IT. PERIOD!
True, but we all, too, must set priorities. That's what Milton was speaking about. The notion of multi-tasking, where the idea is that a person can do many things concurrently and do them as well as doing one at the time, is largely a fallacy.
It's ironic how social dividends and basic income systems are fundamental components of so many models of market socialism and not at all an original idea attributable to Milton Friedman.
Meanwhile tent slums have been popping up in American cities for years, including people that work. I'm sure they just lack the opportunity to help themselves.
Yeah! Like imagine giving up the freedom to murder others so that we live in a more just society. Just imagine. Or the freedom to rape, steal, and slander. Thank goodness we have our freedom!
The uploader included the link to the full video, so please don't act as if they were afraid of the truth or had disingenuous motives or something. Just because content is curated doesn't mean the intention is to distort. Have you ever watched a video with a title like "DNC best moments" or "Republican debate highlights"? If you felt that some crucial rebuttal of Friedman's was omitted and shouldn't have been, please let us know. I'll be more than happy to take a look.
What about the fact that Friedman’s summation before question time was omitted? This reveals Jay’s lack of comprehension or poor grasp of the language, because Friedman was definitely not equivocating.
This ownage is epic and never gets old. as I commented here a year ago below. Some don't even understand what Jay is implying as far as the quiescence of the Freidman's beliefs.
You're a moron. When someone has to edit out Friedmans response he far from got owned. This Brit is a moron. Interrupted Milton the whole video then bitches at Milton for not letting him finish. Typical socialist moron.
+Mike s The uploader included the link to the full video, so please don't act as if they were afraid of the truth or had disingenuous motives or something. Just because content is curated doesn't mean the intention is to distort. Have you ever watched a video with a title like "DNC best moments" or "Republican debate highlights"? If you felt that some crucial rebuttal of Friedman's was omitted and shouldn't have been, please let us know. I'll be more than happy to take a look.
If anyone here has ever "debated" with a British person, you know how annoying and nonsensical it can be. They go on and on and repeat themselves and feel as if they are making a different point by saying the same thing with more emphasis.
@@noahlibra Haha, in defense of the British people I have debated with, we were always pretty drunk at the pub at the time. And somehow them repeating themselves in an even more British accent was a decent technique. It almost got me if I wasn't paying attention, lol. That accent has some damn charming authority to it.
For everyone missing the "part" where Friedman gets "owned", let me give you a hint: it's not a "part". If you're searching for ONE soundbite, you won't find it. It's the FACT that Friedman never satisfactorily answers Jay's question. If you're still soundbite-hunting, look at the part where Friedman, after squirming in his seat for a bit, responds "you can only serve one God" (in other words you can only pursue one objective). Jay's response is (and rightly so) "nonsense!" Friedman never defends the proposition that you can only serve one objective! That's simply an assertion, an opinion. Who says you can only serve one objective? People serve many objectives in their own daily lives. Family, work, leisure, money, etc.
@@vickydixon7512 No. I haven't made a statement that contradicts itself. What ONE objective do "all those things" fall under? Be clear and specific, not obfuscatory.
He got totally owned. He had to admit that his idea of "absolute equality" is only his interpretation "almost all the logic of such arguments is AS IF..." He then says that that is the "direction" that it is moving. He got caught trying to straw man those who argue for equality.
I believe the poster of this clip does not understand the concept of "being owned". Also, the likelyhood is that he does not understand even the basic consepts Milton Friedman subscribes to. Thirdly, he has clipped the full debate to only show what he would like. Owned.
Friedman uses freedom in a very particular way. It means the freedom of capital and those whom own it to control government policy in order to transfer wealth from the people to corporations. As in Chile and elsewhere, if the people don't like it, military force shall be used to enforce neoliberal ideology on the population.
Yeah if Allende wasn’t on the brink of starving the people to death, then the military, who were on his side, wouldn’t have turned against him. What did that dick get inflation to ? 700%!!
pretending to "overfixate" on a freidman critic's accent and way of speaking rather than the content of the information provided seems to be the criteria for idolizing milton freidman.
The Tories and the neoliberal Blairite wing of the Labour party have been in charge for the last 2 decades. Their policies are more in line with Milton's ideology than Mr. Jay's. They have ruined the UK economy, especially for the working class. Look at how Liz Truss' budget plan of tax cuts for the rich worked out.
"There is a fundamental distinction between relieving distress and doing something about inequality." And this is the point that goes right over all of the anti-Friedman heads. Friedman's negative income tax program was specifically designed to preserve the incentive to work more while also providing relief to those who fell upon hard times. The goal is not to make people closer to being economically equal but simply to relieve "distress." On the other hand, the liberals continuously propose programs like affirmative action, wage equality, minimum wage, etc. which are not in themselves concerned with providing relief but simply addressing the gap between the rich and the poor or other groups of people. What they fail to see is that relatively rich people can be absolutely poor, and relatively poor people can be rich. The gap in income on its own is irrelevant. It all comes from the bogus "fixed pie" fallacy.
It's was absolutely ingenius that Peter Jay actually attacked Milton Friedman's ideology from the very philosophical foundations. He went directly after Friedman's abstract definition of "individualism," which seems to be based on an over-glorified myth, or an outright LIE! The problem is that this definition of individualism does not interact realistically with the other important factors that do exist in the real world! Friedman works well on paper, just not in real life.
By “reducing inequality” you mean removing incentives to succeed. If you “win” you get a diminishing return, if you fail you don’t face the full consequences
The uploader gives a link to the full video in the description! The uploader gives a link to the full fucking video in the description! And no, he is not trying to use clever editing to take out Friedman's rebuttals. How many times......Geez
This is the beginning of the argument of equality of equity. They're two different things (equality vs equality of equity) with the latter being Marxism.
Nice try, you publicly list videos a "lefty" would not even touch with a metal bar. Hilarious how you Friedman fanboys try to propagate his ideology everywhere.
Milton Friedman's answer was completely rational. Any time equality is forced in any way, it goes against individual liberty. I give up time and effort to work and make money. The government takes portions of my money by by force (try not paying taxes) and redistributes it to many who are not as productive as I. I believe in paying for services, but I do not believe in being forced to give up my money to raise other people's children or to help them when they have made a series of poor decisions leading them to where they are. That is not liberty nor is it equality in any way.
Just a small correction. Milton Friedman would not be stupid to argue that taxation is the government taking a portion of somebody else money by force. That would be too childish. Also, it is childish. You can look anywhere and you will not find any moment where Milton advocate for anarcho-capitalism and "tax is theft" BS. Sorry to disapoint you.
improving living standards for the poorest, regardless of increases in inequality, is a proper and sensible policy to pursue. reducing inequality is no policy at all if the poorest get poorer still.
The only one who I see being utterly OWNED is Mr. Peter Jay... but not by Friedman, but by Margaret Thatcher. You can not argue success, history or fact.
cut and edited - Watch the whole episode to make a conclusion - From what I've seen, it is governments that create vast inequalities by giving favour to one and restricting the other. It all depends how you measure it of course - do you consider inequality that 1 business makes 100 million while another makes 1 million? Do we consider that 100 million person just does business better? why should we waste our time on the 1 million dollar business is what a corporatist (or some form of democratic socialist) might say, where someone like Friedman would argue the business making 1 million is producing value to someone. If that is a measure that government should regulate what is the answer? complete socialism and price controls? As Rand Paul pointed out the biggest flaw in socialism is nobody can determine the proper price for bread - the consumer decides that (with stimulation through the supplier by means of profit incentive and cost) and it decides that without cost - it costs to have central planners arguing about something so complicated as to what bread should cost (especially different kinds of bread in different areas from different farmers who do not produce at the same rate) If you refer to a business making 1 billion where other business only makes a million - again why do we assume that's just not good business - reducing waste while providing society with value. We have an assumption something nasty is going on because you can measure value in a society and correlate data (maybe not precise conclusions but data that may suggest this or that but it's clear not straight value in) in those cases where we suspect foul play - every single time I look at it the root cause comes back to indirect and often direct government intervention in the market. Maybe the question is: what is your goal for society - is it equality, if so socialism is great for that. We do have a fair amount of it now, that is 1% control 99% of the wealth, that would imply that 99% of us are living under equality. Or is your goal equity and prosperity - the data suggests that the more freer the market the more equity and prosperity exists
@@assfukwut well people are the market so if they are free to conduct their business than they will be freer. The market is people exchanging goods, a free market is people exchanging goods "freely" that is free of regulation [that is stuff that interferes with voluntary transaction vs. stuff that is there that protects to people from fraud or theft ect.].... So I'm just not sure what your point is. Is it that because say Country X is the best - and by best are we saying the freest of people - they have 2 markets that are not free yet they are the freest on earth...I would say they would be freer by freeing up those markets. I would say by any objective standard you can find the freest people have the freest markets - which Countries are you referring to? If in health care the government is preventing you from getting treatment or preventing a doctor from giving treatment - by any means than the people participating are not free. Maybe you could clarify for me and be specific - I'm fine with criticism and although I am opinionated I accept than I can be wrong about well anything, this is just what I have found....But I don't understand the criticism at me at all. So how I read your last one is: People are freer in 'the best Countries' because they are not free in 2 markets. or because they are not free they are freer. [the freer the market the freer the people except to you not in health care because not being free in health care makes you free in health care - it doesn't make sense]. They are free because they are free in many many other markets.
milton destroys this guy lmfao, this man peter doesnt even understand the point milton is saying, he too concentrated on a gotcha instead of understanding his point.
what I have seen is Peter Jay being completely owned by Friedman here... despite the video being cut to leave a maximum of time to Jay, Friedman's arguments are so dense that he owns him easily... IMHO
Friedman's Free to Choose series is great. You can watch the entire unedited video on youtube, and see the parts that were cut out. Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman
Nice editing. How much of what Milton Friedman said was cut out? I see lots of cuts. He was right in the middle of answering one question when the video cut to a different discussion. We didn't get to hear his response.
Ohh, great prophet Friedman, peace be upon him, he was never wrong! If ever he said anything that either never came to pass, or was factually incorrect, then that was either because we were not pure enough, or the facts were wrong! Great prophet, rise from the grave to point us in the right direction... Amen.
I hardly see where Milton Friedman gets owned. He stood his ground against several attack and continued not only to come out on top, but also to do so without attacking anyone's character.
im a fan of Friedman but he did get pretty owned here. his argument was you can only serve one god, was a weak argument. in fact Friedmans politics (he was a Georgist which is classically liberal in philosophy) isnt inconsistent with what this guy was arguing (basically egalitarian liberalism or liberal democratic social goals) so he didnt need to make such a weak argument based on religion. Obviously its not lost to me that the God was a metaphor, perhaps to freedom but he didnt spell it out explicitly, but there are many examples of people who serve more than one God (or indeed none at all) both in the God or lack of God sense, and in the metaphorical sense he used it, so the claim is not true and is just a subjective opinion. Miltons point about the difference between the tax systems is a good one though, but clearly he didnt specifically address this guys contention of the legitimacy of a liberal democratic social philosophy that has more than one goal.
Actually that's what Milton has done to Keyenes and the economics history that preceded him: it's either all market capitalism or else its all communism.
I must have missed the part where Milton gets owned.
William Guerriero just watch the video... then you’ll see it.
What Freedman is against is idiots pushing socialism in the UK (or anywhere else). Years later, right now we see the crap-fest that socialist policies can result in!
He's constantly dodging the question to begin with.
@@DJAraRealSalsa Great Britain and all western countries have lived under 45 years of Neoliberalism, with little to no socialism.....This was the creation of economists Hayek , Mises, and Lippmann...however, it was Friedman that carried the scourge of humanity with free trade.
The objective of Neoliberalism was to kill socialism...which are Unions, pension plans, health care, work cooperates......
Neoliberalism had disdain for unions (socialism) as they obtained wage raises....which Neoliberals see as inflationary, hurting profits....
Globalization free trade under Thatcher and Reagan created a neoliberal world wide slave labour pool that drove working wages to stagnant slave wages.
Here are a couple of videos for your perusal that illustrate the age of Neoliberalism we live under.
ua-cam.com/video/myH3gg5o0t0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/D-YO5EROH-I/v-deo.html
@@TexRex6352 Educate yourself and consequently be freed from this kind of bullshit pushed by the ruling class to maintain their power. Milton Friedman is a what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like. He's nothing but hollow platitudes and a vacuous destructive ideology that as the previous comment has pointed out has ravaged not only unions, but the planet and the majority of populations across the world and will likely lead to our extinction.
I get it, I was also born into a comfortable position in life (to say the least) and became a contemporary "libertarian" and it took me too long to realize how I had been swindled by a cultural hegemony established and entrenched by US empire. We _have_ to turn this shit around or we are doomed, if we haven't already sealed that fate.
You can usually tell who really won the debate when the uploader edits out all their rebuttals.
+Anonymouse I think you get the gist of the their position though
+OakhillSailor No, you lose valuable information by censorship such as the kind stated by anonymouse, and while it is sold in your mind where you stand on the issue, from the outside audienceif you have to edit a debate because the responses may bother you it comes out as weakness.
Sam Jones Yes indeed, I was having an argument with a Noam Chomsky supporter and he deleted half my responses while leaving his own intact, he obviously thought I won the argument so decided to censor it.
Anonymouse
well the full video is posted if you really want to see it. But I guarantee it wont change your mind which ever side you're on.
haha I think you're right there if you start on one particular side. But perhaps not if someone is in the middle and not 100% sure which side they fall on. I used to actually be very left wing myself so sometimes people can change.
Your comprehension of the word "owned" is questionable, at best.
Vladislav Feldman Exactly.
butthurt much?
@Teflon Don what an elegant way to say that you are butthurt aswell, libertarians love to project their issues as we all know :)
I wish debates like these still happened on TV. We are being fed junk food.
Couldn't agree more
Nah i think its just bc theyre british
Slop straight from the trough
There are mostly debates now about what is a "woman"...
Title should read- "Uploader pwned by his own editing."
I'm from the future. This comment is still Lololol!
Gold!
I bet you corrected that and they changed it back
He thinks he winning because he's talking fast.
dude I just hate weak sauce click baits
Ummm I don't see how Milton Friedman got owned in this... he handled it very well IMO.
Friedman has no concept of collective responsibility. He thinks there is no such thing. Chico Marx had it right. There's no such thing as a Sanity Clause. But there is a January Sale.
Maybe you missed the beginning.
Yeah, Friedman kills 'em, even with the deceptive edits.
True
Indeed!
Even with the biased editing Friedman owned Jay. What struck me is how the glib Jay is spinning words fast without much effect compared to the few words from Friedman with real substance.
Samir Rewari he is absolutely not against decreasing equality, as he makes repeatedly clear. He is opposed to the policies which are nominally intended to accomplish that aim, which have the opposite effect. I'm not sure how he can be clearer.
AND the only time Friedman talked over Jay is to stop Jay from interrupting, but (in addition to the obvious editing by the poster), Friedman was not allowed to finish a single point without petty interruption from Jay. Lol.
No-one gets 'owned' although Peter Jay does make an excellent contribution to the debate.
Well if you look at the broader discussion Milton dun fuck up a little.
@@africanhistory Not at all.
Nope. Friedman got owned.
Really? What contribution was that?
@@africanhistory can you explain what you mean by broader discussion? Because you're completely wrong.
If I have 4 neighbor kids and 3 ice creams, I should be free to determine how I distribute them. I shouldn’t be forced by government to distribute them to who they deem deserving. It’s my ice cream, my money, my business, my butt on the line.
I don’t understand any of what you wrote. Why are you stiffing one kid out of a treat, and why would the government give a rat’sarse? And do your neighbours know you’re giving their kids candy? I have so many questions!!
@@davespanksalot8413 He just the typical boss justfing his decisions by private property.
LOL yeah you are a religious person
@@kimobrien.well said…. By someone who clearly hasn’t build a business of his own and hasn’t given others an opportunity to earn a living.
@@constantin-X I didn't get a million dollar trust fund ar age 21 like you and Bill Gates with your employer desire to go for the gold and grab all you can. Everyone knows that its a rigged system even Donald Trump admits it. All you do is like to steal each other's markets and pay lower wages to make bigger profits. Thats what you call a business opportunity. You talk about how your a competitive but fair boss who is growing (fater) severs his customers and how where all all associates until the market goes south and then it's see ya later partner nice knowing ya but I'm gona wait it out in the gated community you just have to find competitive employment. They only guarantee the too big to fail.which means the banker who alllways gabs a big piece for himself.
Milton holds his own quite well. No one "owns" Milton Friedman.
Ownership is the bedrock of capitalism. Milton was bought and paid for, trust that.
@@subcitizen2012 I love to hear from people that think they know more than Milton. Please entertain me.
@@socalbillg3409 Milton was in the pinochet regime in chile, his actions speak louder than his words. Thousands of people were murdered and others incarcerated for speaking out against the dictator that deposed a democraticly elected government.
Furthermore, when milton slips into the retort"you can only serve on god"
showcasing a governmental regulation= socialism bias. which is a fallacy
He falls flat into the trap laid for him by peter jay, that is: that the inequalities endemic in free market societies are better serviced by integrating government action, alongside buisness, rather than allowing either organizational form to ride rough shot through the economy.
Regulation fosters competition by removing opportunity for monopolies to exist, allowing small buisnesses to fill the niche instead.
Such ignorance is bliss. Socialists always have the answers, which of course always turn out to be disastrous. Always fun to read ignorant/brainwashed drivel. Government is never the solution. Some people like yourself will never get it.@@ekahnjennett4517
@@ekahnjennett4517 lol he was not “in” the Pinochet regime in Chile. Pinochet’s economic advisors studied at the University of Chicago, and they asked Milton to give them advice on how to end their inflation and reduce poverty, which is solely what he did. He even said to Pinochet directly that these capitalistic policies will lead to the end of your regime, and Pinochet didn’t believe him.
Friedman wrote an article called “The Miracle of Chile”, stating that the true miracle was that a dictatorship would allow capitalist policies in the first place. So no, he was not “in” their regime. And once the free-market policies were applied (in 3 rounds: 1980, 1985, 1990), Chile became the most prosperous and healthiest country in all of Latin America in a matter of years. They had to raise interest rates in order to reduce the 600% inflation created by the socialists before him, which caused a small dip in GDP for 2 years, but once inflation was fixed, their GDP skyrocketed. Poverty was greatly reduced, infant mortality shot down, median income rose, access to healthcare rose, and by the 1990s Pinochet’s regime had fallen. All because free-market policies are a pre-requisite, and often lead to, political freedom, which is precisely what Milton said it would do to the Pinochet regime. Respectively, you should do your research.
Why does it cut whenever Milton gives a rebuttal?
he showed every single one of the rebuttals
@@adamsequeira7124 It very clearly cuts out rebuttals.
Without knowing what Milton said what the British guy said didn't mean anything.
His point was that Milton misrepresented Britain. We don't see him do that.
He says that Milton claims that the other side wants absolute equality. He then responds with that he never made that claim.
Sooooo, this showed nothing.
@@randomkid7390No it didn't
2:28
Such good editing, its only mildly blaringly obvious.
Owned?!
I suggest anyone watching this watch the rest of this. Friedman destroyed him.
Very clearly and concisely.
I watched this video in it's entirety on another clip on youtube... whoever posted this video cut out Friedman's rebuttal ... it's Jay that gets owned if you watch it through to the end.
Friedman completely owned the discussion. Peter Jay doesn't seem to want to listen to anyone but himself...
Eric Carr because he believes that government taxes can create a better future for everyone. Pathetic. At least Friedman's ideas are not a panacea for Utopia, and never have been touted as such. OPPORTUNITY of all people allows you to BECOME however great or small YOU WILL. And don't cry to me if you only allow YOURSELF to be small in a land where you have EVERY OPPORTUNITY to become great.
As opposed to listening to a crapitalist hack?
Get real.
@@ClickToPreview
What Friedman suggested was a recipe for dystopian disaster, which is what we are getting in the shape of ever worsening environmental degradation, lightning fast climate change, and never ending wars.
So thanks for nothing.
@@AB-ou8ve Lmao its the best system created, cope harder
Sometimes I like to watch the unedited debate where Peter gets owned.
Milton Friedman always engaged in sophistry: “Yet the fact that they make that argument is precisely why Friedman has won the day for going on half a century, a spectacular success for a social sciences argument. Friedman has won the way a great debater wins - by cleverly framing the terms of the debate, not by brilliantly arguing the logic of the debate once it has been framed…Friedman, of course, didn’t feel the need to assemble any empirical evidence to support his point. An economist falls apart and turns into a blubbing puddle on the floor if you take away the concept of trade-offs because they all started in the same place: the societal trade-off between guns and butter. Trade-offs are a sacred article of faith for economists. You simply can’t be an economist if you don’t consider trade-offs to be a central feature of your worldview.”
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW “How to Win the Argument with Milton Friedman”
by Roger L. Martin
June 02, 2014
I was looking forward to Milton getting "schooled." So disappointed
Jay got clapped
@@adamsequeira7124 not really, Milton literally predicts the welfare state we have today
@@chinchanbruh5713 no it's the movement towards freidman style economics that resulted in income inequality improving to not improving.
These are facts, not to mention every single country with higher social safety nets has proven to have MORE social mobility contrary to his points on "if we taxed rich people less we'd have more prosperity for more people, more freedom and more opportunity for people to advance? "
Social Mobility Index:
1) Denmark
2) Norway
3) Finland
4) Sweden
...
...
...
27) United States.
@@adamsequeira7124 you know USA spends on average more on the average person for social safety. All the countries you listed have less regulated economies than the us. Not to mention most scandanavian countries are repealing their social spending.
@@chinchanbruh5713 All those countries provide,
1) free healthcare
2) free education
3) better social housing
4) have more labor unions, more collective bargaining (most of which is against freidman's "only the individual" philosophy, that helps people have a
5) higher minimum wage
6) more taxes on corporates and higher income individuals
on scandavian countries repealling social spending, they still provide all the following items listed, all of which are NOT provided by the united states in any reason capacity. Obamacare was a start but still a for - profit insurance program.
Not to mention the United States is 27th behind almost every developed country in the world.
It's fun to edit things so that it looks like your side won.
a thousand this
I got the edit at the 3:40 mark and thought hmmm some of his points are missing.... given the title bias I didn't wonder why.
That is exactly what I was thinking when I noticed the first strategic edit .
Friedman had a very simple strategy for winning every argument.
He spoke from the side of empirical truth.
Friedman didn’t get owned. In fact Peter Jay turned right-wing later on in life thanks to Friedman.
And a little after that Friedman turned everyone into market socialist, so I guess it all comes out in the wash.
when the fuck does freidman get owned ???
Nice try at spinning uploader but the general consensus is....
NAAHHHH.
Because UA-cam isn't a safespace for the left.
Friedman didn't get owned, quite the contrary.
"you can only serve one god" - anyone who responds with that, is clearly and undeniably desperate to make some kind of a relevant point.
+Justin Beagley His point was that you can choose equality or freedom.
***** You don't understand. When you make equality paramount, you rob the incentive of those who work harder than the rest.
Ricardo Cantoral that's not what he's saying. This is basic english.
+Justin Beagley *sigh* Another delusional socialist. History has proven time and again that it doesn't work.
How come Peter Jay is calling himself and economist ? Forget economics he does not have even basic common sense .
Friedman predicted more sunny skies and uninterrupted economic growth into the future before he died in 2006. Yeah.
ye he was human u know
aera Hoover
Of course, but he kind of acted like he wasn't, and his ardent defenders were even worse. They aren't like that so much anymore.
+valar yes i kinda see.
When did he ever predict that?
UserNameAnonymous
I have looked around a lot for it and can't find the source. If you don't believe me that's fine, but I quite clearly remember reading about it as one his last predictions before his died.
The original Bloomberg piece on the tarnished reputation of the Chicago School of Economics that Friedman founded has vanished, but this article contains an excerpt: www.economonitor.com/blog/2008/12/rip-chicago-school-of-economics-1976-2008/
To the author of this channel: milton friedman to my knowledge has never lost a debate surrendered a point of his or has been convinced by the author of another idea to divorce his own. For the good of the youtube community stop releasing ficticious video claims that only highlights you're own incompetence of thought process
Maybe that is true, but just because you refuse to accept defeat doesn't mean you weren't defeated. Peter Jay made a good point: are you for equality or not? Friedman never answered.
You would say it's because he didn't want to be pinned down. I would say its because Friedman doesn't have very strong convictions.
That said, he didn't get to hear Friedman's rebuttals in the video as they were edited out. But I think it is a bad idea to say "he never conceded at all--that must mean he's right" as your first sentence suggests. To me that means the polar opposite, that you don't think your ideas can undergo harsh criticism and must artificially supported.
As the author of the video seems to be someone of my nationality, I can tell you that Milton Freedman is either unknown or disregarded by most economic related professors I've heard in this country, whose elected government party is the socialist one, they are not close to Cuban or Venezuelan socialism but they aspire for returning social aids and streghtening the social State which had been weakened by the crisis of 2008 and the Troika projects of the following years
UA-cam's a community now, is it? A society? Haha.
Milton only ever self owns. You have to study more beyond him to see through his paid-for-promitional nonsense.
He once credited Keyenes for being adaptive and being willing to change his mind with the evidence. What you highlighted was one of Milton's many flaws. If he would've made it to see today, maybe he would've regretted inspiring the economic ideology that enabled the market to freely invest in Chinese Communism. But I digress...
@@coolsimpsons I don't know whether he answered it then - responses were edited. I should add that posterity has answered that one for us - now, equality has religious status and is one of the things used to fill the void left by God being absent from the public square.
Did not see any ownage. Video was very clearly chopped up to support the uploaders opinion.
And it still lacked "ownage"
"Equality of opportunity" ??? Where does that exist?
Peter Jay just talked endlessly. He didnt "own" Milton at any point.
Actually, getting Friedman to state that society doesn't have values, but people do is flat out wrong. I don't think framing it as "owned" is the right way but certainly Jay's argument was convincing in that regard.
Equality, opportunity, outcome, these are muddied semantics being handled I'm extremes. No one actually wants to take ALL the money of the rich and give it ALL to the poor. What individual people want (and with enough individuals you have a society), want education as a right; healthcare as a right; a fair and liveable wage as a right. If the society of individuals pay the rich to be richer, then that money belongs to the society, and the rich should be grateful and pay back what is needed so they can have a stable middle class to enrich themselves. Otherwise, it's just feudalism with nice facades like growing GDP. Milton Friedman's market absolutism economics funded Chinese communism via the market, collapsed western production, collapsed the western middle class. The man and these ideas needs to be vilified and crucified. It sent us morally, ethically, and economically riderless, adrift to be blown about by the winds of the greed he worshipped. At least it all looked good on paper for a while. Look around at the blight now, and the abundance of hopeless souls virtually chained to fast food equipment. A land where everything goes up in value except for the value of labor and the dignity of human beings, hard work now robs you of dignity, only egregious amounts of money earned for nothing, or for stepping on people, gives you any standing or merit.
Peter Jay was just one of many liberals who show their true colors debating Milton. Angry, belligerent, cranky, extremely intolerant. Like liberals are, always. Meanwhile Milton as always, is calm, collected, polite and very tolerant and willing to exchange politely. This is the lesson one can learn from watching all of these old videos.
Learn to look at arguments
Right... that's why Peter Jay has won many prizes and is the author of many best-selling books, and a household name, not only in Limeyland, but all over the world.
Milton Friedman and people like him are experts at shifting blame. In his case it is almost always about shifting blame from systems back to individuals. It's either a result of ignorance or its on purpose on his part. It never seizes to amaze me how these people only look at problems from a glandular stand point and completly ignore the existence of certain systems and how they are structured and how they may favor some over others and so forth. And I use to be a huge fan of Milton too after discovering him and scouring through videos and clips of him and his work. It was only once I finally got over the fear and stigma of studying like Karl Marx that my eyes were truly open to the system of capitalism for instance and that was truly the beginning for me as I realized a there are tomes of information and philosophy from people who look at the world in a much more in depth manner rather then such a simplistic one.
I hope I live to see the day when his brand of ideas are permanently shelved and refuted like feudalism and slavery. They managed to perfect a feedback loop where the government could allow them to make money and their money would allow them to make popular will and make government. The results have been disgusting and tragic. Vs cost of living, I was making more 25 years ago just above minimum wage than today despite making significantly more. Everything is allowed to increase in value except labor, that is not an accident of market forces. The middle class of the progressive era didn't just happen, it was created, by the government and public will being willing to guide the market. The high taxes forced capitalists actively invest, now the paltry revenues mainly go towards propping up the markets, indirectly subsidizing private healthcare and private military industries at pure premiums. Now that the tail has wagged the dog, the market has dictated everything for the last 40-50 years, now look at us. Tent slums of the working poor in every city. Minimum wage is flat in value, median income is 1/3rd the value since then, meanwhile upper management can earn the same as 50k workers a year. It's a joke economy, Milton's decades of proteges strip komed the middle class wealth and production in this country and LITERALLY invested in Chinese communism. It's a god damn sick joke. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't also spit in our faces and tell us we deserve this. Meanwhile, we're too nice to give them what they deserve. There's no reason to revisit the dark pages of history, but it seems to be what they want. The market doesn't know what's best for a widow, or a paraplegic, or someone with schizophrenia, or long covid, or government subsidized market induced and diabetes: people do. We're just going to have to go through collapse to get through to the other side where hindsight is 2020. All these jokers are going to laugh to the bank just to find the bank isn't in business anymore. I hope there's a reckoning, we need a 1929 and 1930s, wake up all these people that were allowed to fail up and make money for nothing and lost their morality in the market.
No, Marx was wrong on almost everything, except on such obvious points that sweat shop workers are disheartened.
Wanna try again?
@@oldfox6355 I agree completely.
@@oldfox6355 A true libertarian, ie just the inverse of a leftist utopian
@@oldfox6355I completely disagree, there are actually 3 types of people: those who can count, and those that can’t…
Which video were you watching? The only one that got owned is Jay.
Lol, he didn't get owned! The fact that he didn't know the question in advance and simply could answer with such logic. Milton was the teacher, and had a opositional defiant child from England not willing to look at cause and effect.
For everyone missing the part where Friedman gets owned: Start at 6:38. Then, at 6:47, CAREFULLY listen to Friedman's response "You can only serve one God" (in other words, you can only pursue one objective). Jay's response is (rightly so) "Nonsense!" Friedman NEVER defends the proposition that you can only serve one objective, rather than a well-balanced set of objectives! People balance many goals in their own lives (family, career, leisure, money, etc.) Why should governments have policies that are aimed at the pursuit of only one objective? Friedman simply brushes off this philosophical question. HE DOES NOT ANSWER IT. PERIOD!
True, but we all, too, must set priorities. That's what Milton was speaking about. The notion of multi-tasking, where the idea is that a person can do many things concurrently and do them as well as doing one at the time, is largely a fallacy.
miltion always answers in a economic answer. he is interupted before explanation, just stop
+ice_hawk10 I do specifically agree with you about his negative income tax idea; that is very true
It's ironic how social dividends and basic income systems are fundamental components of so many models of market socialism and not at all an original idea attributable to Milton Friedman.
He did answer it. The answer was freedom. Without it you can not achieve any other goal.
that brit couldn't still understand the difference between relieving partial distress and achieving equatility quota.
Meanwhile tent slums have been popping up in American cities for years, including people that work. I'm sure they just lack the opportunity to help themselves.
"Complete ownage", Thanks for the laugh uploader!
Imagine thinking giving up some freedom for some equality is a good idea.
Yeah! Like imagine giving up the freedom to murder others so that we live in a more just society. Just imagine. Or the freedom to rape, steal, and slander. Thank goodness we have our freedom!
@@withoutwithin "Or the freedom to rape, steal, and slander." Socialism is stealing.
@@withoutwithin You dumbass, we have laws
@@withoutwithin Nice strawman. What does murdering people have to do with equality?
@@marketsquareus dont know . Equaly right to be dead
2008 - If only Friedman was alive then - to see his theory in action.
Milton owned this guy, their editing of the video supports this statement.
The uploader included the link to the full video, so please don't act as if they were afraid of the truth or had disingenuous motives or something. Just because content is curated doesn't mean the intention is to distort. Have you ever watched a video with a title like "DNC best moments" or "Republican debate highlights"? If you felt that some crucial rebuttal of Friedman's was omitted and shouldn't have been, please let us know. I'll be more than happy to take a look.
What about the fact that Friedman’s summation before question time was omitted? This reveals Jay’s lack of comprehension or poor grasp of the language, because Friedman was definitely not equivocating.
I see no ownage. I see Mr Jay really trying to corner Friedman but not able to. The Britta think more words equal stronger argument.
This ownage is epic and never gets old. as I commented here a year ago below. Some don't even understand what Jay is implying as far as the quiescence of the Freidman's beliefs.
You're a moron. When someone has to edit out Friedmans response he far from got owned. This Brit is a moron. Interrupted Milton the whole video then bitches at Milton for not letting him finish. Typical socialist moron.
Mike s I believe the entire video is in the link below. Go have at it Titty Boy.
Mike s what's your point TIty? Get to it
+Mike s The uploader included the link to the full video, so please don't act as if they were afraid of the truth or had disingenuous motives or something. Just because content is curated doesn't mean the intention is to distort. Have you ever watched a video with a title like "DNC best moments" or "Republican debate highlights"? If you felt that some crucial rebuttal of Friedman's was omitted and shouldn't have been, please let us know. I'll be more than happy to take a look.
If anyone here has ever "debated" with a British person, you know how annoying and nonsensical it can be. They go on and on and repeat themselves and feel as if they are making a different point by saying the same thing with more emphasis.
As a Brit, I agree with Friedman. 🇬🇧🇬🇧
@@noahlibra Haha, in defense of the British people I have debated with, we were always pretty drunk at the pub at the time. And somehow them repeating themselves in an even more British accent was a decent technique. It almost got me if I wasn't paying attention, lol. That accent has some damn charming authority to it.
@@noblephoenix6151 😂
For everyone missing the "part" where Friedman gets "owned", let me give you a hint: it's not a "part". If you're searching for ONE soundbite, you won't find it. It's the FACT that Friedman never satisfactorily answers Jay's question. If you're still soundbite-hunting, look at the part where Friedman, after squirming in his seat for a bit, responds "you can only serve one God" (in other words you can only pursue one objective). Jay's response is (and rightly so) "nonsense!" Friedman never defends the proposition that you can only serve one objective! That's simply an assertion, an opinion. Who says you can only serve one objective? People serve many objectives in their own daily lives. Family, work, leisure, money, etc.
Congratulations! You're the only sane one in this comment section.
Thank you! That makes two of us now :)
I think I'm also going to repost a "TLDR" version of the original comment; hopefully that will spark more discussion haha
Yet all those things ^ fall under one objective. You just made a statement that contradicts itself.
@@vickydixon7512 No. I haven't made a statement that contradicts itself. What ONE objective do "all those things" fall under? Be clear and specific, not obfuscatory.
He got totally owned. He had to admit that his idea of "absolute equality" is only his interpretation "almost all the logic of such arguments is AS IF..." He then says that that is the "direction" that it is moving. He got caught trying to straw man those who argue for equality.
I believe the poster of this clip does not understand the concept of "being owned". Also, the likelyhood is that he does not understand even the basic consepts Milton Friedman subscribes to. Thirdly, he has clipped the full debate to only show what he would like. Owned.
Peter Jay: Britains economy is thriving with our social welfare
Milton Friedman :"Hurr Durr MUH FREE MARKETS AND SHIEET"
RAWR you are so right
Having an English accent and speaking with platitudes at a hundred miles per hour seems to be the criteria for owning Milton Friedman.
Friedman uses freedom in a very particular way. It means the freedom of capital and those whom own it to control government policy in order to transfer wealth from the people to corporations. As in Chile and elsewhere, if the people don't like it, military force shall be used to enforce neoliberal ideology on the population.
Yeah if Allende wasn’t on the brink of starving the people to death, then the military, who were on his side, wouldn’t have turned against him. What did that dick get inflation to ? 700%!!
I love Milton Friedman but I hate Zionists like you.
pretending to "overfixate" on a freidman critic's accent and way of speaking rather than the content of the information provided seems to be the criteria for idolizing milton freidman.
If you think Peter Jay won this debate then you just dont understand what was discussed.
How's your theories working out for your country now, Mr. Jay???
Peter loves the sound of his own voice.
The Tories and the neoliberal Blairite wing of the Labour party have been in charge for the last 2 decades. Their policies are more in line with Milton's ideology than Mr. Jay's. They have ruined the UK economy, especially for the working class. Look at how Liz Truss' budget plan of tax cuts for the rich worked out.
I don't see where Friedman got owned
"There is a fundamental distinction between relieving distress and doing something about inequality." And this is the point that goes right over all of the anti-Friedman heads. Friedman's negative income tax program was specifically designed to preserve the incentive to work more while also providing relief to those who fell upon hard times. The goal is not to make people closer to being economically equal but simply to relieve "distress." On the other hand, the liberals continuously propose programs like affirmative action, wage equality, minimum wage, etc. which are not in themselves concerned with providing relief but simply addressing the gap between the rich and the poor or other groups of people. What they fail to see is that relatively rich people can be absolutely poor, and relatively poor people can be rich. The gap in income on its own is irrelevant. It all comes from the bogus "fixed pie" fallacy.
hi, hows it going? Are you winning?
It's was absolutely ingenius that Peter Jay actually attacked Milton Friedman's ideology from the very philosophical foundations. He went directly after Friedman's abstract definition of "individualism," which seems to be based on an over-glorified myth, or an outright LIE!
The problem is that this definition of individualism does not interact realistically with the other important factors that do exist in the real world! Friedman works well on paper, just not in real life.
Nice job in editing out friedmans response at the end. Maybe the truth is too much for you bleeding hearts.
YOU CAN ONLY SERVE ONE GOD: GREED
By “reducing inequality” you mean removing incentives to succeed. If you “win” you get a diminishing return, if you fail you don’t face the full consequences
Nice editing work there haha! You should probably include all of it if you want to be taken seriously.
What's missing?
@@Kunsoo1024 the parts where Milton responds.
@@hellonhead5905 except that they are there.
ROFL. Peter Jay was the only one that was owned. Friedman crushed him.
where can i watch the full debate?
The uploader gives a link to the full video in the description!
The uploader gives a link to the full fucking video in the description! And no, he is not trying to use clever editing to take out Friedman's rebuttals.
How many times......Geez
To summarize: even with heavy editting, Milton Friedman does not get owned.
The brit is pissed.This is not being owned however. Great poise by Milton
This is the beginning of the argument of equality of equity. They're two different things (equality vs equality of equity) with the latter being Marxism.
Milton Friedman simple doesn't get owned.
Watching the full video, I see that *Sowell owns Jay.*
Relabel this video: *Free-market conservative crushes leftist.*
51: Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) front row in the audience?
bean-anomics
I'm a lefty, and even with that bias, Friedman seemed to be doing the owning.
Nice try, you publicly list videos a "lefty" would not even touch with a metal bar. Hilarious how you Friedman fanboys try to propagate his ideology everywhere.
@@Xez1919 While your videos represent the classic repertoire of an authentic "Lefty"? Hilarious, indeed! Lol
@@piwinter I mean there aren't openly rightwing figures in his playlists so iunno man, you tell me
A lefty that agrees with Friedman lol
@@Xez1919 By "Friedman fanboys" do you mean those who believe humans shouldn't be slaves?
If anything, Peter Jay got owned.
Milton Friedman's answer was completely rational. Any time equality is forced in any way, it goes against individual liberty. I give up time and effort to work and make money. The government takes portions of my money by by force (try not paying taxes) and redistributes it to many who are not as productive as I. I believe in paying for services, but I do not believe in being forced to give up my money to raise other people's children or to help them when they have made a series of poor decisions leading them to where they are. That is not liberty nor is it equality in any way.
Just a small correction. Milton Friedman would not be stupid to argue that taxation is the government taking a portion of somebody else money by force. That would be too childish. Also, it is childish. You can look anywhere and you will not find any moment where Milton advocate for anarcho-capitalism and "tax is theft" BS. Sorry to disapoint you.
A lot of film cropping was used to try to show up Mr. Friedman. It of course failed
Does the word 'owned' here mean "confused by a blabbermouth"?
Milton won this debate hands down. Big government cronies will always side with government intervention rather than free will of the people.
Where did Friedman get owned
improving living standards for the poorest, regardless of increases in inequality, is a proper and sensible policy to pursue. reducing inequality is no policy at all if the poorest get poorer still.
That’s fine as long as you realise that it is big government that is responsible for the deprivations of the poor.
If it's voluntary charity? Sure. If it's government force? No.
The only one who I see being utterly OWNED is Mr. Peter Jay... but not by Friedman, but by Margaret Thatcher. You can not argue success, history or fact.
Milton owned himself being confused by his own mental gymnastics, backtracking, and denial.
cut and edited - Watch the whole episode to make a conclusion - From what I've seen, it is governments that create vast inequalities by giving favour to one and restricting the other.
It all depends how you measure it of course -
do you consider inequality that 1 business makes 100 million while another makes 1 million? Do we consider that 100 million person just does business better? why should we waste our time on the 1 million dollar business is what a corporatist (or some form of democratic socialist) might say, where someone like Friedman would argue the business making 1 million is producing value to someone.
If that is a measure that government should regulate what is the answer? complete socialism and price controls? As Rand Paul pointed out the biggest flaw in socialism is nobody can determine the proper price for bread - the consumer decides that (with stimulation through the supplier by means of profit incentive and cost) and it decides that without cost - it costs to have central planners arguing about something so complicated as to what bread should cost (especially different kinds of bread in different areas from different farmers who do not produce at the same rate)
If you refer to a business making 1 billion where other business only makes a million - again why do we assume that's just not good business - reducing waste while providing society with value. We have an assumption something nasty is going on because you can measure value in a society and correlate data (maybe not precise conclusions but data that may suggest this or that but it's clear not straight value in) in those cases where we suspect foul play - every single time I look at it the root cause comes back to indirect and often direct government intervention in the market.
Maybe the question is: what is your goal for society - is it equality, if so socialism is great for that. We do have a fair amount of it now, that is 1% control 99% of the wealth, that would imply that 99% of us are living under equality.
Or is your goal equity and prosperity - the data suggests that the more freer the market the more equity and prosperity exists
@@assfukwut Which part am I wrong about?
@@assfukwut I don't see any statement I made here about college or health care?
Richard McAlpine “freer the market the freer the people” not in terms of healthcare and education...
Richard McAlpine sorry I didn’t actually read the whole comment XD
@@assfukwut well people are the market so if they are free to conduct their business than they will be freer. The market is people exchanging goods, a free market is people exchanging goods "freely" that is free of regulation [that is stuff that interferes with voluntary transaction vs. stuff that is there that protects to people from fraud or theft ect.]....
So I'm just not sure what your point is. Is it that because say Country X is the best - and by best are we saying the freest of people - they have 2 markets that are not free yet they are the freest on earth...I would say they would be freer by freeing up those markets. I would say by any objective standard you can find the freest people have the freest markets - which Countries are you referring to?
If in health care the government is preventing you from getting treatment or preventing a doctor from giving treatment - by any means than the people participating are not free.
Maybe you could clarify for me and be specific - I'm fine with criticism and although I am opinionated I accept than I can be wrong about well anything, this is just what I have found....But I don't understand the criticism at me at all.
So how I read your last one is: People are freer in 'the best Countries' because they are not free in 2 markets.
or because they are not free they are freer. [the freer the market the freer the people except to you not in health care because not being free in health care makes you free in health care - it doesn't make sense].
They are free because they are free in many many other markets.
milton destroys this guy lmfao, this man peter doesnt even understand the point milton is saying, he too concentrated on a gotcha instead of understanding his point.
Milton Friedman Owns Peter Jay*
No, Peter Jay screwed himself. All Friedman really had to do was sit there and enjoy.
ua-cam.com/video/9nhiooykPWc/v-deo.html The full episode where this was taken from
How was Milton Friedman ever taken seriously?
Well, that aged badly. Friedman was in fact prophetic, now we actually live in the world where 'absolute equality' is an absolute.
what I have seen is Peter Jay being completely owned by Friedman here... despite the video being cut to leave a maximum of time to Jay, Friedman's arguments are so dense that he owns him easily... IMHO
Friedman's Free to Choose series is great. You can watch the entire unedited video on youtube, and see the parts that were cut out. Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman
Nice editing. How much of what Milton Friedman said was cut out? I see lots of cuts. He was right in the middle of answering one question when the video cut to a different discussion. We didn't get to hear his response.
Friedman cannot be "owned". His middlename is "pwnage".
Whoever edited and posted this video is a ridiculous person.
He addresses the point by stating that he believes in an equality of opportunity not an equality of wealth, there is a distinct difference.
If you ask me, he got owned by Friedman.
Ohh, great prophet Friedman, peace be upon him, he was never wrong! If ever he said anything that either never came to pass, or was factually incorrect, then that was either because we were not pure enough, or the facts were wrong! Great prophet, rise from the grave to point us in the right direction... Amen.
I suppose anyone can look like they get "Owned" if you keep editing down their answers.
I hardly see where Milton Friedman gets owned. He stood his ground against several attack and continued not only to come out on top, but also to do so without attacking anyone's character.
Milton Friedman *did* the owning, as per usual, *not* the other way around.
Nice editing, too.
im a fan of Friedman but he did get pretty owned here. his argument was you can only serve one god, was a weak argument. in fact Friedmans politics (he was a Georgist which is classically liberal in philosophy) isnt inconsistent with what this guy was arguing (basically egalitarian liberalism or liberal democratic social goals) so he didnt need to make such a weak argument based on religion. Obviously its not lost to me that the God was a metaphor, perhaps to freedom but he didnt spell it out explicitly, but there are many examples of people who serve more than one God (or indeed none at all) both in the God or lack of God sense, and in the metaphorical sense he used it, so the claim is not true and is just a subjective opinion. Miltons point about the difference between the tax systems is a good one though, but clearly he didnt specifically address this guys contention of the legitimacy of a liberal democratic social philosophy that has more than one goal.
Why did the end cut off before Freidman gave his answer?
Peter jay has just tried to paint Milton into a series of corners by telling him “you are either saying this, or you’re saying that” Make A Choice.
Actually that's what Milton has done to Keyenes and the economics history that preceded him: it's either all market capitalism or else its all communism.
Iv never seen milton friedman get owned, he was a Nobel prize laureate ... back when it meant something
@@mackenziebauroth4989 This was before Nobel prizes became political! Milton earned it!!
Funny, I've seen another version of this segment, an *UN-edited* version where Milton's rebuttals weren't cut out.
The biggest monopoly is govt, and unlike corporations, it's NOT voluntary. So if you have a problem with monopolies, start there.