Milton Friedman on Donahue 1980 (2/5)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 тра 2009
- Milton Friedman provides a direct and to-the-point defense of capitalism and free trade. He explains how governmental regulations, no matter how well-intended, are inevitably infiltrated by business interests which use governmental power to stifle competition. He also explains the economics of why drug prohibition doesn't work to control drugs.
This man's like an encyclopedia. I wish we had someone who could hold a candle to Milton Friedman.
"Let me give you a very simple example..."
I love you Dr. Friedman. You're awesome in so many ways.
There is something so warm about Milton Friedman. It's like he is at mine having lunch and we're chatting ... :)
"Let me give you a very simple example.."
I love it when Friedman goes like this :)
This is a fascinating process: Donahue asks Friedman a question, presuming an answer one way or another; Friedman confounds him every time, and a fuse pops somewhere in Donahue's head. And then Friedman smiles.
@Goodatconnect4 I agree too re: amount of viewers. I suppose it;s one person at a time, passed on to another...I know Milton Friedman impacted my mind powerfully....Breath of FRESH AIR OF TRUTH! Remarkable man.
God bless, Martha
Dont hate on Donahue too much its a reporters job to argue the other side sometimes as to give a chance for reclamation by the guest. Donahue did a good job by giving points from the other side and sounding a bit dull at some points because it gave Friedman a great chance to show how smart he really was. Milton was such a intellectual i hope more people are enlightened by his views.
Love Friedman's retort at around 7:43.
Genius!!!! I love this guy!!!!! Wow!!!
@lector0003
i know what you mean. i get the same feeling from him. he says everything with such ease and so warmly. he's a great speaker and great intellect.
Brilliant!
@TheTrueLiberal Go to Friedman's Free to Choose series--it's here on youtube. He is surrounded by economists during the conversation segments.
Very revealing here that Donahue's prediction about "there will be 3 airlines" could not have turned out more wrong. Friedman is quite correct that competition in increased with deregulation.
@fischerpilne Indeed; the last comment on this video is my own on this very subject! If you haven't read it already, I would recommend Free to Choose by Friedman. It covers things in such depth, and in remarkably simple terms as well, the topics that just don't fit in a 50 minute video.
I remember watching Donahue. He confused good diction with intellect. Whomever he interviewed, Noble Prize winner or teen idol of the day always kicked his ass all over the tube. And he always looked confused. Well, Phil you sounded great; you really did. That does not mean there was ever any content to what was happening inside that sad little cranium
"The best protection for the consumer, the best offense against monopoly... the most effective anti-monopoly legislation you could possibly have would be free trade."
@LogicalFlawDetector
Let me rephrase that, to help you understand my question: "Didn't certain business interests 'cherry pick' Miltons theories to install politicians to make laws that maximized their returns?" eg Why didn't Reagan OR Thatcher follow (or even mention) Milton's theories on legalizing drugs?
@rmccay88 It's a shame that videos like these get so few views that I can return to your comment two weeks later and you're still the last to comment. I looked up Woods (never heard of him) and man he's one helluva speaker! He's able to engage high school kids with this stuff and even make them laugh. Napolitano, Paul are good as well I know who they are.
@kaptainkarnage69 I believe what Milton Friedman is saying is that by just having the threat of punishment, however extreme that may be, on any parent whose child or infant dies as a result of their choice of not securing the safety of their children, that is better and just as effective as having a law forcing parents to secure their child's safety. This is better because government should not make laws that impose force even-though the resulting penalty would make people come to the same end.
@noooddle At least he takes it like a man. That earns him some respect from me.
@rmccay88 It would seem that Woods knows how to write a book! I'm looking for Meltdown, 33 questions, as well as others & I'm watching speeches that he makes. That's cool that you have the opportunity to visit Mises, I'm glad for you. Unfortunately, New England is not so accommodating to those conditions. Pop culture does seem to hold the public interest more than politics relative to the situation. I bet polls would suggest that Lohan's arrests seem more interesting than Dodd or Franks exploits
You can't penalize someone for something if there's no law against it.
@rakuck I'm not familiar with him, but I'll get back to you.
It would fall under manslaughter, just because there is no law specifically stating it is illegal to run a man over, doesn't mean it wasnt your fault through negligence.
He seemed so unpretentious; I doubt he would have considered be referred to as Mr. Friedman a slight of any kind. But yes, the late Dr. Friedman is due proper respect.
Well, there's no law, of which I am aware, that forbids parents from allowing their children to play atop skyscrapers; however, if a parent allowed his/her child to do so and the child fell to his/her death, I imagine he'd (Mr. Friedman) would also want the parents prosecuted for child endangerment. Imagine that, it is possible for someone to go to jail "for a law that doesn't exist." Thats because there are laws covering what Mr. Friedman was suggesting.
I believe that we should sue gravity instead.
Back then it was the Superba. Now, the government wants us to buy something called a Leaf. Ick!
TheTrueLiberal ,
Exactly.
in answer to donahues question about cars... toyota, honda, etc...
@lector0003 There couldn't be a more interesting person to have for lunch!
So Friedman doesn't want a law forcing someone to restrain their baby in a car but he does want a parent to go to jail if their baby gets hurt because it wasn't restrained? How is someone going to go to jail if there isn't a law in place preventing that?
@EternalIntelligence actually most people believe that WWII would have ended even without the atomic bomb. The a bomb just sped it up. But think about the amount of fear created by the a bomb and n bombs to this day (I.e. Iran)
I remember watching Donahue. He confused good diction with intellect. Whomever he interviewed, Noble Prize winner or teen idol of the day always kicked his ass all over the tube. And he always looked confused. Well, Phil you sounded great; you really did. That does not mean there was ever any content to what was happening inside that sad little cranium. The guy was just stupid.
@rmccay88 Schiff's cool, but he congratulates himself a little too much on his radio show for my taste. Still, I was disappointed when he didn't get nominated in the GOP primary.
That's right, the fix being that you had to EARN those effective tax rates by being an actual job creator. Reagan took away that incentive, hence the increase in Wall Street parasites during his tenure.
And Hoover only raised taxes in the last three months of his term, when it became obvious even to him that tax breaks weren't working. And his "make-work" projects were a molehill to FDR's mountain.
So now you don't want to throw someone in jail for neglect? You're really confusing.
You really think a parent would be prosecuted for allowing a child to fall from a high place? What about a baby that gets into a medicine cabinet and dies from swallowing pills. Would the parents be prosecuted for not putting locks on all the cabinets? And if a child gets sick and dies because the parent's don't go to the hospital in time should they be prosecuted for that too? How broadly are we supposed to interpret the law anyway?
It's too bad Friedman isin't here to see the disasters caused by the deregulation of the broadcasting industry, and lack of regulation in the financial industry among others.
True. When the bomb fell, Japan had been pretty much cut off from the rest of the world. Without the conquered territories, they were incapable of running a wartime economy.
The US could have forced a Japanese surrender by essentially laying siege to the country until starvation encouraged them to surrender, but that would have meant an even bigger death toll - not to mention the deaths of many US POWs, whose poor treatment was a major factor in Truman's decision.
It’s almost laughable that someone like Donahue would ask Friedman if parents should be held accountable for their baby in their car and Donahue is probably the pro choice of the two. I am an abolitionist btw.
When you hit bottom obviously you will grow faster relative to bottom. Ummm NO it didn't. Recession didn't end till we entered WWII and even then life was harsh due to all the rationing. See the famous quote from the architect of the New Deal, Henry Morgenthau Jr about how much of a success the New Deal was.
Why? Would that would help you understand the point you intimated was a bad one, and speaks to your lack of understanding of basic reasoning and not to any contradiction on the part of Mr. Friedman?
I guess we should throw Eric Clapton in jail for allowing his kid to fall out the window.
@Goodatconnect4 Thomas Sowell is not bad
Now adays Saftey is the most important feature in car sales, market. Car comericals always show moms obsessing over their babies in some dumb minivan
TheTrueLiberal, thats not an answer. Have the guts to say you don't have one.
Do I really think parents would be prosecuted for allowing their child to play atop a skyscraper, if their child fell to his/her death? Yes, of course. Look, the point you were intimating with your initial question was a poor one. Face facts, there does not have to be a law against not restraining a child in a car for a parent or guardian to be guilty of child endangerment in the case of a unrestrained child being killed in auto accident; Mr. Friendman's comments were not contradictory.
Really, TheTrueLiberal? Tell me where I'm wrong about deregulation destroying the broadcasting business. Since I've been working in broadcasting for my entire career, and have watched the product of Clinton era media deregulation personally, I'm very inetersted to hear how my 15 years of experience is negated.
When does Donahue come out with the DNA test?
Yes. Recession is measured in drop in projected GDP, not unemployment. Try taking a class in intro to Macro. Yes 1921 Depression was worse that Great Depression.
No under Wilson & Callaghan Labor govts, the economy was in shambles. There were strikes by almost entire public sector, from teachers to NHS to trash collectors. Streets were filled with trash. Inflation alone was 25%. UK even had to apply for IMF bailout. Then 'winter of discontent' under Callaghan.
TheTrueLiberal: Lay out my entire argument? I made a statement. You said THAT statement is wrong. I'm now asking you for the fourth time to tell me how my statement is wrong. Or are you now going to admit the obvious: you have not ida what you are talking about.
@RocknRollaRevolution without albert einstein there would be no atomic bomb, thus you probably wouldn't be alive right now since WW2 wouldn't be over. Both of them made sound contributions to society in their own respective fields. And they're both Jewish =)
Depression is measure in drop in GDP and projected GDP genius. Unemployment is secondary
Yes the fact that Japan spend over $6.3 trillion in infrastructure projects in two decades while it's GDP has barely grown 1% a year, plus they now have a debt 180% of GDP
UK cut taxes and spending during not before the depression. And no party doesn't matter, POLICIES do. After Attlee, until Thatcher, both Labor & Tories followed Keynesianism anyways, which turned UK into a basket case. See 70s stagflation.
Oh, WWII would be over. The A-bomb probably shortened the war by less than a year. It probably saved the lives of a lot of people who would have been involved in the invasion of Japan, on both sides. But it would have gone pretty much the same way.
Is no one else troubled by his preference to only punish the parent after the child is hurt or killed? I'm not in favour of wrapping kids in cotton wool but surely this is taking things a bit too far.
@TheTrueLiberal Propaganda technique makes Friedman look smart! Let's keep searching. Thanx.
Speaking of frontmen, who was Friedman a frontman for? Donahue was certainly not up to the task of interviewing him competently, intellectually overchallenged. Where is a debate with a brilliant economist with opposing views; one where Friedman's flawed purist ideas are torn apart. If viewers worship him, they should ask why the financial system, a monopoly, was bailed out, caused an economic catastrophy, flatlined wages, caused 19%+ unemployment, allowed huge bonuses & rampant fraud...
I hate this freaking word "purist". As if he's pinching Milton into a corner because he can get him to agree to some govt, as if to suggest that he's advocating for no govt. That's not what he advocates for, and it's not what Constitutional Conservatives are asking for. We are not anarchists! We simply want the FEDERAL govt to do what it's supposed to do, and leave the rest to the states and local govts.
No he wasn't. He was speaking EMPIRICALLY. What's significant about "8 years"? 1921 Depression ended in 16 months.
I didn't insist. You missed the part "even then life was harsh due to all the rationing". Not my problem that you're an illiterate. War by definition destroys wealth. Spending resources & labor to build bombs doesn't increase standard of living. WWII ended depression when measured in terms of unemployment because 13 million were drafted. Technically depression didn't end till 1947.
...contd...No after the final Bush tax cuts of 2003, economy created 8 million jobs in 4 years. Unemployment dropped to 4.4% from 6%. Manufacturing soared to it's highest level in 20 years. Stock market grew $7 trillion. S&P doubled. I don't think that qualifies as "anemic".
It's funny destroying you. You keep getting owned on many topics & conveniently ignore those in your next reply lol.
Wrong on all counts nutjob. The New Deal started in 1933, Morgenthau was reflecting on the last 6 years, not hypothesizing. And it wasn't an article, it was a testimony before Congress.
Yes there was.
Except Depression is primarily measured in terms of GDP not employment, by which Depression didn't end till 1947.
It's significant because Harding cut spending & taxes and a depression more severe than the Great Depression ended in 16 months.