Towards the end of the debate (using an Ad hominem attack) Lord Kearton got his numbers completely wrong - millions of barrels per day.... actually he should have said tens of thousands per day. As they say "you should not let the facts get in the way of a good story".
@55:30 he states the wolf is here! Milton with the help of hindsight has been shown to be right. Does this not sound familiar to the Global warming debate?
Yes, perfect. It's doomsday thinking. But a beautiful insight to notice is that people instinctively don't trust hysterical people, they intuit they are not convinced by their own arguments.
Haha so many years later, now how stupid does the old guy who’s saying “they can’t produce any more oil than they are” “All the distinguished geologists have come to the same conclusion; there’s no more oil to produce” Hahaha
Shows you have full of BS these prognosticators are. I'll make an even crazier statement. We'll NEVER run out of oil. We'll find more with new tech and/or switch to other sources that will make reliance less and less, but they'll always be some if we need it. What these morons fail to to realize is what's true today isn't always true tomorrow and technology matters.
So the textile industry would hardly exist at all? Perhaps. But is that an argument against free trade? No, not at all. In fact it's an argument FOR free trade. He takes it for granted that there *should* be a textile industry in the UK, but if, in a free market consumers would prefer to consume textiles from elsewhere, then so be it. That energy being put into the textile industry can be put into something else. These men think about the economy as deeply as Butters Stotch. They think a 'good' economy has certain specific industries, such as textiles, but a good economy is simply one in which consumers are free to buy what they want in the cheapest market.
I agree with the fundamental principle: a good economy is simply consumers able to operate in how they like. If I take the 4 men’s viewpoint, I would say that has the potential of decimating the entire domestic economy because the native consumers only buys imports. I think that’s how they would react.
@@hanh3000Yes. And there's also the consideration about comparative advantage, what if a country simply has zero comparative advantages in literally evwrything, or just about everything? And there are still things like food as a matter of national security, or steel as national security. And there's also the question of niches to put it in biological terms, some niches are often better than others, for example, but if they're already occupied, the 'comparative advantage' is with the present players, and other species have a hard time entering, ie a sort of status quo advantage, well, not exactly, but I hope you understand. And let's make an utterly idiotic scenario for the sake of argument. There is a new technology, it's practically magical in that it's horrifyingly efficient, yet difficult to operate and has a high upfront cost. A government which does not protect its own pathetic industries risk very well wrecking it, as the comparative advantage will, almost certainly, always lie with the nation with such 'magic'- and any sufficiently advanced technology is magic. And some industries also are plain more productive than others at maximum capacities. Agriculture, while never as efficient as today also makes a relatively low part of our economies, plants are cheap. Airplanes are not. In the long term, taking a hit to subsidise planemaking to get the industry going will probably earn more money than continuing onto the agricultural path. And the interesting part about Friedman's point with Freddie Laker is that one could use it to make an argument for government owned and managed companies to bring out the best of the private sector, have them eternally competing against the odds.
@@Cecilia-ky3uwThis technology would never exist, nor can any individual have a comparative advantage in nothing or everything (as it is a relative comparison between the individual and the totality; thus no one can be 0 or 1.0; at most extreme is a human in a vegetable state, thus reaching near 0, yet value derives from emotional and spiritual connection with loved ones). You’re arguing from cloud coocooland. Come back to down to reality if you want to prove government intervention in trade and industry is a good idea.
Wikipedia: Heffer resigned from Labour and joined the Communist Party of Great Britain; he said that "To me, Stalin was the greatest of men" I’m really interested to learn what the guy to say about economics.
55:59 Friedman should've cut in at this point and said "that's _exactly_ what I'm saying". Only an idiot keeps on doing the same thing and expects different results.
Hypothetically speaking, if China subsidizes their steel production so that it is cheaper to buy steel from China than anywhere else; and a subsidy is a tax on the people living in that nation, wouldn't it be in the strategic interest to buy every ton of steel produced by China? After all, the Chinese are subsidizing the sale of Chinese steel to, say, the US. Then we could just sit on or use the artificially cheap steel as we see fit.
Yes it would be on our best interests to do it, just has we've done with Chinese clothing items and miscellaneous products. Americans/Westerners will have more money to spend and productivity will go up due to cheaper steel
it's been 40 years and the things are still there - the increased demand for oil and gas has found its oil and gas fields, the proponents of control are the saying the same things and Professor Friedman has the same smirk on his face about another generation of control freaks heck bent on seeing shortage everywhere. There is no shortage of anything, let's not be afraid to get busy. Human activity has a remarkable tendency to generate what wasn't there before.
1980 "The oil and Natural Gas was just not there."
Oh how wrong can one man be?
Towards the end of the debate (using an Ad hominem attack) Lord Kearton got his numbers completely wrong - millions of barrels per day.... actually he should have said tens of thousands per day. As they say "you should not let the facts get in the way of a good story".
Thanks for posting this series. I didn't even know there was a BBC version.
@55:30 he states the wolf is here! Milton with the help of hindsight has been shown to be right. Does this not sound familiar to the Global warming debate?
Yes, perfect. It's doomsday thinking.
But a beautiful insight to notice is that people instinctively don't trust hysterical people, they intuit they are not convinced by their own arguments.
I love watching Friedman just bat away everything with such conviction.
Protectionism is all too alive today from the Trumpsters to the democrsts. Both parties are anti free market. Very worrying.
Haha so many years later, now how stupid does the old guy who’s saying “they can’t produce any more oil than they are”
“All the distinguished geologists have come to the same conclusion; there’s no more oil to produce”
Hahaha
Shows you have full of BS these prognosticators are. I'll make an even crazier statement. We'll NEVER run out of oil. We'll find more with new tech and/or switch to other sources that will make reliance less and less, but they'll always be some if we need it.
What these morons fail to to realize is what's true today isn't always true tomorrow and technology matters.
So the textile industry would hardly exist at all? Perhaps. But is that an argument against free trade? No, not at all. In fact it's an argument FOR free trade. He takes it for granted that there *should* be a textile industry in the UK, but if, in a free market consumers would prefer to consume textiles from elsewhere, then so be it. That energy being put into the textile industry can be put into something else. These men think about the economy as deeply as Butters Stotch. They think a 'good' economy has certain specific industries, such as textiles, but a good economy is simply one in which consumers are free to buy what they want in the cheapest market.
I agree with the fundamental principle: a good economy is simply consumers able to operate in how they like. If I take the 4 men’s viewpoint, I would say that has the potential of decimating the entire domestic economy because the native consumers only buys imports. I think that’s how they would react.
@@hanh3000Yes. And there's also the consideration about comparative advantage, what if a country simply has zero comparative advantages in literally evwrything, or just about everything? And there are still things like food as a matter of national security, or steel as national security. And there's also the question of niches to put it in biological terms, some niches are often better than others, for example, but if they're already occupied, the 'comparative advantage' is with the present players, and other species have a hard time entering, ie a sort of status quo advantage, well, not exactly, but I hope you understand.
And let's make an utterly idiotic scenario for the sake of argument. There is a new technology, it's practically magical in that it's horrifyingly efficient, yet difficult to operate and has a high upfront cost. A government which does not protect its own pathetic industries risk very well wrecking it, as the comparative advantage will, almost certainly, always lie with the nation with such 'magic'- and any sufficiently advanced technology is magic. And some industries also are plain more productive than others at maximum capacities. Agriculture, while never as efficient as today also makes a relatively low part of our economies, plants are cheap. Airplanes are not. In the long term, taking a hit to subsidise planemaking to get the industry going will probably earn more money than continuing onto the agricultural path.
And the interesting part about Friedman's point with Freddie Laker is that one could use it to make an argument for government owned and managed companies to bring out the best of the private sector, have them eternally competing against the odds.
@@Cecilia-ky3uwThis technology would never exist, nor can any individual have a comparative advantage in nothing or everything (as it is a relative comparison between the individual and the totality; thus no one can be 0 or 1.0; at most extreme is a human in a vegetable state, thus reaching near 0, yet value derives from emotional and spiritual connection with loved ones). You’re arguing from cloud coocooland. Come back to down to reality if you want to prove government intervention in trade and industry is a good idea.
@@Bailey_iQ The extreme example is still useful for illustrative purposes- as for non-cocoland examples, later.
Wikipedia: Heffer resigned from Labour and joined the Communist Party of Great Britain; he said that "To me, Stalin was the greatest of men"
I’m really interested to learn what the guy to say about economics.
The wolf is here; we hit peak oil, then ran out in 1985 apparently.
53:39 This goof claims that the one guy on his own in a 3-on-1 debate doesn't let opposition get a word in edgeways. My goodness.
55:59 Friedman should've cut in at this point and said "that's _exactly_ what I'm saying". Only an idiot keeps on doing the same thing and expects different results.
Hypothetically speaking, if China subsidizes their steel production so that it is cheaper to buy steel from China than anywhere else; and a subsidy is a tax on the people living in that nation, wouldn't it be in the strategic interest to buy every ton of steel produced by China? After all, the Chinese are subsidizing the sale of Chinese steel to, say, the US. Then we could just sit on or use the artificially cheap steel as we see fit.
It depends on the quality of steel China produces
Yes it would be on our best interests to do it, just has we've done with Chinese clothing items and miscellaneous products. Americans/Westerners will have more money to spend and productivity will go up due to cheaper steel
@@kylep7503 If the quality of chinees steel is worse then it wouldn't compete with US steel.
“Free trade allowed Britain to become the workplace of the word.” Nobel Prizes don’t mean much do they 😂
it's been 40 years and the things are still there - the increased demand for oil and gas has found its oil and gas fields, the proponents of control are the saying the same things and Professor Friedman has the same smirk on his face about another generation of control freaks heck bent on seeing shortage everywhere. There is no shortage of anything, let's not be afraid to get busy. Human activity has a remarkable tendency to generate what wasn't there before.
'Economic freedom produced human freedom! 'no it didn't. No mention of slavery or debt.
it was only until countries were rich enough that they could afford the luxury of abolishing slavery.
@@kylep7503 really! What are you talking about.