Milton Friedman on Keynesian Economics

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 13 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 483

  • @casienwhey
    @casienwhey 3 роки тому +417

    Ahhh, the good old days when TV had substance and intelligent civil discourse between intellectuals.

    • @FloatingWeeds2
      @FloatingWeeds2 3 роки тому +11

      Yes, TV used to be intellectual conversations like this at all hours on all channels. Lol

    • @sarthvk
      @sarthvk 3 роки тому +12

      "intellectuals" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • @karenthomson9749
      @karenthomson9749 2 роки тому +2

      A far distant memory!

    • @RaquelSantos-hj1mq
      @RaquelSantos-hj1mq 2 роки тому +2

      I don't remember those days. I must be too young.

    • @RaquelSantos-hj1mq
      @RaquelSantos-hj1mq 2 роки тому

      @Wurst Zeit We have public radio and television, but they succumbed to ideological capture. They are now state propaganda.
      There's no reason why we can't have this in schools, universities, and in the public squares.

  • @xbrando7
    @xbrando7 6 років тому +491

    I agree with this assessment by Friedman. As an Econ student, I can say that while mainstream economics makes widespread use of Keynesian terminology and measurement mechanisms, it does not advocate (typically) for the policy prescriptions that Keynes did. And Keynes himself was a student of the day at hand. He even said something to the extent of "When the facts change, my views change." Keynes and Hayek, two polar opposites, remain my heroes today and inspiration for choosing to study economics.

    • @MrServingSize
      @MrServingSize 6 років тому +36

      "In the long run, we are all dead"

    • @PeterProf7777
      @PeterProf7777 6 років тому +51

      Hayek doesn't go far enough. He does criticize the government for going into debt to bolster the economy but he doesn't talk about the damage banks have inflicted on the economy through the centuries well before Keynesian economics. The banks increasing of the money supply through loans has caused the boom and bust cycles in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. When you give out loans through the Fraction Reserve Banking System, you are increasing the money supply by a multiple of 10. You are giving people money before they earn it and that puts upward pressure on prices. In a truly expanding economy, prices should come down not go up because with a constant money supply and an increase in supply, prices have to come down. New economic projects should be financed with equity or with bank time deposits.

    • @birdmanbob4
      @birdmanbob4 5 років тому +1

      Here is how Obama's economic advisor goolsby and his love of printing money or Kenziein economics convinced me to buy $4,000 worth of a pink sheet company for sale at (( .001 )).. and how in six months time this stock went up to $0.25
      (((+44.000% )))
      My knowledge of Kenzie in economics came from a Canadian that were friends of my parents who made millions of dollars after the dilution other US dollar by Jimmy Carter
      They placed a great deal of money when they saw this happen into a basket of very small but very promising gold exploration companies in Canada and I believe that dilution that happened to the dollar under Jimmy Carter cause Gall to go from 400 to $800
      I decided face $10,000 into a basket of gold stocks of Junior exploration companies as well $4,000 bought me katx about three months before Obama was first elected
      Approximately six months before Obama was elected in the summer of 2008 this comedian named goolsby
      Yes Obama's economic advisor it goolsby is a comedian
      Anyway he was explaining to a public station PBS that he was going to play the Kenziein economics game how long was it macroeconomics.
      Why we were diluting our US currency more than any other time in US history
      And just trying the 200-year legacy of the American dollar
      along with the trust other governments had to have in it before they would lend us money and buy our debt are treasuries are t-bills are bonds they had to know that we would not destroy our own dollar in order to defaults on our own debt by paying you back $0.50 for every dollar that you lent us by buying our debt currency
      The macroeconomics part that they use had to do with the huge amounts of money in the m3 money supply and that's the amount of money Banks lend to other Banks which is not public let's say they was our friendly Nations Britain France Australia Japan we would let them inn on the goolsbee joke the America was going to destroy its currencyso that way they could dilute their currency at the same time and basically offset us having a very low purchase price for us products compared to their own
      the folks you about our currency who Obama did not like ... Namely China they were not warned that we were diluting our currency and that was our plan in the very near future so they continue to buy her a debt
      I actually Google translated all the news reports from China about economics between America and I came across the fact that they were taking back all of the gold that Britain held for Hong Kong and that was going to be demanded to be given back to Hong Kong and they were going to open their own Hong Kong gold commodities investing institution and I believe that was a tour under the Hong Kong airport... And I thought wow China is up just bead Obama's evil plan to default on our debt and make everything in their vaults of their Banks was u s t bells and bonds where is half of the amount that they spent on them
      The next confirmation that China was buying tons of gold was that for the first time they made it legal in the middle of 2008 late summer for the Chinese do you actually buy gold for the previous 50 years buying gold in China was a crime.
      The next news that came out from China was that they were recommending all of its population to take 15% of each and every paycheck and buy gold with that money
      China actually put gold vending machines all over the country
      Anyway the bottom line is my favorite gold Junior mid 2008 was KATX I loaded up with four million shares much of it at point .001 and kept adding until it reached $0.02...
      It turns out KATX had been heavily shorted as in naked short
      Then not one of the gold properties but two copper leashes on the bonavista peninsula in Newfoundland Canada received an option from Vail the second largest mining company in the world with a two billion dollar low-grade large tonnage copper processing plant being built
      So what do you think would happen to a naked shorted pink sheet at .001 receiving millions of dollars in financing in one PR and then the next day announce another PR that this pink sheet company received a option on two of its copper properties well they just announced that they found but looks to be good low grade large tonnage copper deposits worse starting a drawing program
      2 days later Vail surrounded katx Lisa's on the bonavista and they least the entire bonavista peninsula which is probably 20% of Newfoundland Canada
      KATX went out 44.000 percent to.$0.25... .001 to .25c
      My stop what up more than any other stock that year

    • @m.jsouza2782
      @m.jsouza2782 5 років тому +16

      keynes is your hero? Wtf

    • @carecup809
      @carecup809 5 років тому +10

      @@birdmanbob4 I understood like 10% of that but I enjoyed it somehow.

  • @PunmasterSTP
    @PunmasterSTP Рік тому +13

    So much of this went above my head, but it was still pretty interesting to listen to, and hopefully I picked something up.

    • @rushiljain9423
      @rushiljain9423 9 місяців тому +3

      It’s just amazing how clearly both of them speak, especially Friedman

  • @willroman3595
    @willroman3595 10 місяців тому +17

    Friedman speaks with admirable clarity. It’s uncommon today.

    • @julian_hesse
      @julian_hesse 2 місяці тому

      About what textbooks have written differently today?

    • @willroman3595
      @willroman3595 2 місяці тому

      @@julian_hesse I’m sorry but your grammar makes your question indecipherable. I don’t understand what you are asking.

    • @julian_hesse
      @julian_hesse 2 місяці тому

      @@willroman3595 To me he has talked more about the content of textbooks and how that changed than about Keynesian Economics...

    • @willroman3595
      @willroman3595 2 місяці тому

      @@julian_hesse There seems to be an assumption in this conversation that Keynes represented something like an economic consensus during the depression into the 40s. The author of the textbook Friedman mentions was a Keynesian. So, that the quantity of money was not of importance to Keynesians did change over time, and that’s reflected in the textbooks that Keynesians wrote. That was my sense of the conversation.
      Keep in mind that the topic of economics is not my specialty. I read economic history in my spare time. Regardless, I think Friedman is very well-spoken.

  • @jlerwin8055
    @jlerwin8055 3 роки тому +70

    It's interesting that Friedman stated that Keynes was a great economist and Hayek said Keynes knew very little about economics

    • @danheinz13
      @danheinz13 3 роки тому +21

      hayek is more red pill

    • @1080lights
      @1080lights 2 роки тому +8

      Hayek and Friedman are intellectually very different people

    • @Si_Mondo
      @Si_Mondo 2 роки тому +8

      Hayek went further and said Keynes viewed economics as a hobby that didn't have to be taken seriously.

    • @Sultansekte
      @Sultansekte 2 роки тому +34

      @@Si_Mondobut at the end keynes was the only one, with empiric accuracy

    • @maksekart7162
      @maksekart7162 2 роки тому +11

      ​@@Sultansekte those keynsian models are tidy and neat but that top dow aproach is a fatal conceit

  • @jeanjean1562
    @jeanjean1562 4 роки тому +98

    “the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions” Milton Friedman

    • @melsef
      @melsef Рік тому +2

      Ironic

    • @julian_hesse
      @julian_hesse 2 місяці тому +1

      does that make any sense? lol

  • @PeterProf7777
    @PeterProf7777 6 років тому +161

    The classical school (not Austrian), Keynesian school, and monetarists are misguided. These systems assume that the economy WILL always go through boom and bust cycles. These systems assume that the economy will always "get sick." They only disagree on how the economy should be healed.
    I teach U.S. Economic History and the 19th century had its share of recessions and deep depressions well before Keynesian economics, so the argument cannot be about Keynesian Economics. Keynesian Economics did not exist in the 19th century. Something else must be causing the boom and bust cycles. The problem is with the banks and paper money. The central bank can easily increase the monetary base. The commercial banks can increase the money supply by lending more money. That is how they make their big profits. Banks controlled and control the money supply through printing and Fractional Reserve Banking loans or providing loans that are multiples of their equity. I will explain the Fractional Reserve Banking System just to keep things simple. The Fractional Reserve Banking System allows commercial banks to only hold 10% of currency in their reserves. That means they can lend out the rest. At a reserve ratio of 10%, a deposit of $100,000 in currency in a bank can theoretically become one million dollars. It has a multiplier effect of 10. It is re-hypothecation of the currency. So banks increase the money supply for consumers which increases aggregate demand which drives up prices. Credit is the problem. It causes the boom phase.
    Then there is the bust phase. When the loans are paid back or if they default, the money supply contracts, sales diminish, unemployment increases, and the result is a recession and or depression depending on the severity of the money supply collapse.
    The Constitution says that only the government can coin money. Our Founding Fathers knew that the money supply needed to be controlled. Except for population growth it should be constant. The Constitution prohibits states from "coining" money but in the 18th century there was a loophole. Corrupt politicians chartered state banks and allowed them to print money and the Supreme Court in the 19th century gave banks a "thumbs up." But that decision is a conflict of interest between banks and the Constitution. Banks want larger profits and they got it through increasing the money supply with Fractional Reserve loans and the Constitution wants stable prices that reflect true supply and demand. You can't have both. They are mutually exclusive!
    Keep the money supply constant and boom (inflation) and bust (money supply deflation) cycles cannot happen. The Great Depression of 1929 and The Great Recession of 2008 are prime examples as was The Great Depression of 1893, but all American recessions and depressions were caused by a contraction or collapse in the money supply.
    So, what is the solution? TOTALLY ELIMINATE COMMERCIAL BANKS ABILITY TO INCREASE THE MONEY SUPPLY THROUGH FRACTIONAL LOANS. PREVENT THE FED FROM EXPANDING THE MONETARY BASE. When the money supply is kept constant, then only the supply of and demand for goods will determine their prices. All economic projects instead should be financed with equity or with time deposit loans (CDs). Neither increases the money supply. Then true savings will be invested instead of with an increased money supply. Then as the economy expands and the supply of goods and services increases, prices for goods and services will NATURALLY fall which increases real wages.
    The elephant in the room is the banks. They usurp the Constitution. They have the political power. Economist that work for the government, unfortunately, focus on cleaning up the mess they cause instead of eliminating the root of the problem. Today the Biden administration and the Fed are fighting inflation. They caused it.
    Keep the money supply constant and there will be no need to fix it. The definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
    Peter de Luca: Sound Money Economist and Professor

    • @kalebercanbrack8857
      @kalebercanbrack8857 6 років тому +17

      I thought sound moneyand criticism of fractional reserve banking was a big part of the Austrian school. Although, Austrians usually mean the Gold Standard when they talk about sound money where as it sounds like you believe sound money to be a controlled money supply.
      Also, it was my understanding that the Austrian Business Cycle theory was that government intervention in the economy causes booms and busts by disrupting price signals, or something like that. And that if it weren't for the government backing up the banks, fractional reserve banking wouldn't survive as bank runs would be a thing.
      But that's just my understanding from podcasts and reading in my spare time lol
      I'm no professor.

    • @PeterProf7777
      @PeterProf7777 6 років тому +15

      @@kalebercanbrack8857 Hi Kaleb. This is what I teach in my U.S. Economic History class:
      Our economy had its share of boom and bust cycles in the 19th century long before Keynesian Economics. There was no government intervention in the 19th century except for over printing of money during the Civil War. We were on a gold standard in the last half of the 19th century up to 1933 (partial) and then it was eliminated in 1971. The last half of the 19th century displayed a very healthy deflation due to market expansion and tight control of the money supply much to the dismay of those that were in debt. Many people blamed the gold standard for the hardships debtors incurred but the real genesis of the problem was that people took out loans and then prices fell. Debtors hate deflation but the natural consequence of an expanding economy is deflation. You can't have it both ways. Get rid of debt and deflation then becomes everyone's friend! Unfortunately, our government favors inflation over deflation because so many people have debt.
      There was the terrible Depression of 1893 during the gold standard. The Gold standard is very important but it really is not sufficient. You need a constant money supply but commercial bank loans disrupt the money supply because banks only have to keep 10% of their deposits as reserves. They end up lending people other peoples money who still are able to claim their currency at the bank. That is called re-hypothecation. As the money supply increases, prices increase and the gold standard begins to develop weaknesses. You must keep the money supply constant. That is the whole purpose of the gold standard. Banks should not be in the business of controlling the money supply. Their highest priority is to make profits and that means they want more money in the system.
      The Austrian school does discourages government debt but it doesn't discourage commercial bank loans which IS the root of the problem. Well, both are not good. You don't hear Austrian model advocates on T.V or the internet criticizing commercial banks for giving loans using the Fractional Reserve system. The only exception is Nigel Farage. Thomas Jefferson also decried the negative impact of banks.
      The Austrian model is a way to heal a sick economy. If the money supply were not touched, then there would be no need for the Austrian model as well as the Keynesian model. They both assume the economy WILL get sick with these cycles. In an economic expansion, prices SHOULD go down as supply increases and the stock of money stays the same. In a true expanding economy, the value of money should go up not down.
      The Austrian school does discourages government debt but it doesn't discourage commercial bank loans which IS the root of the problem. Well, both are not good. You don't hear Austrian model advocates on T.V or the internet criticizing commercial banks for giving loans. The only exception is Nigel Farage. Thomas Jefferson also decried the negative impact of banks.
      The Austrian model is a way to heal a sick economy. If the money supply were not touched, then there would be no need for the Austrian model as well as the Keynesian model. They both assume the economy WILL get sick with these cycles. In an economic expansion, prices SHOULD go down as supply increases and the stock of money stays the same. In a true expanding economy, the value of money should go up not down.

    • @johnomara849
      @johnomara849 6 років тому +11

      Assuming that there will always be periods of booms and busts seems to me a much more realistic approach to the economy than arguing for a never-ending boom. It is that sort of talk - the talk of Grand Solutions - that has lead to the greatest human catastrophes in history, like Communism and Nazism.
      Your argument isn’t bad on paper. Only does it crumble under the reality of human nature. If you accept the fact that the economy is based upon human nature, then you must accept that the economy will be flawed always and forever.

    • @PeterProf7777
      @PeterProf7777 6 років тому +12

      @@johnomara849 Yes, boom and bust cycles are realistic as long as the banks control the money supply and economists pretend that the banks are not the problem. As an economist, it is my job to shine the light on the problem not to ignore it.
      I do not see how keeping the money supply constant and using equity to finance economic expansion has anything to do with a "Grand Solution" used by people to propagate systems like communism or Nazism. Yes, I do have the solution and it makes economic sense. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you and that is why you see it as a "grand solution." If it doesn't, then please argue against my solution. Your argue against solutions in general is silly.
      Banks and their control of the money supply causes the mess. Your logic that in order to continue with democracy, and freedom, the banks must continue to control the money supply and you must have a distorted and sometimes sick economy makes no sense. It was the depression in the 1930s which was a result of a boom in the 1920s that brought the Nazis into power. If all had been well in the 1930s, Hitler wouldn't have had a chance. He appealed to people's fear and their economic destitution. He blamed other people as the cause. Where is your logic in what you are saying? Focus on economic principles and logic please when you make your argument.

    • @johnomara849
      @johnomara849 6 років тому +5

      Peter de Luca I wholeheartedly agree that without the Great Depression Hitler would never have risen to power; although the Treaty of Versailles definitely played its part. Unemployment in America peaked at 9% in 1929 and fell to 6% in 1930 - the year that the first government intervention was made by people who thought they could “fix” the problem, which then prolonged and contributed to the Great Depression. Ironically enough, it was Hitler’s invasion of Europe than brought America out of the Depression, not the economic tinkering made by people who thought they knew better than the free market. And you’re right, my argument against yours is extremely general: the notion that if only you were given enough power and control that there would be a never-ending economic boom is a dangerous one. I’m not arguing against your proposed solution, only against the arrogance that you believe you could end all economic suffering if only you had the power to make it so.

  • @MrServingSize
    @MrServingSize 6 років тому +133

    Economics is a science and an art at the same time. It's complex analyses and forecasting patterns coupled with it's beautiful, artistic charts that represent the issues at hand in the economy are amazing. As previously mentioned, economics is a science but it is a realm of opinions, not concrete facts. As the economy progresses, so do ideas and that is where he beauty of this subject lies, in the unknown, the uncertainty of it all. It truly is a fascinating subject and I'm glad I chose to major in it.

    • @walterv2769
      @walterv2769 6 років тому

      Loved your comment. Hope to see you on stage someday. After studying Economics what do you think about keynesian Economics? And do you have any inclination towards a particular theory/doctrine?

    • @PeterProf7777
      @PeterProf7777 6 років тому +6

      It is only complex because of the damage that banks do to the economy with their increase in the money supply. It causes distortions (bubbles) when banks give out loans and it causes recessions when people cannot pay back their loans. Economics should be very simple. But economists refuse to shine the light on the real problem. They don't because many work for banks. The Federal Reserve IS a bank. So they do their best to fix the mess they are given but it is impossible and that is why people think it is complex. Economics should be organic. Adam Smith was right.
      To use an analogy, health care is complex because many people just do not take care of themselves. So we need surgeons and prescription drugs (third leading killer by the way) to help people who eat processed food and crappy food. If people took better care of themselves then many wouldn't need surgeons or prescription drugs. It is that simple. I am 66 and eat a plant based diet. The last time I was sick with the flu was 1990. Economists spend their time trying to "fix" the problems caused by the bankers. As long as the bankers have control of the money supply, economists will have to deal with complex situations.
      Peter de Luca: Economist

    • @Bruh-ff2tw
      @Bruh-ff2tw 4 роки тому +4

      Peter bruh, having a competent financial sector is a must have for a thriving economy. If banks weren’t capable of giving it loans then the vast majority of home owners wouldn’t own their horns and the vast majority of small business owners wouldn’t own their businesses.

    • @N0Xa880iUL
      @N0Xa880iUL 3 роки тому +1

      @@Bruh-ff2tw Our current banking system is flawed and people will soon know why. They are speeding up human aspirations, struggles, desperation, depression, heath decline and ultimately lifespan. This fast paced technological progress is happening at the cost of 80% of humanity who either live in abject poverty or very modest living. These people will say enough is enough and take personally the ever-fast-paced filling of the deep pockets of the top 1%. Truth is the 1% need us all but don't ever want to compensate us for it. It is these people that the bank's actually cater too. Everyone else is in debt and at the mercy of booms and busts of economy. Human life is not meant to handle this.

    • @N0Xa880iUL
      @N0Xa880iUL 3 роки тому

      @Ryan Alex My take may not be factual but rather of a general sentiment.

  • @kingarthur1217
    @kingarthur1217 3 роки тому +22

    Woah, he looks young here!

    • @Bolognabeef
      @Bolognabeef 3 роки тому

      Yeah that's the youngest I've seen him

  • @lynxdunwell701
    @lynxdunwell701 5 років тому +64

    Lets do a poll
    Like =Chicago economic
    Reply=Austrian ecnomics

  • @nthperson
    @nthperson 4 роки тому +32

    If only Keynes had remembered what Winston Churchill had warned about the destructive impact of monopolies and monopoly privilege. In 1909, campaigning for a seat in the House of Commons Churchill told the British people that monopoly was the inherited enemy of democracy and of justice. He added that the monopoly of land is "the mother of all monopolies." Churchill's solution echoed the teachings of the Scot political economist Patrick Edward Dove. Government should impose an annual tax on those who control land equal to the potential annual rental value of whatever land is held. Keynes somehow managed to ignored the growing redistribution of wealth associated with the concentrated control over land (broadly defined). Land blessed with natural resources to exploit was climbing in value. The same pattern was occurring in the cities where commerce occurred and population was increasing. Milton Friedman, at least in a very limited way, endorsed the taxation of land rent as what he said is a "least bad tax."

  • @generalsalami8875
    @generalsalami8875 3 роки тому +8

    Excess consumption is a product of artificially low rates. It makes savings less profitable, encourages inflationary borrowing, & with said inflation it makes people wanna spend now. If we allowed natural deflation, then people would be inclined to hold onto money. This would be lent out to higher order production. With prices falling, people would withdraw consumption into the future (except for necessities).
    People would be encouraged to not waist.
    This issue is the fault of central banks around the world. Thank you Keynes!

    • @glennoc8585
      @glennoc8585 2 роки тому

      Natural deflation only works if social welfare is a safety net in place as deflation can only happen in a time post austerity. Consumer goods and services are elastic based on supply demand fixed services like govt, education and rents never deflate or very seldom. Deflation would need a minimum wage to be non existent and services to be totally free market.

    • @generalsalami8875
      @generalsalami8875 2 роки тому +3

      @glenn oc No, nonsense. Those scarce services you mention appreciate in real terms, no matter what system. Demand outstrips supply. This is fine. Through the free market, it's allocated to those who provide value to others the most. This enables even greater productivity. We more efficiently utilize those resources & bring down costs, thereby greater supporting our lower class. The little numerical money they earn appreciates over time as a result of the productivity they bring about.
      Education is simply knowledge. Knowledge isn't a scarce commodity. Through proper methods, any capable person can have their quantity & quality of knowledge increased.
      Minimum wage doesn't help anyone. Just artificially increases the cost of labor, leading to relatively higher prices, worse quality goods & services, less/worse worker benefits to make up the cost, &/or unemployment of those who can't make up the higher price of their labor (the lesser skilled/capable).
      The huge bargaining power within business (created by corporatist government) would fall. Most of it is driven by inflation, driving up the value of their assets. All at the expense of wage & fixed-income earners, who's income is stickier than the prices around them.
      Propping up numerical wages is a stupid goal anyways. What we should strive for is greater productivity. I don't care how many dollar bills the poor has. I care what they can buy with it.
      Available space is scarce. Space is best allocated through prices. Only people who provide value to others (profit) should be granted more space. That's a scarce commodity like any other. Businesses can buy that & utilize it to produce more of what people demand, thereby supplying more & better jobs for more people. Hard workers get granted it over non-producers.
      This is optimal.
      Encouraging production of housing & business space is another positive element. Since producers earn a profit from users of their property, they're enticed to supply more (& specifically in places people demand). They compete & offer the best quality depending on peoples' productivity (income).
      Resources are most efficiently allocated to the betterment of all useful participants.
      If you want to complain about rent prices, take one look at the fed & their inflationary policies. Also many government regulations such as zoning laws that restrict supply.
      This isn't even getting into the malinvestments that monetary expansion inherently brings about. These malinvestments lower *real* wages, as your money cannot buy you as much of what you demand. I can get into the intricacies of how this malinvestment takes place if you wish.
      Now, if you wish to help those who are incapable of providing value (like the disabled) why don't you donate & contribute to charity? If the majority of people are willing to vote in a guy to steal their money & give it to them, *why wouldn't they just give it to them?* I say leave this aid to each individual. America is the most charitable country in the world. It is clear people on aggregate are empathetic. They want to help their neighbors, friends, & family, especially if they're incapable of helping themselves. Mandating help ignores the circumstances of each individual. If they over do it, it can discourage many capable people from getting jobs. Thereby hurting productivity & the real income of those who need help. How do they fund these charitable services? By taking from the capable & productive. This bring about the same negative effects.
      Private charities have an incentive to actually help them in a cost efficient manner. They have some form of competition with other charities to draw in funds. They call out eachother & their malpractices. Anybody can start one & donate to the charity of their choosing. Many even incorporate democratic elements & assure their donors through contractual agreements. The donors only give what they can withstand to, so there's no risk in over doing it.
      They have just as much transparency & capabilities as government 'help', & more.
      When you incorporate violence in the matter, through state-backed theft, you have a coercive monopoly with little incentive to improve.

    • @olubunmiolumuyiwa
      @olubunmiolumuyiwa 2 роки тому +1

      @@generalsalami8875 This is one of the best reads i've had in a while as an 18 year old econ student. Amazing. Man i wish i could speak to my local MP and get them to listen to a person like you. Your writing was so well articulated!

    • @generalsalami8875
      @generalsalami8875 2 роки тому

      @@olubunmiolumuyiwa thanks 😊

    • @olubunmiolumuyiwa
      @olubunmiolumuyiwa 2 роки тому

      @@generalsalami8875 Oh btw, could you elaborate on "If you want to complain about rent prices, take one look at the fed & their inflationary policies". What inflationary policies are the gov using to increase house and rent prices?

  • @thomasd2444
    @thomasd2444 11 місяців тому

    03:18 - Title : IS-LM : An Explanation | John Hicks | Journal of Post Keynesian Economic | 1980

  • @adtiamzon3663
    @adtiamzon3663 Рік тому +8

    Economics is not a dream; Economics is a real measure of life's reality❗️

  • @mytech6779
    @mytech6779 2 роки тому +7

    Now the big political issue comes from the lag in the education system. There is a solid 20 years between shifts in research and that information finally filtering into a new generation of teachers and textbooks. So those theories of the 1930s and 1940s were the basis for the babyboomers' general education.(Not those focused on econ, but rather the bulk of the population.) And many of those boomers continue to carry those failed theories into the voting booth in 2020 and beyond. In addition due to the population spike of that generation their opinions formed a large fraction of popular "knowledge" for an extended time period and were passed into later generations through sheer volume of repetition in common social interaction and political rhetoric.
    The perfect storm of misinformation.

  • @Yo_Kelz
    @Yo_Kelz Рік тому +1

    I dont always agree with Friedman but this was a great take on Keynes.

  • @yydd4954
    @yydd4954 2 роки тому +9

    The respect he has for Keynes ❤️❤️

  • @navigatroncidadesinteligentes
    @navigatroncidadesinteligentes 2 роки тому +1

    I started laughing in the begining of the video because i thought ... " i never saw friedman not being bald LOL "

  • @jamesstevenson1296
    @jamesstevenson1296 6 місяців тому

    I think that the overall economic climate is the main reason for the validity of any one economic theory. eg, the post war condition of the world and in particular the UK was a large factor in validating Keynesian economics. Today the dynamics are different and the theory is being adapted accordingly.

  • @netroalex5209
    @netroalex5209 2 роки тому +4

    I want that interviewers voice

    • @netroalex5209
      @netroalex5209 10 місяців тому

      @@MesmerBaas Great idea, I'll start doing that

    • @IrishIwasJewish
      @IrishIwasJewish 10 місяців тому

      ​@@netroalex5209it's so damn cinematic

    • @John1960Video
      @John1960Video 4 місяці тому

      Actually the voice is arrogant and abrasive.

    • @netroalex5209
      @netroalex5209 4 місяці тому

      @@John1960Video you do you mate

  • @casparwijn
    @casparwijn 3 місяці тому +4

    it's insane how dangerous Friedman was and how blind people are to that danger..

  • @adtiamzon3663
    @adtiamzon3663 Рік тому +5

    Milton Friedman on Inflation and Keynes theory could have been changed had JKKeynes lived longer. Spot on Milton Friedman. 🌞👏👏

  • @upvotecomment2110
    @upvotecomment2110 2 роки тому +3

    Disagree and Agree... wish this was longer. whats the full clip of this?

    • @jlerwin8055
      @jlerwin8055 10 місяців тому

      Maybe search Firing Line with William Buckley (interviewer)

  • @martinhumble
    @martinhumble 2 роки тому +6

    So, trickle down economics. Let's all agree it doesn't work for any society. Though the rich love it.
    Please

  • @JR7noir
    @JR7noir 2 роки тому +5

    Friedman and Keynes were amazing

  • @brianp1230
    @brianp1230 Рік тому +5

    And 50 years after he said this, it’s been proven that Neoliberalism (the supply side economics he advocated for) has only created greater inequalities, more economic cycle downturns and social divisions. What is most sad is that the Neoliberalism experiment keeps getting repeated despite its failures. Perhaps Keynesian economics needs a second look, an updated version. Maybe we should move in that direction.

    • @francescopetrucci2694
      @francescopetrucci2694 Рік тому +3

      The economy shouldn’t fight inequalities, but reach efficiency in the short term, which ultimately brings aggregated wealth in the long term.

    • @futurethinking
      @futurethinking Рік тому

      @@francescopetrucci2694 exactly the empty bullshit that got us into this place. When you ask people repeating this bullshit, they have no idea how to define efficiency, short term, how do we measure aggregated wealth and how does that corelate with real world things (since a 100k gold watch are not really wealth of a nation if we are being serious here).

    • @irgendsoeineziege1058
      @irgendsoeineziege1058 Рік тому +2

      ​@@francescopetrucci2694Thats exactly what hasnt worked in the last decades.

    • @JonathanSmith-kz2jo
      @JonathanSmith-kz2jo Рік тому +1

      @@irgendsoeineziege1058 you say that, and yet all you have for proof are skewed graphs and cherry-picked stats which are taken out of context.

    • @ScandinavianHeretic
      @ScandinavianHeretic Рік тому

      Keynsian economics is what you call "Neoliberalism", its what the world has run on ever since he released his book "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money"

  • @ElTimotoQIK
    @ElTimotoQIK 4 роки тому +35

    The interviewer speaks exactly like Frank Underwood

    • @EshanKumar99
      @EshanKumar99 4 роки тому +4

      @@ImASDFx2 You mean Trans-atlantic accent

    • @fhowland
      @fhowland 3 роки тому +2

      His name is William F Buckley !

  • @John1960Video
    @John1960Video 4 місяці тому

    When Friedman’s ideas were embraced by Reagan signaled the death of the middle class.

  • @aldoramirezzamudio5515
    @aldoramirezzamudio5515 Місяць тому

    Keynes and Friedman...up there...in the Olympus...

  • @The8224sm
    @The8224sm 9 місяців тому +3

    Ravishing the planet for shareholder dividends and executive bonuses.

  • @rushiljain9423
    @rushiljain9423 9 місяців тому

    Not a single um, ahh, from Friedman. Phenomenal

  • @thomasd2444
    @thomasd2444 11 місяців тому

    USE-VALUE, EXCHANGE VALUE, AND THE DEMISE OF MARX'S LABOR THEORY OF VALUE by Steve Keen

  • @thomasd2444
    @thomasd2444 11 місяців тому +1

    01:25 - LOL - Poor, misguided Milton was wrong about Quantity money theory.

  • @noahclayborne5560
    @noahclayborne5560 4 роки тому +8

    William F Buckley was so weird

  • @PashutHerenstein
    @PashutHerenstein Місяць тому

    Who were keynes’s desciples who took his idea too far?

  • @vonshango6311
    @vonshango6311 2 роки тому +3

    keynes was scientific, but flexible, would've adjusted his theory but died early, then his work got hijacked/misused...

    • @erastvandoren
      @erastvandoren Рік тому

      63 years is not exactly early. Hardly anyone does great work in later years.

    • @IrishIwasJewish
      @IrishIwasJewish 10 місяців тому

      ​@@erastvandorenhe did

  • @simonclarke7309
    @simonclarke7309 5 місяців тому

    A beast

  • @julianyo7072
    @julianyo7072 Місяць тому

    Don't be fooled by economists and complicated economic models based in fancy maths and statistics. The only truth is: have a system based in a currency that is stable through time (gold), work, save, keep a balanced budget and keep taxes low and stable. And don't expend what you don't have (don't incur in high debt).That's it. It's so simple it's insulting.

  • @afgor1088
    @afgor1088 2 роки тому +16

    we've been running this experiment for 40 years in multiple countries in a great number of different conditions. the results are in, not only does freedman's kind of economics fail catastrophically in developed economies but it keeps developing economies in crippling poverty

    • @Vn-no4fv
      @Vn-no4fv 2 роки тому +1

      Examples? Not disagreeing just interested

    • @panushjo
      @panushjo 2 роки тому +9

      Oh yeah? Does the average American live better in 2020 or 1980? lol

    • @afgor1088
      @afgor1088 2 роки тому +2

      @@panushjo about the same actually, little bit worse in some years

    • @michastanisawski9093
      @michastanisawski9093 2 роки тому +16

      @@afgor1088 The average American is living worse and the numbers keep dropping. Keynesian economics are the front from 2008 and it's clearly a disaster. We're at the cusp of the absolute economic meltdown.

    • @michastanisawski9093
      @michastanisawski9093 2 роки тому

      @Efren Rios Inflation good. Orange Man Bad. Diversity is our strength. Please consult the Ministry of Truth.

  • @Döşeme6
    @Döşeme6 Рік тому

    Yine güzel yerlerdeyim
    Gönderin gelsin bendekileri geri almaya

  • @kingj7606
    @kingj7606 4 роки тому +19

    I respect Friedman, but Ironically Friedman was a keynesian himself, same methodology, just two different sides of the same coin.

    • @N0Xa880iUL
      @N0Xa880iUL 3 роки тому +10

      No there are three positions on a coin. Front, back and the side. The side is the silver lining. "Perfectly balanced, as all things should be."

    • @gabbar51ngh
      @gabbar51ngh 3 роки тому +6

      He's a monetarist. A better version of keynesian you could say

    • @generalsalami8875
      @generalsalami8875 3 роки тому +1

      @@gabbar51ngh still wrong. Austrians are better

    • @yydd4954
      @yydd4954 2 роки тому +1

      @@gabbar51ngh yeah kind off maybe

    • @glennoc8585
      @glennoc8585 2 роки тому +5

      Friedman was not a fan of government injection of money though. Wasn't Keynes less interested in free trade whereas Friedman was an advocate for that.

  • @isawaturtle
    @isawaturtle 2 роки тому +10

    Friedman caused so much damage.

    • @hariseldon791
      @hariseldon791 2 роки тому +3

      Payroll withholding is a black mark, but overall, Friedman was a very good advocate for the free market.

    • @Jglabel262
      @Jglabel262 Рік тому

      @@hariseldon791 the only reason he created that is because if it was not him creating that, then the government was gonna make something a lot worst. It was either what they were gonna do or Friedman making something less worst.

    • @erastvandoren
      @erastvandoren Рік тому

      Keynes caused most damage in the last 90 years.

  • @mfernorah6848
    @mfernorah6848 2 роки тому +2

    Hi Mfers!

  • @stephaniemclean3458
    @stephaniemclean3458 8 днів тому

    I have know doubt that Keynesian economics worked well to distribute wealth and equality. As proven by getting out the Great Depression and the prosperity after the Bretton Woods agreement. Provided it was followed properly and adapted to the economic environment at the time we would not be in a situation of inequality today. I believe Keynesian economics was sabotaged by corporate greed and the industrial military complex during the 60s. And paved the way for the neoliberalism experiment of today starting in the 70s. In saying that, neoliberalism has evolved into corporatism. As corporate monopolies and banking cartel’s started to form and take control of governments.

  • @vincentreynolds2127
    @vincentreynolds2127 6 років тому +2

    Fact?

  • @billiecamilla1053
    @billiecamilla1053 2 роки тому +2

    THE RICH STAYS RICH BY SPENDING LIKE THE POOR AND INVESTING WITHOUT STOPPING THEN THE POOR STAYS POOR BY SPENDING LIKE THE RICH YET NOT INVESTING LIKE THE RICH.

  • @imaji4487
    @imaji4487 Рік тому +2

    Old golden days when there was no room for Kim Kardashian reality show on TV

  • @alvin8391
    @alvin8391 Рік тому +2

    The label "Keynesian economics" is to grand for the narrow assertions contained in the great J.M. Keynes's "General Theory of Employment, Money and Interest", published in 1936. There, Keynes asserted that when an economy is in stagnation, the only institution that is capable of restoring consumer demand and, thereby, production and investment, is the Federal government, which can borrowed what it requires to put the work force, consumers, back to doing productive work so that they can again exert demand for goods and services. THAT is Keynesianism and nothing more. But wait! There is something more, and here is the rub that drives the business world, the world served by Milton Friedman, crazy: When consumer demand has been restored by the Federal intervention, and the economy is stable, the borrowing can be repaid by the Federal government by raising taxes. THAT is what the business world fears. It does not want to pay taxes. It is an irresponsible child that only know how to take but not how to give.

    • @erastvandoren
      @erastvandoren Рік тому +2

      Keynes' work was stupid, and even plain wrong, for example savings = investments. Easily provable as wrong empirically.

    • @jarirutanen8762
      @jarirutanen8762 Рік тому

      True, plus the gov is actually money creator not borrower as mmt states it.

    • @Spido68_the_spectator
      @Spido68_the_spectator 8 місяців тому

      ​@@erastvandorenthat is neoclassical saying.
      Keynes tore apart that equation

    • @erastvandoren
      @erastvandoren 8 місяців тому

      @@Spido68_the_spectator lol

  • @Wastelander30
    @Wastelander30 2 роки тому

    Watch again, and substitute for Keynes the name Marx, Friedman et. al. Listen closely. Now then: did you find any substance there?

  • @matthewhtaylor679
    @matthewhtaylor679 Рік тому +1

    This man is a gremlin with liters of blood on his hands.

  • @gallectee6032
    @gallectee6032 2 роки тому +3

    As I expected, he could not criticize the theory apart from calling some of its followers extreme. Capitalism could be stabilized for a thousand years with Keynesianism, but the powers that be want it all. Good luck with the short term strategies, I don't think you'll like the long term results.

    • @mouwersor
      @mouwersor 2 роки тому

      You know he's am economist and has written books about this, right..? Cope harder, statist

    • @gallectee6032
      @gallectee6032 2 роки тому

      @@mouwersor Yeah, and his economic policies have failed miserably. While the economic policies that came before him, were extremely successful. They stopped being followed because of politics and geopolitics, not because there was something wrong with them.
      Plus you literally can't handle criticism on someone elses policies and resort to projection and name calling. Good luck with your anti intellectualism. Plus the inaccurate labeling of statism after even which I mention Keynesianism, which is not even close to statism.
      You're nothing but someone who goes by pure ideology. Digging your own grave there pal.

  • @artemisgruis1528
    @artemisgruis1528 2 роки тому +1

    Austrian economist enter the chat

  • @alderaan11
    @alderaan11 2 роки тому

    hepimiz keynesyeniz aga

  • @bbcapryllian9337
    @bbcapryllian9337 6 років тому +8

    Buckley fooled a lot of people for a long time.

    • @solank7620
      @solank7620 6 років тому +23

      B B Capryllian
      About what...?

  • @ally11488
    @ally11488 5 років тому +15

    Keynes didn't use electrodes on the testicles to implement a pure version of his policies. How anyone can like this video shows a wilful ignorance of Friedman's role in '70s Chile.

    • @reaganconservatives6625
      @reaganconservatives6625  5 років тому +35

      Milton Friedman condemned Pinochets regime. It is willful ignorance to claim that one 30 minute is some how an endorsement of all Pinochet policies meeting is willful ignorance. Friedman met with Joseph Tito so why don't we blame the crimes of communism on Friedman as well...

    • @reaganconservatives6625
      @reaganconservatives6625  5 років тому +34

      Chile in the 1970's followed Friedman economic policies and they have reduced poverty by 40% and has one of the most prosperous and Democratic societies in South America.

    • @ally11488
      @ally11488 5 років тому +1

      @@reaganconservatives6625 Most people searching out clips of Friedman know his views on Pinochet. He was a consequentialist who was willing to grant a certain amount of charity to Pinochet, as was Margaret Thatcher, in implementing neoliberalism.

    • @necroyoli08
      @necroyoli08 5 років тому +17

      @@ally11488 You expose yourself as a complete idiot when you start yuxtaposing the terms "implementing" and "neoliberalism"

    • @ally11488
      @ally11488 5 років тому

      @@necroyoli08 Please elaborate?

  • @frankhoffman3566
    @frankhoffman3566 6 років тому +35

    I disagree with Friedman's assessment. I have seen nothing but recession come from the application of his 'supply side' economics. His principle that somehow rich people will risk their fortunes in investments has turned out flatly wrong. If anything, the wealthy are risk averse, and it's the middle class people who take the risks and generate wealth. I don't care if Keynes retreated in his later years. He was right in the first place. Friedman has been proved wrong, and repeatedly.

    • @RRproductions156
      @RRproductions156 6 років тому +65

      Frank Hoffman rich people invest and create way more than poor people? That’s not even debatable man. The majority of new creations and the reason for the GDP growing is through people spending money and new inventions being introduced to create a demand.

    • @frankhoffman3566
      @frankhoffman3566 6 років тому +7

      @@RRproductions156 .... Well, your view of the superiority of rich people is definitely the prevailing view AMONG THE RICH, and while the greater tendency to invest was true during World War II and two decades thereafter, it hasn't been true for a half century. That you declare something ''not debatable'' does not end the discussion. It certainly is true that the rich push the idea as if it's not debatable.
      Statistics repeatedly show that the real risk takers are middle class start-ups. The rich? Not so much.

    • @RRproductions156
      @RRproductions156 6 років тому +36

      Frank Hoffman the rich create more products than the poor. Bill Gates has done more for the world than mother Teresa quantity wise. Teresa’s actions required more sacrifice but Bill gates improved the work with Microsoft.

    • @frankhoffman3566
      @frankhoffman3566 6 років тому +8

      @@RRproductions156 ... The whole 'higher form of life' thing about the rich spawns much of what is wrong with our society. I've known at least one and maybe two billionaires, and a number of multi millionaires. I don't see any superiority in either character or intelligence. What I do see is a high number of bean counters posing as Jobs-like visionaries.
      What I see are people constantly trying to give the consumer less and charging more for it. What I see is a constant attempt at underestimating the intelligence of the American consumer. What I see is a widespread tendency to ignore successful international business models and to pay themselves unjustifiable compensation. What I see is not willingness to risk, but tendency to avoid risk. What I see is not American patriotism, but the saluting of the green flag with pictures on it.
      I'm not buying your rich-guy-superiority bs. I've checked up close and haven't seen it.

    • @adrianomattia5625
      @adrianomattia5625 6 років тому +20

      Nice strawman you got there

  • @GeorgWilde
    @GeorgWilde 3 роки тому +5

    *Learn austrian economics.*

    • @razorblade7408
      @razorblade7408 3 роки тому +1

      I only know the very basic he was right about what is and how money shouldn't be controlled by central governments or by massive banks gold standard to say the least he believed

    • @programking655
      @programking655 3 роки тому +1

      Why? So you can learn bullshit? Because Austrian economists specialize in that. I particularly enjoy their, “no math, no stats, no econometrics, we’ll just use thought experiments” approach. Works so well that they have been wrong at almost every juncture. Austrian economics is more of a political position than an actual economic theory. It’s the creationism of the economics world.

    • @generalsalami8875
      @generalsalami8875 3 роки тому

      @@programking655 Most people are speaking of their monetary theories, which are correct. Most couldn't care less about praxiology

    • @programking655
      @programking655 3 роки тому

      @@generalsalami8875 No, even then, Austrian economics’ monetary beliefs are also bullshit. They’re factually, demonstrably wrong. If you want libertarian monetary economics, learn about Milton Friedman.

    • @generalsalami8875
      @generalsalami8875 3 роки тому +1

      @ProgramKing He changed his mind on monetary policy later on in life. Nor do I care of his beliefs. They're technically true, but don't address the real problem with cheap credit. They simply blame credit contraction, but don't realize that it has to contract unorder to correct the malinvestments in the system.

  • @AndrewMacedo-ob6jx
    @AndrewMacedo-ob6jx Рік тому

    God, William F. Buckley was absolutely insufferable. All the respect in the world to Friedman for being able to rebut Buckley’s horrific attempts to poison the well.

  • @Sultansekte
    @Sultansekte 2 роки тому +1

    Friedman didn't even understood how money creation worked. We now know that his inflation theory was garbage.

    • @babatunda1849
      @babatunda1849 2 роки тому +1

      you sound dumb

    • @mouwersor
      @mouwersor 2 роки тому +7

      give arguments then. Don't just shout ur opinion

    • @programking655
      @programking655 2 роки тому +2

      And how exactly do you determine that? The quantity theory of money is a fairly accurate representation of reality.

  • @draconusspiritus1037
    @draconusspiritus1037 Рік тому +1

    Take Government Interference out of Economics, and Economics becomes simple enough that the average 5th Grade Student has little trouble understanding it fully. Look at most any of the 10 highest rated College level Economics Textbooks and you'll find most if not all are heavily influenced by the 'Works' of Karl Marx. Or were inspired by books that were heavily influenced by Karl Marx.
    Advocating Government Interference to address excesses and abuses that are physically impossible without Government Interference.
    How much currency is 'In Circulation' has no bearing on the Economy either for or against. How easy that money is to get is what counts.

  • @robertpeston6692
    @robertpeston6692 4 роки тому +7

    Why does Milton always have a stupid smirk? It only detracts from his academia and makes his a “higher than thou” ego larger; what a waste.

    • @enematwatson1357
      @enematwatson1357 4 роки тому +28

      That's not a smirk, that's his face. Don't disrespect Uncle Milty.

    • @acctsys
      @acctsys 4 роки тому +18

      Don't you hate it when people focus on appearances rather than their words and thoughts on matters other than sex and love?

    • @JD-dh3yn
      @JD-dh3yn 4 роки тому +6

      Moron

    • @johnkevill470
      @johnkevill470 4 роки тому +11

      I disagree with his worldview a lot, but he is by no means a bad speaker

    • @gabbar51ngh
      @gabbar51ngh 3 роки тому +4

      Milton Friedman? Ego? You must be special kind of stupid to think merely smiling is being egoistic.
      He always smiled and never in a smug way as you are trying to make it look like