Milton Friedman on the free-market case for taxing pollution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ม.ค. 2017
- Free-market economist and former economics advisor to President Ronald Reagan the great Milton Friedman made the case for a free-enterprise solution in taxing pollution during a 1979 interview with Phil Donahue.
An added advantage of the taxation method is that it incentivizes innovation of less-polluting technologies. If you have a blanket tax on coal production, then an enterprising inventor who creates a method of burning coal that's much cleaner doesn't get an advantage, but if its proportionate to the actual amount of emissions it constantly pushes the power industry towards cleaner energies.
FDR was the first to really come after our guns. He wanted to take our handguns, but his wife, and a lot of other women, carried a revolver in her purse. But it was unloaded. The joke was, anyone who wanted to harm her had nothing to fear but fear itself. If FDR's gun laws were about saving lives, why did he refuse to save any Jews? Read The Jews Should Keep Quiet, by Rafeal Medoff. FDR had the power to save hundreds of thousands of Jews. He refused. Some of FDR's programs were designed to starve Americans to death. He punished farmers who did not plow enough crops under. One case went all the way to the Supreme Court. A farmer was punished for trying to feed people. Read FDR's Folly. By Jim Powell. How FDR's New Deal made his Great Depression worse and starved Americans to death. All freedom lovers should read John Grit's Feathers on the Wings of Love and Hate. Let the Gun Speak. It is about a future America under tyranny. Also, John Lott's books about gun laws and crime.
tell that to the dutch farmers
You already paid tax once.
Something needs to be done about climate change. Good to see Milton Friedman giving an argument that those in favor of free markets can get behind.
@@tarkfarhen3870 Pollution is a violation of someone else's property
@@tarkfarhen3870 You are a moron. External Effects are market failures: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
@mariocrivera1000 if you can't afford a couple of dollars over ten years you couldn't afford a car anyways.
And there is no right to own a car. Saying that there is the height of entitlement.
that wasn't the case back then. Friedman talked about pollution in all, not Climate Change (which is debatable, but i believe that happens).
taxing pollution won't help fight climate change. even if America goes to zero pollutions, it won't help until India, China and more will go so too, which obviously won't happen. it's a lost cause.
@@yitzhakmalul Chronicling the climatological history of Earth would evince that climate change is anyway inevitable. Climate as a system is exceedingly intricate for us to declare that a set of policies can stop the process. We can at best mitigate the rate at which we pollute the environment; we cannot prevent climate change. It would also be unfair to expect India to reduce its emissions. It has penurious people by the millions, and eradicating poverty in any significant measure must involve progress on the four indices of social development that Ian Morris proposes, namely, energy capture, organizational capacity, information processing capacity and war making capacity. Such progress will inevitably involve emissions, regardless of the care that is taken to minimize them.
The passage of time creates more regulation / less freedom. It's a result of government employees justifying their existence.
It also creates income disparity and monopolies. It's a result of corporate executives justifying their existence.
@@Emidretrauqe monopolies that exists due to government intervention.
@@zukeow117 Explain to me how Carnagie Steel became a monopoly due to government intervention.
@@Emidretrauqe I was not clear, you're right.
What I try to say is that it's pretty hard to be a monopoly in a free-market. But if this happens, this is not necessarily bad, on the contrary, people just prefer it. Bad monopolies, are due to govenment intervention. It's hard to find a monopoly that has survived a long time without goverment. And the ones which did it, surely did a good job.
@@zukeow117 The workers at those steel mills were subject to horrendous working conditions and had to unionize to accomplish anything, precisely because the government wouldn't help them.
Unions are the direct initiative of workers who have lost faith in both their company and their government and have no other way to secure a livelihood.
Carnagie himself hired Pinkerton infiltrators to undermine them at every turn. It even resulted in riots and death. In the end Carnagie demonstrated that he would sooner see his workers murdered in the streets than cut them in on any revenue growth. The money was his, that's all he wanted.
Carnagie became a philanthropist after the government finally busted his monopoly. He knew he was reviled by workers throughout the nation, and the one thing he couldn't buy was good will.
It never stops them from trying, though.
Very interesting topic and argument to be followed here.
Milton Friedman really makes one ponder more into a subject when he breaks down the fundamentals of what to look out for.
What an interesting perspective he showcases here
He's responsible for the pitiful notion that, by giving huge tax breaks to businesses/the rich, you will get richer by default. It certainly hasn't been proved to work.
@@petergilkes7082 you obviously do not understand economics if you think the rich have to pay taxes
@@c.galindo9639 You did not read me correctly.
@@petergilkes7082 then explain yourself more intricately
@@c.galindo9639 Milton Friedman's responsible for the pitiful notion that, by giving huge tax breaks to businesses/the rich, you will get richer by default. It certainly hasn't been proved to work.
His speaking tone moderate is very good I like that
AKA: cap and trade. Milton Friedman was advocating for cap and trade long before it was a thing
This exists in the US to an extent.
It’s called the ‘gas guzzler’ tax paid for on purchase of the new vehicle. Which is amusing because government also has a fairly large tax on a gallon of gas.
This is from a better time for Being able to Say a lot more.with(Little fear,);..you cant say that!,.or someone will get angry/?.+Most Big Networks Wouldnt even Allow it to air..inmyopinion.
Lemme take a look at that... Wiki says that the tax created incentive for motor companies to begin producing vehicles that avoid the tax; specifically the trend towards SUV's, minivans, and trucks...
So that's why those vehicles have become more popular since 1980. I didn't know that.
Same today.
Brilliant as he ever was.
Tax what you don't want to happen and seek to destroy. Clever :3
So... Are we supposed to work or not?! I'm confused.
@@CommanderFoxTV1992 yes but you shouldn't pay income taxes. well not much anyways
@@CommanderFoxTV1992 : Tax the bads (pollution), not the "goods" (Work = wealth creation). It's as simple as that!
@@BasicEndjo : Perfect, remove payroll taxes and tax pollution instead! The effect will be less pollution, more wealth creation.
pigouvian taxes
Woe be to the person who debates Milton. Milton will be kind, but man, can he ever make a point!
Phil Donahue tried it often. He didn't have the intellect to debate Friedman. He comes off sounding so smug with his opinion and then Milton Friedman just lays downs facts and either shuts him up or baffles him so much he would babble.
He's an interviewer, its not a debate. And he didn't even MAKE a point. That was pure nonsense. REgulations have brought emissions down so low that a ten year old lawn mover emits more emissions than a car. Thats ALL thanks to the emissions standards by ONE state, California. Which was until recently the sixth largest economy in the world so car companies made ALL their cars to that standard.
Not only is he wrong but that argument is the POSTER CHILD for why emission regulations work best. When the fuck have you ever seen a car company change any facet of their design because the public wanted it? If you didn't know, the difference he is talking about here is the difference between a carbon tax at the pump, and a cap and trade system at the instutional level. We've already SEEN cap and trade pretty much resolve much of the acid rain problem in the mid states. Its been PROVEN to work, and thats by putting caps on emisssions, in other words, regulation. Its not like these companies CAN"T innovate, when have you ever seen cars STOP being made because companies said "well, we just can't make cars to these efficiency standards". Meanwhile carbon taxes 'at the pipe' have NEVER been shown to work.
So not only is he wrong, he's COMPLETELY wrong, he's saying the exact opposite of EVERYTHING we've seen in both economics and car design and emissions control.
@@mikearchibald744 In the words of Milton... "you're simply wrong." Watch his 10-part series Free to Choose." Donahue was a died in the wool leftist and voted for Nader for President his entire life. Facts and Data tend to trip up emotional people, like you.
@@bobjordan5231 Thats funny, what I printed WERE facts, go watch Milton again, he doesn't say a SINGLE verifiable fact, he just states his opinions as IF they were facts, something common with economists, and it does tend to fool those who don't have a lot of education and don't know how to recognize a fact if it bit them.
The 'fact' that you go on about Donahue's political standing shows exactly my point. In rhetoric what politicians or shitty economists do is distract from the facts. Name me ONE fact that Milton stated that we can look up at at least SOME verifiable study and agree that 'this is a fact'. Scientists do it all the time, in fact the whole point of the hard sciiences is present a theory, test it, test it again, accept it is factual if its been tested and verified.
Thats of course what economics is called 'the dismal science' and why scientists think of the 'social sciences' as something of a joke.
And such claims end with such shitty epithets as what you and apparantly Milton jsut ended with "your just wrong'. Even a grade school debate would not accept 'your just wrong' as an argument. What you want to do is AVOID an argument, because you've already got an ideology tied up in believing whatever your chosen guy says.
To even ARGUE Friedman in this day and age is outlandish, like I said, you look aroudn the world and NOWHERE has a tax on emissions led to lowering emissions, thats actually the MAIN argument that conservatives are NOW lobbying against carbon pricing, which ironically is EXACTLY what Friedman is here advocating but for some reason a lot of guys can listen to Friedman here and then turn around and complain about the idea of a carbon tax at the pump.
Now, those are ALL verifiable facts. Show me ONE jurisdiction where carbon taxes have decreased emissions. ONE. BC has had them for almost two decades, hasn't worked at all. Canada has had them for almost a decade, hasn't worked at all.
Meanwhile a cap and trade program, which taxes emissions at the source, such as Friedman is arguing AGAINST, is essentially how canada and the US arrested acid rain in the midwest and great lake region.
Those are VERIFIABLE facts. Again, you want to actually state a 'fact' such as a place where carbon taxes slowed emissions go ahead. In europe almost ALL emission lowering has been through regulations, thats VERIFIABLE, which is what a 'fact' is. Milton just spouts off free market rhetoric that people who already believe him will believe. Have a good one.
But if someone dies from not having an airbag it becomes the problem of whoever has to scrap their body out of the vehicle.
First ,Not having airbags don't cause deaths, it's the accidents
Second, What's your point? It happens even with airbags mate.
@@heritierm.lkileme1488 Airbags prevent deaths, even if there is an accident, just like seat belts. That's why they are often required by law in each state. You can argue about the degree to which your death impacts everyone else, but there is still a cost even if it's just the manpower to collect a dead body. And if you're dead, you can't be held responsible for the costs. Overall, it's just shortsighted to say that it's not in the public interest to keep people safe, even if it's in their own vehicles.
@@cxa011500 You missed my point. If I put you in a car without airbags it doesn't mean you're gonna die. Airbags or not , it's the degree of the accident that causes death. Yes airbags bring a higher rate of survival but that wasn't the argument, same goes for seatbelts. And you're conjecturing here, being held responsible for what, You saying If someone get in an accident and didn't have airbags It's automatically his fault?
Problem? I belive you mean opertunity
Pollution is something tangible and evident. People should take personal responsibility for their own mess, that's a given. But overall climate change as a theory? Just another economic throughline.
Lol. Absolutely not
What kind of totalitarian and all-knowing and all-seeing government can keep track of who is polluting and by how much and have the power to enforce such taxes? Imagine the cost of monitoring, processing, and enforcing such laws. Who would pay for all that? Coase and Ostrom offer better solutions to externalities than Friendman ever could
At the end, was Milton Friedman talking about the way people fooled the OBD - I emission management systems on their cars to pass the testing?
The earth is the biggest polluter and maker of carbon emissions.
I work in the gas and oil industry. If the emissions standards that the USA were practiced by all countries, so called pollution would decrease. The US leads cleaner emissions standards every year. Let the consumer decide the emissions standards. Consumers are deciding that they want cleaner fuels, safety features and safer cars and both car makers and fuel producers are working towards that direction. Every year gas and diesel are being formulated to be cleaner because the oil industry sees that the consumer wants that. The problem is that the government wants it's cut and wants Consumers to think that these things were it's idea. Government and politicians need to justify their existence. And perversely they play to people's emotions such as fear. Fear that we're killing the planet and people. Competition in both industries created a better product for the consumer, each producer has to offer something better and better than the other. In fact, some features such as def, the super high tech and high temperature catalytic converters, and other technology on motor vehicle engines are over done and unnecessary. Funny thing is, the company I work for just bought a 2021 diesel tanker truck with the latest pollution and emissions standards, but it burns up and uses 33 to 50 percent more miles per gallon than some of the older trucks in our fleet. Wonder why? The government is getting more in taxes with each gallon of diesel that is bought. That's bad for the consumer but great for the government tax collectors. Aren't engines supposed to be more fuel efficient every year? Many contradictions and government razzle dazzle going on by the politicians. The decrease in fuel efficiency for the sake of emissions standards is due to government intervention, interference and politics. In fact, the increase in fuel consumption, the miles per gallon, negates the overall goal of less consumption and environmental benefits. That is a paradox. Maybe a zero sum gain. Americans need to pay attention and remember the government usually only cares for itself, it's power to control and stay in control and the politicians that are beholden to that end.
And how about all those corn producers getting paid by the government to make a product that is stupid.
Is that actually true? Much of the emissions standards are due to one state- California. But as we saw with car design, the fact is that car companies collude, you DON"T get a free choice of this that or the other. If you know the history of the oil and gas industry, all you have to do is look at how it operates around the world to know that is blatantly untrue. I know its cool nowadays to blame the goverment for everything, but if industry, which ALREADY practically runs the government, were in charge, the US would look like a third world country, which is kind of starting to happen.
Car makers are an oligopoly, they are very expensive to produce, its not like someboy in a garage can go "well I can make this feature cheaper". Thats not reality. In the sixties it was well known by car engineers that features the car companies wanted to 'look cool' were what was killing them. Nader changed that, as well as seatbelts, which Ford put in to great acclaim, and GM told them they would undercut them out of business if they didn'st stop making them.
I'm not sure where this bizarre notion that 'the customer is always right' and that corporations are somehow the servants of the public, making the market so much better than government. If you want that, every third world country in the world has a government that doesn't give a rats ass about thepopulatin, and thats why they are third world countries I'd be the last to defend governmetn, but even laster to defend corporations. The oil industry is just a brutal and borderline evil industry, there's a prety good case that they alone broke down american society with zoning and buying out public transit. THe CEO of Exxon LAUGHED at fishermens families who came into court when their husbands and fathers had committed suicide because an oil leak they tried to fight and Exxon caused destroyed their livelihood.
@@mikearchibald744 lot of truth to what you say. I have to agree with you that the customer doesn't always dictate through its wants and desires what corporations should offer. The illusion of choice is always given to us by the collusion of corporations and government. Just like with political candidates every election cycle.
Ralph Nadar has been proven wrong with his unsafe at any speed. I don't know if he was a knowing shill or ignorant dupe. Tests in later years proved the corvair safe. This was propaganda and social engineering that was prevalent in the 60s such as safety belts, politics, entertainment, rights movements, academia, music, etc. California especially was a hot bed of social engineering. It is interesting to see what has been offered to the public over the decades to distract us regarding consumer wants and wishes technology, etc. People don't realize that when the US went into Afghanistan 20 years ago is when the emissions standards, DEF, the very high temperature components on vehicles were really pushed onto the public. The metals that were needed for the high temperatures came out of Afghanistan. Poppy fields minerals and metals is why the US went to Afghanistan and why our young men and women died there. For the illusion of consumer choice to which you allude. Government and corporations placate the consumer to a certain degree and the consumer does get what it wants in some ways. I agree with you that there is deception, control and purposeful misleading. That is why the consumer, the public, parents, Americans, need to pay attention. You stated yourself very well.
@@patrickluchycky1172 Dude, you should know better than to go up against Ralph Nader:
@@mikearchibald744 do your research. You will be amazed.
Aleluya
Aleluya
Reducing risk is worthwhile, and air bags are benificial to all since it keeps us from being hurt or killed, and reduces the cost of health care. So not a good topic choice by Milton.
Making individuals act responsibly has its advantages, but there is a limit where our freedoms become too restricted. The current climate madness is a case in point. I wonder if Friedman ever commented on it?
Airbags don't reduce the cost of healthcare, except in a world where you pay for someone else's healthcare costs.
@@centerfield6339 if there is less injury, there is less need for healthcare.
You get yourself into a mess if you try to explain that away.
And total cost for health care is much less than it is in the US, where you have perhaps the highest cost in the world.
Being ideological about these things is not benificial. It doesn't have to be all state or all private, a mix is best. Access for all. If you can pay extra, you can bypass the lines.
Another US thing we don't have here is litigation and malpractice insurance gone wild.
@@drjukebox I'm not from the US. Your ideology is leading you astray there. I'm saying that people will pay for safety features if they also pay healthcare costs. I.e. there's no point taking only a part of what MF believes and leaving the rest as-is.
@@centerfield6339 Airbags are inexpensive, as are seat belts. My ideology is humanism, and I believe in logic and rationality.
@centerfield6339 if there is more demand for healthcare, healthcare costs go up
Great idea... ,, So if some people do not comply and they do not care to loose money , it is OK to make other people sick... ?
Taxation does not aim to stop the pollution. It aims at making somebody pay the price.
So yes, somebody could pollute and drive under such a system.
However, remember, he would be giving money to the gov. Money which can be used to decrease the effects.
Example: you can easally spend 10 million euros to decrease pollution by a greater amount then the pollution created by flying a private jet from in the course of one year.
That is easally enough to replace the energy source of a very small factory to renewable energy.
Basically, you are forcing the people who want to pollute, to pay in order to fix the pollution in the first place.
This is in my opinion the best system to fix emmission. However it has one big drawback:
It’s hard to put in place. If we could I reccon we could make enourmous progress in decreasing emission. However how do you calcualte pollution?
A lot of people will lie about their emissisions and pollution.
How do you check?
I think what Milton Friedman was talking about (the video ended too soon) would be something to the effect of "cars that create x-amount amount of pollution pay a $500 fee" which would allegedly go to some program to reduce pollution.
If a car created _less than_ x-amount, then the owner wouldn't pay. The free market would then compensate: either more people start buying cars that produce _less_ amount of pollution _or_ the money would be used to combat that (assuming the government didn't waste the money).
Today, the carbon taxes are similar, but broken. If your company produces _less than_ the y-amount, you can "sell" your credits to someone who produces _more than_ the y-amount companies are regulated at. This _in theory_ gives a zero carbon footprint, but some companies double-sell their credits or they don't actually have them and have paid for a waiver, or they just flat out manipulate the numbers and the government is too ignorant or the politician in charge is a benefit of donations and looks the other way.
th-cam.com/video/A5GAaCTwc9s/w-d-xo.html
@@grondhero Exactly. Thats why the markets cannot be trusted completely. You need the public sector which by default is more accountable than private boards to set up solutions.....
@@leonardodavid2842 Government regulations and effective supervising mechanisms.
@@dsgio7254 In what universe is the public sector MORE accountable? We don't even have the choice to not participate in the public sector. They are a literal monopoly.
At least in the private sphere we can choose to not patronize a business.
👍
Cars produce so few particulate emissions that they hardly register as a cause of air pollution. Most air pollution comes from factories which are already heavily taxed and regulated. And by most I mean something like 100 companies cause 90% of all air and water pollution.
dude there are millions of cars
@@shway1 And if you add all of them up together they still don't count for anymore then 10% of atmospheric pollutants.
@@johnnydollar579 it's 12% compared to 30% for all of industry. this is if you include all emissions not just co2 and take into account things like cement and chemicals. but you said "companies" which is so vague it can apply to both factories and cars burning oil.
@@johnnydollar579 I think that this is an incorrect way to look at things. Globally, you are probably correct. But vehicle pollution is focused in cities. It takes some time for it to get diluted in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, there are hotspots and I've felt it because in my city in the past 5 years the traffic has grown significantly. In the morning, when the traffic is dense, I feel it in my lungs, it stinks and I often even start caughing. I don't have a history of allergies, so it really did change.
this interview is from the 1970s when cars were much more inefficient, dirty, and burned lead ergo the clean air act of the 60's and its amendments which is what they are discussing, and is the reason you say "Cars produce so few particulate emissions" today. That's not always been true.
Here Milton forgot that no airbags means that more people need to be treated at hospitals and that is one way or another cost for the society. Same with pollution in the cities.
Yes, but those are somewhat different scenarios. With airbags, it's a cost not so much on society but rather the person in the vehicle that made that choice. Similar to how you decide to some extent which plan you buy for health insurance (HMO vs PPO, etc.). The only cost on society in such a scenario would be if the person is on some sort of government benefit for healthcare like Medicaid or Medicare. Which certainly would be a certain amount of cost impact to society, no doubt. But whether or not such programs should even exist is another discussion entirely. Plus, you'd also be saving lots of money from the lack of government employees needed to run the divisions that operate these regulatory bodies.
People treated in hospitals at their own cost.
Look, you can find some kind of externality (however small or immeasurable) for literally any free choice between parties. That does not justify government control in all of those cases.
@@SeraphsWitness everything comes at a cost for society. Insurance doesn’t cover your employer your friends and family. Not everyone has a insurance or a good one. Then there is all the suffering and so on. Society needs to make rules to help those that don’t care until it’s too late.
@@Top12Boardsport why should beaurocrats make those decisions, when we can vote with our dollars?
If everything has externalities, then you'll advocate for government control of everything. That's dangerous logic.
@@Top12Boardsport society need to help those that dont care until it's too late? lmao. so i can keep breaking my bones while you pay. i can go on not paying rent or working and you pay for my stimulus money
More here: th-cam.com/video/PMqr_uP8WzA/w-d-xo.html
#JustTaxPollution
And not accept medical assistance because i did not have airbags.
I'd say the second piece is how to use that money. It should not go into some huge common budget that serves thousands of purposes. Whatever amount of money is collected should be use to remove that pollution. Smaller communities and govs accountable for their actions is the way to go
The best way to handle it, IMO, is through a dividend akin to UBI. Carbon taxes are regressive in nature, and a dividend offsets that, limiting economic harm and providing a strong incentive for voters to keep the program around.
If they cared about pollution new cars wouldn’t come out yearly
And you cared about the poor, you wouldnt shit on commerce and enterprise.
Is that true that air pollution was already going down?
Yes, it was. Technology kept improving hence the reduction of emissions.
@@ricardocantoral7672 According to some sources air pollution began to fall when the clean air act was passed in 1970 when Nixon created the environmental protection agency. I’m a bit wary of Friedman’s assessment about airbags being a personal choice. Airbags, from my limited understanding reduce the societal costs of car accidents by reducing public health costs and reducing lost productivity by reducing the severity of injury from accidents. As an ignoramus I tend to feel that for whatever reason Friedman often ignores at least some of the economic costs borne by society. But I haven’t read enough of his works to make authoritatively informed criticism.
Co2 isn't pollution. Its a productivity tax. Decades show MMco2 doesn't cause it.
No pollution is no solution
Somebody needs to tell these libertarians that milton friedman supported taxes.
Many of them probably already know this.
In any case, Friedman concludes Capitalism and Freedom with his "classical liberal" (more accurately, libertarian) stance, that government should stay out of matters that do not need and should only involve itself when absolutely necessary for the survival of its people and the country.
He makes it very clear. The government should intervene when a third-party is affected. A third-party that didnt agree to what the first and second-parties agreed.
He is a consequentialist libertarian, and states that on a couple occasions. Anti-tax opinion is usually from the Natural Rights arm (Ayn Rand, etc.)
Did you watch the video? He explains clearly where taxes are needed, or beneficial.
Even Thomas Sowell, who was a Friedman student, says that in as much as he would be identified close to libertarianism, he sees Libertarianism as a whole as unrealistic. I guess its in matters like these.
The thing is that if we had started with moderate carbon taxes in the 80s, we could have smoothly transitioned to carbon-free technologies over the past 40 years and climate change would be a much smaller issue now and the US would probably lead the world in all kinds of green and electric technologies. And the power and influence of the oil-rich nations would have been greatly reduced as demand for their resources peaked early and began to fall.
But it didn't work like that, because the fossil fuel industry lobbied politicians in order to protect their profits. And just like that, the free market was no longer free, one actor had illegitimately enforced its interests. No competition, instead an ever-increasing path dependency on technology we knew was unsustainable and inefficient.
If Ronald Reagan had Jimmy Carter's understanding of environmental issues back then, we would now live in a better world.
Utopian's wishful thinking. As China and India are top 2 polluters now, the pollution is getting worse no matter what you do, even if you implement zero emission by stopping your economy completely.
@@AkiraNakamoto The thing about pollution is that it is a technical insufficiency.
In order to produce energy, we pollute.
But we have other technical solutions, but the money is made with fossil fuels, so these other solutions are suppressed.
If it weren't for the suppression, the global economy would have transitioned away from fossil fuel dependency over the past 4 decades and developing nations like China or India would have simply leapfrogged fossil technologies.
Fossil fuels after all are much more expensive than renewable energy. The only reason they are still competitive is because we subsidize them with 6.8% of the global GDP. Which is certifiyably insane.
Fossil fuel corporation spent billions upon billions to bribe politians and run propganda campaigns to block comprehensive climate action in order to protect their short term profits.
They have blood on their hands.
@@BangThaBazie You are living in the midair, my friend.
If you really care, you should travel to Beijing and do something in the Tian'an-men Square. I am sure you will return to the earthy ground after that.
@@AkiraNakamoto Well, China intends to dominate the key industries of the 21st century, which are renewable industries.
China invests accordingly.
They don't really care about climate change, but they care about dominating key global industries.
The West would also benefit from dominating these industries, but the existing dying fossil industries are so powerful still that they can block any and all transitionary steps.
So while the West is stuck with dying fossil industries making their last quick bucks at the cost of future generations, China is preparing to dominate the fundational industries (Energy, Transportation) of the 21st century.
Even from a business perspective, the West is simply getting fucked by its path dependencies and corruption. This isn't the free market at work, this the oligarchization of capitalism. Too much capital bunched up in too few hands and with that capital came political influence and with that influence the integrity of the market steadily declined and market mechanisms that would normally ensure self regulation didn't work anymore. Today we subsidize industries that destroy our planet, not because we don't have any alternatives, but because the alternatives don't have as powerful a lobby as fossil fuels do. Free market my ass.
If the West wants to stay ahead of China, it needs to get rid of the harmful influence of capital on politics, as capital's inerest is short term profit and not societal well-being, and sustainable progress.
The fact that China doesn't give a fuck about human rights is a secondary issue here. The US doesn't either and I have a hard time deciding whats worse: An authoritarian party dictatorship or an oligarchy with imperial aspirations driven by nothing but a profit motive. Evil hides just as well behind banale economic rationality as it does behind braindead party apparatchiks.
@@BangThaBazie . Your so-called "renewable industry" is not what you claimed here. Elon Musk doesn't sell his Tesla in the name of renewable industry, because his major moneybag SpaceX is not anything close to your "renewable industry". Also the midwest American farmers should be your idol of the "renewable industry" because they are the world largest producer of ethanol from corn crops, and ethanol is the real clean energy source, your batteries are not. China has no plan to produce ethanol, and their batteries and solar panels are generating non-trivial amount of pollution.
I guess cut off before we realize that a carbon tax is an incredibly mainstream free market theory
Air bags Mr Friedman , so its up to you to pay your medical expenses not the insurance company.
Crap argument.
how about lower insurance premiums for cars with airbags
Milty and Philly 200 million people in the USA china were all on bicycles
Dr. Friedman was a genius. Donahue not so much.
Well Friedman and his theory about shareholder primacy ended up being one of the worst things to happen in the 20th century. Kind of funny how that historical lesson flies over your head.
There are two full shows of he and Donahue. That's better than extracting one point. He is great to listen to for sure.
He saying it is my business if i want a seat belt or not.
What if you fly out of your cry and hit another car? In that case you need a seat belt.
Yes, lots of people have been flying out of their cars and hurting other people. What a huge issue.
There are minor or immeasurable externalities to every personal decision. Pointing that out does not stump for government regulation.
Drill baby drill
What is so bad about carbon dioxide?
It pollutes the air and exacerbates the greenhouse effect
@@samdrow8268 government needs to plant more trees…. ?
@@matthewnosal6893 That's only one piece of a larger puzzle.
@@matthewnosal6893 Insted of the goverment needing to do all the work just tax carbon and let the free market do its thing. If the tax is good enough (in this case high enough) private companies and consumers will automatically seek alternatives because they want to make profits.
It works in Europe and it would work in America.
It has to do with tonnage released by mechanical processes that aren't happening from nature. There's nothing wrong with water either but we have dehumidifiers in homes to prevent mold and obviously a tidal wave or flooding is a problem.
Friedman’s ideas are often fundamentally correct without being practical. Libertarianism in a nutshell.
I hold Air-Bags sacrosanct.
Old milt smoked a LOT of dope.
Always disliked Phil Donahue.
The deep thinkers always do.
It is time to get right with Jesus. nobody is automatically gonna go to heaven at the end of it, we all have lied or stolen or had sex before marriage and the punishment is hell. Jesus died so you can get a clean slate and forgiveness of a future sin when we confess and forsake it. When you start to follow him you have to strive to obey what he commands. Read the Bible!!
No one will enter heaven without the blood of Jesus. No other way but through Jesus!!!!
Amen, Christ Follower, I would say these men were were working for the other side.
Why do consumers need to bear the cost of pollution ? The big companies producing the cars should pay that tax not us.
@@zuggthaboss7066 companies have the capability to put out more efficient products. They don’t do it because it’s not cheap. They are driven by profit and don’t care about the environment. People can only buy what’s on the market. If you put more efficient cars people will buy them.
@@antiquarian1773 companies put out what you buy as long as you buy these cars they will produce them thats how capitalism works and thats why its the consumers responsibility (i mean it all depends on your decision whether you buy an electric car or a combustion engine model)
@@antiquarian1773
You don't understand economics at all.
Corporations don't actually pay taxes. Taxes are a cost of doing business, passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher prices.
@@antiquarian1773 "people can only buy what's on the market" or they can vote to have public transit and emissions standards. or *ghasp* have the government mandate the manufacturing of electric cars like they did with EV1 a decade before the first tesla and should have kept going.
The airbag comment didn't age well..
Why not? Makes sense to me. People should be allowed to make their own decisions in regards to their personal safety.
Long live freedom and democratic socialism
TOTAL RUBBISH
Milton wasn't an economist. He was a salesman to ideology.
Milton Friedman is the father of denial and predator politics in my opinion.
Huh?
@@zachjohnson637 Milton was a one trick pony. Government is bad and corporations are great. He did not offer objectivity to either one. Unfortunately people weren't able to see it because he was a good debater with catch phrases to moved audiences.
I'm against mandated airbags, wow and that won a Nobel prize
It's the division line between a Lockean mindset and a Hobbesian mindset. You cross the line by invading private space that only affects the person himself/herself. A Lockean is against the invasion, while a Hobbesian vouches for it.
He’s against the process behind it. The government creates demand for something artificially and then forces private corporations to satisfy this demand on their own costs. But he won his Nobel price for his monetary theory and research.
@@Niko_from_Kepler neoliberalism, the privatisation of all public services and assets, deregulation, casualisation/ commodification of labor, war against the so-called welfare state, the social-economic theory turned ideology where 'more is never enough' sustainability a dirty word, loves autocratic rule. Trickle di trickle da trickery done effects of ever lower taxes for big corporations and individual selfish morons organising 'joy' flights to space.
@@jaaksavat7916 the fact that praxis differs a lot from theory, is not a surprise. In case of Milton Friedman, there were tons of evidence and calculations to support his theory with only little criticism. Reagan and other politicians messed up the system, but that doesn’t mean that the theory is wrong.
@@Niko_from_Kepler neoliberalism was accepted 50 years ago by left and right alike, even Foucault flirted with neoliberalism. You might not have seen the social fabric, mentality changing over the decades but I did besides incarceration rates, homelessness and global poverty, displacement, slavery being unprecedented. Now we'll soon have the first individual trillionairs and the trickle di trickle da trickery done effects was for most a 'golden' shower. Neoliberalism resulted in a system is totally out of balance and now the trumpsollini fox news murdoch combo trying to overthrow democracy. China embraced Neoliberalism and hayek's love for autocracy is well known.
Not really a libertarian
You know - Chicago University is the Berkeley of the Midwest -
and, he got accepted like anyone could but his Ideas - ridiculous. Read the History of his era and his wonderful republicanism
Yeah, the idea of taxing pollution is nuts isn't it? That's why no countries have carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes to limit CO2 emissions.
Back when conservatives were sensible
He was a libertarian, he was never considered a Conservative
@@Joverover "small l libertarian, big R Republican for expediency"
@@Joverover I thought he was a librarian.
I'll show myself out.
Back when our leftist media would allow anyone who dared defy them speak.
@@MikehMike01 if right wingers were being silenced, then why don't y'all ever shut the fuck up?
He has a one word philosophy ...... "Selfishness".... typical trumpnik in today's terms
👍