Good ol' Milton Friedman, big enough to admit that the free market is not God, and smart enough to give a viable fix for its imperfections, like its unfortunate tendency to leave behind the poor. Undoubtedly my favorite libertarian thinker.
This is often described as "neoliberalism" rather than "classical liberalism". Friedman was revising liberalism as people were losing faith in Keynesian theories. Friedman did actually have SOME similarities with Keynes, such as the view that government should run deficits to stimulate the economy in recession. That's quite different from the Jeffersonian classical liberals.
The problem with some of these points is that they assume that certain things cannot be provided without the governmental intervention. Take the military, for example. I can envision a system in which the government plays no role in funding and maintaining the military, and instead the military is funded via charity and crowdfunding campaigns on a voluntary basis. The regulation is provided by market forces, as people pay the military businesses whose regulations they support, and do not pay those whose they do not. I do not know whether such a system would be better than what the government provides, or even if it would be viable at all. But I do not think we should immediately extend the governmental powers in order to provide us with the military, not even considering the possibility of the market-driven military. Same goes for every other role of the government the Chicago school postulates.
military defense could be organised as property insurance against wars. you could choose not to pay, but in case of wars one who paid the insurance could claim reparation fee for damaged one's property. i think it's a matter of imagination of setting up a functional property right framework that can solve problems case by case with consistent principal. i find using principal to guide could lead to more innovative solutions than just stick to a compromise and stay there forever.
Society organizes people without government all the time, that's not what a government is. A government is simply a group of people given the legitimacy to use the initiation of force against a group of people in a specific geographical location. What you should realize is that it isn't the market that doesn't care about morality, it's government that uses the initiation of force that is immoral.
What is interesting about Milton Friedman is that on a number of occasions he endorsed the tax policy reforms embraced by Henry George (i.e., the public collection of the rent of land). Yet, it is unclear whether Friedman grasped the larger implications of this change in how government ought to raise revenue. Other economists who more completely studied Henry George's theory of business cycles (e.g., Harry Gunnison Brown, Mason Gaffney, William Vickrey, Fred Foldvary and Joseph Stiglitz) have agreed with Henry George that his key policy recommendations would contribute to a much less volatile economy.
Doesn’t georgism not work in modern day cause capital production in the age of the internet is not directly related to property. You can make a lot of money with a small amount of land
@@jasperfitzgerald2760 Nine years later and I am still around to respond. The public capture of the economic rent of land (and all other natural assets, such as frequencies on the broadcast spectrum) leads to highest, best use of such natural assets. Once one compensates the community for the privilege of controlling some parcel of land, the financial obligation of that individual to the community is satisfied. In those places around the planet where the rate of taxation on land is much higher than on improvements, the result is more investment in new construction and building renovation and fewer and fewer vacant lots.
I think I'm I agree with the Chicago school more than the others. I went from nothing to libertarian, particularly the Austrian then to this. I wouldn't call poverty a negative externality though.
I am having difficulty with the differencing between classical liberalism and libertarianism other than hearing libertarianism is more radical than classical liberalism. Can you explain it to me?
We hope that by July 31, 2013, as the world will celebrate Milton Friedman’s 101st birthday, we will see economists giving him honor not as the savior of capitalism and champion of free market, but a hero of a new form of Keynesianism. And I think that would be honest.
I'm basing my solution on Anarcho-Capitalist principles, not the Coase Theorem. Property rights already extend to the air of the proximity of one's property. I can't build a walkway over someone's house right? The same rules would still apply. If a company or person is producing pollution that is effecting me physically and directly when standing in my own property they're inflicting on my property rights and personal liberties.
Can you provide other examples of public goods? I would like to know which other functions that Friedman believed the government should perform. Also are public goods similar to economies of scale?
That belief can be used to justify the Fed. Yet there are other ways to increase the money supply also, so even if one accepts the premise of increasing money supply, it does not inherently justify the Fed and government intervention. Freedom in money, and not violating the non-aggression principle, would be morally and economically superior.
@@alexanderturner1234 Just because David Friedman is the son of Milton Friedman or he lives in the United States where the town Chicago is situated does not automatically make him belonging to the Chicago School of Economics. Just like FA Hayek was originally Austrian but later moved to the United States is called as being belonging to the Chicago School of Economics since he was a Minachist whereas Murray Rothbard is called as an Austrian since later on, the Austrian School tended to become more anarchist than minarchist. So its all based on the thoughts which you advocate and not the location where you are situated or were originally belonging to since these are both "Schools of Thoughts" and not schools based on geographical locations.
It's irrelevant that we currently don't know how it'll work or that I can't explain it. Simply because we don't know now how it'll be implemented doesn't change the philosophical fact that the enforcement of one's property rights are moral. In America, people didn't know what slaves would do if they were freed, that doesn't change the fact that slavery is immoral.
What's interesting here is that the supreme court has eliminated half of your point 1 for what government is supposed to do. In 2005 it ruled that the police have NO OBLIGATION to protect individuals.
Raising minimum wage only benefits some people for a limited time. As the market assumes what people can afford the worth of the minimum wage returns to it's original value. This short term benefit does not out weigh the job shortage created by it's boost.
You don't have to resort to spiel from Stefan Molyneux. You are allowed to think for yourself. The fact is that the pollutor has initiated force on the fish farmer and he has got no retribution, so the initiation of force is in the picture.
Look at the difference between the private police forces and fire depts of the early 1800s in New York. They were predatory groups who had no loyalty to the health, safety, and well being of the people they policed and were beholden to corporate interests and powerful people instead and normal people were the ones who were affected for the worse. It was not until public police and fire depts developed with a mandate to maintain ethical goals that normal people gained some level of protection.
Money is a poor substitute for government because you simply end up handing power over to those who are the best at coercing people out of their money. Whether the most effective way is hard work (unlikely) or violence and deception (much more likely). Counterbalance is *necessary*. What we have now is collaboration between money and government, which is a corruption of the system, I agree. But the answer lies not in destroying one or the other, but massive reform to restore proper purpose.
7:18 Could anyone point me to a video or book where Friedman discusses welfare more in depth? I know he proposed a negative income tax, this video has got me wondering what else he supported, if anything.
Not realistically in all cases. Let's say pollutants which are hard to trace the source of cause acid rain and destroy some person's fish farm stock. How does the fish farmer get retribution? Or is it just accepted that he can't and should have insurance.
I'm suggesting to rid all government and privatize everything yes - I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. There would also be an incentive to pay hardly anything to take a stroll in a park because no one will pay $30-$40 for it, therefore they'd go out of business. The argument isn't how it'll work or how much it'll cost because Morality is the goal. You obviously never did any research on Anarcho-Capitalism if you have so many questions. I recommend you watch some Stefan Molyneux before debating this.
Why wouldn't someone have insurance on their property in the first place? It isn't unrealistic because whomever was causing the pollution in a distant area would most likely be dealing with people around them, most likely having this acid rain never occurring. It's amazing what the minds of billions of people can come up with, so don't subject your and my ideas to what is possible.
I wouldn't say it is *everything* w/ value. Some things that r of value to ppl can't be monetized. But wealth is everything of value. & my point was that value was created by ppl by the human mind. Also resources are not simply the stuff in the ground which makes u think they're finite. (yes I know all abt star dust) In order for that stuff to be of any use they first had to be recognized as such by someone otherwise it would remain as "stuff" in the earth. The mind creates resources
you are right, as jefferson alluded to all government become amoral in short time, the one in this land has been overdue a change or maybe just elimination. the employees need to be life imprisoned though
"Libertarianism is Utopia. You intrinsically believe people that have money will always do right. These past 30 years have proven that theory wrong." this is not me saying it okay. its one of my friend who said it. what can i say about this statement. please commentators and @learnliberty how....what...hmm.. where do i even begin?
your big fallacy is that people may not want what is called police work (which turn out to be crime) nor fake protection by military of attacks from windmills, freedom does not exist in a land forcing any tax on any individual, government should have to perform just as as a free enterprise entity, and if they cannot convince without force that they are indeed providing a needed service than they should just accept that they are not deserving
Indeed, that is where it all begins ...in our formative experiences in the language of reason, evidence and liberty, or in the language of force, threat and oppression.
I'm slowly getting tired of the presentation of increasing the minimum wage as an entirely negative policy. Australia has an very high minimum wage, but has an unemployment level far lower than UK, US etc. That is not to say there are issues with a high minimum wage, but positives are never demonstrated.
And what do you think there is now? The armies are private for the politicians. I would rather have individuals be in control. Somalia lol. This is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about. Instead of regurgitating what you hear on the tv, try doing your own research. /watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI /watch?v=OBuPECU0_P0
Poor ppl are an externality b/c...we don't want them around? Why? They're unsightly? And that's why he advocates a welfare state? What happened to inidivid. rights and private charity?
Ah, yes. Private armies. Because nothing says stability like thousands of fiefdoms enforcing their authority at gunpoint. I would rather not follow the example of Somalia, thank you.
Milton Friedman was a genius. I never get bored watching his videos. When he talks I listen.
Good ol' Milton Friedman, big enough to admit that the free market is not God, and smart enough to give a viable fix for its imperfections, like its unfortunate tendency to leave behind the poor. Undoubtedly my favorite libertarian thinker.
Instablaster...
Nigel Ashford is a genius and is such a nice guy in person. He's wonderful.
This guy should do audiobooks. His voice is a pleasure to listen to. Very relaxing.
4:29 - that rage haha.
That was funny lol
I wish there were podcasts of these recordings
7:15 3 B) This could be solved with the emphasis of one's property rights, not extensive government regulation.
It depends on the pollution. Some are easier to integrate into the market than others
And who enforces the property rights in the case of disputes?
This is often described as "neoliberalism" rather than "classical liberalism". Friedman was revising liberalism as people were losing faith in Keynesian theories. Friedman did actually have SOME similarities with Keynes, such as the view that government should run deficits to stimulate the economy in recession. That's quite different from the Jeffersonian classical liberals.
The problem with some of these points is that they assume that certain things cannot be provided without the governmental intervention.
Take the military, for example. I can envision a system in which the government plays no role in funding and maintaining the military, and instead the military is funded via charity and crowdfunding campaigns on a voluntary basis. The regulation is provided by market forces, as people pay the military businesses whose regulations they support, and do not pay those whose they do not.
I do not know whether such a system would be better than what the government provides, or even if it would be viable at all. But I do not think we should immediately extend the governmental powers in order to provide us with the military, not even considering the possibility of the market-driven military. Same goes for every other role of the government the Chicago school postulates.
military defense could be organised as property insurance against wars. you could choose not to pay, but in case of wars one who paid the insurance could claim reparation fee for damaged one's property.
i think it's a matter of imagination of setting up a functional property right framework that can solve problems case by case with consistent principal. i find using principal to guide could lead to more innovative solutions than just stick to a compromise and stay there forever.
Society organizes people without government all the time, that's not what a government is. A government is simply a group of people given the legitimacy to use the initiation of force against a group of people in a specific geographical location.
What you should realize is that it isn't the market that doesn't care about morality, it's government that uses the initiation of force that is immoral.
What is interesting about Milton Friedman is that on a number of occasions he endorsed the tax policy reforms embraced by Henry George (i.e., the public collection of the rent of land). Yet, it is unclear whether Friedman grasped the larger implications of this change in how government ought to raise revenue. Other economists who more completely studied Henry George's theory of business cycles (e.g., Harry Gunnison Brown, Mason Gaffney, William Vickrey, Fred Foldvary and Joseph Stiglitz) have agreed with Henry George that his key policy recommendations would contribute to a much less volatile economy.
Doesn’t georgism not work in modern day cause capital production in the age of the internet is not directly related to property. You can make a lot of money with a small amount of land
@@jasperfitzgerald2760 Nine years later and I am still around to respond. The public capture of the economic rent of land (and all other natural assets, such as frequencies on the broadcast spectrum) leads to highest, best use of such natural assets. Once one compensates the community for the privilege of controlling some parcel of land, the financial obligation of that individual to the community is satisfied. In those places around the planet where the rate of taxation on land is much higher than on improvements, the result is more investment in new construction and building renovation and fewer and fewer vacant lots.
I think I'm I agree with the Chicago school more than the others. I went from nothing to libertarian, particularly the Austrian then to this. I wouldn't call poverty a negative externality though.
The thing I disagree with Friedman on is monetary policy. He was a monetarist.
I am having difficulty with the differencing between classical liberalism and libertarianism other than hearing libertarianism is more radical than classical liberalism.
Can you explain it to me?
We hope that by July 31, 2013, as the world will celebrate Milton Friedman’s 101st birthday, we will see economists giving him honor not as the savior of capitalism and champion of free market, but a hero of a new form of Keynesianism. And I think that would be honest.
awesome video!!
Coase Theorem where possible, yes, but how do you define property rights for the air?
I'm basing my solution on Anarcho-Capitalist principles, not the Coase Theorem. Property rights already extend to the air of the proximity of one's property. I can't build a walkway over someone's house right? The same rules would still apply. If a company or person is producing pollution that is effecting me physically and directly when standing in my own property they're inflicting on my property rights and personal liberties.
Can you provide other examples of public goods? I would like to know which other functions that Friedman believed the government should perform. Also are public goods similar to economies of scale?
Our public dialogue on the role of government, indeed our democracy, would greatly benefit if our electorate payed attention to lectures on civics
He forgot to mention monetary policy: Friedman believed that a money supply should grow with the economy. This would justify the Federal Reserve.
That belief can be used to justify the Fed. Yet there are other ways to increase the money supply also, so even if one accepts the premise of increasing money supply, it does not inherently justify the Fed and government intervention.
Freedom in money, and not violating the non-aggression principle, would be morally and economically superior.
Great video! I can't quite place the gentleman's accent; are there any people from the UK who can recognize it? Is he Northern Irish?
So, Chicago economics is essentially minarchist economics.
killer14bee
David D. Friedman is an anarcho-capitalist and Chicago School economist. Chicago School economics isn't inherently minarchist.
What about the idea that they want a central bank? That's what I was told!
killer14bee
That's a subset of Chicago School economists, namely monetarists.
@@alexanderturner1234 Just because David Friedman is the son of Milton Friedman or he lives in the United States where the town Chicago is situated does not automatically make him belonging to the Chicago School of Economics. Just like FA Hayek was originally Austrian but later moved to the United States is called as being belonging to the Chicago School of Economics since he was a Minachist whereas Murray Rothbard is called as an Austrian since later on, the Austrian School tended to become more anarchist than minarchist. So its all based on the thoughts which you advocate and not the location where you are situated or were originally belonging to since these are both "Schools of Thoughts" and not schools based on geographical locations.
@@vidyanandbapat8032 Wow did you ever miss his point.
It's irrelevant that we currently don't know how it'll work or that I can't explain it. Simply because we don't know now how it'll be implemented doesn't change the philosophical fact that the enforcement of one's property rights are moral. In America, people didn't know what slaves would do if they were freed, that doesn't change the fact that slavery is immoral.
What's interesting here is that the supreme court has eliminated half of your point 1 for what government is supposed to do. In 2005 it ruled that the police have NO OBLIGATION to protect individuals.
Raising minimum wage only benefits some people for a limited time. As the market assumes what people can afford the worth of the minimum wage returns to it's original value. This short term benefit does not out weigh the job shortage created by it's boost.
@Lord Kenyon exactly
This is fantastic.
Can you look at Austrian School?
You don't have to resort to spiel from Stefan Molyneux. You are allowed to think for yourself. The fact is that the pollutor has initiated force on the fish farmer and he has got no retribution, so the initiation of force is in the picture.
Look up "Myth of the Rational Voter". It is a lecture about this guys book of the same title posted by Learn Liberty.
Look at the difference between the private police forces and fire depts of the early 1800s in New York. They were predatory groups who had no loyalty to the health, safety, and well being of the people they policed and were beholden to corporate interests and powerful people instead and normal people were the ones who were affected for the worse. It was not until public police and fire depts developed with a mandate to maintain ethical goals that normal people gained some level of protection.
Chicago School > Everything else in this series.
At least in my opinion. The view count on the videos in the series would agree with me though.
Money is a poor substitute for government because you simply end up handing power over to those who are the best at coercing people out of their money. Whether the most effective way is hard work (unlikely) or violence and deception (much more likely). Counterbalance is *necessary*. What we have now is collaboration between money and government, which is a corruption of the system, I agree. But the answer lies not in destroying one or the other, but massive reform to restore proper purpose.
I quit college; I can just watch 166 videos and be a politician/teacher.
Love your accent.
I do not agree... central park in NY for example is not orivate property. Such a park will therefore not be protected by private property rights.
7:18 Could anyone point me to a video or book where Friedman discusses welfare more in depth? I know he proposed a negative income tax, this video has got me wondering what else he supported, if anything.
NIT, Voucher system...
Not realistically in all cases. Let's say pollutants which are hard to trace the source of cause acid rain and destroy some person's fish farm stock. How does the fish farmer get retribution? Or is it just accepted that he can't and should have insurance.
I'm suggesting to rid all government and privatize everything yes - I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. There would also be an incentive to pay hardly anything to take a stroll in a park because no one will pay $30-$40 for it, therefore they'd go out of business. The argument isn't how it'll work or how much it'll cost because Morality is the goal.
You obviously never did any research on Anarcho-Capitalism if you have so many questions. I recommend you watch some Stefan Molyneux before debating this.
Why wouldn't someone have insurance on their property in the first place? It isn't unrealistic because whomever was causing the pollution in a distant area would most likely be dealing with people around them, most likely having this acid rain never occurring. It's amazing what the minds of billions of people can come up with, so don't subject your and my ideas to what is possible.
Sir. You sure got me there :)
I wouldn't say it is *everything* w/ value. Some things that r of value to ppl can't be monetized. But wealth is everything of value. & my point was that value was created by ppl by the human mind. Also resources are not simply the stuff in the ground which makes u think they're finite. (yes I know all abt star dust) In order for that stuff to be of any use they first had to be recognized as such by someone otherwise it would remain as "stuff" in the earth. The mind creates resources
you are right, as jefferson alluded to all government become amoral in short time, the one in this land has been overdue a change or maybe just elimination. the employees need to be life imprisoned though
every government employee involved in the violation of human rights, they took an oath to the opposite
"the employees need to be life imprisoned though"
What...?
Exactly, so you propose to sue a factory 100 miles away for polluting your property. Let's see how that goes.
Oh, you meant "the employees need to be imprisoned for life though."
interesting
Source? Please don't give me a public school textbook.
"Libertarianism is Utopia. You intrinsically believe people that have money will always do right. These past 30 years have proven that theory wrong." this is not me saying it okay. its one of my friend who said it. what can i say about this statement.
please commentators and @learnliberty
how....what...hmm..
where do i even begin?
Solution: Make it a private park.
4:28 lol x)
your big fallacy is that people may not want what is called police work (which turn out to be crime) nor fake protection by military of attacks from windmills, freedom does not exist in a land forcing any tax on any individual, government should have to perform just as as a free enterprise entity, and if they cannot convince without force that they are indeed providing a needed service than they should just accept that they are not deserving
So basically, you can't answer that.
Define government.
I Think that Im a Chicagoan
Peaceful Parenting.
Indeed, that is where it all begins ...in our formative experiences in the language of reason, evidence and liberty, or in the language of force, threat and oppression.
I'm slowly getting tired of the presentation of increasing the minimum wage as an entirely negative policy. Australia has an very high minimum wage, but has an unemployment level far lower than UK, US etc. That is not to say there are issues with a high minimum wage, but positives are never demonstrated.
And what do you think there is now? The armies are private for the politicians. I would rather have individuals be in control.
Somalia lol. This is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about. Instead of regurgitating what you hear on the tv, try doing your own research.
/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI
/watch?v=OBuPECU0_P0
You've never heard of private security, private police, and private armies in today's world? It'd be even better in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Poor ppl are an externality b/c...we don't want them around? Why? They're unsightly? And that's why he advocates a welfare state? What happened to inidivid. rights and private charity?
Ah, yes. Private armies. Because nothing says stability like thousands of fiefdoms enforcing their authority at gunpoint. I would rather not follow the example of Somalia, thank you.