This dude was a prophet, his predictions of the impact of heavier reliance on the government versus individual responsibility for one’s welfare were spot on. The world needs more sensible, realistic, truth-tellers like Milton Friedman. What a brilliant economist and statistician! He will remain to be sorely missed!
I loved watching civil discussion part - question and answer. Nobody was screaming "REEEEEE, raycist! You want no money for nobody!" Calm, full of argumentation and Milton never stepped away from the point. I can't recall modern university lectures or discussions without activists trying to shut professors up with the scream.
I'm from France, i've done some calculations the same way Milton does and i found that the total amount of "welfare" subsidies divided by the number of "poor people" amounts to about 7000$ per month per capita ! All the money goes to the bureaucratic state machinery....Milton is right, fact checking is easy to do with internet now.
We need people today who can articulate ideas in this calm and forthright manner. He doesn't seem to use language in way that is used in our present time, aimed at belittling those who may differ. I wish people could, would,and should argue.with present opposing views in the way he does. Loved listening to him.
Looking back at these, I realize how much of an influence Milton was on my thinking. RIP, sir. He is so right when he talks about the money just going to create jobs programs. Still going on today.
I found it very contradictory since Friedman was proposing UBI by that time. Isn't it the same that just give money to poor people through the government?
@@skaterseye Are you dense? He of course favored removing all welfare completely because if the money never gets transferred and wasted in the first place a lot more money would end up in the hands of people who actually need it. The negative income tax was a way to remove the mal incentive that people on welfare were being subjected to, which is, they are better off not working then they are working, they literally make more money not working. Milton proposed the negative income to solve that issue. Now of course, in his own words he would say we would be much better off with no welfare system at all. And, he would be absolutely right people, including those being "helped" would be better off.
People today know his name. Unfortunately people today will never hear his message. This man uses logic to defeat those who believe they deserve to reap the reward of success by those who are not them just because they exist. Brilliant
Today's people are no more brilliant or stupid than the people in the past. But because of the badly constructed system, it forms a prisoners' dilemma in which it is of everyone's best interest to not cooperate with, even betray each other for the best interest of himself/herself. The situation is bad, but everything is perfectly logical.
Are we realy that stupid, after 40 years nothing have changed even got worse around the world in every nation, all the same problems. Education system is terrible.
The biggest problem, as explained in economy theory, is that the equilibrium, despite being very stable, does not necessarily produce a good result to you and me and everybody else. The prisoners' dilemma proves that, with a terribly constructed system, it is to everyone's best interest to betray everyone else, despite the fact that there is an opportunity to achieve common good. Unfortunately, we are now trapped by one of these bad equilibrium. The society is so polarized that achieving anything at all is basically impossible. There are two ways of winning: one is by achieving better result than your opponent, in which case the society eventually becomes better; one is by stopping your opponent from achieving better result, in which case, the society makes no progress. And the latter case is where we are right now.
@@Alex-bp5df Here in the UK our state healthcare and education are a disaster. And what makes it worse is the people who advocate them the most are the people who can afford not to use either.
What a genius- clear thinking, logical and relatively easy to understand with his lucid analogies. He might have been one of the few that can pull this off. :)
"He and those who share his views, again believe themselves to be an elite who know what is good for the ordinary man, who again do not wish to impose their views on the ordinary man , also should recognize the superiority of the elite, and assign to them the task of choosing what goods they consume, what products are available and so on...." Gotta love Friedman's humor.
Welfare , including rent controls and rent subsidies only purpose is to keep people from moving out of failed local economy and only benefits the local politicians who don't loos voters and therefor power.
Such a good point about how you might be able to get a special interest perk at the expense of other taxpayers. But that perk is canceled out by everyone else's special interest bennies being paid for by you.
Free markets too produce regimentation. The people who are dependant on a certain group of buyers for example, are not entirely free to express their opinion on them for fear of retaliation or boycott. Or they may fear to undermine their capacity to buy their goods and services so they could develop a tendency to support their financial wellbeing. So the two of them tend to form some sort of a coalition of shared interests. Of course they can always form new coalition with other groups which will decrease regimentation but it's a slow process.
In Europe we have social liberalism and works great. Europe is much better than USA for normal people (middle class and lower class), as we have universal healthcare any many other things. Welfare doesn't destroy economy. Wake up!!!
I guess what throws you off the type of people that apply for Welfare. Yes, we are all liberal, and we believe in Welfare states similar to quantum physics. We want to think that it is our saving to be used during bad days. Welfare is not healthcare. That being said if you are disabled Welfare is probably not for you. We can think of approximations, like approximately right! Similar to negotiations. Say, we realize that tuition is not free of charge, we don't guarantee good education, we can offer one... My high school was a disaster, of really poor quality. Shall I not be raised in Armenia, I would not get into a good school with my grades. Was I good student? - sure. Did I feel like going against what is wrong, like education quality. Now people that are silent are winners. One, the silently do the work and understand that in this world you just have to be self sufficient. Now, believing in votes, I believed that we have to correct what is wrong. If we see wrong, we report wrong. Did teachers have food to eat in Armenia, no. They probably were suffering from scurvy, that is how little the salary was. Now, I am dual citizen, and what I saw in America was exactly the same. Some schools were of poor quality, and teacher's salary had nothing to do with it. How so, I ask. So, where there is no integrity, salary won't help? Integrity means that if you get paid, you have to do what you are being paid for. Paid for teaching, turns into divide salary into hours? I just don't agree with administration for hours? The truth is we all have psychological issues called clinical depression, which is becoming huge in everyones lives, and so these are your welfare people. People that are suffering from depression, something that Government does not pay much attention in their calculations. Where does the depression come from? The system, from the environment. Depression is an environmental issue.
I think the welfare state is bad because it produces more individual that need welfare. That's because poor people if helped economically, that is provided with enough food and medical care, have many more children than people who are better off. This set in motion a dysgenic trend that ultimately will make the welfare state collapse. From noble intentions a disaster comes out instead. Helping individuals who are less endowed to cope with life is morally commendable but the help must not be given unconditionally. If they want to be helped they need to make no or less children.
In Europe we have social liberalism and works great. Europe is much better than USA for normal people (middle class and lower class). Welfare doesn't destroy economy.
@@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks isn't socialism and liberalism together an oxymoron? I.e the group decides for the individual which freedoms they will give him paid by his own money, regardless if the person needs them or not? It doesn't destroy the economy, but it does slow its growth, as the government does not spend money efficiently.
I'm a huge fan of Milton Friedman, and I also believe there are some major problems with Higher Education today, but I do disagree with him on this particular point. Keep in mind that he was making his argument when a greater percentage of college graduates were majoring in things like Engineering, and not woke studies that teach people what to think rather than how to think. My response is 100% based on that situation. I once was curious who actually pays for Higher Education. I sat down and looked up the average wage for a High School Graduate. I then looked up the average wage for someone with a Bachelor's Degree. I admit I made a ton of assumptions on this, but I then assumed the average college graduate works for an average of 30 years, and the average High School Graduate works for 37 years. I made that assumption because it takes 30 years to become eligible for a lot of retirement benefits, but I wanted to give the High School Graduate the extra 7 years of pay for the years they didn't go to college. My state has an income tax of 5%. I took the difference between the lifetime salary of an average High School Graduate for my state and the average Bachelor's Degree and multiplied that by 5%. Ignoring the time value of money and potential increases in wages in the future, this gave me the extra taxes I could expect a college graduate to pay to the state over the course of their working life as a result of their college degree. The extra taxes a college graduate pays to the state was SIGNIFICANTLY more than the state would pay to provide a college education for that graduate. Now I know this isn't the whole story. We also have to consider the 75% of people who only go the first year and end up dropping out and that some make WAY more than average and some make WAY less than average. But that actually is the next point. The point is that the state can afford to run these numbers on averages. For every person that is below the average, there is another person above the average to cancel them out. However, as an individual if I take the risk of going to college and that bet doesn't work out for me for one of many possible reasons, I could personally have crushing student debt for the rest of my life that could sabotage my productivity. For example, I know a nurse who was hit by a drunk driver, and because of the brain damage she received she had her nursing license pulled because they were worried she could no longer be a safe nurse with the brain damage. Any person on an individual basis runs the risk of paying the cost and not getting the benefit. However, because the state can spread the risk over many people, as long as the average college graduate continues to make enough more than the average high school graduate the state will have a guaranteed return on investment for the program as a whole, even if the state happens to lose out on a few individuals. Of course, the reason college graduates make more than high school graduates is because in theory they have learned marketable skills and have learned how to think. If college degrees don't increase the value of a graduate's work (on average), then college degrees ultimately become worthless to employers and to the state. But my point is if the typical college graduate pays WAY more in lifetime taxes due to a college degree than the government subsidizes that degree, the government is actually getting a return on that particular investment. That also doesn't include the benefit of students that may have a desire to go, but who couldn't possibly afford it themselves, and who might ultimately have turned to crime or have stayed in their houses living off of welfare having panic attacks because without the option of a college education they don't have a lot of other marketable skills to offer to employers. For example, someone with severe autism and ADHD might be an amazing computer programmer or engineer, but without help getting into and through college they may not have the social skills to convince a normal employer to take them on as an apprentice or have the social skills to navigate taking out the necessary student loans to pursue the degree. Our current system might still discriminate against these kinds of students. Students who have the support of families can probably navigate the system, but students who don't have the support of families and have these kinds of conditions could easily end up being underutilized in our system where they could provide tremendous value and pay into the tax system if the state just provided a free computer programming or engineering degree to anyone who wanted to pursue one and could keep their grades up.
Also, just as a general point, I don't believe my parents should be obligated to pay for my education, even if they can afford it. What if my parents don't like the fact that I left the family religion and want to take that out on me? What if my parents are anti-college and want me to go straight into business, but I think my interests are best served going to college? Once I am an adult, I should be allowed to be an adult. My parents shouldn't be required to subsidize my education, but at the same time I as a student shouldn't be prohibited from getting financial support just because my parents are rich. Just because they are rich, that doesn't mean I am rich. And even if I am rich, the cost of an education and the opportunity cost of not working during classes is extremely costly and can be enough to make it impossible for me to go back. Upper middle class is not rich enough to make the cost of going to college prohibitive. That would only be true for the truly wealthy. And if I have siblings, the cost of all siblings going to college is that much worse. I always found it funny that the cost of my K-12 education is automatically covered without question no matter my parents' income and assets even though those are the ages when my parents are actually genuinely financially responsible for me, but suddenly when I am actually an adult and my parents aren't supposed to be financially responsible for me any more suddenly every government program out there is going to penalize me for my parents' wealth, and I am now in a place where I have to ask them to risk their financial security and potentially take out loans to give me the opportunity to go to college. Asking my parents to take out loans just because the loan companies will let them do so is definitely where I draw the line. Fortunately for me, my parents are poor and I had an academic scholarship on top of that, but if my parents had been rich I know for sure I would not have gone to college. And that quite frankly would have destroyed my life because I am one of those autistic/ADHD people who basically only has one skill to sell to my employers to make up for my many weaknesses in others - my degree.
I love it! Dude tries to make Rockefeller look bad in terms of the Robber Baron issue of 1850 in terms of energy innovation when oil wasn’t even in the picture yet, but he was one of the pioneers of oil🤓 What a dumb.... I guess he really wants to run back to his seat really fast😂
Providing to senior citizens? I'm sorry but this is the only thing I disagree with. I PAID!! For 46 years, and for a few more, I will pay. This was MY money, and I had no choice about giving it. But had I been able to just have that money, I could retire comfortably. The rest I agree on. But Social Security? Neve was I given a choice!
Jo Schwendt That’s the whole point of Friedman’s argument. Since the Great Depression forward we are all losing our freedoms the founding fathers intended for us. Slowly but surely. Death by a thousand cuts. And we can’t blame anyone but ourselves. The young labor force today should be given the option to voluntarily pay into Social Security and hope their money is still there when they reach retirement age, OR opt out of SS and be responsible for their own retirement fund. Personal irresponsibility is the character flaw too many people have now. And like spoiled children they expect Big Brother to cover the bad consequences of their own irresponsible decisions.
Jo Schwendt The social security you paid in was not stored up for your use. It was paid out to the people retiring at that time. It was simply a tax like any other and social security benefits are simply welfare like any other. When social security started it was withheld from wage earners and immediately paid out to people who had never paid in. It’s a pondsy scheme. The first people in are the winners and the last people in get screwed. You can’t look at it as your personal savings account. It’s just taxes taken in and welfare paid out.
@@fivebooks8498if security is a pondsy scheme how do you suggest government could end it? That dude who paid 46 years out of his income gets f* up? That doenst seem right. Maybe a transition rule in wich thos who contribute can get their money worth back
The founders of our republic, solved this problem at the same time they implemented our constitution. They passed the Hamilton Tariff Act of 1789. The concept of protecting our markets by implementing the concept of reciprocal trade. They allowed industry to develop in America behind the walls of protection. As a result of that wisdom, the greatest manufacturing economy in history developed, producing the greatest middle class in history. When those tariffs were removed, the welfare state developed. It is the duty of the governing body, to pass legislation, with the intention of providing living wage jobs for the citizens of the country they govern.
louiethegreater1 And how, pray tell, do you fix the problem of the number of people who just don’t want to work? When flipping burgers at McDonalds pays less than the welfare programs pay for no work at all, why bother working?
It is good to demand people to be independent and working hard. But just realize that working class Americans also need a break and breathing room, they can't be made to compete with offshore labor and increasingly improved computers, and robots. They need help.
I hold the controversial view that individuals are only apparently responsible for their successes of failures. Of course a cursory examination could lead us to stop a the obvious fact that, everything else being equal, someone who works more get more money so it's entirely his/her fault if he/she works less. However people's skills and behaviours are totally genetic so since nobody of course would choose to be less endowed with the traits which guarantee success in society, being intelligent, industrious and so on, we have an almost moral duty to help those less endowed among us. Not unconditionally though. If we help them unconditionally we will only make more of them since they usually reproduce more. We need to use compassion but with the reservation that they'll agree to make less children or in the worst cases, no children at all.
According to orthodox, neoclassical economic theory - specifically, the marginal productivity theory of income distribution - capitalists don't have a right to profit.
The so called free-market is a top down system of minority rule with markets dominated by monopoly. This power structure is a state sanctioned social system that runs at a deficit of over $85. billion to maintain a warehousing system for the underclass called the corrections industry. Promoting the cause of inequality to be individual moral failure rather than class privilege is called science of economics. Many prizes are awarded to economists for whomever comes up with the best excuse for the markets chronic state of crisis. Blaming unemployment on the unemployed and environmental ruin on environmentalists reflects the desire of the wealthiest 5% to ignore the devastation and misery that engulfs us. Milton Friedman is the high priest of this, the 20th Century's last great utopian dream.
@@Hawkinszm1 In Europe we have a social liberal system and we are killing no one. The alternative to classical liberalism is not Stalin or communism, but social liberalism. The quality of life in Europe is much better than in USA, because we have universal heltchare, state universities, guaranted minimum income.
This dude was a prophet, his predictions of the impact of heavier reliance on the government versus individual responsibility for one’s welfare were spot on. The world needs more sensible, realistic, truth-tellers like Milton Friedman. What a brilliant economist and statistician! He will remain to be sorely missed!
I loved watching civil discussion part - question and answer. Nobody was screaming "REEEEEE, raycist! You want no money for nobody!"
Calm, full of argumentation and Milton never stepped away from the point. I can't recall modern university lectures or discussions without activists trying to shut professors up with the scream.
This should be run on television stations today, 2023!!
Milton is a legend. He has been a profound influence on my view of economics and individualism.
Wow, what he says about government programs resulting in people being divided on values really hits home in 2020/2021.
I'm from France, i've done some calculations the same way Milton does and i found that the total amount of "welfare" subsidies divided by the number of "poor people" amounts to about 7000$ per month per capita ! All the money goes to the bureaucratic state machinery....Milton is right, fact checking is easy to do with internet now.
So, what's the point?
Great point. Too bad the majority doesn't want the truth. They'd come back with a word salad and consider it a coherent thought.
@@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks elimanate buearcratic subsidies and apply his idea of negative income tax
We need people today who can articulate ideas in this calm and forthright manner. He doesn't seem to use language in way that is used in our present time, aimed at belittling those who may differ. I wish people could, would,and should argue.with present opposing views in the way he does. Loved listening to him.
Looking back at these, I realize how much of an influence Milton was on my thinking. RIP, sir.
He is so right when he talks about the money just going to create jobs programs. Still going on today.
40 years later, everything this man predicted, has come true.
I found it very contradictory since Friedman was proposing UBI by that time. Isn't it the same that just give money to poor people through the government?
Diego Gomez he did not propose UBI, negative income tax credit is not the same as UBI (despite what Yang spat about)
@@skaterseye Are you dense? He of course favored removing all welfare completely because if the money never gets transferred and wasted in the first place a lot more money would end up in the hands of people who actually need it.
The negative income tax was a way to remove the mal incentive that people on welfare were being subjected to, which is, they are better off not working then they are working, they literally make more money not working. Milton proposed the negative income to solve that issue. Now of course, in his own words he would say we would be much better off with no welfare system at all. And, he would be absolutely right people, including those being "helped" would be better off.
People today know his name. Unfortunately people today will never hear his message. This man uses logic to defeat those who believe they deserve to reap the reward of success by those who are not them just because they exist. Brilliant
Today's people are no more brilliant or stupid than the people in the past. But because of the badly constructed system, it forms a prisoners' dilemma in which it is of everyone's best interest to not cooperate with, even betray each other for the best interest of himself/herself.
The situation is bad, but everything is perfectly logical.
He is one of the greatest Yankee I know. Thank you Milton Friedman.
Thankful to God for Milton who spoke wisdom without agenda
The government has never helped anyone without harming someone else.
@Quiche Lorraine oh you speak of corona... ooooh
Are we realy that stupid, after 40 years nothing have changed even got worse around the world in every nation, all the same problems. Education system is terrible.
The biggest problem, as explained in economy theory, is that the equilibrium, despite being very stable, does not necessarily produce a good result to you and me and everybody else. The prisoners' dilemma proves that, with a terribly constructed system, it is to everyone's best interest to betray everyone else, despite the fact that there is an opportunity to achieve common good.
Unfortunately, we are now trapped by one of these bad equilibrium. The society is so polarized that achieving anything at all is basically impossible. There are two ways of winning: one is by achieving better result than your opponent, in which case the society eventually becomes better; one is by stopping your opponent from achieving better result, in which case, the society makes no progress. And the latter case is where we are right now.
I mean... The best educations and healthcare systems are in welfare states but in that way people like him couldn't make profit from that
that's public education for you...
@@Alex-bp5df Here in the UK our state healthcare and education are a disaster. And what makes it worse is the people who advocate them the most are the people who can afford not to use either.
As a Libertarian, I would be really interested to see what Friedman had to say about Big Tech monopolies and online censorship.
Likely his issue would be their cooperation with governments and their resulting lack of competitiveness.
Saying that they are cooperating with the governemt is a big understatement. They are part of the government.
@@lokenontherange Yes, he does not like monopolies nor would he view online censorship positively
His clarity is out of this world
What a genius- clear thinking, logical and relatively easy to understand with his lucid analogies.
He might have been one of the few that can pull this off. :)
"He and those who share his views, again believe themselves to be an elite who know what is good for the ordinary man, who again do not wish to impose their views on the ordinary man , also should recognize the superiority of the elite, and assign to them the task of choosing what goods they consume, what products are available and so on...."
Gotta love Friedman's humor.
Golden....
He hates the poor. Fuck this guy.
Welfare , including rent controls and rent subsidies only purpose is to keep people from moving out of failed local economy and only benefits the local politicians who don't loos voters and therefor power.
Was that a young Thomas sowell with some slick shades?
Such a brilliant man.
TIMELESS
20:54 What is a liberal? Nailed it!
Such a good point about how you might be able to get a special interest perk at the expense of other taxpayers. But that perk is canceled out by everyone else's special interest bennies being paid for by you.
There are 9 freeloaders that disliked this video.
16 now. Marxists are spreading ☹️
Damn Bernie Sanders!!! We are in trouble with all the idiots drinking the Kool-aid!!!!
Watching in 2020 .... :>)
Problem with a small Government like a puppy one day becomes...
Does anyone know which university Dr. Friedman gave this talk?
Rochester
1:17:47 this is so true to this day
Free markets too produce regimentation. The people who are dependant on a certain group of buyers for example, are not entirely free to express their opinion on them for fear of retaliation or boycott. Or they may fear to undermine their capacity to buy their goods and services so they could develop a tendency to support their financial wellbeing. So the two of them tend to form some sort of a coalition of shared interests. Of course they can always form new coalition with other groups which will decrease regimentation but it's a slow process.
What is Wrong with the Welfare State? I don't have a Nobel price in economics, but my answer is everything !!!!!!
In Europe we have social liberalism and works great. Europe is much better than USA for normal people (middle class and lower class), as we have universal healthcare any many other things. Welfare doesn't destroy economy. Wake up!!!
@@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks Europe and the United States are both bankrupt.
Legend
When was this lecture? Neither the video intro nor the description says.
He mentioned President Carter so 78, 79.
I believe it was either 1978 or 1979 because he refers to Jimmy Carter.
I guess what throws you off the type of people that apply for Welfare. Yes, we are all liberal, and we believe in Welfare states similar to quantum physics. We want to think that it is our saving to be used during bad days. Welfare is not healthcare. That being said if you are disabled Welfare is probably not for you. We can think of approximations, like approximately right! Similar to negotiations. Say, we realize that tuition is not free of charge, we don't guarantee good education, we can offer one... My high school was a disaster, of really poor quality. Shall I not be raised in Armenia, I would not get into a good school with my grades. Was I good student? - sure. Did I feel like going against what is wrong, like education quality. Now people that are silent are winners. One, the silently do the work and understand that in this world you just have to be self sufficient. Now, believing in votes, I believed that we have to correct what is wrong. If we see wrong, we report wrong. Did teachers have food to eat in Armenia, no. They probably were suffering from scurvy, that is how little the salary was. Now, I am dual citizen, and what I saw in America was exactly the same. Some schools were of poor quality, and teacher's salary had nothing to do with it. How so, I ask. So, where there is no integrity, salary won't help? Integrity means that if you get paid, you have to do what you are being paid for. Paid for teaching, turns into divide salary into hours? I just don't agree with administration for hours? The truth is we all have psychological issues called clinical depression, which is becoming huge in everyones lives, and so these are your welfare people. People that are suffering from depression, something that Government does not pay much attention in their calculations. Where does the depression come from? The system, from the environment. Depression is an environmental issue.
uncommon real gov insider talk 30:00
Starts on 1:00
❤
They know that welfare state not work in mid and long time, but, whatever, the love wins…
coumo will love this
Free markets are just so damn sexy 36:04
I think the welfare state is bad because it produces more individual that need welfare. That's because poor people if helped economically, that is provided with enough food and medical care, have many more children than people who are better off. This set in motion a dysgenic trend that ultimately will make the welfare state collapse. From noble intentions a disaster comes out instead.
Helping individuals who are less endowed to cope with life is morally commendable but the help must not be given unconditionally. If they want to be helped they need to make no or less children.
In Europe we have social liberalism and works great. Europe is much better than USA for normal people (middle class and lower class). Welfare doesn't destroy economy.
@@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks isn't socialism and liberalism together an oxymoron? I.e the group decides for the individual which freedoms they will give him paid by his own money, regardless if the person needs them or not? It doesn't destroy the economy, but it does slow its growth, as the government does not spend money efficiently.
⭐
I'm a huge fan of Milton Friedman, and I also believe there are some major problems with Higher Education today, but I do disagree with him on this particular point. Keep in mind that he was making his argument when a greater percentage of college graduates were majoring in things like Engineering, and not woke studies that teach people what to think rather than how to think. My response is 100% based on that situation.
I once was curious who actually pays for Higher Education. I sat down and looked up the average wage for a High School Graduate. I then looked up the average wage for someone with a Bachelor's Degree. I admit I made a ton of assumptions on this, but I then assumed the average college graduate works for an average of 30 years, and the average High School Graduate works for 37 years. I made that assumption because it takes 30 years to become eligible for a lot of retirement benefits, but I wanted to give the High School Graduate the extra 7 years of pay for the years they didn't go to college. My state has an income tax of 5%. I took the difference between the lifetime salary of an average High School Graduate for my state and the average Bachelor's Degree and multiplied that by 5%. Ignoring the time value of money and potential increases in wages in the future, this gave me the extra taxes I could expect a college graduate to pay to the state over the course of their working life as a result of their college degree. The extra taxes a college graduate pays to the state was SIGNIFICANTLY more than the state would pay to provide a college education for that graduate.
Now I know this isn't the whole story. We also have to consider the 75% of people who only go the first year and end up dropping out and that some make WAY more than average and some make WAY less than average. But that actually is the next point. The point is that the state can afford to run these numbers on averages. For every person that is below the average, there is another person above the average to cancel them out. However, as an individual if I take the risk of going to college and that bet doesn't work out for me for one of many possible reasons, I could personally have crushing student debt for the rest of my life that could sabotage my productivity. For example, I know a nurse who was hit by a drunk driver, and because of the brain damage she received she had her nursing license pulled because they were worried she could no longer be a safe nurse with the brain damage. Any person on an individual basis runs the risk of paying the cost and not getting the benefit. However, because the state can spread the risk over many people, as long as the average college graduate continues to make enough more than the average high school graduate the state will have a guaranteed return on investment for the program as a whole, even if the state happens to lose out on a few individuals.
Of course, the reason college graduates make more than high school graduates is because in theory they have learned marketable skills and have learned how to think. If college degrees don't increase the value of a graduate's work (on average), then college degrees ultimately become worthless to employers and to the state.
But my point is if the typical college graduate pays WAY more in lifetime taxes due to a college degree than the government subsidizes that degree, the government is actually getting a return on that particular investment. That also doesn't include the benefit of students that may have a desire to go, but who couldn't possibly afford it themselves, and who might ultimately have turned to crime or have stayed in their houses living off of welfare having panic attacks because without the option of a college education they don't have a lot of other marketable skills to offer to employers. For example, someone with severe autism and ADHD might be an amazing computer programmer or engineer, but without help getting into and through college they may not have the social skills to convince a normal employer to take them on as an apprentice or have the social skills to navigate taking out the necessary student loans to pursue the degree. Our current system might still discriminate against these kinds of students. Students who have the support of families can probably navigate the system, but students who don't have the support of families and have these kinds of conditions could easily end up being underutilized in our system where they could provide tremendous value and pay into the tax system if the state just provided a free computer programming or engineering degree to anyone who wanted to pursue one and could keep their grades up.
Also, just as a general point, I don't believe my parents should be obligated to pay for my education, even if they can afford it. What if my parents don't like the fact that I left the family religion and want to take that out on me? What if my parents are anti-college and want me to go straight into business, but I think my interests are best served going to college? Once I am an adult, I should be allowed to be an adult. My parents shouldn't be required to subsidize my education, but at the same time I as a student shouldn't be prohibited from getting financial support just because my parents are rich. Just because they are rich, that doesn't mean I am rich. And even if I am rich, the cost of an education and the opportunity cost of not working during classes is extremely costly and can be enough to make it impossible for me to go back. Upper middle class is not rich enough to make the cost of going to college prohibitive. That would only be true for the truly wealthy. And if I have siblings, the cost of all siblings going to college is that much worse. I always found it funny that the cost of my K-12 education is automatically covered without question no matter my parents' income and assets even though those are the ages when my parents are actually genuinely financially responsible for me, but suddenly when I am actually an adult and my parents aren't supposed to be financially responsible for me any more suddenly every government program out there is going to penalize me for my parents' wealth, and I am now in a place where I have to ask them to risk their financial security and potentially take out loans to give me the opportunity to go to college. Asking my parents to take out loans just because the loan companies will let them do so is definitely where I draw the line. Fortunately for me, my parents are poor and I had an academic scholarship on top of that, but if my parents had been rich I know for sure I would not have gone to college. And that quite frankly would have destroyed my life because I am one of those autistic/ADHD people who basically only has one skill to sell to my employers to make up for my many weaknesses in others - my degree.
Lol, @ the one dislike.
Bernie Sanders
I love it! Dude tries to make Rockefeller look bad in terms of the Robber Baron issue of 1850 in terms of energy innovation when oil wasn’t even in the picture yet, but he was one of the pioneers of oil🤓 What a dumb.... I guess he really wants to run back to his seat really fast😂
Providing to senior citizens? I'm sorry but this is the only thing I disagree with. I PAID!! For 46 years, and for a few more, I will pay. This was MY money, and I had no choice about giving it. But had I been able to just have that money, I could retire comfortably. The rest I agree on. But Social Security? Neve was I given a choice!
Jo Schwendt you were not given a choice so you would choose to continue robbing other people for your retirement?
Jo Schwendt That’s the whole point of Friedman’s argument. Since the Great Depression forward we are all losing our freedoms the founding fathers intended for us. Slowly but surely. Death by a thousand cuts. And we can’t blame anyone but ourselves. The young labor force today should be given the option to voluntarily pay into Social Security and hope their money is still there when they reach retirement age, OR opt out of SS and be responsible for their own retirement fund. Personal irresponsibility is the character flaw too many people have now. And like spoiled children they expect Big Brother to cover the bad consequences of their own irresponsible decisions.
Jo Schwendt
The social security you paid in was not stored up for your use. It was paid out to the people retiring at that time. It was simply a tax like any other and social security benefits are simply welfare like any other. When social security started it was withheld from wage earners and immediately paid out to people who had never paid in. It’s a pondsy scheme. The first people in are the winners and the last people in get screwed.
You can’t look at it as your personal savings account. It’s just taxes taken in and welfare paid out.
@@fivebooks8498if security is a pondsy scheme how do you suggest government could end it? That dude who paid 46 years out of his income gets f* up? That doenst seem right. Maybe a transition rule in wich thos who contribute can get their money worth back
rafaelborbacs so since he was robbed we must also be robbed?
The founders of our republic, solved this problem at the same time they implemented our constitution. They passed the Hamilton Tariff Act of 1789. The concept of protecting our markets by implementing the concept of reciprocal trade. They allowed industry to develop in America behind the walls of protection. As a result of that wisdom, the greatest manufacturing economy in history developed, producing the greatest middle class in history.
When those tariffs were removed, the welfare state developed. It is the duty of the governing body, to pass legislation, with the intention of providing living wage jobs for the citizens of the country they govern.
The answer to government created problems isn't always more government.
I believe at that time total federal taxation was less than 3% of total GDP. That is the cause of prosperity, not the tariff itself.
louiethegreater1 And how, pray tell, do you fix the problem of the number of people who just don’t want to work? When flipping burgers at McDonalds pays less than the welfare programs pay for no work at all, why bother working?
It is good to demand people to be independent and working hard. But just realize that working class Americans also need a break and breathing room, they can't be made to compete with offshore labor and increasingly improved computers, and robots. They need help.
I hold the controversial view that individuals are only apparently responsible for their successes of failures. Of course a cursory examination could lead us to stop a the obvious fact that, everything else being equal, someone who works more get more money so it's entirely his/her fault if he/she works less. However people's skills and behaviours are totally genetic so since nobody of course would choose to be less endowed with the traits which guarantee success in society, being intelligent, industrious and so on, we have an almost moral duty to help those less endowed among us. Not unconditionally though. If we help them unconditionally we will only make more of them since they usually reproduce more.
We need to use compassion but with the reservation that they'll agree to make less children or in the worst cases, no children at all.
According to orthodox, neoclassical economic theory - specifically, the marginal productivity theory of income distribution - capitalists don't have a right to profit.
He would be right if welfate state wasn't working.
So the welfare state is working? Where? What planet?
Look to Andrew Yang for an economic mirror
The so called free-market is a top down system of minority rule with markets dominated by monopoly. This power structure is a state sanctioned social system that runs at a deficit of over $85. billion to maintain a warehousing system for the underclass called the corrections industry. Promoting the cause of inequality to be individual moral failure rather than class privilege is called science of economics. Many prizes are awarded to economists for whomever comes up with the best excuse for the markets chronic state of crisis. Blaming unemployment on the unemployed and environmental ruin on environmentalists reflects the desire of the wealthiest 5% to ignore the devastation and misery that engulfs us. Milton Friedman is the high priest of this, the 20th Century's last great utopian dream.
Free market and state sanction don't really go together in the same sentence.
As opposed to the utopian dream of socialism and communism that had lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions?
@@Hawkinszm1 In Europe we have a social liberal system and we are killing no one. The alternative to classical liberalism is not Stalin or communism, but social liberalism.
The quality of life in Europe is much better than in USA, because we have universal heltchare, state universities, guaranted minimum income.
Here’s a better question….what was wrong with Friedman?
ARROGANCE AND GREED
Capitalism itself is what's failing. Abolish private property.