And let's not forget what he said about the economics of prohibition and the monopoly over medical licensure, as well as the many new occupations created since that time. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the Council on Licensure Enforcement And Regulations moves at the pace of justice. www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/the-de-licensing-of-occupations-in-the-united-states-1.htm
@@anarchic_ramblings If the state provide welfare, you need illegal immigration to keep the economy growing. If the state doesn’t provide any welfare, it’s more convenient to make immigration free in order to have as a many people documented for security purposes. Everything is an exchange, you just need to know where you stand in order to know what to ask for LOL
@@cristianluna5568 Wrong. MF was in favour of FREE immigration, i.e. market regulated immigration, such as there was in the US prior to the 1920s. His comments quoted above are from a lecture entitled _What's Wrong with WELFARE?_ His point was that the welfare state is harmful because, among other reasons, it screws with the incentives around immigration. He said immigration is good as long as it's ILLEGAL., i.e. not state controlled.
that young man who asked that question was very polite and attentive. he wasnt forcing his point holding a neutral discussion and was willing to give and recieve accordingly while being sympathetic to the view of the other. that is a great quality we need more individuals like him.
***** You'd be silly to think that, as Milton stated there can't be boundless immigration and a welfare state. The US right now happily extends many welfare benefits to illegal aliens while paying none of the taxes, at the same time retards are trying to get the voting rights as well. If your Icon is correct, England does much of the same. You subsidize a 5th column Arab invasion, if this were not the case than the issue would not be as severe because they would have to find work. Then again I wonder if Milton could imagine at the time massive real time smartphone coordinated migrations to welfare states in Europe. Coming back to the initial argument, I think it is one of the greatest human flaws to look for a single cause to explain complex issues which are usually compound in nature.
***** I think it is as Jared Taylor explains that people live in the societies they are naturally and biologically accustomed to. For whites these are constitutional monarchies or at least systems where enough control is exerted to protect the nation but people can exercise their personal ambitions. In Asia's collectives even with a freedom to vote there is usually just one dominating force in society like Japan's Abe or one of the Orient's many Junta's. South America with it's socialist states, or the Middle East's many dictatorships. Or the never ending chaotic shitstorms of Africa surrounding self indulgent kings or tribal leaders. I think the different races naturally gravitate for different systems of government and to apply mass immigration is to invite never-ending strife incited by special interest groups.
agreed with both points, despite me being of middle eastern descent it makes sense given the general scope of the world. The regions that do still have a fighting chance like the 30% of secular Turkish are quickly losing ground to the islamists. Its also a mathematical fact, that almost all except for the bottom few being Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and some other smaller nations, are white or asian nations. This is according to topuniversities.com, OECD PISA Mathematical Academic analysis as well as the general historical trend of white and asian empires throughout history, whether it was the US, Russia or Japan, or even the rapidly expanding China. also I think you meant can? for the first sentence right
VKillzitFTW 11.000 in taxes and 27.000 in welfare for the average illegal family does not constitute as a net game ya dummy. Their kids should also not be in the country to begin with, anchor babies are only a convenient shield to protect against socialists with. They do receive them straight up in both personal benefits and federal funding for sanctuary cities. You can take your empty platitudes and leave now.
Check out Ben Shapiro. He's currently too young to be President, but should be eligible in 2020, I think. Very smart guy on the right, though he faces a lot of hostility from the left.
We must remember that Friedman (who was not a person of faith) had a distaste for typical issues that the American Right involves itself in that makes their economic positions contradictory to their social positions. If economics is really how we interact with the world and others and what not, then some aspects of each of our personal value systems should be respected in terms of liberty. In "Free to Choose" we have here a tenable system of liberty in many dimensions where projecting moral platitudes into law would lead to even more disharmony (aka prohibition of abortion and the sort). The right doesn't want that kind of freedom for their form is really freedom in a box, which in effect is not freedom at all (to use an example from Leibniz/Sartre).
Health, education, and welfare benefits. You see, we wouldn't need a wall if we weren't giving them the store once they get here because they wouldn't come in the first place.
College campuses, where the debating of issues was once allowed, would never have a Milton Friedman-type speak now. Only if you are from the far left are you allowed to get on the stage.
How is he not spouting "far left" ideas here? He's suggesting we welcome immigrants so long as they don't benefit from government welfare programs. To follow his prescription, we'd open up the border to anyone so long as we excluded them from welfare benefits. He's not even arguing against welfare, only that it be withheld from first generation, low-skill immigrants.
Numbers by itself and without context are meaningless. Most of those refugees and opportunists don't have skills suited to the German economy. Almost none of them speak German which presents huge challenge to future employment prospects. Whilst some will attain language proficiency, most won't. Broken German will land you menial work (low paid) for which there is existing competition for. For those that do, then the next rung will be education to skill up. Some may already have high value skill sets but that won't necessarily confer them access to their profession in Germany. For example: A foreign Doctor may need to undertake further exams to demonstrate knowledge and proficiency to a medical board. Likewise a a structural engineer and so on. What use are sheer numbers of people if that society cant capitalise on it? As breeders, then they are an economic drain as most of them sit on welfare. Their offspring while likely to have greater employment participation rates will probably still be worse off compared to ethnic German kids. Numbers don't account for cultural differences and attitudes to work, which has been key to German economic success. Germans are known for their strong work ethic. Is this true for other cultures? Simply living in Germany will not immediately inculcate you with values of their culture and its those values which will provide a greater opportunity to succeed. Even if you have language, in demand skillsets, to really succeed you need to have a developed cultural awareness. An understanding that the rules, norms, views may in diametric opposition to what you've known and believed to be correct and being ok with that difference and accepting it. Your comment is based on an outmoded economic paradigm of population growth = economic prosperity (an unsustainable proposition). Germany would eventually attain a population equilibrium as its not that they aren't having kids, its that they aren't having as many as they once did. Perfect. We are heading into an era where mass employment will be a thing of the past anyway. Oursourcing/offshoring/globalisation are trends likely to continue in tandem with increased automation and use of technologies to further reduce availability of jobs. Mass importing of people without knowledge of German language and accepted trade/professional qualifications will only create future inequities down the road. What it will do is create more slums containing ethnic enclaves that perpetuate foreign cultures at odds with German society. You just have to look at France and Belgium to see what is in store for Germany.
Economic decline for whom!?!? This is one of those bullshit completely debunked fallacies that gets thrown around all the time like it means anything. More people doesn't mean more money for EVERYONE, just the top 1%. Do you know many Germans? They're amongst the loveliest, most hard working of people on the planet. They will do blue collar jobs, just not at third world wages. In terms of economic decline, it's this simple: If the country makes for example €10,000 a year split between 10,000 people that's €1 each. If however they only make €5,000 a year split between 1,000 people that's €5 each.
The video title is a little misleading. Milton is basically saying that free immigration is good, at least from an economic perspective, so long as the immigrants coming in are not assimilated into a welfare state where they leech off the system. If you're an immigrant and you go in expecting to work without government handouts, you benefit the economy. The discussion of whether immigrants would *culturally* benefit a society, such as the current dilemma with Muslim migrants, is irrelevant to what Milton is talking about here. He is an economist, not a sociologist.
That's sort of a disingenuous thing to say. He didn't claim "Illegal immigration is fine so long as it stays illegal" in which case yes the title would be misleading. He was pointing out the economic irony involved in illegal immigration only being economically viable if it remains illegal. I think it is a direct quote from the video, actually.
StarWarsomania It is a quote, but I'm saying it is misleading because without watching the video the whole way through, the quote when taken out of context makes it sound like Milton is advocating for something different than what he is actually advocating.
Not sure if he can top Adam Smith. Adam's grasp of history from ancient Greece to the American revolution, his accurate description of everything from bureaucracy to monetary policy to the value of work and pretty much everything else I have found is superior to Milton. The only thing Adam seemed off on was his stance on religion being better of decentralized, which is what got us into our moral mess that we are in now. On the other hand, Milton is more myopic on current issues. However, he still holds the title as best economist in the last 100 years, most likely.
@@Paonporteur Thank you for your comment. I am not sure what you mean by immigration, as I didn't say anything about that. Secondly, I was not referring to government religion, merely the Apostolic religion which follows the unchanging doctrines of the Church, which is the Catholic Church. When we deviate from the teachings of Christ - such as calling someone a "fool" which is directly against Matthew 5:22, which you just did - we divide the body of Christ based upon our own desires over the truth, which is why we are where we are now. Therefore, I do not yet agree with your assertion that having multiple denominations increases religiosity. I would be interested to hear your reasons.
The only thing Milton didn't talk about was the relationship between immigration, whether legal or illegal, and crime rate. That seems to be another big issue nowadays in the US, and could've been considered an issue when the first big wave of immigrants started arriving in the 1900's.
Why do Latinos and Hispanics like to Litter? Every Hispanic/Latino community I've lived in people throw trash on the streets when they are done with it. Why, how hard it is to hold onto trash until you get to a trash can?
San Diego spent $240 million to cleanup trash coming into their beaches from mexico www.ibwc.state.gov/mission_operations/sbiwtp.html A lot of litter from the border www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/07/groups-struggle-to-clean-up-mess-illegal-immigrants-leave-behind.html dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/illegal-immigrants-leave-tons-of-trash-in-arizona-desert-devastating-environment/ www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pico-union-trash-20131029-story.html#axzz2j7IGmL35 www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/10/29/illegal-immigration-and-illegal-dumping/ www.gvnews.com/news/volunteers-clean-up-trash-left-by-illegals/article_8d221c3d-5079-55e5-b828-effbf836f562.html www.gao.gov/assets/590/586139.pdf
CommentCave.com also the border has alot if people travelung wuth watter jugs,food, clothes and other things that they mist likely leave behind and yes it is nit ok but this government incourages illegal immigration so blame them!!!
The problem for free immigration now is that we don't have a frontier, we have only so many low/no-skilled jobs, and our country has four times what would be an environmentally sustainable population. This is the first time I've heard him talking--well, the first time I remember. My parents, long gone, told me that age age 2, I once jumped into bed with him. He was in the parental bed, and my mother was sleeping on the couch. I ran downstairs and asked her, "where's the other guy?" referring to my father. Friedman came to Seattle while my father was going to be away, and insisted on staying at our house to protect my mother since there'd been a rape on the U. Washington campus quite recently, this in the mid '50s. The story was surprising, because I didn't know my parents had known him (my father was a much younger but prominent economist), and they were on the opposite end of the political spectrum from him. My older brother recently verified the story for me.
OMG, it's 2019 and this genius is still right. I understand that politicians don't want to solve the illegal immigration problem. If they did it would have been solved. Now I understand WHY the illegal immigration problem hasn't been solved.
+noxwheaties no we don't,not even if i worked for over 20 years and you get hurt at work,my name is Erick RIVERA.I've been here for 33 years,not even when we pay taxes,I know because my ssn is mine,and i paid my taxes,can't still get any help,but after all that,my family and i,are still better than most lazy fucks afraid of some hard work and over time
+noxwheaties He wasn't exaggerating, he was discussing hypotheticals of taking illegal immigration and welfare too far and exercising the mind using these Thought Experiments. Drawing possible conclusions to cause and effect and correlations.
There was another big difference in 1940 too: Population density. Ratio of people per resources available. When that ratio is small, you benefit by having more people join in. When it's big, you don't.
Why don't you move to Israel and then advocate Israel do this? Throw open their borders. Let everyone in surrounding Arab/Muslim/African countries move in to Israel, without benefits of course, but them be free to choose... Anyone advocating such nonsense/treason in Israel would be either killed or put in a mental institution.
I think we would have a better opportunity of teaching fish how to ride bicycles. Firstly, if we could get Trump to stick to a policy for long enough to criticize it, there would be some serious dissonance between free markets in Milton's ideals and Trump policy. Trump is pro-business, not pro free markets. There is a serious difference and I suggest you go back and read what you have read on Friedman - you will reach the same conclusion - of that I have no doubt.
"Trump is pro-business, not pro free markets." It's crony-capitalism supported by government preferences provided by rent-seeking and lobbying. Imminent domain to foreclose on private property rights, rezoning through local government, basically business propped up on greased up personal relationships.
+TheAsianRepublican Totally false. Trump _is_ pro-business _and_ free-trade. You might be asking "How the fuck could he be for 'free-trade' when he's for tariffs?" but I'll explain it to you very simply: Trump believes that since the great bulk of all other countries of the world use tariffs against the United States, it would be against the US' interest to remove tariffs. He is adding more tariffs to try *to get other countries to remove their tariffs.* Free Trade is impossible right now.
+JediNxf7 Try being a quaker for peace when your country is under attack. You can't have free trade when the whole world is putting up tariffs all around you, you'll just be playing your own little game, huddled in your small corner of the world playing by your own invisible rules while the whole world stabs you. Come up with a better solution than dropping all tariffs when the rest of the world won't be dropping theirs without a deal.
And here is where Milton Friedman perpetuated the myth. We also have a minimum wage law. illegals *didn't* until recently take jobs Americans wouldn't take. The undercut Americans on pricing because of wage laws. Also, the "good workers, hard workers" myth is just that. Illegal aliens from Mexico and futher south have not been hard workers or good workers. They have been *cheap* workers. The quality of their work has been substandard, but that's okay, because we've been lowering our standards since the 1970s. And while they may not qualify for welfare... they draw it anyway... illegally. Further, illegal immigration benefits unscrupulous employers at the expense of honest ones. Unscrupulous employers can charge less than honest ones, because they're not following the rules. So honest employers go out of business, and unscrupulous ones prosper. Then decades down the road we all act surprised that business and government are corrupt.
Hiring immigrants who do not have proper and legitimate documentation or citizenship in the United States is illegal. Since it is illegal, that must mean that there is no innate corruption concerning government and big business. If the mean, greedy businessman is found hiring illegal immigrants, then his company could fall at the will of the Law.
If you learn a bit more about Friedman you'd quickly discover he doesn't support the minimum wage. But, like @padronsk said, his main point was that you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. That's the question he was addressing. Simply because he didn't answer every single facet of the illegal immigration issue in this eight minute video doesn't mean he hasn't elsewhere. Learn more about him. Friedman's position would, in summation, be: Eliminate the welfare state, eliminate the minimum wage, open the borders.
cascadehopsrule Border security is a state issue. No borders, no country. Ive never heard of a libertarian that advocates for the private sector to oversee immigration.
My initial stance on illegal immigration was a calloused opposition to the ethnic nationalism that I had witnessed in southern Texas. As I have gotten older that stance has more or less flip flopped as I had embraced a more liberal(in the true sense) mindset. I say cut all federal benefits and most of the agencies and then open the borders. Maintain secure borders for the purpose of combating human and drug trafficking.
With open borders, there would be no drug trafficking. Just drug sales. Getting rid of drug laws would solve that problem. Laws are almost always the problem.
Free immigration also doesn't work now when communist nations are willing to generate refugee crises in other nations specifically to flood western Europe and the United States with rapid waves of refugees which includes many criminals, which includes the famous Cuban example in the 1980s which provided the premise for the movie Scarface. Also allows for rapid increase in population with particular cultures which will clash with local cultures so that people feel their identity slipping away, ie Brexit. In other words, if you choose not to control your borders, the Soviet or Chinese Communist Party will.
I have been a conservative for all of my 20s, and have been so tired of hearing many of today's voices. We know there is a major divide between conservative leaning thinkers and Republican politicians. When I even look into my city council's budget I notice large amounts of mismanagement. I have never had the chance to hear Milton Friedman, and having his speeches on the Internet is amazing! I have been trying to find a way to express conservative views to the millennials, and Milton is the best bridge I have found so far.
Milton Friedman was a Libertarian, not a Conservative. Libertarianism is similar on a lot of economic issues, but it champions freedom and small government a lot more. Libertarians don't advocate huge taxes to fund corporate subsidies, huge militaries etc. And they don't support the forcing of religious values, such as bans on gay marriage, religion intertwined within government and so on. Libertarians promote freedom in all areas, Republicans only promote it in their economic policy, the second the debate is abortion, education, immigration, policing tactics or foreign policy, Republicans are very anti freedom and liberty, and very pro authoritarianism, government intervention and legislative bans. Walk up to a hardline Republican and tell them you are a weed smoking atheist, and an Iraqi immigrant, and you'll see how much they value "freedom and liberty".
It will be interesting to see if there will ever be a libertarian leaning congressional body or president in my lifetime. I have no expectation that my city councils $3.5 billion annual budget will ever be reduced in my lifetime. Taking this model and applying it to the Federal government is laughable. Will the federal budget ever be reduced in my lifetime? Doubtful.
+James Newstead what you are referring to are the social issues that involves debate over the degree of individual freedoms vs those of the greater good. Liberty vs Justice vs Freedom in each one of those cases the compromise of the 3 is worth debating as the 3 make up the ethics and Morality of individuals and society. Economic and budget issues are not nearly the same category that involves as much personal passion.
mohamed El mustafa The complaint is more that some immigrants - that are members of one specific death cult - reliably massacre civilian inhabitants in the countries they immigrate to. Islam and especially the belief in martyrdom has the potential to turn deeply believing Muslims into suicidal murderers, it's wise for any nation to avoid these people's entry.
The irony is even Friedman did not envision a day when American politicians will subsidize illegals with benefits. Frankly most of the country is not aware that the illegals can get Medicaid, FoodStamps & Social Security among others. There is a great deal of confusion & misinformation on this point. Nonetheless the cost to the Treasury is SIGNIFICANT!
I don't think there'd any objection to open immigration at all as long as the new immigrants assimilated. Learn English, dress like Americans, learn American sports, culture, social norms, humor, values, history, etc. I come from Chicago and we have various neighborhoods full of people of just about every nationality you can think of, and most work real hard to NOT assimilate. (There are at least 5 different Polish language newspapers in Chicago alone!) Nobody benefits if they don't assimilate - neither the immigrants nor the Americans. America's a huge and great nation and it all becomes available to you once you learn the language and assimilate. Resist doing that and you're stuck living in the neighborhood with the limited number of people you can relate to, shopping in a limited number of stores, being entertained by a limited number of outlets, etc. Let me put it this way - I understand completely why anyone would want to become a citizen. I do not understand why citizens don't want to become Americans.
+ROGER2095 I live and Texas and the the kids of mexican illegal immigrants will think and be as american as a white kid except for the culture. They even start to forget the language.
I see that myself here in Chicago - Immigrants stiffly resist assimilation, their children who are born here do struggle to assimilate, and their grandchildren become completely assimilated and Americanized, clinging only vaguely to their grandparents nationality and heritage. It's just too bad (for everyone) that it's taking at least two generations to become Americans.
+ROGER2095 Let me tell you this as a non-American: You don't seem to understand what 'American Cutlure', or culture in general, is. Culture, and America is the best example for this, is not a static set of values and traditions. It's an ever changing entity that is nurtured by, and at the same time provides the fabric for, an ever changing social environment. American culture is the very embodiment of diversity. Many of the core-aspects of American culture started out as old-world traditions that immigrants brought to America and held alive in their own, isolated communities. Immigrants learned from and added to each other - that's American culture. Also, and you may not be aware of this, forced assimilation and cultural and political opression were and are among the most important reasons for people to migrate to the Americas. While I do believe to understand why you'd hold such views, I find it very sad still. Healthy assimilation is not a concious process. When a culture becomes resistant to change, the whole country starts to become immobile. Rigid structures are clearly not what you're looking for.
Nobody's advocating forced assimilation. We are a freedom-loving people, not Nazis. So that means that a person can assimilate or not. Americans are free to associate with whom they please for whatever reason they please and speak whatever language they like. But I do advocate that new citizens should WANT to become Americans, not hyphenated-Americans. You are correct that immigrants bring pieces of their culture and language to American and in time these become part of the American culture. I see this as an extremely good thing. My point is, if immigrants don't/won't speak English and don't desire to blend in, then nobody's going to learn about these beneficial pieces of their native culture that they brought with them. If the smartest person in Macedonia moves to America, what good does it do anybody if he can't communicate? Assimilation is hard which is why new citizens resist it. (I lived in Germany for a while and worked hard to blend in -It was very difficult.) But when immigrants do assimilate, it benefits them immensely, and the rest of America gets the benefits of their being there.
This is why I will listen to Friedman even when I know there is a 55/45 chance I will disagree with what he says. Friedman may have been a free market ideologue, but he was no dummy. "Illegal immigration only helps when it's illegal" is one of those Friedmanian koans you could throw at your run-of-the-mill immigrant hater and watch them short-circuit.
I enjoy Friedman's eloquence and his often reasoned arguments, but sometimes he conveniently rewrites History itself to support his views, and I mean this in a substantial way. For example, in his "Myths" speech he argued that the "Robber Barons" of the late 1800s succeeded legally within the Market, when there are plenty of stories from diverse sources of the rife corruption in enterprises such as the Continental Railroad, and physical violence used to put down labor strikes during that time period. Here he starts out with a blatant whopper, that the United States "had completely free immigration" -- not hardly. Most notably, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricted Chinese immigration and wasn't the first legislation to do so, nor was it the last before 1914. Individual states restricted entry, and finally the Immigration Act of 1891 appointed a Commissioner of Immigration to evaluate potential immigrants at a Federal level. If you look further back to the Naturalization Act of 1790, you'll find that blacks, American Indians, and Asians weren't allowed citizenship, nor were indentured servants. Even those not excluded were required to live in the US for a couple years and demonstrate their "good character". So, clearly, while Friedman makes very interesting and worthwhile points, he repaints over the nuances of reality with a broad brush to do so. I wonder why so few people call him on this, but in this day and age too few study History and are eager to simplify things in order to find their "religion". This isn't to belittle Friedman's importance and fresh viewpoints which contribute a lot to economic understanding; it's just to point out what his fans ought already to have done the research to know.
I don't agree with your assessment, he's not writing a dissertation here, he's speaking to an audience. So its reasonable when making ad hoc conversation to look at "recent" history. Also when you are lecturing with limited time, you have to make your Points, not dive into Tangential details after detail. And if you are speaking you may not be as precise with your words, you may use "completely" when in fact it was 90%. You may disagree with the relevance, but I believe in a setting like this, the lecture has to be concise and sticking generally to the Point while not diverging off course into the 1000's of details that people individually will find when you try to fit in all this material in less than 1 hour.
Economist won't touch the subject of resource depletion, but immigration is the reason for our continued population growth. The Giant, Unmentioned reason why Immigration was good in 1900, and bad today, is the that the US has added 200 Million people since then, cutting the natural resources pie into smaller and smaller pieces.
You mean the 400+ Indian tribes that murdered each other before the Europeans got here? The Incas with human sacrifice and played soccer with the decapitated heads of their enemies? Or the Cherokee that conquered the Sioux who also conquered the Hopi? Do you think Cortez and 500 conquistadors actually conquered the Aztec or that they aligned with rival tribes to conquer the Aztec? Or do we want to ignore the stories that don't fit our narrative?
***** I hope the collusion among the 1% will bring us more and more life saving drugs, iPhones and Rovers on Mars. Before Corporations there were real starving hungry people, not just your hyperbole. Now World Hunger is due to dictators preventing food from going in, not the lack of the innovation of production of food for the logarithmic growing population of 7.5 billion.
***** The North American mega fauna might disagree with the whole noble savage living in harmony with nature story, (if there were any mastodons or giant sloths left, that is). And I know I disagree about there being enough resources to go around. Humans and our farm animals already account for over 97% of land vertebrates, with the 3 percent of wild animals having a little less space and fewer resources each year. Every added human takes away habitat from wild animals.
I like the guy who was asking questions, even though he hadn't had all the answers yet he was asking honest questions and was willing to concede points which he realised were wrong.
As irritating as the illegality may be, I can't say I blame the illegals since they're just responding rationally to incentives. Our immigration laws are arcane and tedious and it can take decades to come here legally unless you have relatives in the United States, get married to an American, have an employer sponsor you, come from a country few other people immigrate to America from (and thus, your country doesn't hit its quota) or have the money to hire a legal team. If you want to come here legally and don't fall into one of the above categories, it can be nigh on impossible. On the other hand, as strict and byzantine as our immigration laws might be, we only enforce them sporadically. If you just walk across the border or overstay your visa, odds are you won't get caught. Even if you're caught, odds are you won't be deported. If you are deported, you can just walk across the border again and give it another try. The benefits to immigrating. During the great wave of Irish immigration in the 19th century an Irishman generally doubled his wages by immigrating to America. Today a Guatemalan who comes here can expect to see their wages increase eightfold. Given that there are such strong incentives to immigrate and such weak incentives to doing so legally, its no surprise that we have so many illegals coming here. To be fair, even with the lousy incentives, *the vast majority of those who immigrate to the United States do so legally* but its not hard to see why so many break the law. If we're being honest, were I in their shoes, given those incentives, if I couldn't come here legally I'd simply ignore the law too. Like Dr. Friedman, I'm a capitalist at heart and one can't really call themselves a capitalist if they don't support the concept of the free movement and exchange of goods and labor. If we want to curtail illegal immigration, it's time we retire our dated system of national quotas, draconian regulation and family-based immigration law. We need an Ellis Island/Angel Island policy updated for the 21st century. If you can demonstrate that you can hold down a job, pay your taxes and aren't "liable to become a public charge" you ought to be able to immigrate here legally.
A poll shows that if possible, 1/3 of all the people in the world, about 2 billion, would come to live in the USA! But is that possible, especially, when the US Economy is being drowned in an ocean of debt up to its eyeballs, namely, $18 trillion fiscal operating debt + more than $100 trillions in unfunded liabilities? So, the current illegal immigration situation in the US only speeds up the imminent collapse of the US Economy. Once that finally happens, what purpose does it serve to collectively commit an economic suicide, and destroy this once one magnificent country?
First off I find the notion that 1/3 of the world would want to come here absurd. I could expect millions of people to want to come here but certainly not billions. That being said, immigrants *decrease* our unfunded liabilities rather than increase them. Many of the immigrants who come here don't stay for very long and most don't retire here. Most will come here, work for a few years paying FICA taxes and then leave before they ever actually draw benefits. Immigrants also bring business to the United States increasing the overall size of the GDP which can reduce the burden of our debt to GDP ratio.
Monsuco 1. Do you know how many poor people in the world who would come to the USA in a heartbeat if possible? 2. How do I know? Because I was one of them who came to the USA 26 years ago. 3. If the US Economy is growing as it use to to be most of the time after WWII, until 2009, of course, there would be a need, aka, demand for labor of all skill levels. Right now, the US Economy is yet to come out from the current depression we're in since 2009. As you may well know, wages in the USA are falling like crazy right now, with persistently high unemployment and underemployment, because of the weak and fragile Economy. More over, millions of these supposedly illegal immigrants would need free housing assistance, free medical care, free education, and etc, which cost enormous amount of money and soon taxes will have to be raised in order to pay for it, especially, when the Economy is so weak and fragile. 4. The immediate problem facing the USA at the moment is not illegal immigration, but a collapsing economy, namely, out of control Govt spending, unsustainable fiscal operational deficit ($1.5 trillion per year), accumulating national debt-to-date ($18 trillion), and unfunded liability (in excess of $100 trillion). Prof Friedman is correct that these millions of supposedly illegal immigrants would need Govt assistance worth trillions of dollars upfront, which we currently don't have. And it will take decades until their contribution equals or exceeds the cost.
KATAERO1 So? The simple solution is to just make certain they're not eligible for benefits. I'm not suggesting we grant everyone immediate citizenship but it ought to be pretty easy to come here as a guest worker. Immigrants who can come here and pay taxes but can't collect benefits would be nothing but a plus for our government's budget. We ought to eliminate these stupid quotas on guest workers and let anyone who demonstrates an ability to obey the law, pay taxes and work an honest job the freedom to do so. We also ought to have some system of entrepreneurship visa. People who have an employer sponsor them can come here relatively easily but we have a lot of people who want to come here, found their own businesses and become their own employer and we need a viable means of doing that. It's also high time we end this stupid practice of letting foreigners come here on student visas, study for all sorts of advanced degrees and then booting them out the moment they graduate. In the private sector, if you can poach your competition's human capital you do so. Why are we taking in the best, brightest and most ambitious people from around the world, investing our university system's resources in them and then tossing them out the door when they could instead be given the opportunity to put their new skills to use working for our economy? I have no interest in bringing in charity cases but why bar entry to ambitious souls who want to come here and work? Anyone who can work hard, pay taxes, obey the law and stand on their own two feet ought to be encouraged to move here.
Monsuco The simple solution is to seal up the southern border with fence, so we can finally stop the flood, then, we can give those who are already here a legal path toward full citizenship. However, without sealing the border, the magnet only become stronger and stronger with amnesty. From then on, no more illegal immigration, but legal immigration only. Or it will spell the end of this once magnificent nation. God bless...
"People don't just come full blown into the world. Nations don't just come full blown into the world with skills, wealth, and capital. It must be derived from a long historical process."
Around the turn of the 20th. century, the US had the worst combination of trade and immigration. Tariffs and other barriers to trade, and unlimited immigration. That kept prices high, wages depressed, and workers in a weak bargaining position. Free trade and limited immigration is best for per-capita incomes.
Things have changed since then. Gangs, drugs, political exploitation, emerging entitlement, and lack of integration have changed the strictly economic argument.
Attention to today's radical leftists: This kid at the end shows how to have a reasonable and respectable conversation. Yes, he's a lefty and hopefully he went away more educated than he came, but I respect his tone and the way he presented his case even if I disagree with his position.
I've listened to Milton for 40 years. He was always a crystal clear voice for Capitalism, as the best system ever invented to improve human lives. Please don't make the mistake that what we have today is Capitalism, it's fascism. Pure Capitalism has never existed anywhere in history, but even the impure version has uplifted billions of lives. People over the years have bastardized Capitailism slowly into fascism.
Imagine this very exaggerated scenario. My cousin moves into my house without my knowledge. (maybe my wife let him in) He then starts to cut my grass and prepare meals. I then complain to Milton about it, and he says that we are both benefiting from the deal. Okay, I say. Seems good. Everything is great until I discover that my cousin has been sleeping with my wife and that he has stolen half of my prized coin collection. So I go back to Milton and explain that there were unintended consequences by allowing this to go on. I guess you didn't think of that, did you Milton? Of course, he has nothing to say because he didn't think of that. Now the guy is demanding to be paid for his work and be granted the right to live in my house. Naturally, my liberal wife takes his side. Guess who's going to be forced to move out when the wife files for divorce. Boy was I dumb!!! (Yes, a silly story, but it seems to be relevant to me.)
Another point about how conditions are different is that during the free immigration period he mentioned the US population was a tiny fraction of what it was when Friedman said this, let alone now. However U.S. territory hasn't significantly expanded since the purchase of Alaska in 1867. Is there lots of empty space in the Rocky Mountain west right now? Yes. But either the Federal government owns it and won't give it up for any reason, or no one is trying to use it, knowing we have overcrowding issues in many cities. Not all land is useable.
Welfare state? I would really hate to disappoint him but if America is a welfare it’s not because of immigrants. What is the largest group who are recipients of welfare in this country. Not black people or immigrants...
Upon arrival at Ellis Island, immigrants were ushered into a room called the Great Hall and paraded before a series of medical officers for physical inspection. Most were allowed to pass by in a matter of seconds, but those whom the doctors deemed physically or mentally deficient were marked with chalk and taken away for additional screening. Questionable candidates were forced to submit to more detailed questioning and medical exams, and any signs of contagious disease, poor physique, feeblemindedness or insanity could see an immigrant denied admittance on the grounds that they were likely to become a ward of the state. Friedman also ignores that thanks to the 14th amendment's "anchor baby" loophole ALL illegal immigrants become burdens on the state as their children's automatic citizenship entitles them to benefits and services their parents have never contributed to.
Friedman's ideal was the pre-1914 immigration, which was subject to only a few laws, although these laws were enforced -- you couldn't be a convicted felon or violent revolutionary, or have a communicable disease. OTOH, there was no welfare state in those days. Immigrants communities had their own systems of private self-help, which were pretty effective. Very different from today, when we have endless immigration laws that are not equitably or consistently enforced, and a large welfare state that distorts the economics. Plus the fact that employers have taken advantage of illegal immigration precisely because it helps to hold wages and work conditions down.
The good old days... When liberals listened to common sense. I actually respect those who listened and understood the points, especially the guy who asked the question. His question was fair, he wanted to learn and so he did, he didn't yell, he didn't make a fuss. Nobody called nobody racist or a bigot unlike these days.
I tried to explain the Part 2 to my Uncle about this. we in California are going to give overtime after 8 hours to farm workers. Right now it is only after 10 hours. I told him that if the farm workers are being given the same work opportunities as Americans then Americans are going to start doing farm labor. Only makes sense. He was offended.
If one compares the trend of Mexican immigrants into the U.S. and the timeline of major political events in Mexico, one can find that it was not until after the nationalisation of many industries by the government in Mexico that an exponential number of Mexican immigrants chose to vote with their feet.
"Illegals are good as long as they remain illegal". That was a very good point back then, as they didn't qualify for welfare back then. But if M Friedman were alive today and saw the latest numbers show that MORE then 50% of ALL welfare recipients are both legal and illegal? Immigration is no longer a benefit given that fact....
Even back then, it wasn't a solid idea. The existence of a society with various levels of citizenship isn't a wonderful situation, and is hardly neutral between fully qualified elites, impoverished but fully legal citizens, and the illegals with less civil protections. He worried about welfare, but not elites utilizing government power for their own advantage.
When someone with a child commits any other crime--be it theft, rape, murder, tax evasion, etc.--it is a tragedy that the child will be separated from the parent while the parent goes to prison. I truly feel for that child because the situation is not the child's fault. However, whose fault IS it? I don't think anyone would suggest that it is the fault of the state for enforcing the law. Of course it is the fault of the person who broke the law. And I don't think anyone would suggest that, as gut wrenching as it is to see that child lose his/her parent for however many years, that the answer is to let the criminal off scot free.
Illegal immigration is fascinating, because it shows not only the main point I'm trying to bring out now. how interconnected are the various aspects of freedom. How interconnected is the problem of governmental arrangement for welfare and governmental arrangements for immigration and other things, but it shows a very different point that's kind of a digression and that is how bad laws make socially advantageous acts illegal, and therefore leads to an undermining of morality in general.
Everybody benefitted? How does the unskilled/low skilled worker benefit from competing in the labour market with desperate immigrants who would work for subsistence level wages Milton? The crass answer here was they have access to better jobs. No , many don’t . Can see why this man was equally admired and hated.
Everyone benefits because everyone ups their game, as a whole. Obviously at an individual level people have difficult time adjusting in the short term. Then the learn to code and create AI programs and they no longer have to do hard labor.
That fellow asking the question might be a bit naive, but he’s very sharp and highly perceptive. Big difference between him and most of today’s millennials.
Hey, Milt, try 1) the country is far more populous now than 1895, in conjunction with 2) the world population is massively greater now and 3) the most important, global travel and motorized travel from across Latin America is far easier now than ever. Put that altogether and we can, yes, get swamped and further overpopulate this country. Milton frequently downplayed Utopian systems for the inevitable real-world flaws, but engaged in his own Utopian chest thumping for unbridled greed.
Not to mention coming to a country having the best jobs you are most qualified for being blocked off through government supported labour protectionism.
You can't trick economics. It's describes human interactions with each other; mess with it, and you just mess with those interactions. Economics does not care, but your economy will be worse off.
This was completely true at the time it was spoken. Today, however, we give some welfare to illegal immigrants as well, which defeats the good benefits.
What about policies where immigration is more free but the immigrants aren't allowed access to welfare until they've been working in the country for so many years? In other words pay into the pot before they take out.
Social Security retirement benefits are only received based on what is paid into the system. Both legal and illegal immigrants can participate in Social Security by requesting a number. Social Security is not an immigration enforcement system, so they actually don't care about your immigration status. You can pay taxes or social security as an illegal immigrant. It is also a simple matter to make immigrant ineligible for certain welfare payments. In fact the US already does, so some of the premises of his objection are false.
A welfare state needs strong boards. I don't understand why we house Syrian refugees on the tax payers dime when they don't speak the language. Don't talk to anyone but other refugees. And set up their own country within a country. I.e. A no go zone. We have vets that need help. We have homeless. We have hungry. We have problems that we need to take care of before we try to help the world.
When people are coming in that are being paid less than minimum wage, while people who are citizens are being required to be paid a minimum wage, that is not a true free market. If minimum wage were abolished than maybe further immigration might be welcome on an economic basis (however cultural and national issues would also play a factor into that debate.
'It's one thing to have free immigration to jobs, it's another thing to have free immigration to welfare. You cannot have both.' 1:24
And let's not forget what he said about the economics of prohibition and the monopoly over medical licensure, as well as the many new occupations created since that time. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the Council on Licensure Enforcement And Regulations moves at the pace of justice.
www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/the-de-licensing-of-occupations-in-the-united-states-1.htm
He also said immigration is "a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it's illegal."
Mic Drop. Every single pro-immigration stance destroyed.
@@anarchic_ramblings If the state provide welfare, you need illegal immigration to keep the economy growing.
If the state doesn’t provide any welfare, it’s more convenient to make immigration free in order to have as a many people documented for security purposes.
Everything is an exchange, you just need to know where you stand in order to know what to ask for LOL
@@cristianluna5568 Wrong. MF was in favour of FREE immigration, i.e. market regulated immigration, such as there was in the US prior to the 1920s. His comments quoted above are from a lecture entitled _What's Wrong with WELFARE?_ His point was that the welfare state is harmful because, among other reasons, it screws with the incentives around immigration. He said immigration is good as long as it's ILLEGAL., i.e. not state controlled.
that young man who asked that question was very polite and attentive. he wasnt forcing his point holding a neutral discussion and was willing to give and recieve accordingly while being sympathetic to the view of the other. that is a great quality we need more individuals like him.
Yes! He was even able to laugh at himself. It's almost like debate isn't about winning, it's about learning and listening.
Oh Milton... If only you knew what 2016 would be like...
*****
You'd be silly to think that, as Milton stated there can't be boundless immigration and a welfare state. The US right now happily extends many welfare benefits to illegal aliens while paying none of the taxes, at the same time retards are trying to get the voting rights as well.
If your Icon is correct, England does much of the same. You subsidize a 5th column Arab invasion, if this were not the case than the issue would not be as severe because they would have to find work.
Then again I wonder if Milton could imagine at the time massive real time smartphone coordinated migrations to welfare states in Europe.
Coming back to the initial argument, I think it is one of the greatest human flaws to look for a single cause to explain complex issues which are usually compound in nature.
*****
I think it is as Jared Taylor explains that people live in the societies they are naturally and biologically accustomed to. For whites these are constitutional monarchies or at least systems where enough control is exerted to protect the nation but people can exercise their personal ambitions.
In Asia's collectives even with a freedom to vote there is usually just one dominating force in society like Japan's Abe or one of the Orient's many Junta's.
South America with it's socialist states, or the Middle East's many dictatorships.
Or the never ending chaotic shitstorms of Africa surrounding self indulgent kings or tribal leaders.
I think the different races naturally gravitate for different systems of government and to apply mass immigration is to invite never-ending strife incited by special interest groups.
agreed with both points, despite me being of middle eastern descent it makes sense given the general scope of the world. The regions that do still have a fighting chance like the 30% of secular Turkish are quickly losing ground to the islamists.
Its also a mathematical fact, that almost all except for the bottom few being Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and some other smaller nations, are white or asian nations. This is according to topuniversities.com, OECD PISA Mathematical Academic analysis as well as the general historical trend of white and asian empires throughout history, whether it was the US, Russia or Japan, or even the rapidly expanding China.
also I think you meant can? for the first sentence right
TheSquidPro actually the immigrants do pay taxes, and the welfare benefits are mainly due to kids. And they really don't receive any straight up
VKillzitFTW
11.000 in taxes and 27.000 in welfare for the average illegal family does not constitute as a net game ya dummy. Their kids should also not be in the country to begin with, anchor babies are only a convenient shield to protect against socialists with.
They do receive them straight up in both personal benefits and federal funding for sanctuary cities. You can take your empty platitudes and leave now.
I love him so much. A man like this could be elected president today. People are so starved for intellectual dialogue on the right.
They DO have many people like Milton Friedman. The problem is that they are shouted down by the lunatic fringe leftists in our Marxist run colleges.
Really? Tell that to Ted Cruz, and Austin Peterson.
+NamelessHere Forevermore When he's invited to speak at Berkeley, let me know.
Check out Ben Shapiro. He's currently too young to be President, but should be eligible in 2020, I think. Very smart guy on the right, though he faces a lot of hostility from the left.
We must remember that Friedman (who was not a person of faith) had a distaste for typical issues that the American Right involves itself in that makes their economic positions contradictory to their social positions. If economics is really how we interact with the world and others and what not, then some aspects of each of our personal value systems should be respected in terms of liberty. In "Free to Choose" we have here a tenable system of liberty in many dimensions where projecting moral platitudes into law would lead to even more disharmony (aka prohibition of abortion and the sort). The right doesn't want that kind of freedom for their form is really freedom in a box, which in effect is not freedom at all (to use an example from Leibniz/Sartre).
I start to think that the arguments Mr. Friedman gives here are forgotten my politicians today. He explains it in a way i’ve never heard before.
There is no one quite like him in our times. Outstanding orator and economist- philosopher.
Finally somebody is honest enough to include the entire video without quoting snippets of Friedman's speech to serve their own agenda.
I get chills every time this man talks. He should be celebrated.
As a moron? Sure. Celebrate the mind that created a permanent underclass in the "shining light on a hill".
Just, gross.
I could listen to Milton Friedman all day.
They get benefits now...how far we have fallen.
What benefits?
Lol yeah, what benefits?
Health, education, and welfare benefits. You see, we wouldn't need a wall if we weren't giving them the store once they get here because they wouldn't come in the first place.
+Jose M over 62% of illegal immigrant households receive welfare benefits.
Jared Donini Where did you get that statistic?
College campuses, where the debating of issues was once allowed, would never have a Milton Friedman-type speak now. Only if you are from the far left are you allowed to get on the stage.
How is he not spouting "far left" ideas here? He's suggesting we welcome immigrants so long as they don't benefit from government welfare programs. To follow his prescription, we'd open up the border to anyone so long as we excluded them from welfare benefits. He's not even arguing against welfare, only that it be withheld from first generation, low-skill immigrants.
Angela Merkel, I do hope you're listening
Numbers by itself and without context are meaningless.
Most of those refugees and opportunists don't have skills suited to the German economy. Almost none of them speak German which presents huge challenge to future employment prospects. Whilst some will attain language proficiency, most won't. Broken German will land you menial work (low paid) for which there is existing competition for. For those that do, then the next rung will be education to skill up. Some may already have high value skill sets but that won't necessarily confer them access to their profession in Germany. For example: A foreign Doctor may need to undertake further exams to demonstrate knowledge and proficiency to a medical board. Likewise a a structural engineer and so on.
What use are sheer numbers of people if that society cant capitalise on it? As breeders, then they are an economic drain as most of them sit on welfare. Their offspring while likely to have greater employment participation rates will probably still be worse off compared to ethnic German kids. Numbers don't account for cultural differences and attitudes to work, which has been key to German economic success. Germans are known for their strong work ethic. Is this true for other cultures? Simply living in Germany will not immediately inculcate you with values of their culture and its those values which will provide a greater opportunity to succeed. Even if you have language, in demand skillsets, to really succeed you need to have a developed cultural awareness. An understanding that the rules, norms, views may in diametric opposition to what you've known and believed to be correct and being ok with that difference and accepting it.
Your comment is based on an outmoded economic paradigm of population growth = economic prosperity (an unsustainable proposition). Germany would eventually attain a population equilibrium as its not that they aren't having kids, its that they aren't having as many as they once did. Perfect. We are heading into an era where mass employment will be a thing of the past anyway. Oursourcing/offshoring/globalisation are trends likely to continue in tandem with increased automation and use of technologies to further reduce availability of jobs.
Mass importing of people without knowledge of German language and accepted trade/professional qualifications will only create future inequities down the road. What it will do is create more slums containing ethnic enclaves that perpetuate foreign cultures at odds with German society. You just have to look at France and Belgium to see what is in store for Germany.
there's a huge difference between refugees and illegal immigrants
+DerAngriff Spot on.
Economic decline for whom!?!? This is one of those bullshit completely debunked fallacies that gets thrown around all the time like it means anything. More people doesn't mean more money for EVERYONE, just the top 1%.
Do you know many Germans? They're amongst the loveliest, most hard working of people on the planet. They will do blue collar jobs, just not at third world wages.
In terms of economic decline, it's this simple: If the country makes for example €10,000 a year split between 10,000 people that's €1 each. If however they only make €5,000 a year split between 1,000 people that's €5 each.
And to answer your first question, why do I think she's letting immigrants in? -- Guilt
The video title is a little misleading. Milton is basically saying that free immigration is good, at least from an economic perspective, so long as the immigrants coming in are not assimilated into a welfare state where they leech off the system. If you're an immigrant and you go in expecting to work without government handouts, you benefit the economy. The discussion of whether immigrants would *culturally* benefit a society, such as the current dilemma with Muslim migrants, is irrelevant to what Milton is talking about here. He is an economist, not a sociologist.
That's sort of a disingenuous thing to say. He didn't claim "Illegal immigration is fine so long as it stays illegal" in which case yes the title would be misleading. He was pointing out the economic irony involved in illegal immigration only being economically viable if it remains illegal. I think it is a direct quote from the video, actually.
StarWarsomania It is a quote, but I'm saying it is misleading because without watching the video the whole way through, the quote when taken out of context makes it sound like Milton is advocating for something different than what he is actually advocating.
I understand your point. It is a good point. but i dont think the guy above me did.
Brian Collins Well then, as long as you watch the whole video, I'm not sure what the problem is.
StarWarsomania Oh, the video itself is great. I'm just quipping about the title.
Can someone please bring Uncle Friedman from the dead, so he can talk some sense into Biden and his corrupt administration? U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E
We need this man more than ever before in 2016... Good thing Sowell is still around.
Milton Friedman is my mentor. He is the best economist of all time.
Not sure if he can top Adam Smith. Adam's grasp of history from ancient Greece to the American revolution, his accurate description of everything from bureaucracy to monetary policy to the value of work and pretty much everything else I have found is superior to Milton. The only thing Adam seemed off on was his stance on religion being better of decentralized, which is what got us into our moral mess that we are in now. On the other hand, Milton is more myopic on current issues. However, he still holds the title as best economist in the last 100 years, most likely.
@@Paonporteur Thank you for your comment. I am not sure what you mean by immigration, as I didn't say anything about that. Secondly, I was not referring to government religion, merely the Apostolic religion which follows the unchanging doctrines of the Church, which is the Catholic Church. When we deviate from the teachings of Christ - such as calling someone a "fool" which is directly against Matthew 5:22, which you just did - we divide the body of Christ based upon our own desires over the truth, which is why we are where we are now. Therefore, I do not yet agree with your assertion that having multiple denominations increases religiosity. I would be interested to hear your reasons.
The only thing Milton didn't talk about was the relationship between immigration, whether legal or illegal, and crime rate. That seems to be another big issue nowadays in the US, and could've been considered an issue when the first big wave of immigrants started arriving in the 1900's.
They studied that already. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens.
Dr. Friedman makes an excellent case for work visas versus amnesty.
All the US presidential hopefuls should watch this and other videos by Milton Friedman, maybe then the US would have a sensible economic policy!
Why do Latinos and Hispanics like to Litter? Every Hispanic/Latino community I've lived in people throw trash on the streets when they are done with it. Why, how hard it is to hold onto trash until you get to a trash can?
why is it that asian restaurant's have the dirtiest kitchens????? I would really like to know???
San Diego spent $240 million to cleanup trash coming into their beaches from mexico www.ibwc.state.gov/mission_operations/sbiwtp.html
A lot of litter from the border
www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/07/groups-struggle-to-clean-up-mess-illegal-immigrants-leave-behind.html
dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/illegal-immigrants-leave-tons-of-trash-in-arizona-desert-devastating-environment/
www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pico-union-trash-20131029-story.html#axzz2j7IGmL35
www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/10/29/illegal-immigration-and-illegal-dumping/
www.gvnews.com/news/volunteers-clean-up-trash-left-by-illegals/article_8d221c3d-5079-55e5-b828-effbf836f562.html
www.gao.gov/assets/590/586139.pdf
CommentCave.com it's called "tourist"! Mostly frome the u.s.
CommentCave.com also the border has alot if people travelung wuth watter jugs,food, clothes and other things that they mist likely leave behind and yes it is nit ok but this government incourages illegal immigration so blame them!!!
As the uploader, please do not deface the image of perhaps one of the greatest intellectuals such as Friedman with your comments.
"There aren't enough capitalists in Mexico" LOL
Take a wild guess who that is asking the question. Anybody?
+Joseph Blow who??
Michael Moore
That would explain it. That man is nincompoop.
You know its not that Michael Moore right?
The problem for free immigration now is that we don't have a frontier, we have only so many low/no-skilled jobs, and our country has four times what would be an environmentally sustainable population.
This is the first time I've heard him talking--well, the first time I remember. My parents, long gone, told me that age age 2, I once jumped into bed with him. He was in the parental bed, and my mother was sleeping on the couch. I ran downstairs and asked her, "where's the other guy?" referring to my father.
Friedman came to Seattle while my father was going to be away, and insisted on staying at our house to protect my mother since there'd been a rape on the U. Washington campus quite recently, this in the mid '50s. The story was surprising, because I didn't know my parents had known him (my father was a much younger but prominent economist), and they were on the opposite end of the political spectrum from him. My older brother recently verified the story for me.
OMG, it's 2019 and this genius is still right. I understand that politicians don't want to solve the illegal immigration problem. If they did it would have been solved. Now I understand WHY the illegal immigration problem hasn't been solved.
He was exaggerating then, but now we know illegals do get benefits.
+noxwheaties no we don't,not even if i worked for over 20 years and you get hurt at work,my name is Erick RIVERA.I've been here for 33 years,not even when we pay taxes,I know because my ssn is mine,and i paid my taxes,can't still get any help,but after all that,my family and i,are still better than most lazy fucks afraid of some hard work and over time
+noxwheaties He wasn't exaggerating, he was discussing hypotheticals of taking illegal immigration and welfare too far and exercising the mind using these Thought Experiments. Drawing possible conclusions to cause and effect and correlations.
just where was he exaggerating?
No. Illegals do not get benefits only the children born in the country.
+Luis Quinto look it up. 62% of illegal immigrants receive welfare. Search that exact phrase on TH-cam.
This needs to be taught at Berkley. Those people need it
There was another big difference in 1940 too: Population density. Ratio of people per resources available. When that ratio is small, you benefit by having more people join in. When it's big, you don't.
This is amazing, and makes me think the best policy would be to open boarders without any state benefits for the newcomers.
Why don't you move to Israel and then advocate Israel do this?
Throw open their borders.
Let everyone in surrounding Arab/Muslim/African countries move in to Israel, without benefits of course, but them be free to choose...
Anyone advocating such nonsense/treason in Israel would be either killed or put in a mental institution.
+John Ellis yea its true, lets build a wall! And make Arabs and Palestinians and Muslims pay for it
Milton Friedman is just a never ending wealth of intelligence.
Milton's beliefs hopefully will come to fruition under a Trump presidency.
I think we would have a better opportunity of teaching fish how to ride bicycles. Firstly, if we could get Trump to stick to a policy for long enough to criticize it, there would be some serious dissonance between free markets in Milton's ideals and Trump policy. Trump is pro-business, not pro free markets. There is a serious difference and I suggest you go back and read what you have read on Friedman - you will reach the same conclusion - of that I have no doubt.
"Trump is pro-business, not pro free markets." It's crony-capitalism supported by government preferences provided by rent-seeking and lobbying. Imminent domain to foreclose on private property rights, rezoning through local government, basically business propped up on greased up personal relationships.
Trump is not Pro-Business, Trump is Pro-Trump. Being against Free Trade is not Pro-Business.
+TheAsianRepublican Totally false. Trump _is_ pro-business _and_ free-trade. You might be asking "How the fuck could he be for 'free-trade' when he's for tariffs?" but I'll explain it to you very simply: Trump believes that since the great bulk of all other countries of the world use tariffs against the United States, it would be against the US' interest to remove tariffs. He is adding more tariffs to try *to get other countries to remove their tariffs.* Free Trade is impossible right now.
+JediNxf7 Try being a quaker for peace when your country is under attack.
You can't have free trade when the whole world is putting up tariffs all around you, you'll just be playing your own little game, huddled in your small corner of the world playing by your own invisible rules while the whole world stabs you.
Come up with a better solution than dropping all tariffs when the rest of the world won't be dropping theirs without a deal.
This man was an authentic American Genius ? He warned us Years Ago ? Not throwing todays Psychobabble ! 👍
This is truly remarkable. Where is today's Milton Friedman? PLEASE let us give him or her a high platform to speak from!
One of his greatest pupils Thomas Sowell is till alive.
Milton Friedman Rocks! Wish more folks on both side knew how to compartmentalize their thoughts and arguments in a similar fashion.
And here is where Milton Friedman perpetuated the myth.
We also have a minimum wage law. illegals *didn't* until recently take jobs Americans wouldn't take. The undercut Americans on pricing because of wage laws.
Also, the "good workers, hard workers" myth is just that. Illegal aliens from Mexico and futher south have not been hard workers or good workers. They have been *cheap* workers. The quality of their work has been substandard, but that's okay, because we've been lowering our standards since the 1970s.
And while they may not qualify for welfare... they draw it anyway... illegally.
Further, illegal immigration benefits unscrupulous employers at the expense of honest ones. Unscrupulous employers can charge less than honest ones, because they're not following the rules. So honest employers go out of business, and unscrupulous ones prosper. Then decades down the road we all act surprised that business and government are corrupt.
The old man's point is that free immigration doesn't work in a welfare state.
Hiring immigrants who do not have proper and legitimate documentation or citizenship in the United States is illegal. Since it is illegal, that must mean that there is no innate corruption concerning government and big business. If the mean, greedy businessman is found hiring illegal immigrants, then his company could fall at the will of the Law.
You're right. But min wage is not the free market.
If you learn a bit more about Friedman you'd quickly discover he doesn't support the minimum wage.
But, like @padronsk said, his main point was that you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. That's the question he was addressing.
Simply because he didn't answer every single facet of the illegal immigration issue in this eight minute video doesn't mean he hasn't elsewhere. Learn more about him.
Friedman's position would, in summation, be: Eliminate the welfare state, eliminate the minimum wage, open the borders.
Yup.
Who are the number 1 people ripping people off in roofing/construction/etc.?
Damn. This guy predicted the Syrian refugee crisis. Imagine that.
this actually blew my mind. Its a catch 22 for the libertarian standpoint
no it's not, you can either have free immigration or welfare. libertarianism supports immigration but doesn't support welfare.
an american liberal is an socialist
an libertarian only exist in american English. The rest calls it liberal.
Pink Partyhat
Libertarianism supports immigration, but not illegal immigration. Thats what the video was about
libertarians shouldnt be supporting govt run programs, just like immigration
cascadehopsrule
Border security is a state issue. No borders, no country. Ive never heard of a libertarian that advocates for the private sector to oversee immigration.
My initial stance on illegal immigration was a calloused opposition to the ethnic nationalism that I had witnessed in southern Texas. As I have gotten older that stance has more or less flip flopped as I had embraced a more liberal(in the true sense) mindset. I say cut all federal benefits and most of the agencies and then open the borders. Maintain secure borders for the purpose of combating human and drug trafficking.
With open borders, there would be no drug trafficking. Just drug sales. Getting rid of drug laws would solve that problem. Laws are almost always the problem.
We need him now, more than ever !
Coming back to this vid years later I can’t believe how fundamentally different I thought about this topic
welfare state or open borders? you can't be solvent with both.
How about
none of the above?
No welfare state
No open borders
Sounds good to me.
if there is not welfare state there is not reason to close the borders.
and if there is open borders there is not reason to have welfare state.
Free immigration also doesn't work now when communist nations are willing to generate refugee crises in other nations specifically to flood western Europe and the United States with rapid waves of refugees which includes many criminals, which includes the famous Cuban example in the 1980s which provided the premise for the movie Scarface. Also allows for rapid increase in population with particular cultures which will clash with local cultures so that people feel their identity slipping away, ie Brexit. In other words, if you choose not to control your borders, the Soviet or Chinese Communist Party will.
I have been a conservative for all of my 20s, and have been so tired of hearing many of today's voices. We know there is a major divide between conservative leaning thinkers and Republican politicians. When I even look into my city council's budget I notice large amounts of mismanagement. I have never had the chance to hear Milton Friedman, and having his speeches on the Internet is amazing! I have been trying to find a way to express conservative views to the millennials, and Milton is the best bridge I have found so far.
Milton Friedman was a Libertarian, not a Conservative. Libertarianism is similar on a lot of economic issues, but it champions freedom and small government a lot more. Libertarians don't advocate huge taxes to fund corporate subsidies, huge militaries etc. And they don't support the forcing of religious values, such as bans on gay marriage, religion intertwined within government and so on. Libertarians promote freedom in all areas, Republicans only promote it in their economic policy, the second the debate is abortion, education, immigration, policing tactics or foreign policy, Republicans are very anti freedom and liberty, and very pro authoritarianism, government intervention and legislative bans. Walk up to a hardline Republican and tell them you are a weed smoking atheist, and an Iraqi immigrant, and you'll see how much they value "freedom and liberty".
It will be interesting to see if there will ever be a libertarian leaning congressional body or president in my lifetime. I have no expectation that my city councils $3.5 billion annual budget will ever be reduced in my lifetime. Taking this model and applying it to the Federal government is laughable. Will the federal budget ever be reduced in my lifetime? Doubtful.
+James Newstead what you are referring to are the social issues that involves debate over the degree of individual freedoms vs those of the greater good. Liberty vs Justice vs Freedom in each one of those cases the compromise of the 3 is worth debating as the 3 make up the ethics and Morality of individuals and society. Economic and budget issues are not nearly the same category that involves as much personal passion.
The problems of inmigration aren't the only one related to the welfare state
now they want to get here to blow shit up
stop
i wish THEY would
Count my likes goofy
interesting, Americans are complaining about people blowing shit up !
mohamed El mustafa The complaint is more that some immigrants - that are members of one specific death cult - reliably massacre civilian inhabitants in the countries they immigrate to. Islam and especially the belief in martyrdom has the potential to turn deeply believing Muslims into suicidal murderers, it's wise for any nation to avoid these people's entry.
The irony is even Friedman did not envision a day when American politicians will subsidize illegals with benefits.
Frankly most of the country is not aware that the illegals can get Medicaid, FoodStamps & Social Security among others. There is a great deal of confusion & misinformation on this point. Nonetheless the cost to the Treasury is SIGNIFICANT!
OMG! The guy in the green sweater looks a lot like Matt Damon!!
Only not as conceited!
+MrVpassenheim yeah a hipster version of Matt lol
I want to point out how civil discussions with students used to look like.
Imagine an old white male on college campus saying these things today......
I don't think there'd any objection to open immigration at all as long as the new immigrants assimilated. Learn English, dress like Americans, learn American sports, culture, social norms, humor, values, history, etc. I come from Chicago and we have various neighborhoods full of people of just about every nationality you can think of, and most work real hard to NOT assimilate. (There are at least 5 different Polish language newspapers in Chicago alone!)
Nobody benefits if they don't assimilate - neither the immigrants nor the Americans. America's a huge and great nation and it all becomes available to you once you learn the language and assimilate. Resist doing that and you're stuck living in the neighborhood with the limited number of people you can relate to, shopping in a limited number of stores, being entertained by a limited number of outlets, etc.
Let me put it this way - I understand completely why anyone would want to become a citizen. I do not understand why citizens don't want to become Americans.
This is one of the most intelligent and insightful comments I've read on here, good on you.
+ROGER2095 I live and Texas and the the kids of mexican illegal immigrants will think and be as american as a white kid except for the culture. They even start to forget the language.
I see that myself here in Chicago - Immigrants stiffly resist assimilation, their children who are born here do struggle to assimilate, and their grandchildren become completely assimilated and Americanized, clinging only vaguely to their grandparents nationality and heritage.
It's just too bad (for everyone) that it's taking at least two generations to become Americans.
+ROGER2095 Let me tell you this as a non-American: You don't seem to understand what 'American Cutlure', or culture in general, is. Culture, and America is the best example for this, is not a static set of values and traditions. It's an ever changing entity that is nurtured by, and at the same time provides the fabric for, an ever changing social environment. American culture is the very embodiment of diversity. Many of the core-aspects of American culture started out as old-world traditions that immigrants brought to America and held alive in their own, isolated communities. Immigrants learned from and added to each other - that's American culture.
Also, and you may not be aware of this, forced assimilation and cultural and political opression were and are among the most important reasons for people to migrate to the Americas.
While I do believe to understand why you'd hold such views, I find it very sad still.
Healthy assimilation is not a concious process.
When a culture becomes resistant to change, the whole country starts to become immobile. Rigid structures are clearly not what you're looking for.
Nobody's advocating forced assimilation. We are a freedom-loving people, not Nazis. So that means that a person can assimilate or not. Americans are free to associate with whom they please for whatever reason they please and speak whatever language they like. But I do advocate that new citizens should WANT to become Americans, not hyphenated-Americans.
You are correct that immigrants bring pieces of their culture and language to American and in time these become part of the American culture. I see this as an extremely good thing. My point is, if immigrants don't/won't speak English and don't desire to blend in, then nobody's going to learn about these beneficial pieces of their native culture that they brought with them. If the smartest person in Macedonia moves to America, what good does it do anybody if he can't communicate?
Assimilation is hard which is why new citizens resist it. (I lived in Germany for a while and worked hard to blend in -It was very difficult.) But when immigrants do assimilate, it benefits them immensely, and the rest of America gets the benefits of their being there.
This is why I will listen to Friedman even when I know there is a 55/45 chance I will disagree with what he says. Friedman may have been a free market ideologue, but he was no dummy. "Illegal immigration only helps when it's illegal" is one of those Friedmanian koans you could throw at your run-of-the-mill immigrant hater and watch them short-circuit.
Good old time when a professor could give speeches like this not afraid of being labeled as racist
Racist was mild, the new leftist word is White Supremacist.
The best answer to "why doesn't either party do anything to end illegal immigration ?"
I enjoy Friedman's eloquence and his often reasoned arguments, but sometimes he conveniently rewrites History itself to support his views, and I mean this in a substantial way. For example, in his "Myths" speech he argued that the "Robber Barons" of the late 1800s succeeded legally within the Market, when there are plenty of stories from diverse sources of the rife corruption in enterprises such as the Continental Railroad, and physical violence used to put down labor strikes during that time period.
Here he starts out with a blatant whopper, that the United States "had completely free immigration" -- not hardly. Most notably, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricted Chinese immigration and wasn't the first legislation to do so, nor was it the last before 1914. Individual states restricted entry, and finally the Immigration Act of 1891 appointed a Commissioner of Immigration to evaluate potential immigrants at a Federal level.
If you look further back to the Naturalization Act of 1790, you'll find that blacks, American Indians, and Asians weren't allowed citizenship, nor were indentured servants. Even those not excluded were required to live in the US for a couple years and demonstrate their "good character".
So, clearly, while Friedman makes very interesting and worthwhile points, he repaints over the nuances of reality with a broad brush to do so. I wonder why so few people call him on this, but in this day and age too few study History and are eager to simplify things in order to find their "religion". This isn't to belittle Friedman's importance and fresh viewpoints which contribute a lot to economic understanding; it's just to point out what his fans ought already to have done the research to know.
I don't agree with your assessment, he's not writing a dissertation here, he's speaking to an audience. So its reasonable when making ad hoc conversation to look at "recent" history. Also when you are lecturing with limited time, you have to make your Points, not dive into Tangential details after detail. And if you are speaking you may not be as precise with your words, you may use "completely" when in fact it was 90%. You may disagree with the relevance, but I believe in a setting like this, the lecture has to be concise and sticking generally to the Point while not diverging off course into the 1000's of details that people individually will find when you try to fit in all this material in less than 1 hour.
just wanted to say I appreciated both of your comments very much, very thoughtful posts. :)
I agree 100%
The most rational, balanced and kind comments on here.
as if the railroad wasnt intimately tied to the government from iys inception.
Words of wisdom, reason and common sense, not the emotionally led nonsense so many have been brainwashed with.
@@Paonporteur No.
Economist won't touch the subject of resource depletion, but immigration is the reason for our continued population growth. The Giant, Unmentioned reason why Immigration was good in 1900, and bad today, is the that the US has added 200 Million people since then, cutting the natural resources pie into smaller and smaller pieces.
You mean the 400+ Indian tribes that murdered each other before the Europeans got here? The Incas with human sacrifice and played soccer with the decapitated heads of their enemies? Or the Cherokee that conquered the Sioux who also conquered the Hopi? Do you think Cortez and 500 conquistadors actually conquered the Aztec or that they aligned with rival tribes to conquer the Aztec? Or do we want to ignore the stories that don't fit our narrative?
*****
I decided not to mention any dead people, at all, because dead people don't use many natural resources.
***** I hope the collusion among the 1% will bring us more and more life saving drugs, iPhones and Rovers on Mars. Before Corporations there were real starving hungry people, not just your hyperbole. Now World Hunger is due to dictators preventing food from going in, not the lack of the innovation of production of food for the logarithmic growing population of 7.5 billion.
***** Can you site a source for the "astronomical" people who can barely afford to eat in the US? What "astronomical" number would you place this at?
*****
The North American mega fauna might disagree with the whole noble savage living in harmony with nature story, (if there were any mastodons or giant sloths left, that is).
And I know I disagree about there being enough resources to go around. Humans and our farm animals already account for over 97% of land vertebrates, with the 3 percent of wild animals having a little less space and fewer resources each year. Every added human takes away habitat from wild animals.
I like the guy who was asking questions, even though he hadn't had all the answers yet he was asking honest questions and was willing to concede points which he realised were wrong.
These days he is very fat, very rich and very annoying. He still stands there holding a rolled up paper in front of his guts today. That's weird.
As irritating as the illegality may be, I can't say I blame the illegals since they're just responding rationally to incentives.
Our immigration laws are arcane and tedious and it can take decades to come here legally unless you have relatives in the United States, get married to an American, have an employer sponsor you, come from a country few other people immigrate to America from (and thus, your country doesn't hit its quota) or have the money to hire a legal team. If you want to come here legally and don't fall into one of the above categories, it can be nigh on impossible.
On the other hand, as strict and byzantine as our immigration laws might be, we only enforce them sporadically. If you just walk across the border or overstay your visa, odds are you won't get caught. Even if you're caught, odds are you won't be deported. If you are deported, you can just walk across the border again and give it another try.
The benefits to immigrating. During the great wave of Irish immigration in the 19th century an Irishman generally doubled his wages by immigrating to America. Today a Guatemalan who comes here can expect to see their wages increase eightfold. Given that there are such strong incentives to immigrate and such weak incentives to doing so legally, its no surprise that we have so many illegals coming here. To be fair, even with the lousy incentives, *the vast majority of those who immigrate to the United States do so legally* but its not hard to see why so many break the law. If we're being honest, were I in their shoes, given those incentives, if I couldn't come here legally I'd simply ignore the law too.
Like Dr. Friedman, I'm a capitalist at heart and one can't really call themselves a capitalist if they don't support the concept of the free movement and exchange of goods and labor. If we want to curtail illegal immigration, it's time we retire our dated system of national quotas, draconian regulation and family-based immigration law. We need an Ellis Island/Angel Island policy updated for the 21st century. If you can demonstrate that you can hold down a job, pay your taxes and aren't "liable to become a public charge" you ought to be able to immigrate here legally.
A poll shows that if possible, 1/3 of all the people in the world, about 2 billion, would come to live in the USA! But is that possible, especially, when the US Economy is being drowned in an ocean of debt up to its eyeballs, namely, $18 trillion fiscal operating debt + more than $100 trillions in unfunded liabilities? So, the current illegal immigration situation in the US only speeds up the imminent collapse of the US Economy. Once that finally happens, what purpose does it serve to collectively commit an economic suicide, and destroy this once one magnificent country?
First off I find the notion that 1/3 of the world would want to come here absurd. I could expect millions of people to want to come here but certainly not billions.
That being said, immigrants *decrease* our unfunded liabilities rather than increase them. Many of the immigrants who come here don't stay for very long and most don't retire here. Most will come here, work for a few years paying FICA taxes and then leave before they ever actually draw benefits.
Immigrants also bring business to the United States increasing the overall size of the GDP which can reduce the burden of our debt to GDP ratio.
Monsuco 1. Do you know how many poor people in the world who would come to the USA in a heartbeat if possible?
2. How do I know? Because I was one of them who came to the USA 26 years ago.
3. If the US Economy is growing as it use to to be most of the time after WWII, until 2009, of course, there would be a need, aka, demand for labor of all skill levels. Right now, the US Economy is yet to come out from the current depression we're in since 2009. As you may well know, wages in the USA are falling like crazy right now, with persistently high unemployment and underemployment, because of the weak and fragile Economy. More over, millions of these supposedly illegal immigrants would need free housing assistance, free medical care, free education, and etc, which cost enormous amount of money and soon taxes will have to be raised in order to pay for it, especially, when the Economy is so weak and fragile.
4. The immediate problem facing the USA at the moment is not illegal immigration, but a collapsing economy, namely, out of control Govt spending, unsustainable fiscal operational deficit ($1.5 trillion per year), accumulating national debt-to-date ($18 trillion), and unfunded liability (in excess of $100 trillion). Prof Friedman is correct that these millions of supposedly illegal immigrants would need Govt assistance worth trillions of dollars upfront, which we currently don't have. And it will take decades until their contribution equals or exceeds the cost.
KATAERO1 So? The simple solution is to just make certain they're not eligible for benefits. I'm not suggesting we grant everyone immediate citizenship but it ought to be pretty easy to come here as a guest worker. Immigrants who can come here and pay taxes but can't collect benefits would be nothing but a plus for our government's budget.
We ought to eliminate these stupid quotas on guest workers and let anyone who demonstrates an ability to obey the law, pay taxes and work an honest job the freedom to do so.
We also ought to have some system of entrepreneurship visa. People who have an employer sponsor them can come here relatively easily but we have a lot of people who want to come here, found their own businesses and become their own employer and we need a viable means of doing that.
It's also high time we end this stupid practice of letting foreigners come here on student visas, study for all sorts of advanced degrees and then booting them out the moment they graduate. In the private sector, if you can poach your competition's human capital you do so. Why are we taking in the best, brightest and most ambitious people from around the world, investing our university system's resources in them and then tossing them out the door when they could instead be given the opportunity to put their new skills to use working for our economy?
I have no interest in bringing in charity cases but why bar entry to ambitious souls who want to come here and work? Anyone who can work hard, pay taxes, obey the law and stand on their own two feet ought to be encouraged to move here.
Monsuco The simple solution is to seal up the southern border with fence, so we can finally stop the flood, then, we can give those who are already here a legal path toward full citizenship. However, without sealing the border, the magnet only become stronger and stronger with amnesty.
From then on, no more illegal immigration, but legal immigration only. Or it will spell the end of this once magnificent nation.
God bless...
"People don't just come full blown into the world. Nations don't just come full blown into the world with skills, wealth, and capital. It must be derived from a long historical process."
I'm sure a lot of people who watch this will get mad because they can't handle the truth. It's common sense.
Around the turn of the 20th. century, the US had the worst combination of trade and immigration. Tariffs and other barriers to trade, and unlimited immigration. That kept prices high, wages depressed, and workers in a weak bargaining position. Free trade and limited immigration is best for per-capita incomes.
Things have changed since then. Gangs, drugs, political exploitation, emerging entitlement, and lack of integration have changed the strictly economic argument.
Attention to today's radical leftists: This kid at the end shows how to have a reasonable and respectable conversation. Yes, he's a lefty and hopefully he went away more educated than he came, but I respect his tone and the way he presented his case even if I disagree with his position.
what year was this?
+jred7 - About 1975.
+jred7 1980 he did a 10 part series for pbs.
andrew edwards cool. thank you.
I've listened to Milton for 40 years. He was always a crystal clear voice for Capitalism, as the best system ever invented to improve human lives. Please don't make the mistake that what we have today is Capitalism, it's fascism. Pure Capitalism has never existed anywhere in history, but even the impure version has uplifted billions of lives. People over the years have bastardized Capitailism slowly into fascism.
Imagine this very exaggerated scenario. My cousin moves into my house without my knowledge. (maybe my wife let him in) He then starts to cut my grass and prepare meals. I then complain to Milton about it, and he says that we are both benefiting from the deal. Okay, I say. Seems good. Everything is great until I discover that my cousin has been sleeping with my wife and that he has stolen half of my prized coin collection. So I go back to Milton and explain that there were unintended consequences by allowing this to go on. I guess you didn't think of that, did you Milton? Of course, he has nothing to say because he didn't think of that. Now the guy is demanding to be paid for his work and be granted the right to live in my house. Naturally, my liberal wife takes his side. Guess who's going to be forced to move out when the wife files for divorce. Boy was I dumb!!! (Yes, a silly story, but it seems to be relevant to me.)
Another point about how conditions are different is that during the free immigration period he mentioned the US population was a tiny fraction of what it was when Friedman said this, let alone now. However U.S. territory hasn't significantly expanded since the purchase of Alaska in 1867. Is there lots of empty space in the Rocky Mountain west right now? Yes. But either the Federal government owns it and won't give it up for any reason, or no one is trying to use it, knowing we have overcrowding issues in many cities. Not all land is useable.
Back when this video was recorded the influx of Mexicans hadn't occurred yet.
As if the government didn't know what was happening. yeah, ok.
Milton trumps Trump, every day of the week.
Welfare state? I would really hate to disappoint him but if America is a welfare it’s not because of immigrants. What is the largest group who are recipients of welfare in this country. Not black people or immigrants...
Upon arrival at Ellis Island, immigrants were ushered into a room called the Great Hall and paraded before a series of medical officers for physical inspection. Most were allowed to pass by in a matter of seconds, but those whom the doctors deemed physically or mentally deficient were marked with chalk and taken away for additional screening. Questionable candidates were forced to submit to more detailed questioning and medical exams, and any signs of contagious disease, poor physique, feeblemindedness or insanity could see an immigrant denied admittance on the grounds that they were likely to become a ward of the state. Friedman also ignores that thanks to the 14th amendment's "anchor baby" loophole ALL illegal immigrants become burdens on the state as their children's automatic citizenship entitles them to benefits and services their parents have never contributed to.
Friedman's ideal was the pre-1914 immigration, which was subject to only a few laws, although these laws were enforced -- you couldn't be a convicted felon or violent revolutionary, or have a communicable disease. OTOH, there was no welfare state in those days. Immigrants communities had their own systems of private self-help, which were pretty effective.
Very different from today, when we have endless immigration laws that are not equitably or consistently enforced, and a large welfare state that distorts the economics. Plus the fact that employers have taken advantage of illegal immigration precisely because it helps to hold wages and work conditions down.
Say what you want about his morals - but the man was always honest.
The good old days... When liberals listened to common sense. I actually respect those who listened and understood the points, especially the guy who asked the question. His question was fair, he wanted to learn and so he did, he didn't yell, he didn't make a fuss. Nobody called nobody racist or a bigot unlike these days.
I wish this guy had been president!
I'm liking this video despite the fact that I might be in disagreement with some of what he says. He's bringing up a brilliant point.
None of them are living in his neighborhood...
California provides legal ,medical,education services to those poor illegal immigrants
Friedman, father of trickle down economics; a proven folly that America might never be able to correct.
This was before illegal immigrants were in the tens of millions.
if the supply of unskilled labor is high, then the demand for such labor will be low which drives down wages and incenses unemployment.
"Oh, they're taking our jobs!"
No they're taking your money...
I wonder if everyone got that? What makes immigration bad if welfare, and ONLY welfare!
I tried to explain the Part 2 to my Uncle about this. we in California are going to give overtime after 8 hours to farm workers. Right now it is only after 10 hours. I told him that if the farm workers are being given the same work opportunities as Americans then Americans are going to start doing farm labor. Only makes sense. He was offended.
If one compares the trend of Mexican immigrants into the U.S. and the timeline of major political events in Mexico, one can find that it was not until after the nationalisation of many industries by the government in Mexico that an exponential number of Mexican immigrants chose to vote with their feet.
"Illegals are good as long as they remain illegal". That was a very good point back then, as they didn't qualify for welfare back then. But if M Friedman were alive today and saw the latest numbers show that MORE then 50% of ALL welfare recipients are both legal and illegal? Immigration is no longer a benefit given that fact....
Even back then, it wasn't a solid idea. The existence of a society with various levels of citizenship isn't a wonderful situation, and is hardly neutral between fully qualified elites, impoverished but fully legal citizens, and the illegals with less civil protections. He worried about welfare, but not elites utilizing government power for their own advantage.
He would blame the government.
When someone with a child commits any other crime--be it theft, rape, murder, tax evasion, etc.--it is a tragedy that the child will be separated from the parent while the parent goes to prison. I truly feel for that child because the situation is not the child's fault. However, whose fault IS it? I don't think anyone would suggest that it is the fault of the state for enforcing the law. Of course it is the fault of the person who broke the law. And I don't think anyone would suggest that, as gut wrenching as it is to see that child lose his/her parent for however many years, that the answer is to let the criminal off scot free.
Illegal immigration is fascinating, because it shows not only the main point I'm trying to bring out now. how interconnected are the various aspects of freedom. How interconnected is the problem of governmental arrangement for welfare and governmental arrangements for immigration and other things, but it shows a very different point that's kind of a digression and that is how bad laws make socially advantageous acts illegal, and therefore leads to an undermining of morality in general.
Everybody benefitted? How does the unskilled/low skilled worker benefit from competing in the labour market with desperate immigrants who would work for subsistence level wages Milton? The crass answer here was they have access to better jobs. No , many don’t . Can see why this man was equally admired and hated.
Everyone benefits because everyone ups their game, as a whole. Obviously at an individual level people have difficult time adjusting in the short term. Then the learn to code and create AI programs and they no longer have to do hard labor.
The guy in the audience looks like the love child between Jesse Esienberg and Matt Damon.
That fellow asking the question might be a bit naive, but he’s very sharp and highly perceptive. Big difference between him and most of today’s millennials.
Jesus Christ this is such an eye-opening statement!!
Hey, Milt, try 1) the country is far more populous now than 1895, in conjunction with 2) the world population is massively greater now and 3) the most important, global travel and motorized travel from across Latin America is far easier now than ever. Put that altogether and we can, yes, get swamped and further overpopulate this country. Milton frequently downplayed Utopian systems for the inevitable real-world flaws, but engaged in his own Utopian chest thumping for unbridled greed.
decades later , our politicians still argue about this and numerous other issues. politicians don't solve problems.
Not to mention coming to a country having the best jobs you are most qualified for being blocked off through government supported labour protectionism.
You can't trick economics. It's describes human interactions with each other; mess with it, and you just mess with those interactions. Economics does not care, but your economy will be worse off.
This was completely true at the time it was spoken. Today, however, we give some welfare to illegal immigrants as well, which defeats the good benefits.
Solution is simple. Either get rid of the welfare state, or bar immigrants from claiming any welfare, and make assimilation a requirement.
What about policies where immigration is more free but the immigrants aren't allowed access to welfare until they've been working in the country for so many years? In other words pay into the pot before they take out.
Social Security retirement benefits are only received based on what is paid into the system. Both legal and illegal immigrants can participate in Social Security by requesting a number. Social Security is not an immigration enforcement system, so they actually don't care about your immigration status. You can pay taxes or social security as an illegal immigrant. It is also a simple matter to make immigrant ineligible for certain welfare payments. In fact the US already does, so some of the premises of his objection are false.
What a great clip! Thankyou.
A welfare state needs strong boards. I don't understand why we house Syrian refugees on the tax payers dime when they don't speak the language. Don't talk to anyone but other refugees. And set up their own country within a country. I.e. A no go zone. We have vets that need help. We have homeless. We have hungry. We have problems that we need to take care of before we try to help the world.
When people are coming in that are being paid less than minimum wage, while people who are citizens are being required to be paid a minimum wage, that is not a true free market. If minimum wage were abolished than maybe further immigration might be welcome on an economic basis (however cultural and national issues would also play a factor into that debate.